What is the canon of the Christian Church? What is the canon in Orthodoxy and how to read it correctly

The Holy Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, who gathered in Constantinople primarily to approve the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, did not draw up any special rules relating to church deanery, as is clear from the second rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in which, when referring to the rules of other holy councils, the rules of the fifth ecumenical council are not mentioned.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, which compiled 102 rules, is also called the Fifth-Sixth or Trullo. It is called the fifth-sixth because it was a direct continuation of the Fifth Council, convened by Emperor Justinian II. The Council began its meetings on November 7, 680 and ended in September of the following year. Since the first part of the Council dealt exclusively with dogmatic issues in connection with the heresy of the Monothelites, it was convened again on September 1, 691 to draw up rules and ended on August 31, 692. The meetings of both Councils took place in the part of the Imperial Palace, which was called Trulla and therefore these rules are also called the rules of the Council of Trulla. 227 fathers participated in the Council and the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were personally present. There were also representatives of Pope Agathon.

1. When starting every word and deed, the best order is to begin with God and finish with God, according to the Theologian. Therefore, even now - when piety is already clearly preached by us, and the Church, of which Christ is the foundation, is constantly growing and prospering, so that it rises above the cedars of Lebanon - laying the beginning of sacred words, we determine by the grace of God: To preserve inviolably the faith devoted to innovations and changes to us from the visionaries and servants of the Word, God's chosen Apostles; also - from three hundred and eighteen saints and blessed fathers, under Constantine, our king, against the wicked Arius, and against the pagan atheism invented by him, or, more characteristically, polytheism, gathered in Nicaea, who, with the unanimity of faith, revealed to us and clarified the consubstantiality in three hypostases The divine nature, not allowing this to be hidden under a shroud of ignorance, but having clearly taught the faithful to worship, with one worship, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, they overthrew and destroyed the false teaching about the unequal degrees of the Divinity, and the heretics from the sand, the childish structures built against Orthodoxy, were ruined and cast down. Likewise, under the great Theodosius, our king, one hundred and fifty holy fathers, gathered in this reigning city, contained the proclaimed confession of faith, theological sayings about the Holy Spirit were acceptable; and the wicked Macedonius, together with the former enemies of the truth, as having violently dared to regard the Master as a slave and impudently wanted to cross the unbreakable unit, so that the mystery of our hope would not be complete. Together with this - the most vile and against the truth, we condemn Apolinarius, the mastermind of evil, who wickedly spewed out, as if the Lord had accepted a body without soul and mind, thus also introducing the thought, as if an imperfect salvation had been created for us. Likewise, under Theodosius, the son of Arcadius, our king, who gathered for the first time in the city of Ephesus, two hundred God-bearing fathers set forth the teaching, like an indestructible power of piety, with consent we sealed the one Christ the Son of God and preached incarnate, and the immaculate Ever-Virgin Mary who gave birth to Him without seed Confessing actually and truly the Mother of God, we reject the insane division of Nestorius, as separated from God’s lot: for he teaches that there is one Christ, separately man, and separately God, and renews Jewish wickedness. We Orthodoxy affirm in the same way in the regional city of Chalcedon, under Marcian, our king, by six hundred and thirty God-chosen fathers the inscribed confession of religion, which the ends of the earth loudly proclaimed the one Christ the Son of God, consisting of two natures, and glorified in these very two natures; and the superstitious Eutyches, who said that the great sacrament of saving economy was accomplished by a ghost, like something monstrous, and like an infection, spewed out from the sacred walls of the Church, with him Nestorius and Dioscorus, of whom one was a defender and champion of division, and the other of confusion, and who from opposite countries of wickedness plunged into a single abyss of destruction and godlessness. We also know the one hundred and sixty-five God-bearing fathers who gathered in this reigning city, under Justinian, our king, blessed in memory, to know pious verbs, as if uttered by the Spirit, and we teach them to our descendants. They are Theodore of Mopsuetus, Nestorius’s teacher, and Origen, and Didymus, and Evagrius, who resumed the Hellenic fables, and the passage and transformation of some bodies and souls again presented to us for shame, in the sleepy dreams of a wandering mind, and against the resurrection of the dead, they rebelled wickedly and unwisely, likewise What Theodoret wrote against the right faith and against the twelve chapters of Blessed Cyril, and the so-called letter of Willow, were conciliarly cursed and rejected. And recently, under our king, Constantine, blessed in memory, in this reigning city of the sixth Council, the confession of religion, which received great strength when the pious emperor confirmed the resolutions of that Council with his seal for the sake of authenticity for all ages, we again undertake to preserve inviolably. It lovingly explained how we must confess two natural desires, or two wills, and two natural actions in the one and only our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, incarnate for the sake of our salvation; and those who preached the right dogma of truth and the one will and one action in the one Lord our God Jesus Christ to people, were accused by the court of piety, like Theodore the Bishop of Parano, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, who were in this of the God-saved city by the primates, Macarius the Bishop of Antioch, the disciple of our Stephen, and the insane Polychronius, thus keeping inviolable the common body of Christ our God. Briefly recited, we decree that the faith of all the glorified men in the Church of God, who were luminaries in the world, containing the word of life, be kept firm and remain unshakable until the end of time, together with their God-given scriptures and dogmas. We sweep aside and anathematize all whom they swept away and anathematized as enemies of the truth, who gnashed in vain against God, and who strived to lift untruth to the heights. If anyone of all does not contain and does not accept the above-mentioned dogmas of piety, and does not think and preach like this, but attempts to go against them: let him be anathema, according to the definition previously decreed by the aforementioned saints and blessed fathers, and from the Christian estate, as an alien, let him be excluded and cast out. For we, in accordance with what was previously determined, have completely decided not to add anything, not to subtract, and could not in any way.

Wed. 2 All 1; 3 Omni. 7; 7 All 1; Karf. 1 and 2.

2. This Holy Council recognized this as wonderful and worthy of extreme diligence, so that from now on, for the healing of souls and for the healing of passions, those accepted and approved by the saints and blessed fathers who came before us, as well as those dedicated to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, would remain firm and inviolable. five rules. Since in these rules we are commanded to accept the same holy Apostles’ decrees, dedicated through Clement, into which those who once thought differently, to the detriment of the Church, introduced something counterfeit and alien to piety, and which has darkened for us the splendid beauty of Divine teaching: then we, for the sake of edification and protection For the Christian flock, these Clementine decrees were prudently postponed, in no way allowing the creation of heretical falsehood, and without interfering with them in the pure and perfect Apostolic teaching. With our consent we seal all the other sacred rules set forth by our holy and blessed fathers, that is, the three hundred and eighteen God-bearing fathers gathered in Nicaea; also from the fathers who gathered in Agvira, and in Neokesarea, as well as in Gangra; besides this in Antioch of Syria and Laodicea of ​​Phrygia; another hundred and fifty fathers who gathered in this God-protected and reigning city; and two hundred fathers who gathered for the first time in the regional city of Ephesus; and six hundred and thirty holy and blessed fathers gathered at Chalcedon; and from those assembled in Sardica and Carthage; and those who also gathered again in this God-saved and reigning city under Nektarios, the primate of this reigning city, and under Theophilos, Archbishop of Alexandria; Dionysius, archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, also ruled; Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and martyr; Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, wonderworker; Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia; Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; Gregory the Theologian; Amphilochium of Iconium; first Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; Theophilus, archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria; and Gennady, patriarch of this God-protected and reigning city; also Cyprian, Archbishop of the African country, and a martyr, and the Council under him laid down the rule, which in the places of the above-mentioned primates, and only among them, according to faithful custom, was preserved. Let no one be allowed to change or cancel the above-mentioned rules, or, in addition to the proposed rules, to accept others with false inscriptions drawn up by certain people who dared to tamper with the truth. If someone is convicted of attempting to change or stop one of the above-mentioned rules, he will be guilty of violating the rule of incurring the penance that it defines, and through this he will be healed of the thing in which he stumbled.

2nd rule 6 Omni. The Council is especially important because it lists the rules of Local Councils and St. Fathers, which from that time on acquire the same meaning as other rules of the Ecumenical Councils. These rules according to the expression 1 clause 7 Omni. Councils serve as “testimony and guidance” for all Orthodox Christians. About all those who issued these rules, starting with the Holy Apostles, the rule says that they “having been enlightened by the same Spirit, they legitimized what was useful.” 6 All The Council, approving all previously adopted rules, prohibits them from “changing or canceling.” Anyone who would attempt to pervert them would be subject to the penance specified in the rule that he would attempt to change.

3. Since our pious and Christ-loving king proposed to this holy and ecumenical council that those who are counted in the clergy and teaching the Divine to others should be presented as pure and immaculate servants, and worthy of the mental sacrifice of the great God, who is both the victim and the bishop, and cleanse them from the filth that clings to him from illegal marriages; and how, on this subject, those who belong to the most holy Roman Church proposed to observe a strict rule, and those who are subject to the throne of this God-protected and reigning city, the rule of love for mankind and condescension: then we, paternally and together in a godly manner, having united both into one, let us not abandon any weak meekness, nor cruel severity, especially in such circumstances, when the Fall, out of ignorance, extends to a considerable number of people, according to which we determine that those who were involved in a second marriage, and even until the fifteenth day of the past month of January, the past fourth indictment, six thousand one hundred and ninety-nine, remained in enslavement to sin, and those who did not want to sober up from it, were subject to canonical expulsion from their rank. As for those who, although they fell into such a sin of second marriage, however, before this definition of ours, they learned what was useful, and cut off evil from themselves, and rejected unusual and illegal copulation, or whose wives of their second marriage had already died, and who, at the same time, looked forward to conversion, again learning chastity, and soon running away from their previous iniquities, either presbyters or deacons: it was decided about such that they should refrain from any sacred service or action, remaining under penance for a certain certain time, and by the honor of the seat and standing enjoy, being content to preside, and weeping before the Lord, may He forgive them the sin of ignorance. For it would be inappropriate for one who should heal his own wounds to bless another. Those who were married to a single wife, if the one they married was a widow, like those who, upon ordination, joined a single physician, that is, presbyters, deacons and subdeacons, after being removed from the priesthood for a certain short time and due to penance, were restored to their proper degree, with the prohibition of raising them to another higher degree, and, moreover, obviously, after the dissolution of the wrong cohabitation. But we have decreed this for those who, as stated, before the fifteenth day of the month of January, the fourth indictment, were convicted of the above-mentioned wines, and only for sacred persons; from now on, we define and renew the rule, which states: whoever, after baptism, was obliged to marry two times, or had a concubine, cannot be either a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general in the list of the sacred rank (Ap. pr. 17). Likewise, one who has taken into marriage a widow or an outcast from marriage, or a harlot, or a slave, or a disgraceful person, cannot be a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or in general on the list of the sacred order (Ap. 18).

Repeating those requirements for those receiving the priesthood that were already previously established (see Apostle pr. 17 and 18 with their interpretation), 6 Om. The Council clarifies and adds the prohibition that has always existed in the Church from the beginning for elders, deacons and subdeacons after ordination (cf. 6 pr. 6 Ecumenical Council). The leniency granted by the Council to certain categories of clergy who were in marriages not permitted by the canons now has no force, since it was issued only for a certain time with an effect limited to a certain period.

4. If anyone - a bishop, presbyter, deacon, subdeacon, reader, singer, or doorkeeper - has intercourse with a woman dedicated to God: let him be expelled from his rank, as having desecrated the bride of Christ; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated from church communion.

The “woman dedicated to God” mentioned in this rule, called the “bride of Christ,” are virgins who have vowed to “live in purity” (18 St. Basil the Great Ave.). The rite of dedication of these virgins was performed by the bishop (6 Ave. of the Carthage Sob.) and they lived under his supervision, separated from their parents. We are not talking here about deaconesses, but rather about nuns. Wed: 6 All. 21; Karf. 36; Vasily Vel. 3, 6, 32, 51 and 70.

5. No one from the sacred rank, who does not have non-suspicious persons living with him, as specified in the rule (3rd Rule 1 of the Ecumenical Council), will take to himself a woman or a slave, thereby saving himself from criticism. If anyone we have determined transgresses, let him be cast out. Let the eunuchs also observe this, protecting themselves from censure. And those who transgress, if they are from the clergy, let them be cast out, but if they are worldly, let them be excommunicated.

The rule to which this rule refers is 3 ex. 1 Omni. Cathedral. Repeating the prescriptions of that rule regarding persons in the priesthood, the present rule adds to them the laity, indicating that this must be done, “preserving oneself from censure.” T. ob. This rule teaches us that we must avoid what can cause temptation and sin of condemnation among our neighbors. Wed. You. Vel. 88.

6. Since it is stated in the Apostolic Canons that of those who are celibate or promoted to the clergy, only readers and singers can enter into marriage (Ap. Pr. 26), then we, observing this, determine: from now on, neither subdeacon, nor deacon, nor presbyter has permission, after his ordination, to enter into marital cohabitation; if he dares to do this, let him be cast out. But if anyone entering the clergy wants to marry a woman according to the law of marriage: let him do this before being ordained a subdeacon, or a deacon, or a presbyter.

In this rule, the attention of interpreters was focused on the fact that here the word “ordination” refers not only to deacons, but also to subdeacons, as if the latter were not members of the lower degrees of the clergy, contrary to the dogmatic teaching of the Church about the existence of three, and not more, degrees of the priesthood. To explain this bewilderment, one can cite the words of St. Patriarch Tarasius on the 7th Universe. Council regarding the same term in 8 Ave. 1 Om. Council: “The Word ordination it could have been said here simply about blessing, and not about consecration.” Wed. Ap. 26; 4 Omni. 14; 6 All 13; Ankh, 10; Neokes. 1; Carthage 20.

7. Since we have learned that in some churches deacons have church positions, and therefore some of them, allowing themselves insolence and self-will, preside over the presbyters, for this reason we determine: a deacon, even if he had the dignity, that is, any church position, should not occupy places above the presbyter, unless, representing his patriarch or metropolitan, he arrives in another city for some business, for then, as the one who occupies his place, he will be honored. If anyone dares to do this with violence and insolence, such a one, having been demoted from his rank, may he be the last of all in the rank to which he is ranked in his church. Our Lord convinces us not to love the presidency in the teaching proposed by the holy Evangelist Luke, on behalf of our Lord and God himself. For He spoke this parable to those who were invited: Whenever you are invited by someone to a wedding, do not sit in the front place, so that someone who is more honorable than you will be among those invited, and when someone like you comes and invites him, he says, give him a place; and then you will begin to hold the last place with shame. But when you are called, sit in the last place, and when the one who called comes, he says: friend, sit higher; then your glory will be before those who sit with you. For whoever exalts himself will humble himself, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted (Luke 14:7-12). Let this same thing be observed in other degrees of the sacred order - for we know that spiritual dignities or positions are superior to positions related to the world (i.e., the position of a presbyter is more important than the position of a great steward or eudik).

See explanation to 18 pr. 1 Omni. Cathedral. The rule allows deviation from the norm only in those cases when a deacon would arrive in a city as a representative of the Patriarch or bishop, which happened in ancient times since deacons had more participation in diocesan administration than presbyters. However, in this case, honor to the deacon, as the representative of the bishop, was given not in worship, but in meetings outside the church. Wed. Laod. 20

8. Established by our holy fathers, we also wish to preserve in everything, we also resume the rule (4 Ecumenical Council, canon 10), commanding that there be annual councils of bishops in every region where the bishop of the metropolis sees it best. But since, due to barbarian raids and other random obstacles, the heads of the churches do not have the opportunity to hold councils twice a year, it is reasoned: for church affairs that are likely to arise in each region, in every possible way there should be a council of ordained bishops once a year , between the holy holiday of Easter, and between the end of the month of October of each year, in the place that, as stated above, the bishop of the metropolis will choose. And for the bishops who do not come to the council, although they are in their cities, and, moreover, are in health, and are free from all necessary and urgent activities, it is fraternal to express censure.

See explanation to 37 Ap. rule. This rule emphasizes that participation in the Council for bishops is not the exercise of a right, but the fulfillment of a duty. Therefore, those of them who would not come to the Council due to reluctance, and not due to important obstacles, were ordered to “brotherly express censure.”

9. No one is allowed to keep a tavern. For if such a person is not allowed to enter an inn, much less serve others in it, and practice what is indecent for him. If anyone does anything like this: either let him stop, or let him be cast out.

Wed. Ap. 54 with explanation.

10. A bishop, presbyter, or deacon who charges interest, or the so-called hundredths, either ceases, or is deposed.

See explanation 44 Ap. rules.

11. None of those belonging to the sacred rank, or of the laity, should at all eat unleavened bread given by the Jews, or enter into fellowship with them, or call on them when sick, and accept medicine from them, or wash with them in baths. If anyone dares to do this, then let the cleric be deposed, and the layman be excommunicated.

See explanation of 7 rights. St. Apostles. In common parlance, the unleavened bread discussed in this rule is called matzo.

12. It has also come to our attention that in Africa, Libya, and in other places, some of the existing most God-loving primates (primate - instead of the name Bishop), and after the ordination has been performed on them, do not leave living together with their spouses, considering this a stumbling block and temptation to others. Having therefore great diligence in order to arrange everything for the benefit of the entrusted flocks, we recognized it as good, but from now on there will be nothing of the kind. This is not meant to set aside or transform the Apostolic statute, but to take care of the salvation and advancement of people for the better, and let us not allow any criticism of the sacred title. For the Divine Apostle says: Do everything for the glory of God; Be without offense to the Jews, and the Greeks, and the Church of God, just as I please everyone in everything, not seeking your own benefit, but many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, just as I am of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:31–33; 11:1). If anyone is found not to do this, let him be cast out.

Fathers 6 Universal. The Council, by prescribing celibacy to bishops, did not introduce anything new, but fixed a custom that had already entered the life of the Church. Thus, the married life of some bishops in Africa and Libya was an exception, “causing a stumbling block and a temptation for others.” Blazh. Theodoret's commentary on 1 Tim. 3:2 explains that at one time the Apostle had to admit married people into the episcopate, for the preaching of the gospel was in its infancy; The pagans had no idea about virginity, but the Jews did not allow it, since the birth of children was considered a blessing. However, the Apostle Paul wrote about the superiority of virginity over married life. The monasticism that arose later gave the Church the most prominent hierarchs, and already at the beginning of the 4th century the celibacy of the bishop was looked upon as a phenomenon underlying the church structure. Emperor Constantine greeted those gathered on the 1st Ecumenical. Council of bishops as representatives of virgin purity. “Without any law,” writes Prof. V.V. Bolotov, - practically celibacy of bishops became more and more common” (Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church. History of the Church during the Ecumenical Councils, St. Petersburg, 1913, 3, p. 145). That. Rule 12 introduces into the written law what has already existed in the practice of the Church for several centuries and has become its tradition. Wed. 6 All 30 and 48.

13. Since we have learned that in the Roman Church, as a rule, it is given that those who are worthy of being ordained as a deacon or presbyter are obliged to no longer communicate with their wives: then we, following the ancient rule of the Apostolic order and order, deign, so that the cohabitation of clergy according to the law will continue to remain inviolable, without at all dissolving their union with their wives, and without depriving them of mutual union at a decent time. And so, whoever appears worthy of ordination as a subdeacon, or a deacon, or a presbyter, let cohabitation with his lawful wife not be an obstacle to his elevation to this level; and at the time of installation, no obligation is required from him that he will refrain from legal communication with his wife; so that we would not be forced in this way to offend the blessed marriage established by God and by Him at His coming. For the voice of the Gospel cries: what God has joined together, let not man put asunder (Matthew 19:6). And the Apostle teaches: marriage is honorable, and the bed is undefiled (Heb. 13:4). Likewise: if you are attached to your wife, do not seek permission (1 Cor. 7:27). We know that those who gathered in Carthage, having concern for the purity of life of the clergy, decided that subdeacons who touched the sacred sacraments, and deacons, and presbyters, in their appointed times, should abstain from their concubines. Thus, let us also preserve what was handed down from the Apostles and observed from ancient times, knowing the time of everything, and especially fasting and prayer. For those who stand near the altar, at the time when they approach the shrine, should be abstinent in everything, so that they can receive from God in simplicity what they ask. If anyone, acting contrary to the Apostolic rules, dares to deprive any of the sacred ones, that is, presbyters, deacons, or subdeacons, of union and treatment with his lawful wife: let him be deposed. Likewise, if anyone, a presbyter or a deacon, under the guise of reverence, casts out his wife: let him be excommunicated from priestly service, and, remaining inflexible, let him be deposed.

This rule is adopted against the Roman practice of forced celibacy of the entire clergy. Because of this rule, however, which was nevertheless included in the Corpus juris canonici, Cardinal Humbert called the Orthodox Church heretical, infected with the Nicolaitan heresy (Acts 6:6), known for its dissolute life. At present, contrary to such an extreme view, which was especially expressed in 385 by Pope Siricius, who absolutely did not allow married clergy to serve in the priesthood, marriage of clergy is allowed not only among the Uniates, but with special permission also in the Western Rite of the Catholic Church. Wed. Ap. 5, 26 and 51; 6 All thirty; Gangr. 4; Karf. 3,4, 34, and 81.

14. Let the rule of our holy and God-bearing fathers be observed in this too: not to ordain a presbyter before the age of thirty, even if the person were very worthy, but to defer it until his appointed years. For the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized in the thirtieth year and began to teach. Likewise, a deacon before twenty-five years of age, and a deaconess before forty years of age, should not be appointed.

In the Russian Church, due to need, earlier ordination of clergy has long been allowed. Wed. Neokes. eleven; Karf. 22.

15. Let a subdeacon be appointed no earlier than twenty years of age. If anyone is placed in any sacred degree before certain years, let him be deposed.

Wed. Neokes. eleven; Karf. 22.

16. Since in the book of the Acts of the Apostles it is conveyed that seven deacons were appointed by the Apostles: the fathers of the Neocaesarea Council, in the rules they established, clearly reasoned that seven deacons should be according to the rule, even if it were in this great city, confirming this with the book of Acts: that For this reason, we, having compared the thought of the fathers with the saying of the Apostles, found that they had a word not about men serving the sacraments, but about serving the needs of meals. For in the book of Acts it is written like this: in those days the disciples multiplied, and the Greeks began to murmur against the Jews, because their widows were despised in their daily service. Having called twelve multitudes of disciples, deciding: it is not good for us, who have left the word of God, to serve meals; See therefore, brethren, seven men testified from you, filled with the Holy Spirit and wisdom, and we will appoint them over this service; We will continue in prayer and the ministry of the Word. And this word was pleasing to be spoken before all the people; and Ibrash Stefan, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nikanor, and Timon, and Paramen, and Nicholas, a stranger from Antioch, who placed them before the Apostles. Explaining this, the teacher of the Church, John Chrysostom, says this: it is worthy of surprise that the people were not divided when choosing men; how the Apostles were not rejected by him. But one must know what dignity these men had, and what kind of ordination they accepted: was it to the degree of deacon? - but they were not in the Churches: were they appointed as elders? - but there was no bishop yet, and only the Apostles; For this reason, I think that neither the name of the deacons nor the elders was known or in use. Based on this, we preach that the above-mentioned seven deacons should not be accepted as ministers of the sacraments, according to the teaching set forth, but are those who were entrusted with the management of the house for the common needs of those then gathered; and they were for us in this case an example of philanthropy and care for those in need.

Rule 15 of the Neocaesarea Council decreed that there should not be more than seven deacons in one city. To harmonize it with the existing practice, when one great church in Constantinople had 100 deacons, the Fathers of the Council explained the difference in the ministry of the deacons mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and the deacons now serving in the Church.

17. Formerly, the clergy of various churches, leaving their churches in which they were installed, went over to other bishops, and, without the will of their bishop, were assigned to other churches, and through this they turn out to be disobedient: for this purpose we determine that from the month of January of the last fourth indictment no one of the clergy, no matter what degree one was, had no right, without a letter of dismissal from his bishop, to be assigned to another church. He who does not observe this from now on, but shames the one who has ordained him, may he and the one who received it incorrectly be cast out.

Wed. Ap. 12 and its explanation.

18. We command clergy who, due to the invasion of barbarians, or for some other circumstance, have left their places, when the circumstances or barbarian invasions that were the reason for their removal leave, return again to their churches, and not leave them for a long time without a reason. If anyone remains absent and does not agree with this rule: let him be excommunicated until he returns to his church. Let the bishop who restrains him be subjected to the same thing.

Wed. Ap. 15 and the parallel rules indicated to it.

19. The heads of churches must, all day long, especially on Sundays, teach the entire clergy and people the words of piety, choosing from the Divine Scripture understandings and reasonings of truth, and without transgressing the already established limits and tradition of the God-bearing fathers; and if the word of Scripture is examined, then let it be explained in no other way than as the luminaries and teachers of the Church have set forth in their writings, and let this be verified by this rather than by compiling one’s own words, so that, if one lacks skill in this, one does not deviate from what is proper. For, through the teaching of the above-mentioned fathers, people, receiving knowledge of what is good and worthy of election, and of what is unprofitable and worthy of disgust, correct their lives for the better, and do not suffer from the disease of ignorance, but, heeding the teaching, encourage themselves to move away from evil, and, through the fear of threatening punishments, they work out their salvation.

20. Let it not be allowed for a bishop in another city that does not belong to him to teach publicly. If anyone is seen doing this, let him leave the bishop and let him do the works of the presbytery.

This rule is among others that protect dioceses from the interference of outside bishops. As for the punishment indicated for him, Bishop John of Smolensk explains: “This does not mean that a bishop guilty of breaking the rules should be demoted to the rank of presbyter (which would be contrary to the general rules of the Church - 4 Ecumenical Sob. Rules 29), but it means , that he is deprived of episcopal power (or, more directly, the see) and becomes one of the subordinate clergy, without only losing his holy rank.” Wed. Ap. 14 and 35; Ankir. 18; Antiochus. 13 and 22; Sardik. 3 and 11.

21. Those who find themselves guilty of crimes contrary to the rules and for this are subjected to complete and permanent expulsion from their rank, and expelled to the state of the laity, if, coming voluntarily to repentance, they reject the sin for which they have lost grace, and completely remove themselves from it: let them be shaved in the image clergy If they do not spontaneously desire this, let their hair grow like the laity, as those who prefer conversion to the world of heavenly life.

This rule states that a person deprived of holy orders cannot be restored to it. The greatest leniency allowed by this rule, subject to sincere repentance, is allowing such a person to maintain the appearance of a cleric. The form of clothing and hair cutting were different in different eras, but from a very long time the principle was observed that the clergy should differ in appearance from the laity. Wed. 27 Ave. of the same Cathedral.

22. Those who are appointed to bishops or to any degree of clergy for money, and not by trial and election for their way of life, are also ordered to depose those by whom they were appointed.

See interpretation on Ap. 29. rule. Wed. Ave. 4 Universe Sob. 2; 7 Sun. Sob. 5 and 19; St. Basil Vel. 90; Last Patr. Gennady and St. Tarasiya.

23. Let none of the bishops, presbyters or deacons, when administering Holy Communion, demand money or anything else from the communicant for such communion. For grace is not for sale, and we do not teach the sanctification of the Spirit for money, but we must teach it without subtlety to those worthy of this gift. If any of those among the clergy is seen to be demanding any kind of retribution from the one to whom he gives Holy Communion: let him be cast out as a zealot of Simon’s error and deceit.

This rule has a wider meaning than just the prohibition of demanding money for communion. It generally prohibits the extortion of money for any sacraments taught to believers. Such a sin is always something close to simony, for the latter is not the only possible form of action in which the priest “turns unsold grace into sale” (4 Om. 2).

24. No one in the sacred rank, nor a monk, is allowed to go to horse races or attend shameful games. And if anyone from the clergy is invited to a marriage, then when games that serve to deceive appear, let him get up and immediately leave, for this is what the teaching of our fathers commands us to do. If anyone is convicted of this: either let him cease, or let him be cast out.

Wed. 6 All 51 and 62; Laod. 54; Karf. 18.

25. Together with all the others, we also renew that rule (4th Council of Rights 17), which commands that for each church the parishes existing in villages or suburbs should invariably remain under the authority of the bishops ruling them, and especially if these for a period of thirty years they had immaculate authority and control over them. If within thirty years there has been or will be some dispute about them, then it is permissible for those who consider themselves offended to begin a case about it before the regional council.

See 17 pr. 4 Universal. Council and explanations to it.

26. Let a presbyter who, out of ignorance, has committed himself to an incorrect marriage, use the presbyteral seat in accordance with the law laid down for us in the sacred canon (Neokes. Council of Rights 9), but let him refrain from other presbyteral actions: for forgiveness is sufficient for such a person. It is not proper to bless another who must heal his own ulcers. For blessing is the teaching of sanctification: but whoever does not have it, due to the sin of ignorance, how can he teach it to another? For this reason, let him not bless either publicly or especially, and let him not share the body of the Lord with others, nor perform any other service, but be content with a priestly place, and ask the Lord with tears to forgive him his sins of ignorance. In itself, it is clear that such an incorrect marriage will be destroyed, and the husband will by no means have cohabitation with the one through whom he was deprived of the priesthood.

See Vasily Vel. 27 and interpretation.

27. None of those who are registered in the clergy should dress in indecent clothes, either while in the city or on the road, but each of them wears the clothes already prescribed for those who are in the clergy. If anyone does this, he will be excommunicated from priestly service for one week.

Ep. Nicodemus remarks about this rule: “The rule is clear. Just as during the Council of Trula the dress code for clergy was prescribed, so now this issue is regulated by the legislation of local Churches, and therefore every clergyman must obey; otherwise, according to this rule, he is subject to excommunication from priesthood for one week.” Wed. 21 Ave. 6 Vel. Cathedral; 7 All Sob. 16; Gangr. 12 and 21.

28. We have learned that in various churches, according to a certain growing custom, grapes are brought to the altar, and the clergy, combining them with a bloodless sacrifice, thus share both together with the people, for this reason we recognize it as necessary, but none of the clergy will do this in the future, but let the people be given one offering, for revival and remission of sins, and let the priests accept the offering of grapes as firstfruits, and, blessing it especially, let it be given to those who ask, in thanksgiving to the Giver of fruits, with which, according to God’s definition, our bodies grow and are nourished. If anyone from the rank does something contrary to what is commanded, let him be cast out from his rank.

See interpretation of 3 Ap. rules.

29. The rule of the fathers of the Council of Carthage commands that the sacred rite of the altar (Liturgy) be performed only by people who do not eat, except for the one day in the year on which the Lord's Supper is celebrated (Carth. Council of Rights. 48). These holy fathers, perhaps for some local reasons useful for the Church, made such an order. And since nothing prompts us to abandon reverent strictness, then, following the Apostolic and patristic traditions, we determine that it is not appropriate to stop fasting on Pentecost, on Thursday of the last week, and thereby dishonor the Pentecost.

This rule is an amendment to Carf. 50.

30. Desiring to do everything for the building of the Church, we decided to arrange for the provision of new priests in foreign churches. For this reason, if they consider it their duty to continue to act according to the Apostolic Rule (5), which prohibits casting out one’s wife under the guise of piety, and consider doing more than what is established, and for this reason, in agreement with their spouses, they will withdraw from communication with each other: we determine, yes no longer have cohabitation with them, under any guise, so that in this way they show us perfect proof of their answer. This was allowed to them, for no other reason, except for the sake of their cowardly thoughts, and their still alien and disorderly morals.

This rule had temporary and local significance for some churches located outside the Greco-Roman state.

31. We determine that clergy who officiate or baptize in prayer churches located inside houses should do this only with the permission of the local bishop. For this reason, if any cleric does not observe this in this way, let him be deposed.

58 of the Laodicean Council prohibited celebrating the Liturgy “in houses,” that is, not in consecrated churches. This rule speaks of “prayer temples located inside houses” that have not been consecrated by bishops. In reversal of the definition of the Laodicean Council, divine services are permitted in them, but only with the permission of the bishop.

32. It has come to our attention that in the Armenian country those who perform a bloodless sacrifice bring only wine at the holy meal, without dissolving it with water, citing in their justification the teacher of the Church John Chrysostom, who, in his interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew, says this: why did the risen Lord not drink water? , but wine? - in order to uproot other wicked heresies. For as there are some who use water in the sacrament: for this reason he indicates that he used wine both when he taught the sacrament, and after the resurrection, when he offered a simple meal, without the sacrament, and, pointing to this, he says: from the fruit of the vine (Matt. 26:29), but the vine produces wine, not water. From this it is concluded that this teacher rejects the addition of water in the holy sacrifice. For the sake of this, so that such people will not henceforth be possessed by ignorance, we reveal the Orthodox understanding of this father. Since then, there was an ancient evil heresy of the hydroparastats, that is, water-bringers, who in their sacrifice, instead of wine, used only water: then this God-bearing man, refuting the lawless teaching of such heresy, and showing that they go directly against the Apostolic tradition, used the above words. For he also conveyed to his Church, over which pastoral rule was entrusted to him, to add water to wine when it is necessary to make a bloodless sacrifice, pointing to the combination of blood and water, from the most pure rib of our Redeemer and Savior Christ God, flowing to the revival of the whole world and to redemption from sins. And in all the churches where spiritual luminaries shone, this God-given rite is preserved. After all, Jacob, the brother of Christ our God according to the flesh, to whom was first entrusted the throne of the Church of Jerusalem, and Basil of the Church of Caesarea, Archbishop, whose glory flowed throughout the entire universe, having transmitted to us in writing the mysterious sacred rite, they decided in the Divine Liturgy to make a holy cup out of water and wine. And those gathered in Carthage, the reverend fathers, uttered these exact words: let nothing more be offered in the holy sacrament, but the body and blood of the Lord, as the Lord himself gave, that is, bread and wine dissolved in water. If anyone, a bishop or presbyter, does not do according to the order handed down from the Apostles, and does not combine water with wine, in this way he offers a most pure sacrifice: let him be cast out as one who imperfectly proclaims the sacrament, and who damages what has been betrayed by innovation.

33. We have learned that in the Armenian country only those who are from the priestly family are accepted into the clergy, in which those who accept will follow the Jewish customs to do so, and some of these, and having not received clergy tonsure, are appointed as sacred singers and readers of the Divine Temple: then we believe that Let it no longer be allowed for those who wish to elevate some to the clergy to look at the type of what is produced; but testing whether they are worthy, according to the definitions depicted in the sacred rules, to be numbered among the clergy, let them become ministers of the church, even if they came from dedicated ancestors, or not. Likewise, no one will be allowed to proclaim Divine words from the pulpit to the people who are ranked among the clergy according to the rank, unless he is awarded dedication with tonsure and receives a blessing from his shepherd, in accordance with the rules. If anyone is found doing contrary to what is prescribed, let him be excommunicated.

The rule was caused by the fact that the Armenians accepted only persons of spiritual origin into the clergy. In addition, persons of this origin were allowed to become readers and singers without initiation. The rule condemns such an order as contrary to the 15th Ave. of the Council of Laodicea. Wed. 7 All 14.

34. Since then, the sacred canon (4th Ecumenical Council, 18th) clearly proclaims that the crime of conspiracy, or gathering together, is completely prohibited by external laws: much more should be prohibited, but this does not happen in the Church of God, then we strive to observe , yes, if some clergy or monks are seen to be engaging in complicity or gatherings, or creating feats for bishops or fellow clerics, let them be completely deposed from their rank.

Wed. Ave. Ap. 31; 4 Omni. 18; Karf. 10; Double 13, 14 and 15.

35. Let none of the metropolitans, after the death of a bishop subject to his throne, be allowed to take away or appropriate his estate or his church, but let it be under the protection of the clergy of that church, of which the one who presented himself was the primate, even before the appointment of another bishop; unless there are no clergy left in that church. Then let the metropolitan keep it intact and pass everything on to the bishop who will be installed.

Wed. Ave. Ap. 40; 4 Omni. 22 and 25; Antiochus. 24; Karf. 31 and 92.

36. Renewing what was laid down by the law by the one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers gathered in this God-protected and reigning city (2nd Supreme Council of Rights, 3), and the six hundred and thirty gathered in Chalcedon (4th Supreme Council of Rights, 28), we determine: let the throne of Constantinople have equal advantages with the throne ancient Rome, and like this one, let him be exalted in church affairs, being second to him; after this, let the throne of the great city of Alexandria be numbered, then the throne of Antioch, and after this the throne of the city of Jerusalem.

Wed. Ave. 1 Universe 6 and 7; 2 All 2 and 3; 4 Omni. 28.

37. Since then, at different times, there have been barbarian invasions, and as a result, numerous cities have become enslaved by the lawless, and for this reason, it was impossible for the primate of such, after the ordination of him, to accept his throne, to establish himself on it in the state of priestly authority, and so, according to the faithful custom, of ordination and everything that is characteristic of a bishop to produce and perform, for this sake we, observing honor and respect for the priesthood and desiring that enslavement from the pagans should not at all act to the detriment of church rights, have decided: yes, those who have been ordained and, for the reason stated above, shall not sit on their thrones those who entered are not subject to reprimand for this; therefore, let them carry out ordination to different degrees of clergy, according to the rules, and let them enjoy the advantage of presiding, and let every commanding action that comes from them be considered firm and legal. For the needs of time and obstacles to maintaining accuracy should not limit the limits of control.

Wed. Ave. Ap. 36; 6 All 39; Ankir. 18; Antiochus. 18.

38. We also preserve the rule laid down by our fathers, which says this: if a city is built again, or will be built in the future, by the royal authority, then the distribution of church affairs should follow the civil and zemstvo distribution (4 Ecumenical Council of Rights 17).

Wed. 2 All 3; 4 Omni. 17.

39. Our brother and co-servant John, the primate of the island of Cyprus, together with his people, due to barbarian invasions, and in order to free himself from pagan slavery, and faithfully submit to the scepter of the Christian power, moved from the said island to the Hellesponian region by the providence of a humane-loving God and the diligence of a Christ-loving and pious our king, then we decree: may the privileges given to the throne above the named man be preserved unchanged from the God-bearing fathers who once gathered in Ephesus, may the new Justinianople have the rights of Costantinople, and may the most God-loving bishop established in it rule over all the bishops of the Hellesponian region, and let us be delivered from our bishops according to ancient custom. For our God-bearing fathers decided that the customs of every Church should be observed, and the bishop of the city of Cyzicus is subordinate to the primate of the said Justinianople, following the example of all other bishops who are subordinate to the above-mentioned most God-loving primate John, from whom, when necessary, let the city of Cyzicus itself be appointed bishop.

This rule serves as the basis for the existence of the Russian Church Abroad. It justified the adoption of the Supreme Church Administration of the South of Russia in Constantinople and the granting of jurisdiction rights over Russian refugees there, and then to justify the Russian Church Administration in the form of Councils and Synods on the territory of the Serbian Orthodox Church.

40. Since it is very saving to unite with God, by removing ourselves from the rumors of everyday life, then we must, not without testing, untimely accept those who choose monastic life, but also in relation to them we must observe the decree handed down to us from the fathers: and for this reason we must take a vow of life according to God, as already solid and coming from knowledge and reasoning, after the full opening of the mind. And so, those who intend to enter under the yoke of monasticism should be no less than ten years old, but for such a person it is in the power of the superior to consider whether he considers it most useful to continue the time before being introduced into the monastic life and establishing himself in it. For although the great Basil, in his sacred rules, lays down the law that a person who voluntarily devotes herself to God and chooses virginity, upon reaching the age of seventeen, should be ranked among the rank of virgins; however, we, following the example of the rules about widows and deaconesses, according to the definition: for those who have chosen monastic life, the above-mentioned number of years. For the Divine Apostle prescribed: to choose a widow in the Church for sixty years (1 Tim. 5:9); and the sacred rules were transferred to the deaconess to appoint forty years: it was already seen that the Church, by the grace of God, received great strength and success, and the faithful in keeping the Divine commandments are firm and reliable. Having fully understood this, we have determined in accordance with this: the one who intends to begin his deeds according to God, will soon be marked with a sign of grace, as if by some kind of seal, thereby helping him not to linger for long, not to hesitate, but rather encouraging him to choose the good and to be confirmed in it.

Based on the fact that Orthodoxy has strengthened, this rule lowers the age for tonsure as a monk compared to that specified in the 18th rule of Basil the Great. Wed. Karf. 140.

41. Those who in cities or villages wish to retire into seclusion and listen to themselves in solitude must first enter the monastery, learn to live as a hermit, obey the head of the monastery for three years in the fear of God, and in everything, as befits, perform obedience, and thus express their will for such a life and be tested by the local abbot: whether they voluntarily join it with all their hearts. Therefore, for another year, they must patiently remain outside the seclusion, so that their intentions will be more revealed. For then they will provide complete proof that it is not for the sake of seeking vain glory, but for the sake of the truest good, that they strive for this silence. After completing such a time, if they remain in the same intention, let them enter into seclusion; but they are no longer allowed to proceed, at will, from such a stay; unless this is required by public service or benefit, or some other necessity that would even lead to death, and then with the blessing of the local bishop. Those who dare to leave their dwellings without any stated reasons are, firstly, imprisoned in the said prison and against their will; then correct them through fasting and other strictures; For now we know, as it is said in Scripture: no one who lays his hand on his head and turns back will be brought into the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 9:62).

Wed. 4 Omni. 4; Double 4.

42. About the so-called hermits, who in black robes and with long hair, go around the cities, turning among worldly men and wives, and dishonoring their vow, we define: if they want, having cut their hair, to accept the image of other monastics, then assign them to a monastery and number them among the brethren . If they do not want this, then completely expel them from the cities and let them live in the deserts, from which they got their name.

Wed. 4 Omni. 4; Double 4.

43. It is permissible for a Christian to choose an ascetic life, and, after leaving the troubled storm of everyday affairs, to enter a monastery and take vows in the monastic image, even if he were convicted of any sin. For our Savior God said: He who comes to Me I will not cast out (John 6:37). Since monastic life portrays to us a life of repentance, we sincerely approve of those who join it; and no previous way of life will prevent him from fulfilling his intention.

Wed. 4 Omni. 4; Double 2 and 4.

44. A monk who has been convicted of fornication or who has taken his wife into the communion of marriage and cohabitation must be subject to the rules of penance for those who commit fornication.

Wed. 4 Omni. 16; Ankir. 19; Vasily Vel. 6, 18, 19 and 60.

45. We have recently learned that in some nunneries, when they bring those who are worthy of this sacred image, they first clothe them with multi-colored silk robes, speckled with gold and precious stones, and from those who approach the altar in this way, they remove such a magnificent robe, and at the same hour over them The blessing of the monastic image is performed, and they are clothed in a black robe, for this reason we determine: from now on this will not happen at all. For it is indecent that, of her own free will, having already put aside all worldly pleasures, having loved life according to God, having established herself in it with unyielding thoughts and thus approaching the monastery, through such a corruptible and disappearing adornment, returned to the memory of what she had already consigned to oblivion, and from this would appear wavering and indignant in the soul, in the likeness of drowning waves, turning back and forth, so that, sometimes shedding tears, she does not show heartfelt contrition; but if, as is typical, a certain small tear falls, then those who see it will imagine that it is happening not only from zeal for the monastic feat, but also from separation from the world and from what is in the world.

46. Those who have chosen an ascetic life and are assigned to monasteries should not leave at all. If some inevitable need prompts them to do this: let them do this with the blessing and permission of the abbess; but even then they must go not alone on their own, but with some elders, and with those leading in the monastery, by order of the abbess. They are not allowed to spend the night outside the monastery at all. Likewise, let men who go through monastic life go out when the need is urgent, with the blessing of the one to whom the leadership has been entrusted. Therefore, those who transgress this decree established by us, husbands or wives, may be subjected to decent penances.

Wed. 6 All 47.

47. Neither a wife in a monastery nor a husband in a nunnery sleeps. For the faithful must be a stranger to all stumbling and temptation, and order their lives well in accordance with decency and approach to the Lord (1 Cor. 7:35). If anyone does this, whether a cleric or a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Wed. 7 All 18 and 20.

48. The wife of one promoted to episcopal dignity must first be separated from her husband, by common consent, upon his ordination as a bishop, and may enter a monastery established far from the residence of this bishop, and may enjoy support from the bishop. If she is worthy, let her be elevated to the dignity of a deaconess.

Wed. 6 All 12.

49. Resuming this sacred rule (4th Council of Rights 24), we determine that once consecrated, by the will of the bishop, monasteries remain forever monasteries, and the property belonging to them is respected by the monastery, and so that they can no longer be worldly dwellings, and by no one could not be transferred to worldly people. If until now this has happened to some of them, then we determine: they will not be restrained at all; Those who dare to do this from now on are subject to penance according to the rules.

Wed. Ap. 38; 4 Omni. 24; 7 All 12, 13 and 17; Double 1.

50. Let none of the laity and clergy henceforth indulge in this reprehensible game. If anyone is seen doing this, then the cleric will be deposed, and the layman will be excommunicated from church communion.

Wed. Ap. 42 and 43.

51. This Holy Ecumenical Council completely forbids the laughter-makers and their spectacles, as well as the creation of animal spectacles and disgraceful dances. If anyone despises the present rule and indulges in any of these forbidden amusements, then the cleric will be expelled from the clergy, and the layman will be excommunicated from church communion.

Wed. 6 All 24; Laod. 54; Karf. 18.

52. On all days of the Holy Pentecost fast, except Saturday and Sunday and the Holy Day of the Annunciation, the holy liturgy is nothing other than the presanctified gifts.

A good explanation of this rule is given by Ep. John of Smolensk: “Since Pentecost is a time of general repentance and confession of sins for Christians, the Holy Church at this time subjects all of them to a kind of penance, which at other times is imposed only on some, namely: it offers believers only the reading of prayers and the word of God , but does not allow them to see the fulfillment of the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. But for those who are weak in spirit and body, and in general in order that prolonged deprivation of St. gifts do not weaken our spirit; the Church reveals to us, during the weeks of Lent, presanctified gifts... Liturgy is a solemn ritual... But Pentecost is a time of heartfelt contrition for sins... Therefore, the Church recognizes it as indecent and, in contrite spirit, does not dare to celebrate the full liturgy on these days.” (Experience of the Course of Church Jurisprudence, vol. 1 pp. 459–560).

53. Since affinity in spirit is more important than union in body, and we have learned that in some places, some who receive children from holy and saving baptism after this enter into marital cohabitation with their widowed mothers, we determine: so that from now on there will be nothing like that let's create. If, according to this rule, those who are doing this are seen to be doing this: first of all, let them abstain from this illegal marriage, then let them be subjected to the penance of those who commit fornication.

Spiritual kinship is formed through succession between the godson and the godson, the godson and the parents of his godson. In Byzantium, by analogy between blood and spiritual kinship, there were laws prohibiting marriages with spiritual kinship up to the 7th degree inclusive, but there was no canonical basis for this. Russian imperial law in strict accordance with pr. 6 Omni. 53 prescribed that: “1) the successor cannot marry his spiritual daughter (1st degree) and 2) the godfather cannot marry the widowed mother of his spiritual daughter (2nd degree).”

54. Divine Scripture clearly teaches us: do not come near to every neighbor in your flesh and reveal his shame (Lev. 18:6). God-bearing Vasily, in his rules, counted some of the forbidden marriages, but passed over many in silence, and through both of them arranged for us something useful. For, avoiding many shameful names, so as not to defile words with such names, he designated uncleanness with general names, through which he showed us lawless marriages in a general form. But since, through such silence and the indiscriminate prohibition of lawless marriages, nature confused itself, we considered it necessary to openly state this, and we determine from now on: if someone copulates in the communion of marriage with his brother’s daughter, or if a father and son with his mother and daughter, or with cousins ​​father and son, or with cousins ​​mother and daughter, or cousins ​​with cousins ​​- let them be subject to the rule of seven years of penance, obviously upon their separation from an unlawful marriage.

The word “exadelphi” in the Book of Rules is translated as “cousin.” However, in reality it means the brother's daughter, i.e. niece. Wed. Not OK. 2; You. Vel. 23, 78 and 87; Tim. Al. eleven.

55. Since we have learned that those who live in the city of Rome, on Holy Pentecost, fast on Saturdays, contrary to the faithful church observance, it is pleasing to the holy council, and even in the Roman Church, the rule is inviolably observed: if anyone from the clergy is provided for on the holy day of the Lord , or fasting on Saturday, except for one thing, let him be deposed, but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated (Ap. pr. 64).

Wed. Ap. 64 and Gangr. 18.

56. We also learned that in the Armenian country and in other places on the Saturdays and Sundays of the Pentecostals, some people eat cheese and eggs. For this reason, this is also recognized as good, and the Church of God, throughout the entire universe, following a single rite, fasts and abstains, both from everything sacrificed, and from eggs and cheese, which are the fruit and products of what we abstain from. If they do not observe this, then the clergy will be deposed, and the laity will be excommunicated.

Wed. Ap. 64 and 69.

57. It is not appropriate to bring honey and milk to the altar.

Wed. Ap. 3 and Carth. 46 with explanations.

58. Let no one in the ranks of the laity teach himself the Divine mysteries when there is a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon. Anyone who dares to do anything like that, as if he were acting contrary to the order, shall be excommunicated from church communion for one week, being admonished not to philosophize any more than he should philosophize (Rom. 12:3).

In the first centuries of Christianity, especially during persecutions, it happened that believers took home St. communion and took communion themselves, with their own hands. However, this entailed the crime of lack of reverence. In addition, as a result of this custom, some lay people in the church wanted to serve the sacrament to themselves, and not receive it from the hands of the priests. This rule eliminates such abuse and inappropriate lay claim.

59. Let baptism not be performed in a prayer book found inside the house: but let those who want to be worthy of most pure enlightenment come to the Catholic Churches and be worthy of this gift there. If anyone is convicted of not keeping what we have decreed, then the cleric will be deposed, and the layman will be excommunicated.

The severity of this rule, in cases of necessity and doubt, is given to the Bishop by the 31st rule of this Council. Wed. 6 All 31 and explanation.

60. Since the Apostle cries out that he who unites himself to the Lord is one spirit with the Lord (1 Cor. 6:17): it is clear that he who assimilates to his adversary becomes one with him, by communion. Therefore, it is reasoned: those who are hypocritically possessed and such a way of acting, due to the evil of morals, pretending to accept punishment in every way and subjecting them to the same severity and labor as those who are truly possessed, are righteously subjected to for the sake of liberation from demonic action.

Wed. Ap. 79; Vasily Vel. 83.

61. Those who surrender themselves to the magicians, or the so-called hundred-leaders (the oldest Magi), or others like that, in order to learn from them what they want to reveal to them, in accordance with the previous paternal decrees about them, are subject to the rule of six years of penance. The same penance should be applied to those who lead bears or other animals to ridicule and to the harm of protozoans, and combining deception with madness, pronounce fortune-telling about happiness, about fate, about genealogy and many other similar rumors; the so-called cloud-catchers, charmers, makers of protective talismans and sorcerers. Those who are stubborn in this and do not convert and do not run away from such destructive and pagan inventions are determined to be completely thrown out of the Church, as the sacred rules command. For what kind of communication of light into darkness, as the Apostle says: or what kind of laying down of the Church of God from idols; or what part the faithful have with the unfaithful; What kind of agreement does Christ have with Belial? (2 Cor. 6:14–16).

Wed. 6 All 65; Ankir. 24; Laod. 36; Vasily Vel. 65, 72, 81 and 83; Gregory Nissk. 3.

62. We wish to completely eradicate the so-called Kalends, Vota, Vrumalia and the public gathering on the first day of the month of March from the lives of the faithful. Likewise, national women’s dances, which are capable of causing great harm and destruction, and in honor of the gods, falsely called so by the Hellenes, dances and rituals performed by the male or female gender, according to some ancient and alien custom to Christian life, we reject, and define: no husband not to dress in women's clothing, nor for a wife in her husband's clothing; do not wear comic, satirical, or tragic disguises; when pressing grapes in winepresses, do not proclaim the vile name of Dionysus, and when pouring wine into barrels, do not laugh, and, out of ignorance or in the form of vanity, do not do what belongs to demonic delusion. Therefore, those who from now on, knowing this, dare to do any of the above, if they are clergy, we command to be expelled from the sacred rank, and if they are laymen, to be excommunicated from church communion.

Under the name Kalends, the celebration of the first day of each month is prohibited, with rituals and amusements from paganism that occurred under the name Vota - the remnants of the pagan celebration in honor of Pan; under the name Vrumalia, are the remains of a celebration in honor of the pagan deity Dionysus or Bacchus, one of whose names is Vromius. Wed. 6 All 24, 51 and 65; Laod. 54; Karf. 55 and 74.

63. The stories of the martyrs, falsely composed by the enemies of the truth in order to dishonor the martyrs of Christ and lead those who hear to unbelief, we command not to be published in churches, but to be put on fire. We anathematize those who accept them or listen to them as if they were true.

Wed. Ap. 60; 7 All 9; Laod. 59.

64. It is not appropriate for a layman to pronounce a word before the people, or to teach, and thus assume the dignity of a teacher, but to obey the order handed down from the Lord, to open the ear of those who have received the grace of the teacher’s word and to learn from them the Divine. For in the one Church God created different members, according to the word of the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:27), which, explaining, Gregory the Theologian clearly shows the order that is in them, saying: this, brethren, let us honor this order; Let this one be an ear, and that one a tongue; this hand, and the other with something else; Let him teach, let him learn. And after a few words he continues: let the student be obedient, the one who distributes, let him distribute with joy, the one who serves, let him serve with zeal. Let us not all be tongues, if this is the closest thing, neither all apostles, nor all prophets, nor all interpreters. And after some words he also says: Why do you make yourself a shepherd, being a sheep? Why do you become the head when you are the foot? Why do you attempt to be a military commander, having been placed in the ranks of soldiers? And in another place wisdom commands: do not be quick in words (Eccl. 531): do not prostrate the poor with the rich (Prov. 23:4): do not seek the wise and be wiser. If anyone is found to be violating this rule: let him be excommunicated from church communion for forty days.

The main meaning of this rule is to prohibit the laity from publicly preaching in church about objects of faith. But, at the same time, it also speaks in general about the observance by the laity of the place indicated to them in the Church in obedience to the hierarchy. The only full-fledged teacher in the Church is the bishop, and by his authority this ministry is performed by presbyters. Ep. Nicodemus believes that, on the basis of this rule, even the laity can pronounce funeral orations only with the special blessing of the bishop each time. In current practice, the blessing of the priest performing the funeral is considered sufficient. Wed. 7 All 14; Laod. 15.

65. In the new moon, the lighting of fires by some in front of their shops or houses, through which, according to some ancient custom, they jump madly, we command to abolish from now on. Therefore, if anyone does anything like this, let the cleric be deposed, and the layman be excommunicated. For in the fourth book of Kings it is written: And Manasseh made an altar to all the power of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord, and made his sons pass through the fire, and made enemies and performed sorceries, and created ventriloquists, and multiplied sorceresses, and multiplied to do evil in the sight of the Lord, anger Him (2 Kings 21:5–6).

Wed. 6 All 62

66. From the holy day of the resurrection of Christ our God until the new week, throughout the entire week, the faithful must in the holy churches unceasingly practice psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, rejoicing and triumphant in Christ and listening to the reading of the Divine Scriptures, and enjoying the holy mysteries. For in this way we will be resurrected together with Christ and ascended. For this reason, on the said days there should not be a horse show or other folk spectacle.

Wed. Karf. 72.

67. Divine Scripture commanded us to abstain from blood and strangulation and fornication (Acts 15:29). Therefore, for the sake of a delicacy belly, we prudently subject the blood of any animal that is prepared into food for food by any art, and we prudently subject those who eat it to penance. If anyone from now on eats the blood of an animal in any way, then the cleric will be deposed, and the layman will be excommunicated.

Wed. Acts 15:29; Ap. 63; Gangr. 2.

68. The books of the Old and New Testaments, as well as of our saints and recognized preachers and teachers, are not allowed to be damaged or cut up by anyone, or by booksellers, or the so-called myrrhists, or by anyone else, to be handed over to anyone for destruction: unless by moth or by water, or by others will become incapable of consumption. From now on, whoever is found doing such a thing will be excommunicated for a year. Likewise, the one who buys such books, if he neither keeps them for his own benefit, nor gives them to someone else for good or for storage, but dares to damage them: he will be excommunicated.

The rule prescribes a reverent attitude towards the books of Holy Scripture and the creations of St. fathers.

69. Let no one belonging to the ranks of the laity be allowed to enter the sacred altar. But according to some ancient legend, this is by no means forbidden to the power and dignity of the king when he wants to bring gifts to the Creator.

This rule is now often violated due to need. But also Mitrop. Moscow Philaret did not allow psalmists into the altar who were in a second marriage and therefore deprived of the title of reader or the right to wear a surplice. In women's monasteries, old nuns are allowed to serve at the altar.

70. It is not permissible for wives to speak during the Divine Liturgy, but, according to the word of the Apostle Paul, let them remain silent. For they were not commanded to speak, but to obey, just as the law says. If they want to learn something, they should ask their husbands at home.

Wed. 1 Cor. 14:34–35; 6 All 64; Laod. 44.

71. Students of civil laws should not use Hellenic customs or be led to spectacles, or perform the so-called kilistras (lots by which teachers sorted out students), or dress in clothes that are not in common use, neither at the time when teachings begin, neither when it ends, nor in general during its continuation. If anyone from now on dares to do this, let him be excommunicated.

What “kilistras” are is not explained convincingly enough by Ep. Nicodemus, nor the Greek commentators. According to Balsamon, kilistras were a kind of lot through which teachers selected their students. The English canonist Johnson seems closest to the truth, believing that these are athletic exercises.

72. It is unworthy for an Orthodox husband to copulate with a heretical wife, nor for an Orthodox wife to marry a heretic husband. If something like this is seen to have been done by someone, consider the marriage unsustainable and dissolve the illegal cohabitation. For it is not proper to confuse the unmixed, nor to mate with the sheep of the wolf, nor with the portion of Christ the lot of sinners. If anyone transgresses what we have decreed, let him be excommunicated. But if some, while still in unbelief and not being counted among the flock of Orthodox, were united in legal marriage, then one of them, choosing good, resorted to the light of truth, and the other remained in the bonds of error, not wanting to look at the Divine rays, and if Moreover, an unfaithful wife wants to cohabit with a faithful husband, or, on the contrary, an unfaithful husband with a faithful wife: then let them not be separated, according to the Divine Apostle: the unfaithful husband is sanctified from his wife, and the unfaithful wife is sanctified from her husband (1 Cor. 7:14).

In marriage there should be not only physical, but also spiritual unity. The latter is not possible given the difference in confession. A non-Orthodox spouse can greatly influence the spiritual life of an Orthodox spouse, and this, of course, affects the children. Statistics show that the lack of spiritual unity has a detrimental effect on family harmony, as a result of which the divorce rate of mixed marriages is especially high. Likewise, statistics show that mixed marriages lead to indifference in the offspring and often a complete loss of faith. However, the rule allows a mixed marriage to be maintained when one of the spouses converts to Orthodoxy. The modern practice of all Orthodox Churches is more lenient and allows mixed marriages with Christians of some denominations, when they express their intention to accept Orthodoxy (14 Prov. 4 Ecumenical) and when they promise to raise their children in the Orthodox Faith. Wed. Laod. 10, 31; Karf. thirty.

73. Since the Life-giving Cross has shown us salvation, it is fitting for us to use every diligence, so that all honor will be given to that through which we were saved from the ancient Fall. Therefore, offering worship to him in thought, word, and feeling, we command that the image of the Cross, drawn by some on the earth, be completely blotted out, so that the sign of our victory is not insulted by the trampling of those who walk. And so from now on we command that those who draw the image of the Cross on the ground be excommunicated.

74. In places dedicated to the Lord, or in churches, one should not serve so-called meals of brotherly love, or eat inside a church, or lay a bed. Let those who dare to do this either stop or be excommunicated.

Wed. 6 All 76; Laod. 28; Karf. 51.

75. We wish that those who come to church to sing do not use disorderly cries, do not force an unnatural cry out of themselves, and do not introduce anything incongruous and unusual for the church, but with great attention and tenderness bring psalmody to God, who watches over the hidden. For the sacred Word commanded the children of Israel to be reverent (Lev. 15:31).

What is important in this rule is the instruction for those who sing in church to do it reverently. Already Zonara, that is, in the Byzantine centuries, in his interpretation of this rule, complained that something pretentious and theatrical was being introduced into church singing. This is all the more common now and requires correction and constant care from the church authorities to eliminate this phenomenon. Wed. Laod. 15.

76. No one should make innkeepers, or supply various foodstuffs, or make other purchases inside the sacred enclosures, while maintaining reverence for the churches. For our Savior and God, teaching us through His life in the flesh, commanded us not to make His Father’s house a house of purchase. He also scattered pennies to the penyazhniki, and drove out those who created the holy temple into a worldly place. Therefore, if anyone is convicted of the above-mentioned crime, let him be excommunicated.

Wed. 6 All 74 and 97.

77. Clergymen or clerics or monks should not wash in the bathhouse together with their wives, nor even any lay Christian. For this is the first criticism from the pagans. If anyone is convicted of this, then the cleric will be deposed, and the layman will be excommunicated.

Wed. Laod. thirty.

78. Those preparing for baptism must learn the faith, and on the fifth day of the week make a vow to the bishop or elders.

Wed. 6 All 96; Laod. 46.

79. We confess the divine birth from the Virgin, as if it were seedless, to be painless, and preach this to the whole state, and subject to correction those who do something improper out of ignorance. Since then, some, on the day of the holy birth of Christ our God, are seen preparing bread cookies and passing them on to each other, as if in honor of the diseases of birth of the all-immaculate Virgin Mother: then we determine: let the faithful not do anything of the kind. For this is not an honor to the Virgin, more than the mind and the word, who gave birth in the flesh to the inconceivable Word, if her ineffable birth is determined and presented according to the example of an ordinary birth that is characteristic of us. If from now on anyone is found doing such a thing, then let the cleric be deposed, and the layman be excommunicated.

80. If anyone, a bishop or a presbyter, or a deacon, or anyone of those numbered among the clergy, or a layman, has no urgent need or obstacle that would remove him from his church for a long time, but is in the city, on three Sundays in continuation three weeks, will not come to the church meeting: then the cleric will be expelled from the clergy, and the layman will be excommunicated.

Wed. Sardik. eleven.

81. We have recently learned that in some countries, in the trisagion hymn, after the words: Holy Immortal, as an addition, they proclaim: crucified for us, have mercy on us; but this was rejected by the ancient holy fathers, as alien to piety, from this song, together with the lawless heretic, the innovator of these words, then we also piously decreed by our holy fathers, affirming, according to the present definition, such a word in the church of those who accept or in some other way We anathematize those who mix in the Trisagion hymn. And if the violator of the decree is a sacred rite, then we command that he be stripped of his sacred dignity, but if he is a layman or a monk, he is excommunicated from church communion.

This rule, as well as several other rules of the 6 Universe. Councils (32, 33, 56 and 99), directed against the Armenians.

82. On some honest icons, a lamb is depicted with the finger of the Forerunner, which is accepted as the image of grace, through the law showing us the true lamb - Christ our God. While honoring the ancient images and canopies devoted to the Church as signs and foretellings of truth, we prefer grace and truth, accepting it as the fulfillment of the Law. For this reason, so that through the art of painting the perfect thing may be presented to the eyes of all, we command from now on the image of the lamb who takes away the sins of the world, Christ our God, to be represented on icons according to human nature, instead of the old lamb; and through this, contemplating the humility of God the Word, we are brought to the memory of His life in the flesh, His suffering and saving death, and in this way the completed redemption of the world.

83. Let no one give the Eucharist to the bodies of the dead. For it is written: take, eat (Matthew 26:26). But they cannot accept the bodies of the dead, nor can they eat food.

Wed. Karf. 26.

84. Following the canonical decrees of the fathers, we determine also about infants: every time when worthy witnesses are not found who undoubtedly affirm that they have been baptized, and when they themselves, due to their infancy, cannot give the necessary answer about the sacrament given to them, they should be baptized without any bewilderment : Yes, such a misunderstanding will not deprive them of the purification of so much shrine.

This rule repeats almost verbatim 83 Ave. of the Carthage Cathedral. The rules prohibit repeated baptism, but even in cases where there is no completely reliable evidence that the baby was baptized, the Council finds it preferable to eliminate doubt by baptizing him, so that a misunderstanding does not leave him completely unbaptized.

85. We have received from the Scripture that by two or three witnesses every word will stand (Deut. 19:15). Therefore, we determine: yes, slaves released from their masters to freedom receive this advantage with three witnesses who, by their presence, will give legality to the liberation and convey authenticity to what has been done.

86. Those who gather and keep harlots for the destruction of souls, if they are clerics, we determine to excommunicate and cast out; if they are laymen - excommunicate.

87. A wife who leaves her husband, if she marries another, is an adulteress, according to the sacred and divine Basil, who very appropriately brought this from the prophecy of Jeremiah: if a wife marries another husband, she will not return to her husband, but will be defiled by defilement (Jeremiah 3:1) . And again: keep an adulteress, you are foolish and wicked (Prov. 18:23). If it is determined that she left her husband without guilt, then he is worthy of leniency, and she is worthy of penance. Condescension will be shown to him in that he will be in communion with the Church. But he who leaves his legally married wife and takes another, according to the word of the Lord (Luke 16:18), is guilty of the judgment of adultery. It was decreed by the rules of our fathers: for such a year to be in the category of those who cry, for two years - listening to the reading of the Scriptures, for three years in those who fall, and on the seventh to stand with the faithful, and thus be worthy of communion if they repent with tears.

The Church protects the holiness and indissolubility of marriage, but the betrayal of one spouse by another destroys the marriage. The canons, however, do not provide for the procedure for dissolving a marriage. In the Byzantine Empire, this issue was regulated by civil laws. In 331 Imp. Constantine, in agreement with the bishops, issued a law restricting divorce, which until that time had been very easy and possible by mutual agreement. According to this law, divorce was allowed on the grounds of adultery and crimes entailing the death penalty or indefinite hard labor for one of the spouses. After many changes, Justinian, in his novel of 542, introduced others in addition to these reasons for divorce: when there are no physical conditions for marriage, and when the spouses decide to devote themselves to monastic life. Currently, each Orthodox Church has its own divorce laws. The current grounds for dissolution of a marriage consecrated by the Church in the Russian Church were established by the All-Russian Church Council of 1917-18.

Wed. Ap. 48; 6 All 93; Karf. 115; Vasily Vel. 9, 21, 35 and 48.

88. No one brings any animal inside the sacred temple: unless someone traveling, constrained by the greatest extremes, and deprived of a home and hotel, stops in such a temple. Because the animal, if it had not been brought into the fence, would sometimes die, and he himself, having lost the animal, and therefore deprived of the opportunity to continue the journey, would be exposed to the danger of life. For we know that the Sabbath of man was made (Mark 2:27); and therefore, by all means we must strive for the salvation and safety of man. If, according to the above, anyone is seen unnecessarily introducing an animal into the temple: then the cleric will be deposed, and the layman will be excommunicated.

89. It is appropriate for the faithful to observe the days of saving suffering in fasting and prayer and in contrition of heart, to stop fasting in the middle hours of the night on Holy Saturday, since the Divine Evangelists Matthew and Luke, the first with the words: on Saturday evening (Matthew 28:1), and the second with the words : very early (Luke 24:1), depicting to us deep night.

The question of when the Resurrection of the Lord occurred, and when it is necessary to stop the fast of Holy Week, is discussed in detail in the 1st rule of St. Dionysius, Archbishop. Alexandria.

90. From our God-bearing fathers it was canonically handed down to us not to kneel on Sundays, for the honor of the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, let us not remain in ignorance of how to observe this, we clearly show the faithful that on Saturday, after the evening entrance of the clergy into the altar, according to accepted custom, no one kneels until the following Sunday evening, on which, upon entering the lampstand time, again bending our knees, we thus send up prayers to the Lord. For the night of Saturday was the forerunner of the resurrection of our Savior; From now on we spiritually begin songs, and bring the holiday from darkness to light, so that from now on we celebrate the resurrection all night and day.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council repeats the instruction of 20 pr. 1 Ecumenical. Council on the non-commitment of kneeling on Sundays, explaining exactly when it is necessary to stop them. A detailed explanation of this is in 91 rights. St. Basil the Great.

91. Women who give medicine, cause premature birth of the fetus in the womb, and who take poison, killing the fetus, we subject to the penance of a murderer.

Wed. Ank. 21; St. Basil Vel. 2 and 8.

92. Those who kidnap wives under the guise of marriage or assist or help the kidnappers were determined by the Holy Council: if they are clergy, they should be deposed from their rank; if they are laymen, anathematize.

Wed. 4 Omni. 27 and parallel rules.

93. The wife of an absent and unknown husband who cohabits with someone else before his death is certified commits adultery. Likewise, the wives of warriors who marry during the obscurity of their husbands are subject to the same consideration; Likewise, those who get married because their husbands left for foreign countries without waiting to return. But here one can have some leniency towards such an act, for the sake of a greater likelihood of the husband’s death. But she who, out of ignorance, entered into marriage with a wife who was abandoned for a while by her wife, and then, due to the return of her first wife to him, was abandoned, although she committed adultery, but out of ignorance: therefore, marriage will not be forbidden to her. But it's better if the taco remains. If, after some time, a warrior returns, whose wife, due to his long-term absence, was married to another husband: let him again take his wife if he wants; Moreover, may her ignorance be forgiven, as well as her husband who cohabited with her in her second marriage.

This rule serves as the basis for divorce due to unknown absence, however, this absence is accepted as a presumption about the likelihood of the death of the absent spouse. Wed. Vasily Vel. 31.

94. The rule subjects those who swear by pagan oaths to penance: and we determine excommunication for such.

St. Basil Vel. 10, 17, 28, 29, 81 and 82.

95. Those who join Orthodoxy and to the honor of those who are saved from heretics are accepted, according to the following rites and customs: Arians, Macedonians, Navatians, who call themselves pure and best, fourteeners, or tetradites, and appolinarians, when they give manuscripts and curse every heresy that does not philosophize, as the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God philosophizes, it is acceptable, sealing, that is, anointing with the holy world first the forehead, then the eyes and nostrils, and the lips, and the ears, and sealing them with the verb: the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit. And regarding those who were Paulians and then resorted to the Catholic Church, it was decreed that they must be rebaptized without fail. Eunomians, who are baptized with a single immersion, and the Montanists, here called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who hold the opinion of the fatherland, and who do other intolerant things, and all other heretics (for there are many of them here, especially those coming from the Galatian country): all who are among them wish to be affiliated with Orthodoxy, acceptable as pagans. On the first day we make them Christians, on the second we make them catechumens, then on the third we conjure them, with three blows blowing on their faces and ears: and so we announce them and force them to stay in the church and listen to the scriptures, and then we baptize them. Likewise the Manichaeans, Valentinians, Marcionites and similar heretics. The Nestorians must write manuscripts and anathematize their heresies, and Nestorius, and Eutychus, and Dioscorus, and Sevirus, and other leaders of such heresies, and their like-minded people, and all the above heresies: and then let them receive holy communion.

Information about the heretics mentioned here is given in the explanations to the rules: 1 Omni. 8 and 19; 2 All 1 and 7. The Manichaeans, Valentinians and Marcionites mentioned in this rule are Gnostics, heretics of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Eutychians were Monophysites. Eutychians, Nestorians and Severians distorted the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. According to the decree of the Council of Constantinople in 1756, the baptism of all Western heretics, including Roman Catholics, was carried out in the Greek Churches, which, however, in some places was usual even before this conciliar definition, being preserved to this day.

96. Having put on Christ through baptism, they vowed to imitate His life. For this reason, for the sake of the hair on the head, to the detriment of those who behold, disposing and removing with artificial weavings, and thus deceiving unconfirmed souls, we fatherly heal with decent penance, guiding them, like children, and teaching them to live chastely, and leaving the charm and vanity of the flesh, to the undying and blessed in life they constantly direct the mind and have a pure life with fear, and through the purification of life, as much as possible, they come closer to God, and they decorate the inner person more than the outer person with virtues and good and immaculate morals; and let them not carry within themselves any remnant of depravity that came from the enemy. If anyone acts contrary to this rule, let him be excommunicated.

97. Those who, either living with a wife or in some other way, recklessly turn sacred places into ordinary ones, and carelessly walk around them and stay in them with such a disposition, we command to expel them from the places provided for catechumens at holy churches. Whoever does not observe this, if there is a cleric, let him be cast out; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.

“In this rule, sacred places are designated not only temples, but also premises adjacent to the temple, for, according to Zonara’s remark in the interpretation of this rule, no one can be “so bold as to begin to live with his wife in the temple itself.”

98. He who takes a wife betrothed to another into marital cohabitation while the betrothed is still alive shall be subject to the guilt of adultery.

Betrothal before marriage, as a mutual promise between a man and a woman to marry, existed in Roman law, but it did not legally bind anyone. The Church sees betrothal as a morally binding act that already binds future spouses, for, as Bishop writes. Nicodemus, “it already contains the necessary condition that constitutes the essence of marriage, namely, mutual consent to the marriage life of the betrothed.” Bearing in mind cases similar to the one discussed in this rule, the Church now does not commit betrothal long before marriage, but does it just before the wedding.

99. In the Armenian country, as we have learned, it also happens that some, having boiled parts of meat, bring the parts inside the sacred altars and share them with the priests, according to Jewish custom. Therefore, while maintaining the purity of the church, we determine: let none of the priests be allowed to accept separated parts of meat from those who offer, but let them be content with whatever the offerer wants to give, and let such an offering take place outside the church. If anyone does not do this, let him be excommunicated.

100. Let your eyes see rightly, and with all guarding let your spirit be guarded (Prov. 4:23-25), bequeaths wisdom: for the bodily senses conveniently bring their impressions into the soul. Therefore, from now on, we do not allow images on boards, or otherwise represented, that charm the eyes, corrupt the mind, and produce the ignition of unclean pleasures, to be written in any way. If anyone dares to do this, let him be excommunicated.

This rule is directed against drawing pornographic pictures, but thereby it indicates that contemplating them is sinful.

101. The Divine Apostle loudly calls man, created in the image of God, the body of Christ and the temple. For having been placed above every sensible creature, having been granted heavenly dignity through the saving sufferings, and eating and drinking Christ, he is continually transformed into eternal life, sanctifying both soul and body by the communion of Divine grace. Therefore, if anyone wants, during the Liturgy he will partake of the most pure body, and be one with it through communion: let him fold his hands in the image of the cross, and so let him become dull, and let him receive the communion of grace. For from gold or other substances, instead of hands, those who construct certain containers for receiving the Divine gift and through them are honored with the most pure communication, we do not at all approve of, as those who prefer the image of God to a substance that is soulless and subordinate to human hands. If anyone is seen administering the most holy communion to those who bring such containers, let him and the one who brings them be excommunicated.

102. Those who have received from God the power to decide and knit must consider the quality of sin, and the readiness of the sinner to convert, and thus use the healing appropriate to the illness, so that, without observing measures in both, they do not lose the salvation of the ill person. For the disease of sin is not the same, but is varied and diverse and produces many branches of harm, from which evil pours out abundantly until it is stopped by the power of the healer. Why is it appropriate for one who demonstrates the spiritual medical skill to first examine the disposition of the sinner and observe whether he is heading towards health, or, on the contrary, attracting illness to himself by his own morals, and how, meanwhile, he establishes his behavior; and if he does not resist the doctor, and heals the mental wound through the application of prescribed medicines: in this case, it is worthwhile to measure mercy to him. For God, who has accepted pastoral leadership, is all about bringing back the lost sheep and healing those wounded by the serpent. One should not drive along the rapids of despair, nor let go of the reins to relaxation of life and negligence: but one must certainly, in any way: either through harsh and astringent, or through softer and easier medical means, counteract the illness, and strive to heal the wound; and experience the fruits of repentance, and wisely manage a person called to heavenly enlightenment. It is fitting for us to know both, both appropriate to the zeal of the penitent, and required by custom: for those who do not accept the perfection of repentance, follow the devoted image, as Saint Basil teaches us.

Wed. 1 All 12; Ankir. 2, 5 and 7; Afanasia Vel. Epistle to Rufinian; Vasily Vel. 2, 3, 74, 75, 84 and 85; Gregory Nissk. 4, 5, 6 and 7.

The discussion of these problems by the site's readers and the proposals they made can be summarized as follows.

1. There is a wide gap between the inward piety of the few and the outward observance of the rites of the many.

2. There is a loss by a significant part of the people of the sense of the Sacred and reverence for it. Hence the widespread practice of profane use of the Sacred in general and sacred images in particular. Indifference to sacred things, even by default, gives rise to blasphemy.

3. To prevent the profanation of sacred images, it is necessary that the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church take administrative measures in the church environment, and the state legislatively protect Christian shrines from desecration.

4. The Church must monopolize the sale of all goods that in one way or another affect Christianity. And at the same time, take a very strict approach to the production of all products and their sale. All media and other organizations must ask for church blessing to publish holy images, etc.

5. Church censorship is necessary regarding the legality of the use of sacred images in Orthodox printed publications (books, magazines, newspapers), in films, at Orthodox exhibitions, etc. Those involved in the publication of printed materials and their distribution must understand their responsibility for the inappropriate use of sacred images.

6. The state must adopt a law regulating the use of sacred images and Orthodox symbols in commercial products.

7. It is necessary to educate the church people and nominal Orthodox Christians (sermons in parishes, evening schools, etc.).

8. Church parishes and monasteries should assist parishioners in the pious disposal of consecrated objects and objects with sacred images after their expiration date, deterioration, unusability, etc., that is, accept these items from parishioners for burning in church ovens .

9. The hierarchy must, by a conciliar act (of the Bishops' or Local Council), determine the acceptable and unacceptable forms of use of sacred images in the Church.

10. At the same time, it is necessary to observe moderation and not turn the struggle for the purity of Orthodoxy (in terms of veneration of icons) into a new iconoclasm.

Since our Church is separated from the state, it is hardly possible to demand more from it than it has already done when, after recent scandals, it tightened penalties for insulting the feelings of believers. The Church is also unlikely to be able to demand anything from “external” commercial structures. But we can ask more of ourselves. After all, these are church and monastery stores that sell bracelets with icons of the Mother of God, books and magazines with icons on the covers. It is Orthodox publishing houses, out of good intentions, who use icons immoderately and not always thoughtfully to decorate their products. Handling such goods in everyday life leads to involuntary desecration of holy images (on the counters other objects and even money are placed on the faces of the Savior and saints; the reader, picking up such a book or magazine, is forced to touch the holy faces with his palms and fingers, which we do not allow ourselves to do with an icon; when reading a book with an icon on the cover, we are forced to rub the holy face on the surface of the table, etc., etc.).

Let us recall that from the definition of the VII Ecumenical Council (787), which approved the dogma of icon veneration, it follows that sacred images should be placed in worthy places, on durable materials, they should be honored by burning incense and lighting candles. The contemplation of a sacred image raises the mind of the believer from the image (icon, fresco, mosaic) to the prototype - to the Person (Hypostasis) of Christ, the Mother of God, angels, saints. Therefore, any ungodly and offensive action towards a sacred image also goes back to the prototype, including the Divine Person of the Savior and His Most Pure Mother. This is exactly how the blasphemous actions of modern iconoclasts regarding the Cross, icons, and Orthodox churches are regarded by Orthodox believers, which is why they cause legitimate indignation and opposition from Christians.

Obviously, in order to prevent the transformation of sacred images into a simple design element, that is, to prevent the profanation of the Sacred, it is necessary to take certain administrative measures within the Church itself. First of all, we need to understand the norms that in church law regulate a person’s relationship to the Sacred.

Until 1917, the practical sources of the law in force in the Russian Church, in addition to the canons and rules of the holy apostles, Ecumenical and Local Councils and the Holy Fathers, also served as: Spiritual Regulations, Supreme Decrees and Decrees of the Holy Synod, Charter of Spiritual Consistories, Charter on Censorship and the Press, Code of Laws of the Russian Empire in those articles that related to church affairs and church administration. Therefore, it will be useful to refer to the history of the issue.

Laws of the Russian Empire in defense of the Sacred

Archpriest Vasily Pevtsov, a specialist in church law, Honored Professor and Master of St. Petersburg Academy of Arts, writes that in the church charter and civil legislation of the Russian Empire there were special norms for the protection of the sacred (temples, worship, sacred objects), including regulations on holy icons that related to the rules their writing, trade, treatment of them in churches and private homes.

In the Russian Empire, the duty to suppress crimes against the sacred was imposed on all state officials

In the Orthodox Russian Empire, the duty to suppress crimes against the sacred was imposed on all state officials. The “Charter on the Prevention and Suppression of Crimes” began with the words: “Governors, local police and, in general, all places and persons who have command, civil or military, are obliged, by all means in their power, to prevent and suppress any actions tending to violate due respect for faith or public peace, order, decorum, safety and personal security of property, guided both by the orders and instructions given to them, and by the rules defined in this Charter” (Article 1). At the same time, it was indicated that “the rules of this Charter apply evenly to all conditions of people in the state” (Article 2).

The first section of the “Charter” is called: “On the prevention and suppression of crimes against faith.” In accordance with it, according to the civil legislation of the empire, “everyone in the Church of God must be respectful and enter the temple of God with reverence...” (v. 3), and “stand before the icons as the decency and holiness of the place require” (v. 6). “During the service, do not make any conversations, do not move from place to place, and generally do not divert the attention of the Orthodox from the service either by word, deed or movement, but remain with fear, in silence, stillness and in all respect” (Article 7 ). “During the Divine service, it is forbidden to venerate miraculous places and icons, but to do this before the start or at the end of the service” (Article 8).

Professor V.G. Pevtsov adds that “in 1742 there was an order of the Senate, which appointed special collectors to collect fines from those talking during the liturgy.” Peace and silence in the temple were to be protected by the local police (Charter, Art. 10), and the clergy were charged with taking care of the reverent behavior of parishioners (Art. 11). For deviations from the rules about order and silence in churches, those guilty were subject to punishment (Article 12).

According to the Council Code (1649) of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the death penalty was imposed for disorderly conduct during the Liturgy, which interrupted its celebration.

There are now more and more cases of hooligans (atheists, Satanists, non-believers, “artists” and “artists”) breaking into Orthodox churches and interrupting services. There were probably such in the old days. Therefore, the Charter states that cases related to the interruption of worship or its termination due to someone’s actions or words that create temptation, the spiritual authorities must immediately report to the Holy Synod and make representations to the secular authorities, which severely punished the perpetrators (Article 13 ). Important incidents in churches were reported to the Sovereign Emperor (Article 14). According to the Council Code (1649) of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, the death penalty was imposed for disorderly conduct during the Liturgy, which interrupted its celebration. Obviously, the severity of such a norm was determined by the proper attitude of our ancestors to the sacred: in the Orthodox Church there is nothing more sacred than the Liturgy, during which the transformation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ takes place.

According to church and civil legislation, the protection of the sacred extended to the temple and the territory adjacent to it. Yes, Prof. V. Pevtsov writes that the Church demands from its members respect for the temple as the house of God (Gangr. 21). The canons strictly condemn those who neglect sacred places (Trul. 97), and even more so those who turn them into ordinary dwellings (VII Ecumenical Council. 13). Even the material of the temples itself is considered sacred; therefore, in the event of the abolition of any church, the material of the church building can only be used for decent use (for example, for the construction of another sacred building). It is also not customary to build other buildings on the site where the church stood, but to erect a cross in the place of the throne. The canons (Trul. 76) also require respect for the area surrounding the temple of God (it is prohibited to conduct trade within the church fence or establish obscene establishments such as taverns). Civil laws prohibited the proximity of indecent houses and establishments (drinking houses, gambling establishments, etc.) to sacred places, as well as the close proximity of non-religious churches and chapels.

The police were obliged to ensure that “near churches, especially during services, there was no shouting, fighting or any disorder in the streets at all” (Charter, Art. 15), and “on Sundays or special days or... temple holidays in cities and villages , before the end of the liturgy in the parish church, games, music, dancing, singing songs in houses and in the streets, theatrical performances and all other popular entertainments and amusements were not started, but trading shops (excluding those selling food supplies and food for livestock) and drinking houses were not opened” (v. 16).

About sacred images

Sacred images are devoted to: a special section in church law (“On Sacred Things”) and a separate chapter in the civil Charter of the Russian Empire.

Church canons prohibit the ordinary use of any liturgical paraphernalia (“placed outside the altar”). The profane use of consecrated things (“from among those in the altar”) is subject to especially strict condemnation as desecration of a shrine (Duc. 10; Apost. 73).

As Prof. writes. V. Pevtsov, “the most used sacred things - not only in churches, but also outside them - are holy icons.” According to canon law, “icons are images of the Faces of the Lord God, the Most Holy Theotokos, holy Angels and holy people glorified by God.” According to the definition of the VII Ecumenical Council, “icons should be one of the means to maintain, strengthen and express true faith and piety, namely: a) icons, like books written not in letters, but in persons and things, should teach Christians the truths of faith and piety ; b) they must maintain the attention of the worshiper, elevate his thoughts and feelings to what is depicted on them; c) they must serve the expression, characteristic of human nature, of the worshiper’s reverent feelings and his love for the faces depicted on the icons, manifested through worship, kissing, censing, lighting lamps, etc.” . Therefore, the Church demands that “icons be consistent with their important purpose both in their content and in the nature of the art.”

The laws of the Russian Empire determined how Orthodox churches should be decorated. The Charter (Article 99) says: “Excessive decorations and not characteristic of sacred places are prohibited in Orthodox churches, violating the respect due to the house of the Lord and the most appropriate splendor for it. Nowhere in the churches should there be any images except holy images, and the very portraits of His Imperial Majesty should not be placed in them; evenly do not use in Orthodox churches carved and molded icons, except for skillfully carved crucifixes and some other stucco images placed on high places.”

To this prof. V. Pevtsov notes that sculptured and carved icons do not correspond to the nature of icon veneration, since they represent the object as more sensual. A picturesque icon better promotes the elevation of the mind from the image to the depicted object. The veneration of the Lord, the Mother of God and saints in the form of statues “has always been alien to the Eastern Church also because it served as a reason for the rapprochement of Christian icon veneration with pagan veneration and could give rise to temptation for people inclined to idolatry.” That is why the law prohibited the use of carved and cast icons for private use, “in homes” (Charter, Art. 100), with the exception of “small crosses and skillfully carved panagias.” And in general it was allowed to “cast copper and tin and sell in rows only crosses worn on the chest” (v. 101).

In our time, for some reason, the practice of erecting monuments to saints, as well as the production and widespread sale of sacred images in the form of tabletop sculptures, has become unusually widespread. On the one hand, it is clear that after the fall of the atheistic regime, sculptors who turned to faith were looking for a subject to apply their professional abilities and talents and found it in sacred images. But what then to do with church tradition? In the Orthodox Russian Empire, monuments were erected to kings and emperors (as we do now), but not to the saints of God. It seems that the Church should decide on this issue, and not let everything take its course.

As Prof. writes. V. Pevtsov, the Church should also not allow the use of “icons, written according to superstition", in the images of which there is something arbitrarily invented and contrary to the truths of faith, since such icons would contribute to the "spread of error more than books." We draw attention to this remark of a church canonist made 100 years ago. The “mass public” does not read spiritual literature – neither Orthodox nor heretical. This is the era of “visual culture”; almost all information comes to modern people through images (photography, video, painting, drawing). It is the image that imprints information, “knowledge” about something into his consciousness. A distorted image imprints distorted knowledge against his will, at the subconscious level. For the same reason, the Church prohibits images that “bewitch the eyes, corrupt the mind, and inflame unclean pleasures.” Those who dare to do such things are subject to excommunication (Trul. 100). Obviously, in our time, pornography and erotica fall under this norm. Unfortunately, these are the images that now fill the information space (advertising, television, cinema, print and electronic media).

The canons prohibit depicting only symbolic images, for example, instead of the face of Jesus Christ, write a lamb or instead of the evangelists - only animals that symbolically depict them (Trul. 82). Civil laws also prohibited the same (Charter, Art. 102). Prof. V. Pevtsov explains that such icons can give rise to the confusion of symbols with the objects that are meant by them. However, symbolic images are allowed as instructive decorations in churches and on church accessories (for example, the All-Seeing Eye, snakes on bishop's staffs, symbols of the Testaments).

There are also instructions in the Charter about the quality of icon painting: “In general, observe that neither in churches, nor on sale, nor anywhere there were no icons unskillfully painted, and especially written in a strange and seductive form. Where such icons will be found, clergy, with the assistance of local police, they are immediately taken away"(Art. 103). It is obvious that our contemporary “icons” in defense of the participants of the punk prayer service in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior and other blasphemous “works of art” (such as the Crucifixion of the Savior with the head of Mickey Mouse) fall under this article and cannot be justified by any sophisticated “aesthetic” principles authors and their patrons.

The note to this article talks about the decree of 1759: “in order for the icons to be skillfully painted, select the best masters in Moscow and throughout the cities and order them to closely supervise such artists and not allow icons to be painted with unskillful work, and, moreover, to testify in the art of those masters the first of the clergy should be entrusted by the Holy Synod to paint holy icons in each place.”

On the one hand, such legal norms should seem to interfere with the creativity of icon painters, limiting their right to search for new means of expression, etc. On the other hand, the absence of prohibitions and any restrictions leads either to the dominance of low-quality products. And this is especially dangerous because it concerns not the everyday, but the sacred sphere, which really requires special regulatory measures. Therefore, this norm is directly related to the modern situation, when kitsch has spread in icon painting to please the customer who is inexperienced in the theology of icons and in the church tradition. The client is often dissatisfied if the icon is “poorly” decorated - without an abundance of gilding, rhinestones and other flashy “costume jewelry” intended to please the “merchant” tastes of the “new Orthodox”. What kind of “speculation in colors” is there! Therefore, true icon painters, who regard icon painting as a church service, are seriously concerned about the future of Russian icon painting, and the “artisans” who have rushed into the new “niche of the art market” openly boast, for example, about the “revival” of the merchant style in icon painting and speak disparagingly about the “already bored” by Andrei Rublev and Feofan Greke. As if in response to those, Prof. V. Pevtsov writes that in the Russian Church it was prescribed to paint icons according to ancient Greek models (“originals”). (To see the difference, just look at least at the reproductions of ancient icons, or even better, come to an art museum: the Vologda Art Museum, the Russian Museum, the hall of icon painting of the Tretyakov Gallery. Take a closer look at the Russian icons of the pre-Mongol period, images by Andrei Rublev, Daniil Cherny, Dionysius – and you will feel the presence of God, the action of His grace...)

In accordance with the declared high standard of attitude towards icons, the laws of the Russian Empire prescribed control over the quality of icons and sacred images, compliance of icons with the canon, control over the use of sacred images in printed and other products, as well as over the use of icons in private life. The Charter says: “The police select and send back, according to their ownership, both unskilled prints depicting the Saints, published without the permission of established places of spiritual censorship, and the boards with which they were printed” (Article 105). “In villages and villages, priests ensure that in the homes of Orthodox parishioners the holy icons are kept in all purity” (v. 106).

The “Charter on Censorship and Press” (1890) contained a norm (Article 229) that controlled the circulation of sacred images in printed materials: “Images of objects related to the faith, Christian Divine services and Sacred History are also subject to consideration of spiritual censorship, which should not allow anything indecent in them.” The Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is now entrusted with the functions of spiritual censorship, should also take care of the proper pious use of sacred images in the printed products it licenses, as has already been mentioned earlier in other publications.

The legal norms of piety of the Russian Empire extended so far that they did not allow non-believers to acquire and possess icons

The legal norms of piety of the Russian Empire in relation to sacred images extended so far that they did not allow non-believers acquire and possess holy icons, sacred And consecrated objects. Prof. V. Pevtsov writes: “Out of respect for icons, our laws prohibit selling them at auction if the creditor does not accept them as payment for the debt, and giving them away non-believers(Uc. Sep. 1827, September 28; May 11, 1836). Non-Christian who has received holy icons by inheritance is obliged to transfer them to the Orthodox Church or into the hands of the Orthodox; otherwise, they must be seized by the authorities and transferred to the spiritual consistory, at the disposal of the spiritual authorities. This rule also applies to particles of holy relics and other consecrated objects of reverence of the Orthodox Church (St. Zak. X. Part I., Art. 1188–1189).” For Gentiles There was also a ban on the production and trade of Christian consecrated objects: “Persons of non-Christian faiths are prohibited from painting icons, making crosses and other similar objects honoring Christians, as well as any general trade in all these objects.”

Finally we come to a very important point about the profane use of sacred images, which was the main object of attention in previous publications, but did not receive sufficient justification, and therefore we will now consider it more closely.

Common use of sacred images

Prof. V. Pevtsov writes that “icons and crosses are consecrated according to the charter of the Church; but also regardless of church consecration, by the very subject of their images, icons and crosses must be given due respect. Therefore, canonical rules prohibit the drawing of an image of a cross on places trampled under foot (Trul. 73), which was confirmed by Christian Greco-Roman legislation (Cod. Justin. tit 8).” This canonical norm is also based on the decisions of the VII Ecumenical Council.

The oros (dogma) of the VII Ecumenical Council says: “So, we determine that those who dare to think or teach differently, or following the example of obscene heretics, should despise church traditions and invent any innovations... [and] give ordinary use to sacred vessels... such, if they are bishops or clergy, are expelled [from the dignity], but if they are monks or laymen, they would be excommunicated [from communion].” Thus, according to the decision of the Council, profane (ordinary) use of sacred vessels is punishable for the clergy by defrocking, and for monastics and laity by excommunication from the Church (that is, from Communion).

Let me explain. In oros we are talking about the profane use of sacred vessels (chalices). Everything is clear with Eucharistic vessels, but should this prohibition extend to the profane use of sacred images and objects with them? We think so.

In the legislation of the Russian Empire there was the following norm: “It is prohibited to make and sell any ordinary things with sacred images, such as seals and the like.” Prof. V. Pevtsov explains that the law prohibits making sacred images on everyday things, such as dishes and dress material, and trading them.

Moreover, if something similar was found on imported goods, then, according to the law, they were subject to confiscation: “Porcelain and other things exported from abroad in vessels and other products, used in pockets, on tables and in wall decorations, if on them the passion of the Savior, the Mother of God and the Holy Saints and all other sacred images are presented, confiscate, and the carriers are subject to penalties as for transporting prohibited things.”

About the current moment

As Archpriest Andrei Lobashinsky rightly points out, the icon was and remains the most important semantic and spiritual sign of the Christian view of man as the image of God and evidence of the Church’s faith in the reality and evidence of the Incarnation. However, today the icon is turning from a spiritual sign and a constructive element of temple and sacred space into an ordinary cultural artifact. In ordinary consciousness it happens de-churching Holy image, his secularization and spiritual destruction as shrines. An icon, taken out of the context of prayer and liturgical rites, turns from an object of faith and prayer into an object of human arbitrariness. This is also facilitated by the excessive replication of printed icons, often of low artistic quality, which turns the icon from an object of contemplation and prayer into a kitschy component of mass culture. The mass of various products, “orthodoxized” by sacred images, seemingly intended to help the church mission and the churching of the people, in reality turns into a powerful factor in the formation of modern superficial religiosity - Orthodoxy-light or “glamorous Orthodoxy”. Becoming an object of commerce and turning into a publicly available product labeled “Orthodox,” the icon increasingly finds itself in a situation uncontrolled by the Church. And the de-churching of artistic and social consciousness provokes modernist artists to defiant art actions, which in turn increase the secularization of the icon.

The secularization of the Holy image has led to the fact that the icon, having fallen out of its liturgical space and context of worship and prayer, is transformed in secular consciousness into a historical or ideological symbol, becoming an object of mockery, desecration or exploitation by secular and anti-Christian culture. Modern atheistic culture seeks to turn the Orthodox icon into a phenomenon without real content. And this attempt can become successful if the Holy Image is subject to attempts to remove it from the context of the liturgical life of the Church.

Thus, today the attitude towards the icon reflects many problems associated with the massive secularization of not only society, but also the Christian way of life itself. If we do not now stop the replacement of genuine church art and its creative power with kitsch and bad taste, then there is a real threat of the current generation losing this invaluable wealth of the Church. These problems can be solved if all of us - lay believers, icon painters, the church hierarchy - begin to treat church art as an inherited common wealth, which we do not have the right to profane, but, on the contrary, we can and are obliged to use for missionary purposes as an effective means of preaching Christian faith.

It is difficult to disagree with the words of Father Andrei. On my own behalf, I will add that, citing the norms of the legislation of the Russian Empire (which were also the norms of church law at that time), I do not call for blindly following them now. But it is useful for us to know them and keep them in mind as a guide to action, to keep them in mind as milestones that set the direction of our movement towards streamlining the circulation of sacred images, primarily in the church and, more broadly, in the “Orthodox environment,” that is, in the sphere of “Orthodox goods and services” that no one currently produces or provides. We talked about how monstrous they are sometimes and how they accept them in other articles. But then we lacked church canons, rules, patriarchal decrees, and resolutions of the Holy Synod. Even now they are not yet in the form of modern current church norms, but we learned that they were in our Church before the disaster of 1917. We now have an example that we can follow or recognize as unsuitable, but at least we are not sitting over a “blank sheet”, trying to immediately come up with or find some kind of rule to ask the clergy to prohibit obvious blasphemy (such as pillows with icons of the Virgin Mary). We know that before 1917, church law had rules based on the civil laws of the Russian state, as it once was in the Byzantine Empire. Now it’s up to our church jurists and clergy. It is time for us to create modern rules of canon law in this painfully sensitive area.

This is also important because, as the legal analysis of modern Russian law carried out by Timofey Kryuchkov shows, the objective offensiveness of an act through an action, the direct object of which is a sacred image, sacred space, etc., is possible ascertain by the court only on condition that the church people themselves by his behavior demonstrates the impossibility for oneself to have the most disrespectful or careless attitude towards sacred objects, concepts and space, including through a relationship prohibited by the norms of canon law. That is, the state will provide external protection only to those values ​​for which we ourselves certainly respect.

The state will provide external protection only to those values ​​for which we, Orthodox Christians, ourselves certainly respect.

This and much more that is related to the topic raised here will be discussed in detail at the conference “The Sacred in the Church and Society - Images, Symbols, Signs”, which will be held on January 28, 2014 at the International Foundation of Slavic Literature and Culture (Moscow) as part of XXII International Christmas educational readings. But now I would like to propose some specific measures. Namely, that the conference participants turn to the hierarchy in the person of the Supreme Church Council and the Inter-Council Presence and petition for the following:

1. Form a commission with instructions to study the norms of church canonical and civil law related to the regulation of the production and use of sacred images, developed before 1917 and given in the Charter on the Prevention and Suppression of Crimes, in the Charter on Censorship and the Press, Decrees of the Holy Synod and in other sources of church law. If necessary, modify them, as well as develop new legal norms that correspond to modern realities.

2. Considering the fact that state protection of canon law as an integral element of the legal system possible only if If it will be obvious that norms, concerning sacred objects, are unconditional and valid for the Church itself, to call and oblige all synodal, diocesan, parish and other church structures, monasteries, industrial enterprises of the Russian Orthodox Church, Orthodox publishing houses, as well as clergy and laity be guided by these norms of canon law in practical activities in the production of sacred images (icons, objects of church applied art, church paintings, etc.), trade in them, use in the temple space and in everyday life.

3. All laity, clergy, and hierarchy should take into account that the attitude towards sacred images in the Church should be especially careful in any public space, where it ceases to be an object of religious veneration, but turns into symbolism, that is, it risks becoming the object of voluntary and involuntary blasphemy , transferring to it a negative attitude towards the Church of its opponents as an object available for expressing one’s “feelings,” or simply disrespectful treatment due to the situation (this applies, for example, to the practice of hanging sacred images for the holiday on billboards, etc. ).

4. Give an order Commission of the Interconciliar presence on matters of worship and church art analyze the problem of mass replication of printed icons and develop proposals to reduce their circulation in the church environment.

5. Give an order Publishing Council And Synodal Information Department in the near future, develop instructions regulating the use of sacred images in publishing products (books, periodicals, calendars, etc.). These instructions should be applied when considering the issue of providing stamps: “With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'”, “Recommended for publication by the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church”, “Approved for distribution by the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church"; “Approved by the Synodal Information Department of the Russian Orthodox Church,” etc.

6. Give instructions to the Synodal Information Department, church and Orthodox media, monasteries, and parish clergy take measures to disseminate knowledge among believers and the whole society about the rules of veneration of sacred images and pious handling in everyday life with objects of religious worship and veneration (icons, crosses, crucifixes, Bibles, etc.).

7. Create within the structure of the Moscow Patriarchate special body, authorized monitor compliance with the rules of trade in icons and objects of church and applied art in church stores (techniques and methods of pious storage, placement in retail spaces and handling of products that have sacred images or are objects of religious worship and veneration - icons, crosses, crucifixes, Bibles, etc.).

8. Create church censorship body for the production of church art, which will control that icons and objects of church applied art comply with the requirements imposed by the Church for sacred images (its dogmas, legal and artistic canons).

9. Create church expert commission, which will control compliance with the canons of church art, the professional qualifications of the craftsmen, the artistic quality of the painting of icons and the execution of murals, as well as their compliance with the architectural space of the newly built or restored church.

10. Create church-wide certification commission, authorized to certify icon painters, assigning them the appropriate qualifications and issuing a document confirming it. Create also diocesan certification commissions and subordinate them to the general church.

11. Instruct special commission develop a generally acceptable church decision on the issue about use and disposal large-scale printed images of Christian shrines and symbols, other products containing sacred images, as well as consecrated objects.

The price of dogma (instead of conclusion)

All the dogmas of the Orthodox Church were suffered by her and abundantly watered with the blood of martyrs and confessors. So it was with the dogma about the Divine dignity of the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity - the Son of God (against the Arians). At the beginning of the 4th century in Constantinople, the Arians gathered the entire Orthodox clergy on one ship, took it out to sea and set it on fire.

For the theological substantiation of the dogma of two wills in Christ (Divine and human) and its firm confession in the face of the emperor, St. Maximus, by order of the Orthodox monarch and with the approval of the Orthodox patriarch, had his right hand cut off and his tongue cut out. A few years later the saint died in exile, remaining forever in church memory under the name of Maximus the Confessor. For the same dogma, Pope Martin the Confessor was sent into exile and died there (there is a temple in his honor in Moscow).

The dogma of icon veneration is no exception.

Under the iconoclast emperor Constantine Copronymus, nicknamed the Dung-monger (741–775), the most severe persecutions fell upon the icons themselves and their admirers, comparable only to Diocletian’s persecution of Christians. The emperor also wished to bring theological teaching under the “new faith”. In 754 in Constantinople, 338 “Orthodox” bishops - participants in the False Ecumenical Iconoclastic Council - voted for a “dogma” proclaiming anathema to anyone who “dares to build an icon, or worship it, or place it in a church or in their own home, or hide it.” ", since "every icon... deserves contempt." Disobedients were also subject to the civil laws of the empire.

The Orthodox people and their most zealous part, monasticism, came to the defense of the veneration of icons. It was the monks who suffered the most severe persecution of the iconoclast emperors: their heads were broken, mockingly placed on the icon; drowned in the sea, sewn into bags; icon painters had their hands burned; monks were forced, under threat of blindness and exile, to break their vows and marry; they were whipped at hippodromes (like Andrei Calavit, 762); executed for refusing to trample underfoot the image of the Mother of God (like Abbot John); they cut off noses and ears, gouged out eyes, cut off hands, burned beards and faces, buried them alive in the ground... During the reign of the iconoclast emperor Constantine Copronymus, monasticism itself was declared a crime, and on such a charge the defender of icons, Saint Stephen the New, was beaten to death on the streets of Constantinople in 767, and the year before that, 19 archons (high-ranking officials of the empire) were executed for sympathy with the exiled Saint Stephen. Monasteries were destroyed or turned into soldiers' barracks, the brethren dispersed and emigrated en masse to the Western part of the empire.

Already after the VII Ecumenical Council (787) under the next iconoclast emperor Leo V the Armenian (813–820), the uncompromising and fearless Rev. Theodore the Studite Confessor (758–826), author of “Refutations” (“Antirrhetica”) and other works in defense of icons, was transferred from one prison to another, enduring abuse and torture. He was beaten to such an extent that his body began to rot; Prisoner and also tortured with him, his disciple Saint Nicholas cut off the rotten pieces with a knife.

During the last outbreak of iconoclasm under the next particularly cruel persecutor of icons, Emperor Theophilus (829–842), persecution fell on icon painters: they were forced to renounce the icons by spitting on them and trampling them underfoot. Those who were strong in the faith were killed or their hands were burned. Thus, the famous iconographer Lazarus was thrown into prison and, after unsuccessful exhortations, a red-hot iron was placed in his hands. But after his release from prison, with his burned hands, he painted the icon of the holy prophet John the Baptist, and later the famous image of the Savior. The learned brothers monks Theodore and Theophan, confessors, were severely beaten for defending the veneration of icons, and a mocking inscription was cut out on their faces, for which they received the name “Inscribed.” The brothers were sent into exile, where Theodore died, but Theophanes later returned and still served the Church as a metropolitan when Orthodoxy finally triumphed in the empire.

In other words, our right to venerate icons was bought “at a high price” (1 Cor. 6:20), which is the blood and suffering of the righteous for the faith. And therefore, the greater the demand from us for how we ourselves relate to sacred images and what we allow “external” people to do in relation to them.

It is obvious that we have now entered another (since the times of Soviet power) period of iconoclasm, when the war against religious shrines is used in an unscrupulous political struggle, when sacred images and Christian shrines (worship crosses, icons, reliquaries, etc.) are openly desecrated and destroyed by vandals in Orthodox churches, on the streets of our cities and villages, they are subjected to dishonor under the guise of “modern art” at provocative and blasphemous exhibitions, in everyday life (in the form of drawings and T-shirts in defense of participants in the “punk prayer”, etc.), as well as are implicitly offended by the profanation of sacred images through their unlimited replication and reduction to advertising of “Orthodox goods and services,” labels, leaflets, postcards, wrappers, covers, backings, bookmarks, etc.

So isn’t it time for us - the entire church people and monasticism as its most zealous part - taking the example of the martyrs and confessors for the holy icons of the 8th-9th centuries, to stand up for the defense of holy images and stop their explicit and implicit desecration, done maliciously or ignorance?

The time has come for us to stand up for the holy icons, for the dogmas of our faith, for it itself and its purity.

Articles of Faith

Tenets- these are indisputable doctrinal truths (axioms of Christian doctrine), given through Divine Revelation, defined and formulated by the Church at the Ecumenical Councils (as opposed to private opinions).

The properties of dogmas are: doctrinal, divinely revealed, churchly and universally binding.

Creed means that the content of dogmatic truths is the teaching about God and His economy (i.e., God’s plan for the salvation of the human race from sin, suffering and death).

Godly revelation characterizes dogmas as truths revealed by God Himself, for the Apostles received teaching not from men, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:12). In their content, they are not the fruit of the activity of natural reason, like scientific truths or philosophical statements. If philosophical, historical and scientific truths are relative and can be refined over time, then dogmas are absolute and unchangeable truths, for the word of God is truth (John 17:17) and abides forever (1 Pet. 1:25).

Churchness dogmas indicates that only the Ecumenical Church at its Councils gives the Christian truths of faith dogmatic authority and meaning. This does not mean that the Church itself creates dogmas. She, as “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) only unmistakably establishes behind this or that truth of Revelation the meaning of the unchangeable rule of faith.

General obligation dogmas means that these dogmas reveal the essence of the Christian faith necessary for the salvation of man. Dogmas are the unshakable laws of our faith. If in the liturgical life of individual Orthodox Local Churches there is some originality, then in the dogmatic teaching there is strict unity between them. Dogmas are obligatory for all members of the Church, therefore it is patient with any sins and weaknesses of a person in the hope of his correction, but does not forgive those who stubbornly seek to muddy the purity of the apostolic teaching.

Orthodox dogmas were formulated and approved at 7 Ecumenical Councils. A brief summary of the basic truths (tenets) of the Christian faith is contained in.

Being the result of Divine Revelation, dogmas are indisputable and unchangeable definitions of the saving Christian faith.

Dogmatic definitions are not so much a disclosure of the doctrine of God as an indication of the boundaries beyond which lies the area of ​​error and heresy. In its depth, each dogma remains an incomprehensible mystery. Using dogmas, the Church limits the human mind from possible errors in the true knowledge of God.

As a rule, Orthodox dogmas were formulated only when heresies arose. Acceptance of dogmas does not mean the introduction of new truths. Dogmas always reveal the original, unified and integral teaching of the Church in relation to new issues and circumstances.

If any sin is a consequence of weakness of will, then heresy is “stubbornness of the will.” Heresy is stubborn opposition to the truth and, as blasphemy against the Spirit of Truth, is unforgivable.

Thus, dogmas are designed to help every person have an accurate, unambiguous understanding of God and his relationship with the world, and clearly understand where Christianity ends and heresy begins. Therefore, the dispute about dogmas has the most important and acute significance in Christianity, and it is precisely disagreements in the understanding of dogmas that entail the most serious and almost insurmountable splits. These are precisely the disagreements between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestant churches, which are more or less united on many issues, but on some they absolutely contradict each other, and this contradiction cannot be overcome by diplomatic compromise, because they are not arguing about tastes or politics, but about the Truth itself, as it really is.

But knowledge of God alone is not enough for a believer: prayerful communication with him is also necessary, life in God is necessary, and for this we need not only rules of thinking, but rules of behavior, that is, what are called canons.

Canons of the Orthodox Church

Church canons - these are the basic church rules that determine the order of life of the Orthodox Church (its internal structure, discipline, private aspects of the life of Christians). Those. Unlike the dogmas in which the doctrine of the Church is formulated, the canons define the norms of church life.

Asking why the Church needs canons can be done with the same success as asking why the state needs laws. The canons are the rules by which members of the Church must serve God and organize their lives in such a way as to constantly maintain this state of service, this life in God.

Like any rules, the canons are not intended to complicate the life of a Christian, but, on the contrary, to help him navigate the complex reality of the Church and in life in general. If there were no canons, then church life would be complete chaos, and in general the very existence of the Church as a single organization on earth would be impossible.

The canons are the same for all Orthodox people in all countries , approved at the Ecumenical and Local Councils and cannot be canceled . Those. the authority of the sacred canons is eternal and unconditional . The canons are the indisputable law that determines the structure and governance of the Church.

Canons of the Church They represent a model for every believer, on the basis of which he must build his life or check the correctness of his actions and actions. Anyone who moves away from them moves away from correctness, from perfection, from righteousness and holiness.

The schism on canonical issues in the Church is just as fundamental as on dogmatic issues, but it is easier to overcome because it concerns not so much the worldview - what we believe in , how much of our behavior - how we believe . Most schisms on canonical issues concern the topic of church authority, when some group, for some reason, suddenly considers the existing church authority “illegal” and declares its complete independence from the Church, and sometimes even considers only itself the “true church”. Such was the schism with the Old Believers, such are the schisms in Ukraine today, such can be many marginal groups calling themselves “true” or “autonomous” Orthodox. Moreover, in practice, it is often much more difficult for the Orthodox Church to communicate with such schismatics than with dogmatic schisms, because people’s thirst for power and independence is very often stronger than their desire for the Truth.

Nevertheless, canons can be modified in history, retaining, however, their internal meaning . The Holy Fathers did not respect the letter of the canon, but precisely the meaning that the Church put into it, the thought that it expressed in it. For example, some canons that are not related to the essence of church life, due to changed historical conditions, sometimes lost their meaning and were abolished. In their time, both the literal meaning and instructions of the Holy Scriptures were lost. Thus, the wise teaching of St. ap. Paul about the relationship between masters and slaves lost its literal meaning with the fall of slavery, but the spiritual meaning underlying this teaching has, one might say, enduring significance and the words of the great Apostle and now can and should be a moral guide in the relationships of Christians standing at different levels of the social ladder , despite the proclaimed principles of freedom, equality and fraternity.

When attempting to apply church canons to modern circumstances, it is necessary to take into account mens legislatoris - the intention of the legislator, i.e. the meaning, historical and cultural aspects originally put into the canon.

Modern revolutionary church reformers and renovationists of various types, trying to make changes to church canons, refer to the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon in their justification. But this reference can hardly serve as a justification for the current reformers. It is enough to point out that under Nikon the continuity of the Apostolic hierarchy was not disrupted. In addition, at that time there was no encroachment on either the doctrine or moral teaching of the Church. Finally, the reforms that took place under Patriarch Nikon received the sanction of the Eastern patriarchs.

In the Russian Orthodox Church, all canons are published in "Book of Rules" .

The “Book of Rules” is a set of laws that came from the Apostles and St. Fathers of the Church - laws approved by the Councils and laid down as the basis of Christian society, as the norm of its existence.

This collection contains the rules of St. The Apostles (85 rules), the rules of the Ecumenical Councils (189 rules), the ten Local Councils (334 rules) and the rules of the thirteen saints. Fathers (173 rules). Along with these basic rules, several canonical works of John the Faster, Nicephorus the Confessor, Nicholas the Grammar, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Anastasius (134 rules) are still valid. - 762 .

In a broad sense, canons refer to all the decrees of the Church, both related to dogma and those relating to the structure of the Church, its institutions, discipline and the religious life of church society.

Theological opinion

Of course, the experience of Christianity is broader and fuller than the dogmas of the Church. After all, only the most necessary and essential for salvation is dogmatized. There is still a lot that is mysterious and unrevealed in the Holy Scriptures. This conditions the existence theological opinions .

Theological opinion is not a general church teaching, like dogma, but is the personal judgment of a particular theologian. The theological opinion must contain a truth that is at least consistent with Revelation.

Of course, any arbitrariness in theology is excluded. The criterion for the truth of this or that opinion is its agreement with the Holy Tradition, and the criterion for admissibility is not a contradiction with it. Orthodox and legitimate theological opinions and judgments should be based not on logic and rational analysis, but on direct vision and contemplation. This is achieved through the feat of prayer, through the spiritual formation of a believer...

Theological opinions are not infallible. Thus, in the writings of some Church Fathers there are often erroneous theological opinions, which nevertheless do not contradict the Holy Scriptures.

According to St. Gregory the Theologian, questions of creation, redemption, and the final destinies of man belong to the area where the theologian is given some freedom of opinion.

What canons exist in the Church? What do they regulate? Are canons needed to deprive a person of freedom or, conversely, to help him? Why is there such legal formalism in the Church at all? Is there really no way to be saved without it?

Archpriest Dmitry Pashkov, a teacher at the Department of General and Russian Church History and Canon Law at PSTGU, answered these and other questions especially for “Thomas.”

What are church canons and why are they needed?

The word “canon” is of Greek origin, and it is translated as “rule”, “norm”. Canons are generally binding rules of behavior adopted in the Church. Therefore, we can say that the canon in the Church, in its content and meaning, is the same as the law in the state.

The need for church canons is generally clear. Finding ourselves in any society, we must comply with certain rules of conduct accepted in it. So it is in the Church. Having become its member, a person must obey the norms in force within its boundaries - the canons.

You can use this analogy. When we improve our health in a hospital, we are faced with certain rules that, whether we like it or not, we must obey. And these hospital rules may at first seem unnecessary or even absurd until we try to understand them.

At the same time, there cannot be canonical formalism in the Church. Each person is individual, and therefore a confessor plays a significant role in his church life. Knowing the weaknesses and strengths of the person coming to him, the priest, relying on the canonical norm, can act quite freely. After all, we must not forget that the main body of canons was formed a very long time ago, back in the first millennium, and many canons cannot be literally applied in the present time. Therefore, the priest has a lot of room for “maneuver” (the canons themselves suggest this, leaving the priest, for example, the right to shorten or, on the contrary, extend penances), and this is very important when it comes to such a complex and extremely delicate matter as shepherding.

But is it really impossible to be saved without this formalism?

No, the point here is not in formalism itself, but in ourselves. Since even after baptism we remain imperfect, lazy, self-centered creatures, we need to be brought to some kind of pious life that corresponds to our faith.

Of course, our communication with God is not subject to normative regulation, for example, how a person prays at home: whether long or short, with or without a lamp, looking at an icon or closing his eyes, lying down or standing - this is his personal business and depends solely on how he can pray better. But if a Christian comes to a meeting of believers, to the Church, where there are already many like him and everyone has their own views, interests, some preferences, there are no specific rules that will lead all this diversity to some kind of correct uniformity , not enough.

That is, generally binding norms, canons, are needed where a society appears, where it is already necessary to prescribe certain rights and obligations to its members in order to avoid chaos and disorder in it.

In addition, the canons serve to maintain the original image of the Church, which arose on the day of Pentecost, so that it remains unchanged under any state, culture, or social formation. The Church is always and at all times the same: in the 1st century, and in the era of the Ecumenical Councils, and in late Byzantium, and in the Muscovite kingdom, and now. And the canons protect this identity of the Church with itself through all centuries.

Did Christ say anything in the Gospel about the need to follow some rules?

Of course he did. The Lord sets some standards for Christian life directly in the Gospel. For example, there are canons that regulate the sacrament of Baptism. And in the Gospel, Christ is the first to establish this norm: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen"(Matt. 28 :19–20).

Here we find the baptismal formula - “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” - which is pronounced today by the priest during the sacrament. In addition, it is said that first you need teach, and only then baptize. And this is where, for example, the practice of so-called catechetical conversations before baptism originates, when a priest or catechist must explain in detail the basics of Christian faith and piety to a person who wants to enter the Church.

In addition, the Lord Jesus Christ established monogamy as the norm (Matt. 19 :4–9). It was on the basis of His words that the Church developed its teaching on the sacrament of Marriage. However, she somewhat softened the “severity” of the Gospel, where, as is known, it is said: Whoever divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery(Mt. 19 :9). The Church, being forgiving of human weakness and understanding that not everyone can bear the burden of loneliness, allows, under certain circumstances, entering into a second and even third marriage.

However, there are other canons that are not taken directly from the New Testament. The Church, led by the Holy Spirit, acts as a successor of the Lawgiver Christ, expanding, clarifying and renewing its legal norms. At the same time, I repeat, this very detail and, in general, all the legislative activity of the Church is based on the principles given by the Savior in the Gospel.

What canons exist? And what do they regulate?

There are a lot of church canons. They can be divided into several large groups. There are, for example, canons regulating the administrative order of governing the Church. There are “disciplinary” canons that regulate the life of believers and the ministry of clergy.

There are canons of a dogmatic nature that condemn certain heresies. There are canons that regulate the territorial administration of the Church. These canons establish the powers of the highest bishops - metropolitans, patriarchs, they determine the regularity of holding Councils, and so on.

All the canons in all their diversity were formulated in the first millennium of church history, and some of them are somewhat outdated. But the Church still honors these ancient canons and studies them very carefully, because the unique era of the Ecumenical Councils is a kind of standard, a model for all subsequent centuries.

Nowadays, from these ancient norms we extract, if not direct rules of behavior, then at least their spirit, principles, in order to establish in a new form such norms that will meet the needs of today.

It is clear that if a citizen breaks the law, he will be punished for it by a court decision. What about the Church? Does it provide for punishments for violating one or another church canon?

If we talk about church law that regulates the pious life of a Christian, canonical sanctions first of all deprive the guilty person of the most important thing - communion with Christ in the sacrament of Communion. This is not a measure of retribution, not punishment in the common sense of the word, but a “therapeutic” measure aimed at curing one or another spiritual illness. However, here too there is a very important and significant caveat: the final decision regarding the application of one or another church punishment is made by the confessor or, at a higher level, by the bishop. In this case, each case is considered separately, and depending on the specific situation, one or another decision is made.

Thus, church canons are more like medicines than laws. The law operates largely formally; the legislative and executive powers must be independent.

In this sense, the law enforcer (bishop or priest) must act in the same way as a good and careful doctor. After all, a doctor will not torment his patient with new drugs if the prescribed drugs have already had a beneficial effect! But if the treatment does not bring positive results, then the doctor begins to use other drugs until the patient gets better. And if in medicine the indicator of the success of treatment is the patient’s recovery, then for the bishop and confessor such evidence will be the sincere repentance of the believer.

This, in fact, is why church sanctions exist: to set a person up for repentance and correction, to help him in spiritual growth, so that a believer who has fallen under penance experiences an internal upheaval and repents. So that he realizes that the sin he committed deprives him of communication with God and tries to restore it again.

Are the church canons recorded somewhere? Are there any collections in which they are classified and presented?

Certainly. The Church began to codify its law at the end of the 4th century. It was in this era, after the end of the persecution of Christians, that a huge number of canons appeared, which needed to be somehow systematized and streamlined. This is how the first canonical collections appeared. Some of them were organized chronologically, others thematically, according to the subjects of legal regulation. In the 6th century, original collections of mixed content appeared, the so-called “nomocanons” (from the Greek words “nomos” - imperial law, “canon” - church rule). It included both the canons adopted by the Church and the laws of the emperors concerning the Church.

There are also so-called apostolic rules. They have no direct relation to the disciples of Christ themselves and most likely received this name because of their special significance and authority. These canons arose on the territory of Syria in the 4th century.

The most famous collection of ancient canons is called the “Book of Rules.” It included the “apostolic” rules, and the canons adopted at the Ecumenical Councils, and the canons of some Local Councils, and the authoritative opinions of the holy fathers on various problems of church life.

Does a layman need to know the norms of church law?

I think it is necessary. Knowledge of the canons helps to understand what rights and responsibilities he has. In addition, church canons are also very useful in everyday life.

For example, the life of a newborn baby hangs by a thread and he urgently needs to be baptized. Can the mother herself do this in the maternity hospital, and if she can (and in fact this is so), how can she do it correctly so that the sacrament of Baptism actually takes place? Or you were invited to become a godfather. What does this mean from a canonical point of view, what responsibilities do you have? Many complex issues are associated with the sacrament of Marriage. For example, is it possible, from a canonical point of view, to marry a non-Orthodox person?

What, then, should a layman read? Where can he learn about his rights and responsibilities in the Church?

In recent years, the excellent course of lectures on canon law by Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin has been republished several times. If we talk about familiarizing ourselves with the sources, we should start by studying the “Book of Rules” already mentioned above. Modern normative acts of our Local Church (for example, its Charter and various private provisions) are published on its official website patriarchia.ru, and five years ago the Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate began publishing a multi-volume collection of documents of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Prayer chants have always been the main and most important works of Orthodox church hymnography. From the very beginning of Christianity, the canons were written exclusively by the holy fathers, who always stood and will stand above ordinary laity in their spirituality. But it is noteworthy that these works are not always understandable to the average person, because they are imbued with special insight and theology.

However, as it is written in church laws, “every breath praises the Lord.” That is why in the 6th century, liturgical leaders began to use in their practice works that were more easily perceived by ordinary people - these were akathists. And in order to understand whether it is better to read the canon or akathist, we suggest looking into the depths of Christian history.

What are canon and akathist

Few believers online or people who are just entering the service of the Lord often ask the question: what is an akathist and a canon?

Akathist is one of the types of hymnography in church service, which contains praises of holidays, saints, the Most Holy Theotokos and, of course, the Lord. They begin with the word “Rejoice.” Most often, it also glorifies New Testament traditions.

A canon is also one of the types of hymnography in church services, which is the main work reflecting a holiday or saint. They often intertwine New Testament and Old Testament events.

What does canon mean? Comparison with Akathist

These prayers were composed according to certain rules. For example, a canon often consists of 9 songs that begin with an irmos and end with a katavasiya. But there are also works with only eight songs. True believers know that the penitential canon of Andrew of Crete is one of these.

The main difference between the two works is that the canons were written exclusively by the holy fathers, but some akathists were written by simple lay people. Nevertheless, these works became widespread in liturgical practice and were approved by the clergy.

What is the canon and when is it read? They are read in church all the time. Morning, Compline and Midnight services are performed with this work. Why do they read the canons? Because this is determined by the charter of the Temple or Church. They can also be performed in prayer services or read in a quiet home environment.

But akathists have never been included in the daily liturgical circle. It can only be read during the fifth week of Lent. They read it as a praise to the Blessed Virgin Mary. However, they have earned their place in the prayer services. And believers read them more often at home, because they are lighter, more understandable and easier to remember.

In the old days, the works of the holy fathers were always sung in full. Today this rule is being missed. Often only the troparia are read. They can also sing Irmos to a melody that corresponds to the current week. The choice of melody also affects the voice. There are only eight of them and they constantly alternate. Akathists are not subject to the voice.

Another difference between these works is that the canons are performed throughout the year, and akathists are often performed only during Lent. During the period of Great Lent, these prayers are not read on Sundays. However, the work exactly corresponds to the calm and quiet mood of mundane everyday life.

What is the difference between a canon and an akathist?

• The Akathist celebrates later liturgical events, which include the New Testament. The work of the holy fathers is more focused on the Old Testament period, although some events are intertwined;
• The believer chooses an akathist independently and at his own discretion. A chant is a work determined by the charter;
• The akathist has an introduction, but the second one has a simple beginning;
• The akathist constantly contains the word “Rejoice”;
• The canon is performed in the church constantly, almost daily. The second is obligatory only when praising the Mother of God, which is read once a year. All the rest are used in home prayers or during prayer services in churches;
• The akathist is simple in structure and understanding, easier to understand;

What is canon in fan fiction?

Fan fiction is a literary work written based on a canon in which the author became interested. The writer of such a work does not invent a world or characters, but uses ready-made images for his work.