Notes:

68. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, I, 110,376.

Rule 25. A bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, who has been convicted of fornication, or perjury, or theft, let him be deposed from the holy order, but let him not be excommunicated from the communion of the Church. For the Scripture says: "Thou shalt not avenge twice for one" (Nahum 1:9). Likewise, and other clerics

(Ap. 29:30; I Ecumenical. 9; Trul. 4, 21; Neokes. 1, 8; Carth. 27; Basil Vel. 3, 32, 51, 70, 82).

Everything that prevents a certain person from entering the priesthood should naturally exclude him from this rank. It is well known what qualities a clergyman should have in general. In the same way, the shortcomings that make him unworthy of the priesthood are well known. Among the main defects of clergymen, the first place is occupied by those that concern the good name, so necessary for clergymen. Of such vices, properly speaking, crimes, into which a clergyman given by Ap. The canon mentions three: fornication, perjury, and theft. These and other similar crimes that a clergyman can commit and which make him unworthy of the priestly rank are also mentioned in many other canons, which we will speak of in their corresponding interpretations.

This canon states that clergymen without distinction, i.e. clergy and clergy convicted of the above-mentioned crimes, must be deposed, i.e. deprived of the dignity that they received through consecration or consecration; but immediately the canon adds that at the same time they should not be excommunicated from communion with the Church, citing in justification of its prescription the words of the Holy Scriptures mentioned in the text of the canon. (Nahum 1:9). In the interpretation of the 5th Ap. In the canons we spoke of the various punishments imposed on clergy for the crimes they committed, and there we pointed out the difference between expulsion and excommunication, as the most severe punishments, namely, defrocking for clergy and excommunication from ecclesiastical communion for the laity. Excommunication (άοό), which is spoken of in this canon, should not be understood in the sense of punishment for clergymen, but in the sense of punishment for the laity, since otherwise the prescription of this rule would have no meaning. Consequently, it is necessary to understand the rule in such a way that a clergyman for certain crimes is expelled from the clergy and goes over to the ranks of the laity with the right to use church communion; and only later, having committed such a crime as a layman, is he already subject to excommunication from church communion [69]. Since expulsion is one of the most severe punishments for a clergyman, it would not correspond to the lofty concept of Christian charity to add another punishment to this punishment, namely, to deprive the guilty of the right to participate in Christian meetings. However, the lenient prescriptions of this canon relate only to the crimes mentioned in this canon, because the same Apostolic Canons (29 and 30) mention other crimes for which the guilty are subjected to double punishment - expulsion and excommunication, as, for example, for simony, or for the use of secular authorities to obtain the episcopal dignity [70].

According to the definition of Gregory of Nyssa (4 canons), fornication (οεί, fornicatio) consists in satisfying a lustful desire with a person, but without offending others; Consequently, fornication happens to a person who is not bound by marriage and does not belong to anyone by lawful marriage, and who therefore does not offend a third person, i.e. a husband or wife. In this way fornication differs from adultery (οεί, adulterium), which causes evil and insult to another person; therefore, adultery is an unlawful relationship with someone else's wife or with someone else's husband. In the canons of Basil the Great (38, 40, 42), fornication is understood in a broader sense, and all marriages concluded against the will of the elders are called by this name. In any case, fornication is considered a lesser crime than adultery, because, according to the words of the same Gregory of Nyssa in the above-mentioned canon, in fornication we find the criminal satisfaction of lustful desires, and in adultery, in addition, the insult of another, as a result of which the latter is punished more severely than the former. The condemnation of fornication among the clergy, expressed in this canon, is based on the Holy Scriptures. (1 Timothy 3:2,3; Titus 1:6) [71].

The second crime condemned by this canon is the violation of the oath given (έοί, perjurium). Thus, if a clergyman breaks an oath pronounced on some important matter in the name of God, and if at the same time it is proved by the court that such a person really violated it, then this violation is the more grievous and criminal, the more solemnly the oath was pronounced and the more important the case in which it was given, and vice versa (Vas. Vel. 82 pr.). This crime is also severely punished in relation to the laity (Vas. Vel. 64 pr.); the more understandable is the severity of this rule in relation to the clergy for the same crime, because they, moreover, would serve as a stumbling block for the faithful, remaining to serve the God of righteousness, while themselves remaining in unrighteousness.

Theft (οή, furtum) in this rule should be understood as the secret appropriation of another person's property. If an object constituting church property is appropriated, then such theft belongs to a different kind of crime and is punished differently (Ap. 72; Dvukr. 10; Gregory Nis. 6:8) [73].

Notes:

69. Cf. in the Syntagma of Vlastara, ,9. (Aph. Synth., VI, 233-235).

70. Cf. the interpretation of this canon by Zonaras and Balsamon (Af. Synth., II, 32, 33).

71. See. Kn. "On the Offices of Parish Presbyters" (26th ed., Moscow, 1861), .53, 54. On monks - fornicators: IV Ecumenical. 16; Trul. 44; Ancyr. 19; You. Led. 19, 60; Nikif. Ispov. 35 rights. (Af. Synth., IV, 430), 23 canons. the answer of Balsamon (ibid., IV, 465); Synth. Vlastara, K, 32 (ibid., VI, 345); Nomocanon in Titles XIV, IX, 29, XI, 4, 5 (I, 210, 211, 258); Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik 91 canon and the interpretation of this canon by A.S. Pavlov (Odessa, 1872), pp. 105-106.

72. Synth. Vlastara, E, 32 (Aph. Synth., VI, 288-293). Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik pr. 45, 184 (op. cit., pp. 73, 160).