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).

73. Sint. Vlastara, K,23 (Af. Sint., VI,332-334).

Rule 26. We command that of those who have entered the clergy without celibacy, those who wish to marry shall be only readers and singers

(Ap. 5:51; IV Ecumenical Synod. 14; Trul. 3, 6, 13, 30; Anc. 10; Neokes. 1; Carth. 16; Basil Vel. 69).

This canon is closely connected with a similar prescription in the Apostolic Decrees (VI, 17). It distinguishes married priests from unmarried ones, and with regard to the latter it prescribes that they should not marry if they entered the clergy unmarried, but only allows readers and singers to marry freely, if they wish. This is Ap. the canon was then literally repeated at the Council of Trullo (6 canons), and it was established that, except for readers and singers, no subdeacon, deacon or presbyter dared to enter into a marriage relationship after his ordination; he who does this must be deposed from the priestly rank. Whoever wishes to enter the clergy and have a spouse must marry even before he is ordained a subdeacon.

Although marriage is not something unclean that offends the spiritual dignity (Ap. 5 and 51), nevertheless, whoever before marriage, in virginity, was united with Christ and His Church in the sacrament of priesthood, it would be strange and completely unseemly for him to bind himself again with close ties with the world after that. It is quite another matter to marry before ordination, when there is still no mysterious bond that binds the clergyman to the altar by means of Divine grace; Quite different is also the marriage of clergymen who have not received the sacrament of the priesthood, as a result of which their marriage is less contrary to the essence and significance of their service in the Church [74].

This Apostolic Canon and the above-mentioned Trullo Canon clearly prove that according to the canonical prescriptions of the Orthodox Church, a lay priest (since there could be no question of monks at the time of the publication of this canon and other Apostolic canons) can be unmarried, i.e. one who has never been married can also become a lay priest. This had been a strict law for the Church for fourteen centuries, and it never occurred to anyone to suppose that every lay priest had to be married. At that time, for historical reasons, this latter opinion began to spread, and by tradition it has come down to us in the form of a positive law. This opinion is false and quite arbitrary, as a result of which we have written a special historical-canonical study on this question, which was published in due time [75], in which we prove, it seems to us, comprehensively, that a lay priest, without the need to accept monasticism, can never be married, if only he provides the Church with a sufficient guarantee that he will follow the existing ecclesiastical prescriptions. and that in his life he will behave as befits a servant of the Divine altar.

Notes: