Council of Chalcedon. Heresy of the Monophysites, or heresy of Eutyches

Council of Chalcedon - The Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451 against the heresy of the Monophysites, otherwise called the heresy of Eutyches. You will learn more about this in this topic.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451, in the city. Chalcedon, under Emperor Marcian.

In matters of faith, Emperor Marcian strictly adhered to Orthodoxy. He convened the Council of Chalcedon to condemn Monophysitism.

“The Monophysite heresy arose among the Alexandrian monks and was a reaction to Nestorianism, which belittled the Divine nature of the Savior. Monophysites believed that the human nature of the Savior was absorbed by His Divine nature, and therefore recognized only one nature in Christ.

In addition to the elderly Constantinople. Archimandrite Eutyches, who gave rise to this non-Orthodox teaching, was defended by Dioscorus, Archbishop. Alexandrian, who forcibly carried out this heresy at one of the councils, thanks to which the council itself received the name of the robber’s”

Marcian subsequently reinforced the decisions of the Council by force, as in the case of Alexandria, where he sent a powerful military detachment and deprived the Alexandrians inclined to Monophysitism of all the benefits that they had previously enjoyed. He also sent troops to pacify rebellious Monophysite monks in Palestine in 453.

Emperor Marcian was an admirer of contemporary saints: he built a temple in honor of the Monk Vassian during the life of the ascetic. Until the death of his holy wife in 453, he supported her extensive temple-building activities.

Founder of Monophysitism, Archimandrite Eutyches

From early childhood, Eutyches heard about Christianity. When he became a young man, he decided to become a monk. Over time, Eutyches was elected and he became the abbot of one of the influential monasteries of Constantinople, and under his leadership there were about three hundred ascetics.

Later, Eutyches became the confessor of the court eunuch Chrysaphius, who had great influence on Emperor Theodosius II the Younger. This fact significantly strengthened the position of the Archimandrite of Constantinople, who became the main representative of the capital's monasticism at court.

Archimandrite Eutyches was one of the most active fighters against the heresy of Nestorius. He showed great zeal in condemning the teachings of the Patriarch of Constantinople and was even one of his opponents at the Council of Ephesus.

But, unfortunately, such a zealous struggle had a negative impact on Archimandrite Eutyches himself. As often happens with fighters for the faith, they go from one extreme to the other extreme. Thus, a different heresy is formed in their mentality, which they begin to rapidly spread

So, having won a victory against Nestorius, Eutyches went to the other extreme and became the founder of a new heresy - Monophysitism or “one-naturalists”, i.e. those who believed that in Christ there was only one nature - the Divine, which dominated over the other nature of the Savior - the human.

Meaning

After the council, the emperor issued strict laws regarding the Monophysites. Everyone was ordered to accept the teaching determined by the Council of Chalcedon; Monophysites should be exiled or exiled; burn their works, and execute them for distributing them, etc. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled to distant provinces.

The Council of Chalcedon did not put an end to Christological disputes, but its definition of faith has remained the basis of Orthodoxy and Catholicism for centuries.

The disintegration of the Byzantine Empire had already begun, and separatist aspirations, which were strongest on the outskirts of the empire and had their basis in nationalities, nevertheless, in accordance with the spirit of the times, tried to find expression and justification for themselves in dogmatic disagreement.
On the opposition to the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in Palestine, Egypt, Syria and Constantinople, see the article Monophysitism.
The immutable authority of the Council of Chalcedon was solemnly restored at a council convened by Patriarch John in Constantinople in 518 from 40 bishops located in the capital and abbots of the capital and surrounding monasteries. The Council condemned all those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon and, in particular, condemned Sevier, Patriarch of Antioch, justified the memory of the deceased champions of Orthodoxy and determined to include the fathers of the four ecumenical councils in the diptychs. After this council in 519, reconciliation between the Eastern Church and Rome was achieved by signing the “ formula Hormisdae”

", the message of Pope Hormizd, the Acacian schism ended.

The founder of Coptic church historiography of the North, Ibn al-Muqaffa (10th century), in his “History of the Alexandrian Patriarchs”, in Chapter XII (biography of Dioscorus), gives the following assessment of the Council of Chalcedon:

Council of Chalcedon - the fourth Ecumenical Council was convened in 451

Archimandrite Eutyches not only fell into heresy, but, possessing enormous authority, began to spread his heresy in the area. Ultimately, the Fourth Ecumenical Council was convened. 650 bishops were present at the Council.

The IV Ecumenical Council, convened in 451 in Chalcedon, condemned Monophysitism and abandoned the Apollinarian formula “one nature incarnate”, contrasting it with the formula:

“one hypostasis of God the Word in two natures – divine and human”

Orthodox teaching, even before the beginning of the Council, was expressed by St. Leo, Pope of Rome:

“It is equally dangerous to recognize in Christ only God without man or only man without God.

So, in the integral and perfect nature of true man, the true God was born, all in His, all in ours...

He who is true God is also true man. And there is not the slightest untruth in this unity, since both the humility of man and the greatness of the Divine exist together... One of them shines with miracles, the other is humiliated...

Humble shrouds show the infancy of the child, and the faces of angels proclaim the greatness of the Most High.

Hungering, thirsting, getting tired and sleeping is obviously characteristic of man, but feeding five thousand people with five loaves, giving living water to the Samaritan woman, walking on the waters of the sea, causing the rising waves to calm down, and rebuking the wind is, without a doubt, characteristic of God.”

Each nature, thus, retains the fullness of its properties, but Christ is not divided into two persons, remaining a single hypostasis of God the Word.

The dogmatic definition of faith of the Council states that Christ is consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and consubstantial with us in humanity, and also that two natures are united in Christ:

• unmerged
• invariably
• inseparably
• inseparably

Reasons for convening

• Political reasons

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 established the see of Constantinople ("New Rome") to second place after Rome, displacing 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 North Africa and Carthage in 429 -439 by Vandals, on whose side were circumtillions of Donatists.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council (painting of the Assumption Cathedral of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra) The spectrum of Christological views in late antiquity

• Religious reasons

Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, continuing the work of his predecessor Cyril in the fight against the Nestorianism of the Antiochian theological school at the Council of Ephesus in 431, decided to put an end to the dogmatic struggle against Nestorianism at the Ephesian “robber” Council in 449 - as a result of the “excessively dual” Nestorian nature of Christ was replaced in the decision of the council by the “monolithic” Monophysite.

This formulation was at odds with the Epistola dogmatica sent by Pope Leo I the Great to Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople and the council in June 449. Leo I himself was not present at the council; Attila’s troops were approaching Rome at that time. The pope sent legates to the council who were supposed to defend his formulations, but the legates did not fulfill their task, and the heretical decisions of the council were approved by Emperor Theodosius II.

The death of Theodosius II changed the situation. His sister Pulcheria, who bore the title of Augusta, became the wife of Senator Marcian and elevated him to the throne. Pulcheria was a supporter of Pope Leo I. In addition, Dioscorus set the imperial couple against himself. This influenced the speedy convening of a new, 4th Ecumenical Council.

• Venue and leadership of the Council

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, the prefect of the praetorian of the East Palladius and the prefect of Constantinople Tatian (lat. praefectus urbis).

Resolution of the Council

The Council condemned and rejected the false teaching of Eutyches and determined the true teaching of the Church, namely, that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man:

According to Divinity He is eternally born of the Father

In terms of humanity, He was born of the Blessed Virgin and is like us in everything except sin

At the Incarnation (birth from the Virgin Mary), Divinity and humanity were united in Him as one Person, unmerged and unchangeable (against Eutyches), inseparable and inseparable (against Nestorius). This is stated in the creed

Notes

1. Council of Chalcedon // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg, 1890-1907.
2. Justinian, imp. Epistle to the Holy Council about Theodore of Mopsuestia and others
3. Schaff, Philip.
   Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume II. The History of Creeds. - New York, 1919. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
4. Dogma of the Sixth Thirty Articles of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon // Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Ones fights of the universal and local ones, and the holy ones. — Reprint. playback ed. 1893 - Sergiev Posad: Publishing house. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1992.
5. Kornilov A.P.
   On the question of the significance of the acts of the IV Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Council for the local Churches of the East.
6. Hieromonk Ghevond Hovhannisyan.
   REFLECTIONS ON THE TOPIC OF CHALKEDON / The book is published under the patronage of Garegin Grigoryan; Cover design by Artak Vardanyan. - Jerusalem: Printed at the Noah printing house, 2009. - pp. 23-24. — 91 p.

Login to the site

1st Ecumenical Council

The First Ecumenical Council was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325 in the city of Nicaea, a suburb of Constantinople. Therefore it is also called the Council of Nicaea .

Memory of St. Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council in the 7th week of Easter.

The Council was convened primarily to resolve the theological dispute between supporters of the Alexandrian protopresbyter Arius, who taught that the second Person of the Trinity, the Logos, is less than the First Person, God the Father, and was created by God the Father, with the Bishop of Alexandria Alexander and his supporters [1]. This dispute quickly spread beyond the borders of Alexandria and captured a large part of the Roman Empire, threatening the peace of the Church.

Emperor Constantine, seeing in the Church the basis of the stability of the Roman Empire, hastened to convene bishops from all over the Earth to resolve this dispute and establish peace in the Church and the Empire. To accomplish this, Emperor Constantine provided the bishops with means of transportation and paid for their accommodation.

Participants of the cathedral

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

The minutes of this council have not reached us. However, what the debates were about at this Council and its decisions are known quite well and in detail from the works and correspondence of its participants [2].

From the Arians side, in addition to Arius himself, his closest associates Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as the local bishop of the city of Nicaea, Theognis, Marius of Chalcedon, came to the Council. Along with Eusebius of Caesarea, his conciliar like-minded people were present: Peacock of Tyre and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and there were also fellow countrymen of Arius, Libyans supporting him: Secundus of Ptolemais (Cyrenaica) and Theona of Marmaric.

The Orthodox side was represented at the Council by outstanding bishops, both in scholarship and in asceticism and confession: Alexander I of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra. Leontius of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia and James of Nisibius were known for the holiness of their lives. The confessors were Amphion from Epiphania of Cilicia, Paul of Neocaesarea with burnt hands, Paphnutius of Thebaid and Potamon the Egyptian with gouged out eyes. Potamon's legs were also dislocated, and in this form he worked in exile in the quarries. He was known as a miracle worker and healer. Spyridon of Trimifuntsky arrived from the island of Cyprus. He was a holy simpleton who continued to shepherd while in the bishopric; he was known as a seer and wonderworker. Constantine, entering the hall at the ceremonial opening of the Cathedral, defiantly greeted, hugged and kissed these confessors on the gouged out eyes.

Since the Arian disputes disturbed the peace only in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, the Western Church did not consider it necessary to send many of its representatives to this Council. Pope Sylvester delegated two presbyters as his deputies: Vincent and Viton [3]. In addition, from the Latin-speaking provinces, only Saint Hosius of Corduvia from Spain (according to some reports, the chairman of the Council), Mark of Calabria and Eustathius of Milan from Italy, Kekilian of Carthage from Africa, Nicasius of Dijon from Galia, and Domnus of Stridon from Dalmatia, arrived from the Latin-speaking provinces.

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

Progress of the Council

According to Socrates, the Council opened on May 20, and the ceremonial closing of the Council was timed by the emperor to August 25, the day he celebrated the 20th anniversary of his reign. But some historians name June 14 as the beginning of the Council. The acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451) date the adoption of the Nicene Decree to June 19.

A. Kartashev proposes to coordinate these dates as follows:

“On May 20 there was an opening parade of the Cathedral. The church parade, inserted into the framework of the courtier’s parade, was an unprecedented “show of forces” of the church until then. The plenum of the Council was determined and formal voting began only on June 14. On June 19, the main creed was voted on. On August 25, the closing ceremony of the Cathedral took place. Here Eusebius of Caesarea delivered his speech of praise to the emperor, which he placed in his “Life of Constantine.” The celebration ended with a sumptuous dinner.”

The Council began with a speech by Emperor Constantine in Latin. “Do not hesitate,” said the emperor, “oh, friends, servants of God and servants of our common Lord the Savior! Do not hesitate to consider the reasons for your differences at the very beginning and resolve all controversial issues through peaceful resolutions. Through this you will accomplish what is pleasing to God and bring the greatest joy to me, your fellow servant.” Then this speech was translated into Greek and heated debates began, in which the emperor took an active part.

This is how Eusebius of Caesarea describes them:

“Meekly talking to everyone in the Hellenic language, the basileus was somehow sweet and pleasant. Convincing some, advising others, others speaking well, praising and inclining everyone to like-mindedness, the basileus finally agreed on the concepts and opinions of everyone on controversial subjects.”

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

“We believe in One God the Father, Almighty, Creator of all (άπάντων) visible and invisible. And in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the Only Begotten Son, the Firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:15), begotten of the Father before all ages, through whom it came to be everything... Incarnate... We believe in the One Holy Spirit.”

Eusebius’s cunning plan was to despair of convincing the majority of the bishops at the Council of his heresy or to lure the emperor to his side, to reduce this council to a formality, adopting the Orthodox formulation familiar to everyone, which the majority should easily agree to, but at the same time is not clear enough formulated, and leaving room for the heretical teaching of Arius.

But Emperor Constantine outwitted the cunning Eusebius. Having approved the text, he casually proposed to enrich this text with only a small addition, one word “consubstantial” (omousios). With the support of authoritative Orthodox bishops, the majority of the episcopate, who, being Orthodox, were nevertheless not educated enough to delve into and understand all the subtleties of this issue, supported and voted for this addition proposed by the emperor, which reliably cuts off the Arian heresy from Orthodoxy.

After this major defeat for the Arians, a number of other small amendments and additions to the creed, also directed against the Arians, but no longer of fundamental importance, were accepted without controversy. These are the additions, according to Kartashev:

The term “Logos” is omitted, but “Born” is added with the negative, anti-Arian: “Uncreated”. To the term “Only Begotten” (Monogeni) a ponderous explanation has been added: “i.e. from the essence of the Father." To the term “Born” the decisive one is added: “Omotion”.

The result was the following famous definition of faith - oros - of the First Ecumenical Council:

“We believe in One God, Father, Almighty, Creator of everything visible and invisible. And in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born of the Father, the only begotten, i.e. from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, through Whom everything happened both in heaven and on earth. For us, for the sake of men and for our salvation, he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit." Next is an anathematism:

“But those who say that there was a time when there was no Son, or that He was not before His birth and came from the non-existent, or who assert that the Son of God is from another hypostasis or essence, or was created, or is changeable—these are anathematized by the Catholic Church.”

This is not a “symbol” (it is often confused with the symbol of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan II Ecumenical Council), but rather an oros, for there is no place for anathematism in the symbol.

Results of the Council

Kartashev:

The mass of the “eastern” episcopate, under pressure from the imperial will, signed the Nicene Oros without sufficient internal understanding and conviction. Open opponents of “consistency” also humbled themselves before the will of Constantine. And Eusebius of Caesarea, who had so arrogantly flaunted his rationalistic logic before Alexander of Alexandria, now, wanting to maintain the favor of Emperor Constantine, decided opportunistically (and not with his mind and heart) to sign a creed that was alien to him. He then published before his congregation a sly, sophistical explanation of his action. St. Athanasius, not without venom, tells us about this resourcefulness of Eusebius. Another opportunist, the courtier Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the local Nicene bishop Theognis decided to sign the oros, but resisted signing the anathematism. But the provincial non-careerists, from the beginning friends of Arius, the Libyans Theon of Marmaric and Secundus of Ptolemais honestly refused to sign. All three, together with Arius, were immediately removed from their places of service and expelled by state authorities to Illyria. The straightforward provincial Secundus reproached the courtier Eusebius: “You, Eusebius, signed so as not to end up in exile. But I believe God, not even a year will pass before you too will be deported.” And indeed, already at the end of 325, both Eusebius and Theognis were exiled.

Unfortunately, having formally accepted the correct formulation of the Orthodox faith as if from the outside, the Church was not internally ready to recognize it as “its” truth. Therefore, the apparent triumph of Orthodoxy at the First Ecumenical Council was followed by such an acute anti-Nicean reaction that at times it seemed that the Church would not resist and would fall under the onslaught of heresy. It took almost 70 years for the Church to internally assimilate the decision of the First Ecumenical Council, realizing, clarifying and supplementing its theology.

Other decisions of the Council In addition to resolving the main issue facing the Council - to develop the attitude of the Church to the teachings of Arius and his followers - the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council made a number of other minor, but also important decisions.

The first of these decisions is the question of calculating the date of Easter. At the time of the Council, different Local Churches used different rules for calculating the date of Easter. Some Local Churches (Syrian, Mesopotamian and Cilician) calculated Easter based on the Jewish calendar, others (Alexandrian and Roman) used a different scheme, in which the Christian Easter never coincided with the Jewish one. Emperor Constantine, who convened the Council, attached no less importance to the issue of celebrating Easter on one day by the entire church than to the Arian heresy. Here is what V.V. writes about this. Bolotov:

Constantine the Great attached hardly less importance to this issue than to Arianism. The same importance was attached to it by such a bishop as Eusebius of Caesarea. Constantine the Great was very strongly armed against the custom of celebrating Easter following the example of the Jews. The Jews can say, he said, that Christians cannot even celebrate their most important holiday without renouncing Jewish custom. And that this latter is erroneous, Constantine proved by the fact that the Jews sometimes celebrate two Passovers a year. In any case, it is indecent to follow this deicide people.

The Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council did not adopt a rule defining the procedure for calculating the Paschalia (i.e., the date of celebration of Easter), but instead determined that the Bishop of Alexandria was given the honor of calculating the Orthodox Paschalia and communicating the date of Easter to the rest of the churches that should follow this date. In practice, this meant that the entire Church had to accept the tradition of calculating the Paschal used by the Alexandrian and Roman Churches. [4].

In addition to this, the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council decided to heal the Melitian schism in the following way.

Bolotov V.V.:

On the issue of the present Melitians, the Council issued a special message. Melitius retained only the title of bishop without the right to perform consecrations and other hierarchical actions. The Melitian bishops are retained in their rank, although without the right to govern the church, as long as their fellow Catholic bishop of the same city lives. In the event of his death, Melitian bishops can take his see if they are elected by the people and confirmed by the Archbishop of Alexandria.

Also at the Council, 20 canonical rules regulating the life of the Church were adopted.

Troparion of St. Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council

Glorified art thou, O Christ our God, / our founding fathers the luminaries of the earth, / and through them instructing all of us to the truest faith, / Most gracious womb, glory to Thee

RULES OF THE HOLY Ecumenical Council of Nicaea

1. If someone’s limbs were taken away by doctors due to illness, or if he was castrated by barbarians, let him remain in the clergy. If, being healthy, he castrated himself: such a person, even if he was ranked among the clergy, should be excluded, and from now on no one should be produced like that. But just as it is obvious that this is said about those who act with the intention and dare to emasculate themselves, so on the contrary, even those who are emasculated from barbarians or from masters, however, will find themselves worthy: the rule allows such people into the clergy.

2. Because, out of need, or due to other motives of people, much has happened not according to the church rule, so that people who have recently begun to believe from a pagan life, and who were catechumens for a short time, are soon brought to the spiritual font; and immediately after baptism they are elevated to the bishopric, or presbytery: therefore it is recognized as a good thing, so that in the future there will be nothing of the kind. Since the catechumen needs time, further testing after baptism. For the Apostolic Scripture is clear: let him not be newly baptized, lest he become proud and fall into judgment, and into the snare of the devil. If, over time, some spiritual sin is acquired in a certain person, and is exposed by two or three witnesses: such a one will be excluded from the clergy. And anyone who acts contrary to this, as if he dares to resist the great Council, exposes himself to the danger of exclusion from the clergy.

3. The Great Council, without exception, decreed that neither a bishop, nor a presbyter, nor a deacon, and in general anyone in the clergy, would be allowed to have a woman cohabiting in the house, except a mother, or a sister, or an aunt, or only those persons who are alien to any suspicion.

4. To appoint a bishop is the most appropriate thing for all the bishops of that region. If this is inconvenient, either due to necessary necessity, or due to the distance of the journey: at least three will gather in one place, and those who are absent will express their consent by means of letters: and then perform the ordination. It is appropriate for its metropolitan to approve such actions in each region.

5. Regarding those whom the bishops of each diocese have removed from church communion, whether they belong to the clergy or to the category of laity, one must in judgment adhere to the rule that decreed that those excommunicated by some should not be accepted by others. However, let it be investigated whether it was because of cowardice, or strife, or some similar displeasure of the bishop that they were subject to excommunication. And so, so that a decent investigation can take place about this, it is recognized as a good thing that in each region there should be councils twice a year: so that all the bishops of the region, having gathered together, investigate such perplexities: and thus, those that have proven to be reliably unfair against the bishop are thoroughly recognized by all were unworthy of communion until the assembly of bishops decided to pronounce a more lenient decision about them. Let there be councils, one before Pentecost, and after the cessation of all displeasure, a pure gift is offered to God; and the other around autumn time.

6. Let the ancient customs adopted in Egypt, and in Libya, and in Pentapolis be preserved, so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all of these. For the Bishop of Rome, this is customary, likewise in Antioch and in other areas, so that the advantages of the Churches may be preserved. In general, let this be known: whoever, without the permission of the Metropolitan, will be appointed bishop: about such a great Council determined that he should not be a bishop. If the common election of all will be blessed, and in accordance with the rule of the church, but two or three, out of their own quarrels, will contradict it: let the opinion of the greater number of electors prevail.

7. Since the custom and ancient tradition have been established to honor the bishop residing in Jerusalem, let him have the honor of maintaining the dignity assigned to the metropolis.

8. For those who once called themselves pure, but join the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in the good pleasure of the holy and great Council, after the laying on of hands on them, they remain in the clergy. First of all, they must confess in writing how they will join and follow the definitions of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, that is, they will be in church communion both with bigamists and with those who fell during persecution, for whom both the time of repentance has been established and the period of petition has been appointed. It is necessary that they follow in everything the definitions of the Catholic Church. And so where, either in villages or in cities, all those found in the clergy will find themselves ordained from among them: let them be in the same rank. If, where there is a bishop of the Catholic Church, some of them will join the Church: it is obvious that the bishop of the Orthodox Church will have episcopal dignity; and the one who is called a bishop among the so-called pure will have presbyteral honor: will the local bishop please that he too participate in the honor of the name of the bishop. If something is displeasing to him, then for the visible inclusion of such a person among the clergy, he invents a place for him, either a chorebishop or a presbyter: so that there will not be two bishops in the city.

9. If some were promoted to presbyters without testing, or even though they confessed their sins during testing, after their confession, people moved against the rule and laid hands on them: the rule does not allow such people to enter the priesthood. For the Catholic Church certainly demands integrity.

10. If some of the fallen are promoted to the clergy, out of ignorance, or with the knowledge of those who did so: this does not weaken the power of the church rule. For such, upon inquiry, are expelled from the sacred rank.

11. Regarding those who have departed from the faith, not through coercion, or because of confiscation of property, or danger, or anything similar, as happened during the Licinian torment, the Council determined that mercy should be shown to them, even if they are not worthy of love for mankind. Those who truly repent: those who listen to the reading of the scriptures will spend three years, like the faithful: and let them fall in church for seven years, asking for forgiveness: and for two years they will participate with the people in prayers, except for the communion of the holy mysteries.

12. Called by grace to the profession of faith, who showed the first impulse of zeal, and put aside their military belts, but then, like dogs, returned to their vomit, so that some used silver, and through gifts achieved restoration to military rank: let such fall for ten years in the church, asking for forgiveness, after a three-year period of listening to the scriptures in the narthex. In all of these, one must take into consideration the disposition and manner of repentance. For those who, with fear, and tears, and patience, and good works, show conversion by deed, and not by appearance: those, after fulfilling the appointed time of hearing, will be decently accepted into the communion of prayers. It is even permissible for the bishop to make some arrangements about them for his philanthropy. And those who indifferently suffered their fall from grace, and the sight of entering the church considered themselves content with conversion: let them completely fulfill the time of repentance.

13. For those who are departing from life, let the ancient law and rule be observed even now, so that those who depart will not be deprived of the last most necessary guidance. If, having despaired of life and been worthy of communion, he returns to life again: let it be only among those participating in prayer. In general, to everyone who departs, no matter who it is, who asks to partake of the Eucharist, with the test of the bishop, let the holy gifts be given.

14. Concerning the catechumens and those who have fallen away, it is the will of the holy and great Council that they should only be among those who hear the scriptures for three years, and then pray with the catechumens.

15. Due to the many turmoil and disorders occurring, it was decided to completely stop the custom, contrary to the apostolic rule, found in some places: so that neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon should move from city to city. If anyone, according to this definition of the holy and great Council, undertakes anything like this, or allows such a thing to be done to himself: the order will be completely invalid, and the one who transferred will be returned to the church in which he is ordained as a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon.

16. If any presbyters, or deacons, or generally ranked among the clergy, recklessly and without the fear of God in their eyes, and not knowing the church rules, move away from their own church: such should not at all be acceptable in another church: and every compulsion against use them so that they can return to their parishes; or, if they remain stubborn, it behooves them to be alien to communication. Likewise, if anyone dares to seduce another belonging to the department and ordain him in his own church, without the consent of his own bishop, from whom the one admitted to the clergy has deviated: the ordination will be invalid.

17. Since many who are counted among the clergy, following covetousness and covetousness, have forgotten the Divine Scripture, which says: do not give your money for interest; and, when lending, they demand hundredths; the holy and great Council judged that if anyone, after this determination, is found charging an increase from what was loaned, or giving another turn to this matter, or demanding half the increase, or inventing something else, for the sake of shameful self-interest, he should be cast out from the clergy, and alien to the spiritual class.

18. It came to the attention of the holy and great Council that in some places and cities deacons teach the Eucharist to the presbyters, while it is neither rule nor custom that those who do not have the power to offer should teach the body of Christ to those who offer. It has also become known that even some of the deacons touch the Eucharist before bishops. Let all this be stopped: and let the deacons abide in their own measure, knowing that they are servants of the bishop, and inferior to the presbyters. Let them receive the Eucharist in order after the presbyters, taught to them by the bishop or presbyter. Deacons are not allowed to sit among the elders. For this happens not according to the rule, and not in order. If anyone, even after this definition, does not want to be obedient: let his diaconate cease.

19. For those who were Paulians, but then resorted to the Catholic Church, a decree is made that they should all be baptized again. If those who in former times belonged to the clergy: such, having been found blameless and blameless, upon termination, may they be ordained by the bishop of the Catholic Church. If the test finds them incapable of the priesthood, they must be expelled from the sacred rank. Likewise, in relation to deaconesses, and to all generally ranked among the clergy, the same mode of action is observed. About deaconesses we mentioned those who, according to their attire, are accepted as such. For, however, they do not have any ordination, so they can be completely counted among the laity.

20. Since there are some who kneel on the Lord’s Day and on the days of Pentecost, so that in all dioceses everything is equally observed, it pleases the holy Council, and standing up they offer prayers to God.