This canon imposes the highest ecclesiastical punishment on such a clergyman who, having committed any crime proven by a court, and having been lawfully deposed from the priesthood for this, again dares to perform the sacred service that was previously entrusted to him; the canon prescribes that such a person be completely excluded from communion with the Church. This canon presupposes a proper trial of a clergyman who has committed a crime, namely: for bishops - before the court of a council (Ap. 74 and 75), for a presbyter and deacon - before the episcopal court (Ap. Canons 12, 13 and 31), and, consequently, presupposes that certain crimes were proven in court, and that the judicial sentence was pronounced in justice (ί). Everyone had the right to appeal to the court of higher instance against the judicial verdict of the lower (first) instance, who considered that he had the basis for which, among other things, the 37th Ap. canon (as well as the rules of subsequent times) to convene annually bishops' councils in each region to resolve disputes at them, and to pronounce final sentences in judicial processes. Such decisions were invariable and everyone had to unconditionally submit to them and recognize them. If a convicted clergyman did not wish to appeal to the highest court within a certain period of time after the decision of the first lawful court, the decision of the first court became invariable for him.

We speak of this already in the interpretation of the 4th canon of the Council of Antioch.

Notes:

76. Aph. Synth., II, 36.

Rule 29. If any one, bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, receives this dignity in money, let him also be expelled, and he who ordained him, and let him be cut off from communion altogether, as Simon the sorcerer was by me Peter

(IV Ecumenical 2; Trul. 22:23; VII Ecumenical. 4, 5, 15, 19; Serdic. 2; Basil Vel. 90; Gennadii Ambassador; Tarasius last).

As a pure gift of His goodness, God gave people through Jesus Christ the Holy Gospel and the grace that proceeds from it. Through this same gift, Christ called the Apostles to their high dignity of serving the gospel, providing them with the highest gifts of spirit and power to serve them in order that all might believe in the divinity of their mission. From this it was already clear in itself that the Apostles could not make the grace-filled gift of God an object of trade, but just as they themselves received it freely, they also had to distribute it freely (Matt. 10:8). When later a certain Simon wanted to buy for money the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, which the Apostles possessed, Peter answered him: "Let thy silver be with thee unto destruction, for the gift of God hast not acquired silver" (Acts 8:18-24). For this reason every action and desire reminiscent of Simon's attempt was called "simony" after this Simon. The condemnation of Ap. Peter became a terrible example for the first Christians, and not only any sale or purchase of a holy object, but even the very desire to do so was considered the most abominable deed and the greatest crime. This view of the Church on simony became the sharper the more unscrupulous people fell into this evil and vile deed in the course of time. St. The Fathers and Teachers of the Church do not find enough words in their writings to stigmatize Simony and the Simonites with the greatest disgrace. The councils of all ages have also applied to this, as we see in the parallel canons cited above. Theodoret calls simony εοεί (impia ex Christo nundinatio) [78]. Isidore Pelusiot calls the Simonite ϊά ίοόο [79]. In the singelia given to metropolitans and archbishops at consecration, they are charged with a special duty to guard their souls from ή ή ί (a Simoniaco vitio) [80].

Finding the priestly dignity received for money illegal, the canon does not consider his defrocking to be a sufficient punishment for the Simonite, because in this case only that which could not belong to him by law would be taken away from the culprit, and the crime itself would remain unpunished - the canon also prescribes to excommunicate him from church communion, i.e. imposes a double punishment: defrocking and excommunication. Exactly the same double punishment is subject to the one who sells a shrine, i.e. who ordains someone for money. This is the case when the rules depart from the principle of not imposing two punishments for one crime, as it was said in the 25th Ap. Rule; but simony surpasses all the most grievous crimes, as does the receipt of the episcopacy through the intermediary of secular authorities, as is shown by the following Ap. Rule (30). That is why the rules impose double punishments for these crimes.

The canon says: "As Simon the sorcerer was Peter by me" (ύ' εού έου). Thus we read in the Athenian Syntagma, from which we translate the canons, and we see the same in all other Greek canonical collections, as a result of which we have translated it so. In some other old collections, it is said to have been: ώ ί ά ύό ού έου, as a result of which Dionysius the Small translated: sicut Simon magus a Petro (as Simon the sorcerer Peter). It is supposed that at first there should have been ύό ού έου, but it was changed, as in our redaction, by a certain who assumed that the Apostles themselves composed these canons [81].

Notes:

77. In the Book of Rules, a note is added: "In some manuscripts: as Simon the sorcerer was Peter."

78. Theodoret., Hist. eccl. I,4 [Migne, s.g., t.82, col.909-913].

79. Isid. Pelusiot. lib. I, ep. 315 [Migne, s.g., t.78, col.365]. Cf. Hieron. in Mat. 12, 32 [Migne, s.l, t.26, col.81]. Gregor. Magn. epist. lib. V, indict XIII, epist. LIII [Migne, s.l., t.77, col.782-785].

80. Aph. Synth., V, 547. Cm. "The Rite of Bishop's Confession". Moscow, 1867. In the Syntagma of Vlastar, X, 28, we read the following: "With regard to the 'tax' (εί οοϋ) and what is given according to custom for ordination, the chrysobull of the ever-memorable king Isaac Comnenus determines, among other things, the following: with regard to the tax, at the ordination of priests, my royal authority prescribes that the former institution should be kept in force, and the bishop, when ordaining them, should not take more than seven gold coins (nomism = ducat = approx. 3 rubles): one - at the ordination to the reader, three - at the ordination to the deacon and the other three - at the ordination to the priesthood. This is also confirmed by the synodal definition of Patriarch Michael the Philosopher. - In the same way, regarding the tax on the fruits that the laity must give to the priests, it is decreed: each village of 30 dyms must give one gold nomism (ducat), two silver thalers, one ram, 6 quarters (είου) of barley, 9 buckets (έ) of wine, 6 quarters of flour and 30 chickens. Under Pat. Another synodal decree was issued, "commanding that according to this chrysobull a tax should be given from the fruits and for the consecration" (Aph. Sint., VI, 513-514).