The meaning of Rule IV of the Ecumenical Council in the Orthodox encyclopedia tree. Political reasons for convening
/p>The history of the 28th rule of the IV (Chalcedonian) Ecumenical Council should begin to be considered at least from 381, when the third rule of the II (Constantinople) Ecumenical Council established the status of the Church of Constantinople as second after the Church of Rome:
Let the bishop of Constantinople have the advantage of honor over the bishop of Rome, because that city is the new Rome.
This canon, on the one hand, confirmed the increased status of the Church of Constantinople among other Churches, which was due to the political role of Constantinople as the capital of the empire. According to the remark of Archbishop. Peter Lhuillier, such an increase in the status of the Church of Constantinople became “the transposition of the political situation of Constantinople onto the ecclesiastical plan.” On the other hand, the canon, although silently, very clearly indicated that in addition to the “advantage of honor” due to political situation capital, the Church of Constantinople had no other assets, and primarily dependent areas. Indeed, the silence about such areas in connection with the Church of Constantinople looks more than strange against the background of the previous - second rule, which stipulates in detail which areas are which ancient Church belong to:
Let the Bishop of Alexandria govern the Churches only of Egypt; let the eastern bishops rule only in the east, while maintaining the advantages of the Antiochian Church, recognized by the rules of Nicaea; also let the bishops of the region of Asia rule only in Asia; let the bishops of Pontus have jurisdiction only over the affairs of the Pontic region; Thracian only Thrace...
The situation, when the Church of Constantinople - the only one of the ancient Churches - remained without dependent territories, began to gradually change after 381. This was greatly facilitated by the weakness of church power in the regions neighboring Constantinople: Thracian, Pontic and partly Asian. Unrest within the various ecclesiastical regions of Asia Minor forced the Archbishop of Constantinople Nektarios (381-397) to take an active part in resolving their internal conflicts. Moreover, each time the initiative came not from himself, but from the outside. For the first time, in 383, St. Gregory the Theologian turned to Nektarios with a request to intervene in the situation in Cappadocia and support the local bishop of Vosporius. Gregory, as researchers note, turned to Nektarios not because he believed that the latter’s power extended to Cappadocia, but because he saw the need to intervene in the conflict of imperial power, and the best mediator for this was Nektarios, as the bishop closest to the court. In another case, mentioned by Sozomen, it was necessary to intervene in the affairs of the Nicomedia Metropolis. And finally, for the third time, Nektarios had to take part in resolving a controversial issue that arose in the Vostra diocese of the Arabian Metropolis.
The Church of Constantinople significantly expanded its influence under St. John Chrysostom. As Dagron notes, “with John Chrysostom, the imperial city became the center of high church diplomacy.” It also became an important missionary center, particularly among the Goths. In addition, cases of mediation by the Bishop of Constantinople in resolving conflict situations in other dioceses have become more frequent - now on Constantinople’s own initiative. The most famous case is when St. John Chrysostom participated in the investigation of accusations against the Ephesian Metropolitan Antoninus, and after the death of the latter, in the election of new bishops of the region and a new metropolitan. For this purpose, he specially came to Ephesus, where he spent about 4 months. Along the way, he also removed - mainly on charges of simony - a number of bishops in other regions: Lycia, Phrygia, as well as Metropolitan Gerontius of Nicomedia.
After St. John Constantinople continued to play an active role in the life of other dioceses - mainly neighboring ones. So Atticus (406-425) ordained bishops for the capital of Thrace, Philippopolis, and for Nicaea, which was part of Bithynia. His successor Sisinnius (426-427) tried to install Cyzicus Proclus, the future Patriarch of Constantinople, as bishop, but was unsuccessful, since the local residents did not accept his intervention in the affairs of their diocese. In this case, the instability of the influence of the bishops of Constantinople on the affairs of other dioceses was revealed - not being enshrined in law, it led to a conflict of interests.
Under Patriarch Nestorius, the expansion of the influence of the Church of Constantinople acquired a new dimension - doctrinal. Nestorius undertook to propagate his interpretation of church teaching - heretical, as it turned out - both among his flock in Constantinople and in other regions: Asia, Lydia and Caria. His example was followed by another Patriarch, Proclus (434-446), who set about restoring anti-Nestorian Orthodoxy on the territory of Armenia (on this occasion his famous Tomos to the Armenians, which became one of the most important Christological documents of the 5th century), eastern Illyricum, which in civil terms depended on Constantinople, and in ecclesiastical terms on Rome, and even Antioch. Proclus continued to be active in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace. Thus, he pronounced an acquittal in the trial of the bishop of Smyrna, and also ordained a bishop for Ancyra. Under Proclus, the dependence of the Churches of Ephesus and Caesarea of Cappadocia on Constantinople strengthened. For the first, he ordained Bishop Basil, and for the second, he contributed to the election of Bishop Thalassius.
In the 2nd right. of the Council of Chalcedon, as in a number of other rules, in particular in Ap. 29, in the canonical epistles of Saints Gennady and Tarasius of K-Pol, simony is condemned. The reason for issuing this rule was a complaint against Bishop. Edessa Willow, submitted at the 9th and 10th sessions of the Council. The rule reads: “If a bishop performs ordination for money, and converts unsellable grace into sale, and for money ordains a bishop, or a chorebishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or someone else from among the clergy, or makes an icon for money, or ekdika, or paramonaria, or in general to any church position, for the sake of his vile profit: such... let him be subject to deprivation of his own degree...” The rule distinguishes between the degrees of the sacred and government hierarchy (it mentions bishops, chorebishops , elders and deacons), on the one hand, and church positions, on the other: these are the positions of steward, ecdica and paramonaria named in the rule. The 26th rights are dedicated specifically to one of these positions, namely the economist. Council, in which the absence of an appropriate official in the diocese is considered an abuse. The Council imposes on the steward the responsibility to dispose of church property “according to the will of his bishop: so that the church’s economy is not without witnesses, so that its property is not wasted as a result, and so that no criticism falls on the priesthood.”
In the 2nd right. monks are mentioned, here as in later Truls. 81, VII Omni. 5, 9, 13, they are on the same level with the laity, and not with the clergy: “...if anyone appears to those in the middle in such vile and lawless bribery: then this one, even if he is from the clergy, let him be cast out from his degree: whether a layman or a monastic, let him be anathematized.” But there is much in common between clergy and monks (even those not ordained to the priesthood), since the goal of both is to serve the Church. Monastic vows are given for life. Therefore, the unauthorized revocation of monastic vows and return to the world is considered a serious canonical crime. Those who renounce the monastic order are subject to punishment, just as clerics are punished for arbitrarily deposing themselves from the clergy. 7th rights The Council reads: “For those who have once been promoted to the clergy and monks, we have determined not to enter either military service or secular rank: otherwise those who dare to do this and do not return with repentance to what they had previously chosen for God shall be anathematized,” which, according to the interpretation of ep. Nicodemus (Milasha), denotes abandonment of church service in the first case and monastic vows in the second ( Nicodemus [Milash], bishop. Rules. T. 1. pp. 345-347).
Church-wide legislation affected Mont-Rei only in the 5th century. Only at the Council of Chalcedon did monks and mon-ri become for the first time the subject of canonical regulation at the level of Ecumenical Councils. The 4th rights are specifically devoted to this topic. Council, which reads: “Let those who truly and sincerely pursue monastic life receive decent honor. But since some, using monastic clothing for the sake of appearance, are destroying churches and civil affairs, walking arbitrarily through cities, and even attempting to establish monasteries for themselves, it was decided that no one should build or found a monastery or house of prayer anywhere, without permission of the bishop of the city. Let the monastics, in every city and country, be subordinate to the bishop, observe silence, adhere only to fasting and prayer, constantly staying in those places in which they have renounced the world, and not interfere in either church or everyday affairs , and let them not accept participation in them, leaving their monasteries: unless this is allowed by the bishop of the city, for necessary reasons. ...We have determined that anyone who transgresses this decree must be a stranger to church communion, so that the name of God may not be blasphemed. However, the bishop of the city must take proper care of the monasteries.” Apparently, the fathers of the Council set as their goal to protect church administration from the disorderly interference of monks. Monastic communities, according to the above rule, must remain in complete subordination to the bishops and be subject to his supervision and judgment.
The property of the monastery must, according to the rules, remain in the monastery forever. 24th rights. threatens with grave punishments anyone who dares to cause damage to the monastic property: “Once consecrated, by the will of the bishop, monasteries remain monasteries forever: preserve the things belonging to them, and henceforth not be worldly dwellings. Those who allow this to happen are subject to punishment according to the rules.”
In 16th right. we are also talking about monks and “virgins who dedicated themselves to the Lord God,” that is, essentially nuns, although they have not yet been named so by the fathers of the Council. In accordance with this rule, a monk or “virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God” who enters into marriage is subject to deprivation of church communion. The rule, however, gives bishops the right to “exert such philanthropy.” After the Council of Chalcedon, a monastic who dared to marry, upon separation from marital cohabitation, was subject to a forced return to the monastery. Marriage after taking monastic vows is also prohibited by Trul rules. 44, Double 5, Vasil. 18 and 19.
Thus, on the basis of a number of rules of the Council of Chalcedon, mon-ri are transformed from a private society into a church institution.
Following the 2nd right, condemning simony, the fathers of the Council adopted the 3rd right, in which, under the threat of church punishment, bishops, clergy and monks, out of love of money, are prohibited from taking care of other people’s property, engaging in tax farming and generally “entering at the disposal of worldly affairs." An exception is made only for cases related to the care of minors, orphans and widows, as well as for petitions in cases related to the protection of church property, and taken on not arbitrarily, but on behalf of their bishop.
In the 6th right. one of the most important principles for the installation of elders and deacons was formulated - the prohibition of absolute ordination not related to appointment to a specific place of service. “Concerning those ordained without a precise appointment, the Holy Council determined: their ordination should be considered invalid, and nowhere should they be allowed to serve, to the shame of the one who ordained them.”
Contrary to the clear meaning of this rule in Catholicism. For the Church, absolute ordinations (ordinationes absolutes) have become the norm for the ordination of presbyters and deacons, and in relation to bishops, the analogy of absolute ordination is the ordination of a bishop in a diocese, of which there are none and which are only to be formed into non-Christians. countries. At the same time, the titles of cities where they existed in the past, but later, are very widely used. Episcopal sees disappeared along with Christ. communities, for example cities of the ancient African Church.
15th rights. concerns the installation of deaconesses. It sets the age limit for their placement at 40 years. This rule also provides for a grave punishment for a deaconess who has entered into marriage - anathema to both her and the person who married her. Such punishment is clear evidence that the deaconesses were not among the clergy, since the punishment for clergy was not excommunication, but defrocking. With the disappearance of the rank of deaconesses, the rule naturally ceased to be applied in its literal sense. But it contains a certain ecclesiological principle, which has not lost its practical significance in connection with the disappearance of the institution in question. For example, it can serve as a starting point in the reasoning of the church authorities about establishing an age limit for the appointment of women to the ranks. church positions.
A number of rules of the Council are devoted to the discipline of clergy, monks and laity. In the 5th right. the previously published rules regarding the transfer of bishops and clergy from one city to another are confirmed (I Om. 15, 16). In accordance with the 8th law. Cathedral clergy serving “at almshouses, monasteries and churches of martyrdom,” that is, those built in memory of martyrs, sometimes directly on their graves or on their relics, just like cathedral and parish clergy, must, under the threat of church sanction, “remain under the authority of bishops.” . This rule also states that both laity and monastics who dare to disobey their bishops are subject to “excommunication from church communion” for this. 10th right. The Council prohibited clergy from simultaneously “being registered in the churches of two cities”: since in the era of the Ecumenical Councils each city had its own separate bishop, the rule excluded subordination to two bishops. This rule also applies in a broader sense, as it prohibits the state of 2 churches in at least one city and, therefore, one diocese. If a cleric moves from one church to another, he, according to this rule, must be completely removed from participation in the affairs of the church in which he previously served.
In the 20th right. Council, the movement of a cleric from one city to another and, therefore, from the authority of one bishop to the jurisdiction of another is allowed only in the case when the cleric “lost his fatherland.” By “deprivation of the fatherland,” according to the generally accepted interpretation, is meant the capture of the city in which the cleric served by the enemy. If a bishop, accepting a foreign clergyman, neglects this instruction, then both he himself and the clergyman he has accepted must be outside of “ecclesiastical communion,” “until the transferred cleric returns to his church.”
In the 23rd right. The Council prohibited clergy and monastics from coming “to the reigning city of Constantinople” without orders from their bishops and staying there for a long time without need. For those, according to this rule, the ekdik of the K-Polish Church was supposed to remind them of the need to leave the capital, and if they neglected this reminder, they were subject to forced expulsion from K-Pole and return to their diocese.
13th rights. Council, repeating the norm contained in Ap. 12, prohibits the admission of other diocesan clergy to serve in churches without their presentation of representative letters from their bishop. For the laity, who due to poverty are forced to beg, the fathers of the Council in the 11th are right. provided for the issuance of not representative letters, but simple “church letters”. According to the interpretation of Bishop. Nicodemus (Milasha), by “church letters” here we mean one of the types of “peace letters”, which, in accordance with Antiochus. 7 were issued by bishops or chorebishops “to certify that the person is really poor, needs support, and is therefore recommended to the attention of fellow believers” ( Nicodemus [Milash], bishop. Rules. T. 1. P. 361).
In 18th right. clergy and monastics, under the threat of “overthrow from their rank,” are prohibited from “binding each other with an oath,” “forming crowds,” and also “building feats against bishops or their fellow clergy.” According to the interpretation of Bishop. Nicodemus (Milasha), “just like civil legislation punishes conspirators against state interests, church legislation punishes persons subordinate to it when they are convicted of conspiring or plotting against their superiors and, in general, persons in church service” (Ibid. T. 1. P. 376).
In accordance with the 22nd rights. The cathedral also subject to defrocking are clerics who, after the death of their bishop, plunder the property that belonged to him.
27th rights. provides for clerics to be defrocked, and for laymen to be anathematized if they “kidnap wives for marriage or assist” in this, or at least “deign to the kidnappers,” that is, express their consent to the act, which is a criminal offense according to Byzantium. legislation, and a grave sin, since it tramples the most important condition Christ marriage - voluntary consent on the part of the bride.
A number of the rules of the Council relate to topics related to the jurisdiction of metropolitans and exarchs and the relationship between Local Churches. So, 12th right. The Council of Chalcedon prohibits the formation of new church regions headed by metropolitans, in other words, in modern times. terminology, new local Churches or metropolitan districts, by dividing one region into 2 based on imp. “pragmatic letters” without the sanction of the church conciliar authority itself. At the same time, regarding the already established metropolitan thrones, the Council in this rule decided that the bishops occupying them “shall be content with one honor,” that is, they retain their rank, but do not have the power corresponding to the powers of the metropolitan, in other words, so that their jurisdiction does not go beyond their own bishopric (dioceses in our sense of the word - the corresponding Greek word then meant precisely the metropolitan district), which should, therefore, remain under the jurisdiction of the actual metropolitan of the entire region, within those boundaries that existed before "dissection" of this area.
The reason for issuing this rule was the dispute between the bishops Photius of Tire and Eustathius of Berita, as well as between Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea about jurisdiction (see: Nicodemus [Milash], bishop. Rules.T. 1. P. 363). This rule, therefore, confirmed the jurisdiction of the bishops of Tire and Nicomedia as actual metropolitans, and only the right to bear the title of metropolitan was recognized for the bishops of Berita and Nicaea. In this rule, according to the interpretation of Bishop. Nicodemus (Milash), also contains a prohibition for bishops “to turn to the royal authority and from it to ask and receive metropolitan rights to the detriment of the legitimate metropolitan, threatening with eruption one of the bishops who would dare to violate this definition” (Ibid. P. 363).
19th right. The Council confirms the ancient norm contained in a number of rules, in particular in Ap. 37, on convening regional Councils at least 2 times a year, the obligation to convene councils is assigned to metropolitans, they are given the right to preside over them. The duties of bishops in accordance with this rule include appearing at the invitation of the first bishop to the Council, and “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, say in brotherly love a word of reprimand."
25th rights. instructs metropolitans, no later than 3 months after the vacancy of the episcopal see, to convene an electoral council to elect a new bishop to the dowager throne, allowing delay only in case of “inevitable need”, threatening otherwise with church penance, the specific form of which is not indicated in the rule. By this rule, the management of the income of the Dowager Church or the duty of storing it is assigned to the steward.
The 28th rights received exceptionally important significance in the history of the Church. Council: “... the same thing we determine and decree about the advantages of the Holy Church of the same Constantinople, the new Rome,” this rule says after a reference to II Ecumenical. 3.- For the fathers decently gave advantages to the throne of ancient Rome: since it was the reigning city. Following the same impulse, the 150 most God-loving bishops granted equal advantages to the most holy see of the new Rome, righteously judging that the city that had received the honor of being the city of the king and siglit, and having equal advantages with the old royal Rome, would be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs likewise, and there would be a second according to him..."
The Council of Chalcedon included in the jurisdiction of the K-Polish bishop, in addition to the Thracian diocese, on the territory of which the capital of the empire was located, as well as the Asian and Pontic dioceses, thereby giving a high place to the K-Polish see in the diptych of Churches, on which it was placed 3 more -m right. II Ecumenical Council, real adm. content. In turn, the emergence of the dioceses themselves, or “great regions,” is associated with the development of administration. divisions of the Roman Empire, for the process of ecclesiastical centralization was aimed at bringing the ecclesiastical organization into conformity with that new adm. division, which developed in the 4th century. (see art. Byzantine Empire, section “Administrative structure”). Just as the division of the empire into provinces served as the basis for the formation of metropolitan regions, the introduction of a diocesan organization of civil administration led to the unification of metropolises into larger church regions, the first bishops of which began to be called exarchs, and even more often archbishops. Exarchates, or great regions, turned out to be unstable formations; the process of consolidation of local Churches did not end at this stage. By including 3 Exarchates in the jurisdiction of the K-Polish Council, the Council of Chalcedon created an ecclesiastical region, which soon became known as the K-Polish Patriarchate. In church sources, the word “patriarch” in relation to bishops has been used since the end. IV century, initially, however, without an unambiguous fixed meaning. The first known official. The document in which the word “patriarch” is used as the highest hierarchical title is the Constitution of the Emperor. Zenon from 477. In the rules, the title of patriarch appears a century later, for the first time in the 7th rights. Trullo Cathedral.
In 28th right. there is also a mention of bishops “among foreigners”: “...only the metropolitans of the regions of Pontus, Asia and Thracia, and also the bishops of foreigners of the above-mentioned regions, may be appointed from the above-mentioned most holy throne of the Most Holy Church of Constantinople...” Here we are talking about Christ . communities led by bishops located outside the empire in territories adjacent to the Thracian or Pontic dioceses - the Asian diocese did not come into contact with the external borders of the empire.
In Byzantium, the canonical basis for the dependence of the Russian Church on the Polish Patriarchate was found in the 28th law. Council of Chalcedon, but from the viewpoint Geography, it is impossible to consider Russians as foreigners of Thrace, that is, barbarians, whose land is adjacent to this diocese. In fact, the basis for the jurisdiction of the K-field over the Russian Church was a completely different circumstance - the fact that the K-field Church was the Mother of the Russian Metropolis born from it. Mention in 28 rights. “bishops among foreigners” in the twentieth century. served as a reason for the K-Polish Patriarchate to put forward a unique doctrine of its exclusive rights in the diaspora. So, on May 30, 1931, K-Polish Patriarch Photius II, proving the right to subjugate the Serbs. dioceses located outside of Yugoslavia, wrote to Patriarch Barnabas of Serbia: “All Orthodox church communities and colonies located in the diaspora and outside the borders of the Orthodox autocephalous Churches of any nationality must, in ecclesiastical terms, be subordinated to the Holy Patriarchal Throne” (quoted from : ZhMP. 1947. No. 11. P. 35). In support of this strange doctrine, the K-Polish Patriarch refers to the 28th rights. Council of Chalcedon, in which the limits of the jurisdiction of the throne of New Rome were fixed. What relation do Orthodox Christians have? communities of the West Europe to “foreigners of the above-mentioned regions” can hardly be explained. Behind all this there is an obvious canonical and geographical incongruity.
28th right. The Council of Chalcedon, as is known, was not recognized by the Pope of St. Leo the Great, nevertheless, this rule entered the canonical corps in an era when Rome had not yet fallen out of the universal unity of the Church, and Rome was forced to come to terms with this, which certainly proves that at that time it had no claims to universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction and to unlimited legislative power in the Universal Church, which appeared later, already in the 2nd millennium A.D.
From 28th right. Two others are meaningfully connected: the 9th and the 17th, in which the title of exarchs as hierarchs distinct from metropolitans is also mentioned. According to the 9th Law, the head of the local Church (metropolitan and exarch) has the right to receive complaints against bishops and order appropriate investigations. This rule says: “...if a bishop or cleric has displeasure against the metropolitan of a region: let him appeal either to the exarch of the great region, or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople...”, and the 17th right: “... If anyone is offended by his metropolitan, let him be tried before the exarch of the great region, or before the throne of Constantinople...” In the era of the great Byzantines. canonists (12th century), the original meaning of the church title of exarch was completely forgotten. John Zonara is right in his interpretation of the 17th. The Council wrote: “Some call patriarchs exarchs of districts... And others say that metropolitans of regions are called exarchs, and cite the 6th rights as a certificate. Council of Sardica... And it would be better,” he summarizes, “to consider the metropolitans of the regions as exarchs.” But the text of the 9th and 17th rules does not allow them to be considered metropolitans. Undoubtedly, Theodore IV Balsamon was right, who interpreted the 9th rights. wrote: “The exarch of a district is not, as it seems to me, the metropolitan of each region, but the metropolitan of the whole district. And the district includes many areas.” From the interpretation of Theodore Balsamon it is clear that in his time the meaning of the title of exarch changed and in the new meaning it no longer gave the key to the solution to the ancient exarchship: “This advantage of the exarch,” continues Theodore Balsamon, “now has no effect; for although some of the metropolitans are called exarchs, they do not have other metropolitans subordinate to them who are in the districts. So, probably in those days there were some other exarchs of the districts.” The exarchs, who are mentioned in the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon, were the first bishops of church dioceses - larger church formations than the metropolitan district.
These 2 rules, like the 28th, are used to substantiate the claims of the K-Polish Patriarchate to exclusive rights in the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, since they mention the possibility of appealing to the K-Polish department. The tendentious interpretation of these rules forms the basis of the argumentation of the famous canonist Metropolitan. Maxime of Sardes, the author of the work in which the universal power of the K-Polish patriarchs is defended (Maxime, metr. de Sardes. Le Patriarchat oecuménique dans l"Église Orthodoxe). Meanwhile, a careful analysis of the historical context, as well as the content of these rules, allows us to make the only conclusion: they are not talking about the right of all clergy and bishops in general to file appeals against their metropolitans, but only about the clergy and bishops of the 3 dioceses mentioned in the rules, which made up the church region, soon called the K-Polish Patriarchate. John Zonara in the interpretation on 17- e right of the Council of Chalcedon noted: “But the Polish Patriarch is not appointed a judge over all metropolitans without exception, but only over those subordinate to him." Metropolitan Maximus himself does not find it possible to extend this rule to the Western Patriarchate. This would be too absurd in view of the actual correlation of the ranks of honor of the first 5 bishops of the era of the Council of Chalcedon, i.e., he does not apply this rule to the clergy of the Roman Church, but only to the clergy of the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cyprus. The 9th and 17th Rules of the Council do not contain any basis for such a peculiarly profiled drawing of the border.
9th right The Council also concludes with the provision that even civil litigation between clergy, that is, when the plaintiff and defendant are clergy, are subject exclusively to ecclesiastical court: “If a clergyman has a court case with a clergyman: let him not leave his bishop, and does not run over to secular courts. But first, let him take his case before his bishop, or, by the consent of the same bishop, let those chosen by both parties form a court. And whoever acts contrary to this: shall be subject to punishment according to the rules. If a cleric has a legal matter with his own bishop, or with another bishop: let him be tried in the regional council...”
17th rights. prohibits bishops from appropriating parishes belonging to another diocese: “In each diocese, in villages or suburbs, existing parishes must invariably remain under the authority of the bishops in charge of them...” Interpreting this rule, Theodore Balsamon wrote: “Some argued that here the rule does not speak about parishes, but about other rights belonging to the bishopric of each region. But this is not true, as can be seen from the end of the canon, which says that in cities that the king has rebuilt or will establish, he can establish whatever he wants regarding episcopal rights...” A dispute about the boundaries of a parish can arise in the case where there are no corresponding written documents. However, in accordance with this rule, the 30-year statute of limitations for the existence of borders is recognized as a sufficient basis for recognizing their legality and, without the presence of documents, confirms the rights of arrival to a particular territory.
Theme 21st rights. The Council, like the 9th and 17th, is associated with the church court. It provides that in the event of a denunciation by a clergy or layman against his bishop, such denunciation should be accepted for judicial investigation after a preliminary examination of the denunciator’s reputation, which may shed light on the motives that prompted him to make a denunciation, that is, to make an accusation or complaint.
In the 29th right. The Council contains a categorical prohibition to demote a bishop to the rank of presbyter. In the case of proven guilt, the rule provides for completely depriving him of the priesthood, and if he was convicted unjustly, that is, if his innocence is proven, the episcopal degree should be returned to the injured bishop. This principle also applies to other clergy and ecclesiastical degrees. Deprivation of a degree in all cases does not imply relegation to a lower degree, but complete exclusion from the ranks of clergy, clergy and clergy, however, with the preservation in some cases of the right to occupy church positions available to persons without holy orders - laymen.
14th right. The Council concerns the relationship between the Orthodox Church. Churches with schismatics, heretics and infidels - Jews and pagans. Based on the fact that in some Churches it was allowed for readers and singers to marry after initiation (at the present time, this practice continues in our country for readers, and the degree of singers is no longer awarded at all), this rule resolutely prohibits marrying non-believers and all apostates in general from the Catholic Church, threatening with penance. The only exceptions are those cases when “a person who is married to an Orthodox person promises to convert to the Orthodox faith.” According to the interpretation of Bishop. It punishes Nikodim (Milash), violators of the prohibition contained in this rule - “deposition from their service” (Rules. T. 1. P. 367).
Final, 30th rights. The Council is not normative, but private in nature. It grants the bishops of the Egyptian diocese a delay in affixing their signature as a sign of agreement with the Christological oros of the Bishop of Rome, St. Leo the Great. This postponement was motivated by the fact that the first bishop of the diocese, Archbishop. Dioscorus of Alexandria was deposed and anathematized by the Council. Therefore, the postponement was appointed for the time until the election of a new primate of the Alexandrian Church. In fact, the Council of Chalcedon was followed by division in the diocese of Alexandria, most of the bishops, clergy and laity of which eventually fell into Monophysitism.
Lit.: Alexy I (Simansky), Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'. Message... to the Right Reverend Archpastors, God-loving Shepherds, Honest Monastics and Faithful Children of the Russian Orthodox Church [on the occasion of the 1500th Anniversary of the IV Ecumenical Council] // VrZePE. 1951. No. 7/8. pp. 3-5; Kartashev A.V. 1500th anniversary of the IV Ecumenical Council // PM. 1953. Issue. 9. P. 65-95; Sellers R. V. The Council of Chalcedon. L., 1953; Trinity S.V. Council of Chalcedon and Eastern papism // VrZePE. 1959. No. 32. P. 255-268; Χρύσος Ε. ῾Η διάταξις τῶν συνεδριῶν τῆς ἐν Χαλκηδόνι οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου // Κληρονομία. 1971. T. 3. Σ. 262-266; Maxime, metrop. des Sardes. Le Patriarchat oecuménique dans l "Église Orthodoxe. P., 1975; Halleux A. de. La définition christologique à Chalcédoine // RTL. 1976. Vol. 7. P. 3-23; 155-170; Grillmeier A. Mit ihm und in ihm: Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven. Freiburg i. Br., 19782; Grillmeier A., Bacht H. Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart. Würzburg, 19795; Wickham L. R. Chalkedon // TRE. Bd. 7. S. 668 -675; Winkelmann F. Die östliche Kirchen in der Epoche der christologischen Auseinandersetzungen (5. bis 7. Jh.). B., 19883; Breck J. Reflections on the “Problem” of Chalcedonian Christology // SVTQ. 1989. Vol. 33. P. 147-157; Chalkedon: Geschichte und Aktualität / Hrsg. J. Van Oort, J. Roldanus. Leuven, 1997. (For general bibliography, see article Ecumenical Council.)
Prot. Vladislav Tsypin
Political reasons for convening
According to the emperor's edict, the bishops first gathered in Nicaea, but were soon summoned to Chalcedon, closer to the capital, where the emperor had the opportunity to attend conciliar meetings; The meetings themselves were led by imperial officials: the commander-in-chief (lat. magister militum) Anatolius, prefect of the praetorian of the East Palladius and prefect of Constantinople (lat. praefectus urbis) Tatian.
The convening of the council and the control of the emperor and the imperial administration were prompted by the desire to ensure religious unity and thus the political stability of the empire: the ongoing rivalry between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Alexandria - after the Council of Constantinople in 381 equalized the sees of Rome and Constantinople ("New Rome") "), shifting Alexandria to third place (3rd rule adopted at the council) jeopardized the unity of the empire. The idea that the unity and strength of the state depend on the correct belief in the one Trinity was repeated in his letters to the emperor by Leo I, the relevance of this thesis was confirmed by recent events in North Africa - first by the armed struggle against the Donatist schism, then by the conquest of Carthage in 429 by the Vandals , on whose side were the circumtillions of Donatists.
Literature
- IV Ecumenical Council of 451 in Chalcedon // Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils.
- Lebedev A. Monophysitism and the IV Ecumenical Council // Soulful Reading, 1875. No. 1, 3-5.
- Lebedev A. Ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. 2nd ed. Sergiev Posad, 1896.
- Ternovsky Φ. The Greek-Eastern Church during the period of the ecumenical councils. Kyiv, 1883.
- Smirnov E. History of the Christian Church. 7th ed. St. Petersburg, 1901.
see also
Links
| Ecumenical councils | |
|---|---|
| Eastern and Western churches | First Council of Nicaea | First Council of Constantinople | Ephesus Cathedral | Chalcedon Cathedral | |
After the condemnation of the heresy of Nestorius, who divided the natures in the Son of God, a new heresy appeared, preached by the Archimandrite Eutyches of Constantinople. In contrast to Nestorius, Eutyches merged two natures in the Son of God. He received support in Alexandria from Bishop Dioscorus, successor of St. Kirill. A council to judge this heresy was convened by the Emperor Marcian and the pious Empress Pulcheria in 451 in Chalcedon, in Bithynia. The number of participants was especially large - 630 bishops. Bishop Anatoly of Constantinople presided. The Roman Bishop Leo the Great was represented by two bishops Paschasinus and Lucinsius and others. The Council in its dogmatic definitions was mainly based on the definitions of St. Leo and St. Cyril of Alexandria, who, although absent, were his spiritual leaders. The Council issued 30 rules. However, in Western canonical collections only 27 rules are given, because the Roman legates objected to the 28th rule. Rome finally recognized Constantinople as second place only in connection with the union at the Council of Florence.
1. We recognized it as fair to observe the rules of the holy fathers set out to this day at each Council.
Wed. 6 All 2; 7 All 1; Karf. 1.
2. If a certain bishop performs ordination for money, and converts unsellable grace into sale, and for money ordains a bishop, or a chorebishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or someone else from the clergy, or for money makes him an steward, a eudicus (intercessor for the poor and those suffering from injustice), paramonaria (panomar, at sacred places for the protection of those who come) or in general to any church position, for the sake of his vile profit: such a one, having been convicted of having attempted this, will be subject to deprivation own degree; but let the one who has been appointed by no means enjoy the purchased ordination or position, but let him be alien to the dignity or position that he received for money. If anyone appears as a mediator in such a vile and lawless event, then he, if from the clergy, will be deposed from his position, and if he is a layman or monastic, may he be anathematized.
See explanation 29 Apost. Rules and parallel rules indicated therein.
3. It came to the attention of the Holy Council that some of those belonging to the clergy, for the sake of vile profit, take over other people's estates and arrange worldly affairs. They neglect God’s service, but wander around the homes of worldly people, and out of love of money they accept orders for property. Therefore, the holy and great Council determined that henceforth no one - neither a bishop, nor a clergyman, nor a monastic - should take possession of estates or take charge of worldly affairs - unless, according to the laws, he is called to the inevitable guardianship of minors, or the bishop of the city will entrust someone with the care of church affairs, or of orphans and helpless widows, and of persons who especially need to be provided with church help, for the fear of God. If anyone in the future dares to violate this definition, then let him be subjected to church punishment.
This rule essentially repeats the requirement of 81 Ap. rules that all the attention of clergy should be directed to serving the Church and that they should not be distracted from their direct duties by commercial enterprises. Wed. 4 Omni. 7; 7 All 10; Karf. 19; Double eleven.
4. May those who truly and sincerely undergo monastic life receive decent honors. But since some, for the sake of appearance, using monastic clothes, randomly wandering around the cities, upset churches and civil affairs, and even attempt to create their own monasteries for themselves, it was decided that no one should create or found a monastery or house of prayer anywhere without the permission of the bishop of this city. Let the monastics in every city and country be subordinate to the bishop, observe silence, adhere only to fasting and prayer, constantly staying in those places in which they have renounced the world, and not interfere in either church or everyday affairs. , and let them not take part in them, leaving their monasteries: unless this is allowed by the bishop of the city, for necessary reasons. Likewise, let no slave be accepted into monasticism in monasteries without the will of his master. We have determined that anyone who violates this decision of ours will be alien to church communion, so that the name of God will not be blasphemed. However, the bishop of the city must have proper care for the monasteries.
Some, the abuses of the Eutychian monks, who disobeyed their bishop on suspicion of him being a Nestorian, gave rise to the present rule at the suggestion of the Emperor Marcian. According to him, monastics must be subordinate to their bishop, without showing any self-rule. Wed. 6 All 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 49; 7 All 17 and 21; Double 1.
5. Regarding bishops or clergy moving from city to city, it was decided that the rules laid down by the holy fathers would remain in force.
Wed. Ap. 14 and 15 with explanation and parallel rules.
6. It is decided not to ordain anyone - neither as a presbyter, nor as a deacon, nor to any degree of church rank - except by assigning the person being ordained to a specific church: city, rural, to a martyr's temple, or to a monastery. Regarding those ordained without a precise appointment, the Holy Council determined: their ordination should be considered invalid, and they should not be allowed to serve anywhere - to the shame of the one who ordained them.
It is important to note that an ordination performed by a canonical bishop and the correct rite may be invalid if it does not comply with the rules of church order. A similar case is mentioned in Antiochus. 13. This refutes the Catholic teaching about the validity of any consecration, if only it was performed according to the correct rite and with the appropriate intention. Any illegal consecration, as violating the law of the Church, becomes a personal matter of the person performing it, and not an act representing the entire Church. For the same reason they are invalid, i.e. the sacred rites of heretics and schismatics, divorced from the grace-filled unity of the Church, are without grace. Wed. 1 All 15 and 16.
7. We have determined for those once appointed to the clergy, as well as for monks, not to enter either military service or secular rank: otherwise, those who dare to do so and do not return with repentance to what they had previously chosen for God will be anathematized.
Wed. Ap. 6 with explanation and parallel rules.
8. Let the clergy at almshouses, monasteries and martyr churches remain, according to the tradition of the holy fathers, under the authority of the bishops of each city and let them not, out of insolence, isolate themselves from the control of their bishop. And those who dare to violate this decree, in any way, and do not obey their bishop, if they are clergy: let them be punished according to the rules; if they are monastics or laymen: let them be excommunicated from church communion.
The rule refers to the “tradition of the holy fathers,” i.e. following the example of antiquity, demanding obedience to the bishop. Having first also listed the various positions of clergy, at the end the rule also indicates sanctions for monastics and laity who leave subordination to their bishop “in any way.” It is therefore very important in determining the hierarchical order in church government. Wed. 1 All 15 and 16; 4 Omni. 6 and 10.
9. If a certain cleric has a legal matter with another cleric: let him not leave his bishop and let him not run to secular courts. But first, let him take his case before his bishop or, with the consent of the same bishop, let those chosen by both parties form a court. And whoever acts contrary to this: shall be subject to punishment according to the rules. If a cleric has a legal case with his own bishop or with another bishop: let him be tried in the regional Council. If a bishop or cleric has displeasure against the metropolitan of a region: let him appeal either to the exarch of the great region, or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople, and let him be tried before him.
The Church has always disapproved of any appeal of believers in their disputes to a civil court. In particular, a court case between clergy, according to this rule, should be dealt with by the ecclesiastical court of instances. In the first instance, with the permission of the bishop, both parties can elect their own judges through arbitration. If a cleric is suing his bishop, he must turn to the court of the Metropolitan of the region, and if he is dissatisfied with the court of the Metropolitan, he can turn to the “exarch of the great region” or to the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is noteworthy that the Pope, as the highest authority, is not mentioned here. He remained so for the West. The term “exarch” means a representative of a large church region, presiding over a regional Council, i.e. first of all the Patriarch. Wed. Ap. 74; 1 All 5; 2 All 6; 4 Omni. 17; Antiochus. 14, 15 and 20; Karf. 11, 28, 117, 136.
10. A cleric is not allowed to be registered in the churches of two cities at the same time: in the one to which he was initially ordained, and in the one to which he transferred, as the greater one, out of a desire for vain glory. Those who do this should be returned to their own church, to which they were originally ordained, and let them serve only there. If someone is transferred from one church to another: let him have no participation in the former church belonging to him, as well as in the martyrdom churches dependent on it, or in almshouses, or in hospices. And those who, after the determination of this great and ecumenical Council, dare to do anything now prohibited, the Holy Council determined to be deposed from their degree.
Wed. Ap. 12 with interpretation and parallel rules.
11. We have determined that all those who are poor and in need of help, after verifying their poverty, should go only with peaceful church letters, and not with representative letters, because representative letters should only be given to persons in doubt.
A peace certificate is a certificate to a clergyman that he is trustworthy, not on trial or under investigation. It was issued to persons setting off on a journey. Letters of peace were also called letters of dismissal stating that a given cleric was allowed to move to another diocese. According to the explanation of Matthew Blastar, they were so called because when the cleric brings it to the bishop to whom he is leaving, “the bonds that bind both bishops with the world of divine love will not be broken” (A, Chapter 9). A certificate of poverty was also called a peace certificate.
The peace letter “helping those in need” is a letter of recommendation. “Do not accept anyone from outside without peaceful letters,” says the 7 rights. Antioch Council. A “representative charter” is understood by interpreters as an official certification to persons belonging to the hierarchy or clergy, who may be unknown to other bishops of other dioceses and therefore subject to doubt regarding their trustworthiness and competence. Such gramata are discussed in the thirteenth rule of the same Council of Chalcedon. Representative letters were given to clergy moving to another city. M. Blastar explains there that such charters informed either that the person in question represented his bishop, or that the persons who received them respected the sound faith, or that “an accusation or slander was brought against them, but that those who brought them (i.e. grams) turned out to be innocent" (ibid.). Wed. Ap. 15 and the parallel rules indicated there.
12. It has come to our attention that some, contrary to church decrees, resorted to the authorities, through pragmatic charters, to cut one region into two, so that because of this there were two metropolitans in one region. Therefore, the Holy Council determined that the bishop would not dare to do anything like that in the future. For the one who attempts to do this will be overthrown from his degree. The city, which, according to the royal charters, is honored with the names of the metropolis, may be content with this honor alone, as well as the bishop who governs its church, while preserving its own rights as a true metropolis.
The rule was issued regarding the discord between bishops Photius of Tire and Eustathius of Berita, as well as a dispute over jurisdiction between Eunomius of Nicomedia and Anastasius of Nicaea. It does not allow the division of the metropolitan region even by royal decree, thus protecting the rights of jurisdiction from the interference of civil authorities. The rule allows for the honorary title of Metropolitan without the power associated with it. Wed. Ap. 34; 1 All 6 and 7; 2 All 2 and 3; 3 Omni. 8; 6 All 36 and 39.
13. Strangers and unknown clergy in another city cannot serve anywhere without a representative letter from their own bishop.
Wed. Ap. 12 and 4 Omni. 11 with interpretation and parallel rules.
14. Since in some dioceses readers and singers are allowed to marry, the Holy Council decreed that none of them should be allowed to take a wife of another faith, and that those who have already given birth to children from such a marriage, and who have previously baptized them from heretics, brought them into communion with the Catholic Church: but those who did not baptize could not baptize them from heretics, nor marry them with a heretic, or a Jew, or a pagan; unless only in the case when a person combined with an Orthodox person promises to convert to the Orthodox faith. And whoever transgresses this definition of the Holy Council will be subject to penance according to the rules.
Balsamon believes that this rule was caused by the practice of some churches, contrary to 26 Ap. rule prohibiting readers and singers from marrying. Confirming their right to marry, the Ecumenical Council only sets certain requirements aimed at ensuring that their families are Orthodox. Wed. Ap. 26 and 45; 6 All 6 and 72; Laod. 10 and 31; Karf. thirty.
15. To appoint a woman to be a deaconesses, no younger than forty years old - and, moreover, after a thorough test. If, having accepted ordination and having spent some time in ministry, she enters into marriage, then she, as having offended the grace of God, may she be anathematized, and along with her the one who copulated with her.
Wed. 1 All 19; 6 All 14 and 40; Vasily Vel. 44.
16. A virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, like monastics, is not allowed to marry. If it is discovered that they have done this: let them be deprived of church communion. However, we leave it to the local bishop to have full power in showing them philanthropy.
Wed. 6 All 44 and 46; Ankir. 19; Vasily Vel. 6, 18, 19, 20 and 60.
17. Parishes in each diocese - both in villages and outside the city - must invariably remain under the authority of the bishop in charge of them - and especially if, for thirty years, they have undoubtedly had them under their jurisdiction and management. If they were not more than thirty years old, or some dispute arises about them, then let people who consider themselves offended be allowed to begin a case about it before the regional Council. If anyone is offended by his metropolitan: let him be tried before the exarch of the great region, or before the throne of Constantinople, as stated above. But if the city was built a long time ago by the royal authority, or will be built later, then the distribution of church parishes should follow the civil and zemstvo order.
The rule specifies a 30-year limitation period for determining whether parishes belong to the jurisdiction of a particular bishop. The norm that the distribution of areas of church government should be regulated by the boundaries of civil areas was adopted 6 pr. 1 Omni. Council, but it was in force much earlier. Wed. 6 All 25.
18. Forming or conspiring a crowd, as a crime, is completely prohibited by external laws: even more so, it cannot be allowed in the Church of God. If some of the clergy or monastics find themselves binding each other with an oath, forming a crowd, or creating feats either for the bishops or for their fellow priests: let them be completely cast down from their rank.
Wed. Ap. 31; 2 All 6; 6 All 34; Antiochus. 5; Karf. 10; Double 13.
19. It has come to our attention that in some areas the Councils of Bishops established by the rules will not take place, which is why many church affairs that require correction remain neglected. Therefore, the Holy Council determined, in accordance with the rules of the holy fathers, that the bishops in each region should gather together twice a year, where the bishop of the metropolis would appoint, and correct everything that arises. And for the bishops who do not come to the Council, although they are in their cities and, moreover, are in health and free from all necessary and urgent activities, it is fraternal to express censure.
For the timing of convening Councils, see the explanation to 37 Ap. and parallel rules.
20. Clergy assigned to a church are not allowed, as we have already decided, to be assigned to a church in another city, but they must be satisfied with the one in which they were originally awarded service - only with the exception of those who, having lost their fatherland, of necessity moved to another church. If, after this determination, a certain bishop accepts a clergyman belonging to another bishop, then we are destined for him to be out of church communion - both accepted and accepted - until the transferred cleric returns to his church.
This rule somewhat supplements rules 5 and 10 of the Council of Chalcedon. Important for our time is the clause about the possibility of transferring to another Church, “having lost one’s fatherland due to need.”
21. From clergy or laity who denounce bishops or clergy, do not accept denunciation simply and without investigation: but first examine public opinion about them.
Protecting peace and order in the Church from various possible intrigues and slander against the bishop, the rule requires, in accordance with 6 pr. 2 Ecumenical. Council, examining the personality of the people filing the complaint, as well as their motives. Wed. Ap. 74; 2 All 6; Karf. 8, 143 and 144.
22. After the death of their bishop, clergy are not allowed to steal things that belonged to him, as this is also prohibited by ancient rules. Those who do this are in danger of being deposed from their rank.
Wed. Ap. 40; 6 All 35; Antiochus. 24; Karf. 31 and 92.
23. It came to the ears of the Holy Council that some of the clergy and monastics, without having any instructions from their bishop, and others, even having been excommunicated by him from church communion, come to the reigning city of Constantinople, and live in it for a long time, creating turmoil, violating church structure, and even destroy the houses of some. Therefore, the Holy Council determined: firstly, through the ekdik of the holy Church of Constantinople, to remind them that they must leave the reigning city. If they shamelessly continue the same things, then through the same ekdik they will be forcibly removed from it and returned to their places.
Wed. Ap. 15; 1 All 15 and 16; 4 Omni. 5, 10 and 20; 6 All 17 and 18; Antiochus. 3 and 11; Sardik. 7 and 16; Karf. 65 and 101.
24. Monasteries, once consecrated by the decision of the bishop, remain monasteries forever; things that belong to them must be preserved and not turned into homes in the future. Those who allow this to happen are subject to punishment according to the rules.
Wed. 4 Omni. 4 and 24; 6 All 49; 7 All 13; Double 1.
25. Since some metropolitans, as we have learned, neglect the flocks entrusted to them and postpone the installation of new bishops, the Holy Council determined that the installation of bishops should be carried out within three months - unless inevitable necessity forces this period to be extended. Anyone who does not do this is subject to church penance. Meanwhile, let the income of the dowager church be preserved intact by its steward.
One of the responsibilities of the Metropolitan of the region is to take care of replacing widowed departments. He must convene a Council to elect a new bishop (Antiochus 19), approve the act of election and perform consecration (1 Om. 4). The rule talks about imposing penance in case of failure to fulfill these duties, but does not say what it should be. Balsamon answers this question like this: “I think that it will be the one that will be determined by the Council.”
26. Since, as we have learned, in some churches bishops manage church property without economists, it is decided that every church that has a bishop should have a steward from among its own clergy, who would, on the instructions of his bishop, manage church property - so that church property the house-building would not be carried out without witnesses, so that because of this her property would not be wasted, and so that no complaints would fall on the priesthood. If anyone does not do this, then let him be obedient to the Divine rules.
38 and 41 Apostle Ave. command the bishop to have authority over church property. This rule, while confirming that the management of this property should be in the hands of bishops, indicates that to conduct related affairs, the bishop must appoint a steward from among the clergy under his supervision. During the widowhood of the diocese, the steward, according to Article 25 of the same Council, himself was in charge of church property, providing a report to the new bishop. Wed. 7 All eleven; Feofila Alex. 10.
27. Persons who abduct women for marriage, as well as persons who assist or permit the abductors, the Holy Council determined: if they are clergy, they will be deposed from their degree, but if they are laymen, they will be anathematized.
Wed. Ap. 67; 6 All 92; Ankir. eleven; Vasily Vel. 22, 30 and 42.
28. Following in everything the definitions of the holy fathers and recognizing the now readable rule of one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops who were in the Council in the days of the pious memory of Theodosius, in the reigning city of Constantinople, the new Rome, we also determine and decree the same regarding the advantages holy church Constantinople, new Rome. For the fathers rightly gave advantages to the throne of ancient Rome, since it was the reigning city. Following the same principle, one hundred and fifty God-loving bishops granted equal advantages to the most holy see of new Rome, righteously judging that the city, which had received the honor of being the city of the king and synclit and had equal advantages with the old royal Rome, should also be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs, just as was second after him. Therefore, only the metropolitans of the regions of Pontus, Assia and Thracia, as well as bishops of foreigners of the above-mentioned regions, are appointed by the above-mentioned most holy see of the holy Church of Constantinople. Each metropolitan of the above-mentioned regions, together with the bishops of his region, must appoint diocesan bishops, as prescribed by the Divine rules. The very metropolitans of these regions should be appointed, as already said, by the Archbishop of Constantinople - after the election has been carried out in accordance with established custom and after the candidate has been presented to him**.
The rights of the See of Constantinople, specified in 3 Ave. 2 Omni. Council, are defined in more detail in this rule, and were later confirmed by 36 pr. 6 Omni. Cathedral. It is important that the Council recognized that the advantages of the Roman See are not determined by succession from St. Peter and not on dogmatic grounds, but “since it was a reigning city.” The papal legates at the Council of Chalcedon tried to object to this rule and achieved a second consideration of it, but at the secondary meeting the rule was again adopted and they no longer objected, although Lucentius demanded that his protest be included in the protocol. Pope Leo the Great also protested, but mainly against the motivation of the rule, for he proceeded from the principle of seniority, the so-called. apostolic sees. 7 All The Council, with the participation and consent of the Papal Legates, confirmed all the canons of the Council of Chalcedon, including the 28th. Later, the 4th Lateran Council (when Constantinople was in the hands of the Latins) in the 5th rule recognized the seniority of the See of Constantinople directly after the Pope.
29. To demote a bishop to the presbytery degree is sacrilege. If some righteous reason removes him from the episcopal activity, then he should not occupy a presbyteral place. But if he is removed from his dignity without any fault, then let him be restored to the dignity of a bishop.
Wed. 6 All 3 and 26; Vasily Vel. 27.
30. Since the most reverent Egyptian bishops at the present time have refrained from signing the letter of the most holy Archbishop Leo - not because they are opposed to the Catholic faith, but because they follow the custom existing in the Egyptian region, namely, to do nothing of the kind without the permission and determination of their bishop , and they ask to be deferred until the installation of the future bishop of the great city of Alexandria - therefore, we recognized it as a righteous and philanthropic deed: to leave them in their rank in the reigning city, and to give them the necessary time until the installation of the archbishop of the great city of Alexandria. Therefore, while remaining in their rank, let them either present guarantors, if possible, or ward off doubt with an oath.
The Church of Alexandria at that time did not have a head, because at the third meeting of the Council of Chalcedon, Archbishop of Alexandria Dioscorus, the chairman of the so-called. Council of the Robbers in Ephesus in 449
Or a paramonary, or in general into any church position, for the sake of his vile profit: such a one, having been convicted of having attempted this, will be subject to deprivation of his own degree; and let the one who has been appointed by no means enjoy the purchased ordination, or production, but let him be alien to the dignity or position that he received for money. If anyone appears to be intermediary in such vile and lawless bribery, then and so, if he is from the clergy, let him be overthrown from his degree, but if he is a layman or monastic, let him be anathematized.
