Scripture

The main and fundamental source for determining the basic principles of church structure and administration should be the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. The Holy Scriptures mainly contain the truths of faith (dogmas) and morals. In themselves, they do not constitute ecclesiastical law or legal decrees; but they serve as the basis of church legislation, are clothed through it in a legal form, and in this sense belong to the sources of church law. But, in addition to the truths of faith and morality, in the New Testament Holy Scriptures we also find the decrees of Jesus Christ concerning the Church as an external society. Thus, for example, it indicates the Savior: the establishment of the apostolic ministry and the authority given to it (Matt. 28:19-20; 18:18; John 20:23); the establishment of the Holy Scriptures. hierarchy (Ephesians 4:11-12); rules about the relationship of the Apostles to each other (Mark 9:35); the establishment of the sacraments of baptism and communion (Mark 16:16; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-25); the doctrine of divorce (Matt. 5:32; 19:3-10); instructions concerning the treatment of a sinning brother and about the ecclesiastical judgment over him (Matt. 18:15-17), about the attitude to the supreme authority (Matt. 22:21), etc. In the New Testament scriptures. The books contain the rules and decrees of the Apostles concerning church structure, serving to reveal the divine rules of the Savior and apply them to the needs of the society of the Apostles' time. Thus, for example, we see in these books the establishment in the Church of the degrees of bishop, presbyter and deacon (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1:5); and the rules for ordaining them (2 Timothy 1:6; 5:22; Acts 6:6); the rules on the maintenance of the servants of the Church (1 Corinthians 9:7-14), on the judgment of the bishop over elders (1 Timothy 5:19), on the excommunication of unworthy members of the Church (1 Corinthians 5:3-5), on the order in church meetings (1 Corinthians 14:26-40). divorce (1 Corinthians 7:10-17), second marriage (1 Corinthians 7:30; 1 Timothy 5:14), and the resolution of disputes and lawsuits between Christians (1 Corinthians 6:1-7). Thus, an example is shown of how the most important church questions should be resolved (Acts 15), an example of pastoral care for the flock (Acts 20:18-21, 31-35), the treatment of pastors with their flock (1 Thessalonians 2:3-12; 2 Corinthians 6:3-6), and others. As for the church rules contained in the Old Testament holy scriptures. Books, it must be said that with the end of the Old Testament the binding force of these laws ceased; this is also indicated in the New Testament teaching (Heb. 8:10; Acts ch. 15). They can only have historical significance in the science of church law. If some of them are accepted by the Christian Church, then they receive their authority from its legislative power (e.g., laws on kinship, on the abstinence of blood, strangled; see Acts 15:19). But even those indicated in the New Testament scriptures.

But the visible position of the Church in its particulars is subject to change in accordance with the different circumstances of place and time. Therefore, such ecclesiastical regulations indicated in the Holy Scriptures, which consist only in the application of the basic principles of church order to the external situation of the Church, and have only a particular significance, cannot remain eternally unchanged. Thus, for example, the Apostle's injunction about judging before the Gentiles (1 Corinthians 6:1-6), or about veils for women (1 Corinthians 11:5-10), or about collecting donations for the Churches (16:1-2), obviously had to do with the circumstances in which the first Church found itself, or with the customs of the people; Consequently, they cannot be accepted as rules binding on Christians of all places and times. With the change in the external conditions of church life, the rules of the Apostles were changed or replaced, for example, on the public rebuke of sinners (1 Timothy 5:20), on the order in church meetings (1 Corinthians 14:26-31), on the bishop to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2), on the ministry of widows or deaconesses in the Church (1 Timothy 5:9-14), on the supper of love (1 Corinthians 2:20-22). That it is precisely in the ecclesiastical regulations indicated in the Holy Scriptures. Scripture must be unconditionally obligatory and unchangeable, this can only be determined by the Church herself, as the faithful guardian of divine truths.

Sacred and Church Traditions

Not all the rules of church structure and order given by Jesus Christ and the Apostles are contained in the apostolic writings; many of them, even the greater part of them, were handed down by the Apostles orally, introduced into the Church by their personal orders (1 Corinthians 11:34), Others, which they did not have time to arrange directly, they entrusted to their closest successors, their disciples (Titus 1:5). Each of the Churches founded by the Apostles carefully preserved and passed on to subsequent generations of its members not only the writings of the Apostles, but also everything that it heard from them, that was established in it personally (the apostolic traditions). Through mutual constant relations between the Churches, even distant from each other, these apostolic traditions spread and became generally known. Their successors closest to the Apostles, continuing to rebuild the Church, developed the apostolic decrees in accordance with the needs of the Christian communities entrusted to them. This development and application of the apostolic tradition was also strengthened in church life (church tradition, patristic tradition). In this way, the apostolic and ecclesiastical tradition served in the first centuries of Christianity as the main, after the Holy Scriptures, foundation and source of ecclesiastical law. "If a rule (says Tertullian, an ecclesiastical writer of the second century) is not determined by Scripture, but is everywhere observed, then it is confirmed by a custom based on tradition. And if anyone says that in tradition some kind of written testimony is needed, then we, for our part, will point out many institutions that are preserved without any scripture, by the authority of tradition alone and the force of custom." After pointing out certain rites and ecclesiastical customs, Tertullian continues: "If one wanted to seek a written law on these and many other institutions, he would not find it. Here tradition has its force as a foundation, custom as an affirmation, faith as its preservation" (De corona milit. c.3). St. Basil the Great ascribes to tradition such importance that if we dared to reject it, we would imperceptibly damage the Gospel in its main propositions, and even more, we would leave only an empty name from the apostolic preaching (see in the Prost. Catech. In the chapter on Holy Tradition). Therefore, if with regard to questions of faith and church structure, a direct indication in the Holy Scriptures was not sufficient. Scripture, then they turned to tradition. "All who wish to see the truth (says St. Irenaeus of the second century) can recognize in every Church the tradition of the Apostles, open to the whole world. If a dispute arose about any important question, then should we not turn to the most ancient Churches, to which the Apostles turned, and receive from them what is certain and clear regarding this question" (Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapters 3-4). As can be seen from the above testimony, the surest sign of the truth of tradition and its authority was considered to be the prevalence of this tradition and its unanimous recognition by various Churches, especially those founded by the Apostles themselves (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.). Recognizing the special importance of traditions, the Church in subsequent times, when her own legislative activity began to develop, protected the integrity and purity of traditions with her laws and placed them at the basis of her legal provisions. Thus, for example, the Ecumenical and Local Councils base many of their canons on ancient traditions, "following the ancient rules of apostolic order and order, the apostolic and patristic traditions" (Trul. 13:29), and confirm: "Let not the rules of the Fathers be transgressed (3rd Ecumenical Ecumenical Rule). 8), that all things received from the Divine Scriptures and the Apostolic Traditions may be in the Church (i.e. observed)" (Gang. 21); those who transgress traditions are subjected to excommunication from the Church (VII Ecumenical 7). By means of ecclesiastical legislation, apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions have taken the form of written law, and thus have historical significance for the current ecclesiastical law.

Legislation of the Church

From the first centuries, the Church also organized its life by its own legislation on the foundations laid down by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, according to the powers granted to it by Jesus Christ. The organ of its legislative power is the Council of its representatives, both universal and local. The Ecumenical Councils represented the authority of the Ecumenical Church; therefore, their decrees have the universally binding significance of positive laws for all members of the Church. Such canons are given by the following six Ecumenical Councils. I of Nicaea, convened on the occasion of the heresy of Arius, in the year 325, under Constantine the Great. In addition to the definition of faith, or the symbol of faith, he gave 20 rules for church improvement. I of Constantinople, convened on the occasion of the false teaching of Macedonius in 381 under Theodosius the Great. In addition to supplementing the Nicene Creed, he compiled seven church rules. Ephesus, convened to condemn the heresy of Nestorius in the year 431, during the reign of Theodosius II. The 8 canons of the Church named after this Council constitute excerpts from the Council's Encyclical Epistle to all the Churches about Nestorius and his like-minded people. To them is added one Epistle of the Fathers of the Council to one Local Council. The canons of the Council of Ephesus are unknown in the Roman Church. Chalcedonian, convened in 451, under Marcian, to condemn the Monophysite heresy. He gave 30 church rules. This Council was convened soon after the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III), which took place in 680 on the occasion of the Monothelite false teaching. The main subject of the Trullo Council was the organization of church deanery. He compiled 102 rules. It received its name from the royal chambers with vaults (τρούλλοι) in which it gathered. Since it was actually a continuation of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, its canons bear the name of the latter. It is also called the Fifth and Sixth Council, because it served as a kind of supplement not only to the Sixth, but also to the Fifth Ecumenical (Constantinople II) Council, convened in 553 to confirm the condemnation of Nestorianism; both of these Councils dealt exclusively with the dogmas of the faith and did not leave behind them church rules. The Pope of Rome (Sergius), contemporary with the Council of Trullo, did not sign its definitions, since some of them ran counter to the customs and views affirmed in the Roman Church (e.g., the prohibition of fasting on Saturday, the prohibition of clergy to separate from their wives, the confirmation of the equality of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome). From that time until now, the Roman Church has not recognized the Trullo Council as ecumenical and its canons binding on herself, asserting that it was not represented at it. II of Nicaea, convened in 787 under Constantine Parphyrogenitus and his mother Irene against iconoclasm. He established 22 church rules. The Ecumenical Councils confirmed and gave to the guidance of the whole Church the decisions of some of the local Councils that took place during the period of the Ecumenical Councils (with the exception, however, of a very few canons abolished by the Ecumenical Councils). Consequently, these decrees have in church law a significance equal to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Such are the canons of the following eight local Councils of Ancyra (314-315): 25 canons; Neocaesarea (315) - 15 canons; Gangra (340) - 21 pr.; Antioch (341) - 25 pr.; Laodicea (about 364) - 60 pr.; Sardica (347) - 20 pr.; of Carthage - 147 pr., and an epistle attached to them. The canons of the Council of Carthage constitute a collection of decrees of many former African Local Councils, revised and confirmed at the Council of Carthage at the beginning of the fifth century (421); The canons of all the named Local Councils are "sealed by the consent" of the Trullo Council. Together with these canons, the following were adopted by the universal Church (at the Trullo Council) and received generally binding force: a) the canons of the Holy Apostles, 85 in number; b) the canons of some of the most famous Fathers of the Church, extracted from their various epistles, discourses, decrees, orders, etc. The Council of Trullo names the following canons of the Holy Fathers, of the third century: Dionysius of Alexandria, 4 canons; Peter of Alexandria, 15 canons; Gregory of Neocaesarea, 12 rights; Fathers of the IV century: Athanasius of Alexandria, 3 Epistles; St. Basil the Great, 92 pr.; Gregory of Nyssa, 8 pr.; Gregory the Theologian, 1 pr.; Amphilochius of Iconium, 1 pr.; Timothy of Alexandria, 18 questions and answers; Theophilus of Alexandria, 14 pr.; Fathers of the V - th century: Cyril of Alexandria, 5 pr.; Gennadius of Constantinople, 1 epistle. The Roman Church does not recognize these canons of the Eastern Fathers of the Church as binding on herself. To the above-mentioned canons of the Local Councils and the Holy Fathers, the Church added after the Seventh Ecumenical Council: a) the epistle of Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople (chairman of the Seventh Ecumenical Council) and b) the canons of the two local Councils of Constantinople that took place under Patriarch Photius. The first of them (in 861) is called twofold, because it met twice, after an interval, to discuss the same subject (in the case of Photius); He established 47 rules. The second (in the year 879) is called by us to have been in the church of the Wisdom of the Word of God (i.e. in Sophia): it also took place in the case of Photius and established 3 canons. The Roman Church does not recognize these Councils. Among the monuments of the legislation of the universal Church are indicated (see above) the canons known under the name of the Holy Apostles. Although they bear this name, the Holy Apostles themselves cannot be recognized as their compilers. This is evident from the content of many canons, namely: a) they mention such ecclesiastical offices and orders, the existence of which could not be assumed in the time of the Apostles (e.g., about subdeacons, readers, singers, about the main bishops in the regions, about the Councils twice a year); b) some canons were not known in the Church in the second and third centuries, which could not have been the case if these canons had belonged to the Apostles (for example, in the second century there would have been no place for a long and heated dispute about Pascha between the Churches of Asia Minor and the West, if these canons had been known to the Churches, or at least one of the disputing parties would have made reference to them at that time. and not on the apostolic canon (7th). the same must be said of the dispute concerning heretical baptism, which took place in the third century, a dispute which could have been resolved by Canon 46 of the Apostles); c) the collection of these canons is not included in the list of apostolic writings in the 85th canon of this collection itself (and this canon itself obviously does not belong to the Apostles). Finally, d) the Council of Trullo, which affirmed their significance in the Church, calls them only by the faithful name of the Apostles. But there is no doubt that they are very ancient, in any case, they existed before the First Ecumenical Council. It may be noted that this Council had them in mind when making some of its decrees (e.g., 15 Prov.; cf. Apostolic 14 and 15). The Local Council of Antioch (341) clearly borrows its canons from the Apostolic Canons, disseminating their redaction, and even follows them in the order of the arrangement of objects. The very selection of the Apostolic Canons shows that their list was not created at once and not by one person, but was compiled gradually, or borrowed from various collections (in them, for example, there are repetitions of the same canons with insignificant discrepancies). It is believed that some of the canons really represent the traditions of the Apostles and the institutions coming from the apostolic age and preserved in life, in the customs of various particular Churches; others represent the decrees of various local Councils in the first third century, based on these traditions. Hence, in their entirety, the Apostolic Canons express the practice of church life up to the fourth century. The original collections of canons of the Holy Apostles contained an unequal number of these canons - some 50, others 85. At the end of the fifth century, the Roman abbot Dionysius the Minor made a translation from Greek into Latin according to the first copy, i.e. 50 in number, and placed them in his collection of church decrees. In such quantities the Roman Church accepts them. The Eastern Church accepts them in the number of 85, as also indicated by the Trullo Council. Note. The Apostolic Canons should not be confused with the so-called Apostolic Constitutions (διαταγαίτων Αποσττων). In Canon 85 of the Apostles, they are ascribed to St. Clement, Pope of Rome, a disciple of the Apostles, and are classified as highly revered books. Who was their compiler is unknown, but there is no doubt that they do not belong to St. Clement, and that on the whole they do not belong to one writer, but represent a collection of works of different times: at first one part of them was called "the teachings of the Apostles," and the other "decrees of the Apostles." On the basis of their content and the testimony of church writers of the fourth century, it should be recognized that they appeared earlier than the fourth century, but not earlier than the third century. In the Eastern Church, where the apostolic decrees were probably composed, they at first enjoyed constant fame and respect, served as a guide in church practice, and had the value of a legislative monument. But later, as the Council of Trullo said, "those who think differently to the detriment of the Church introduced something false and alien to piety," as a result of which this Council "prudently postponed them for the edification and protection of the Christian flock, by no means allowing the generation of heretical false words and not interfering with them in the pure and perfect apostolic teaching" (Prov. 2). However, the apostolic decrees are of great importance in the history of church law, since they contain rich material for acquaintance with the life and practice of the Church in the first third centuries. In our Helmsman's Book (Part I, Chapters 2-4) it is extracted from the apostolic book. decrees of 36 canons, under the name of the canons of the Apostle Paul and in general - the Apostles. For particular Churches, the following have binding force of church laws: a) the decisions of their local Councils, which represent the authority of the local Church; b) rules emanating from the governmental ecclesiastical authorities existing for the entire local Church (e.g., Patriarchs, Exarchs of autonomous Churches). All the laws established by the legislative power of the universal Church are given the name of canons (κανων - a straight ruler, a rule). Having approved their full composition, the Church recognized them as unchangeable by her statute and protected their inviolability by her law. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (of Trullo) in its 2nd canon says: "This holy Council has recognized as beautiful and of extreme diligence worthy that from now on the 85 canons handed down to us in the name of the Holy Apostles may be firm and inviolable," and then he enumerates the canons of the preceding Ecumenical Councils, some local Councils, and the Holy Fathers. Further, he says: "Let no one be allowed to change or abolish the above-mentioned canons (in literal translation, to forge and reject), or to accept other canons besides the proposed canons, with false inscriptions," etc. The same thing, only in general terms, was repeated by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (in the 1st canon): "The divine canons are accepted with pleasure, and the decree of these canons is fully and unshakably contained, set forth from the Holy Apostles, and from the six Ecumenical Councils, and locally assembled for the publication of such commandments, and from our Holy Fathers." But such decrees apply to private members of the Church and to its individual authorities, limiting their arbitrariness in relation to the canons, forbidding forgery, forgery, or perversion of the rules established by the Church; for the punishment for this is determined the same penances that are prescribed for the crimes indicated in the perverted canon. As for the Church herself, she undoubtedly always has the right to change and abolish by legal order in her canons what she deems necessary to change. This right is inseparably linked with the essence of the legislative power inherent in the Church. In the content of the canons, it is necessary to distinguish the basic rules of church structure and the spirit of government from those rules that obviously relate to its external historical forms, to the temporal and local conditions of church life, to distinguish general canons from particular ones, from the application of the former to the temporal needs of the Church caused by her well-known circumstances. Leaving in them inviolable the basic ecclesiastical legal norms and taking them as the guiding principle, the Church modified or completely abolished in the canons what had a private, temporary character and did not correspond to her needs at a given time, was not applicable to her circumstances. Therefore, a significant part of the canons has either completely lost its force in the current church law, or has changed. Such, for example, are the canons on the convocation of annual regional councils, on the regional system of church administration, on the procedure for the appointment of bishops (Ant. 19), on the trial of bishops, presbyters and deacons (Carthage 12:29), on the age of those appointed as presbyters and deacons (Neokes. II; Karo. 22), etc.

Church customs

In the early days of the Christian Church, many church customs had the closest connection with the Apostolic Church Tradition, expressed it in themselves and strengthened it in Church life. It goes without saying that the customs originating from such a source had the same significance in church law as tradition. But in the Church, both in the first centuries and especially in subsequent times, there were and still are such customs, which are based solely on the conviction of a greater or lesser part of Christians that everything observed by these customs is right. This conviction is expressed in the long-term observance of something not defined by positive legislation or not indicated by tradition. Respect for custom is also found in the Holy Scriptures. (Corinthians 11:16). The legislation of the early Church also respected customs if it shared the conviction of their justice and expediency, or at least did not see in them a contradiction to its spirit and its basic rules. The antiquity of the custom, like the venerable gray hair, inspired special reverence for it (Vasil. Vel. 92 pr.). Such respect was expressed in the fact that the Councils confirmed many customs with their own rules, or based their decrees on customs. Thus, for example, on the basis of ancient custom, the First Ecumenical Council confirms the prerogatives of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem (canons 6 and 7); condemning a certain disorder allowed in other Churches; the same Council notes that it is based neither on rule nor on custom (Prov. 18); The Second Ecumenical Council, speaking of the order of administration in certain Churches, enjoins them to follow the custom of the Fathers, which has been observed until now (Prov. 2). The Council of Trullo generally notes that "our God-bearing Fathers have decreed that the customs of each Church should be observed" (Prav. 39). However, distinguishing between customs in accordance with Christian rules, in accordance with the spirit of the Church, and customs that contradict them, the Church strictly forbade the latter, regardless of their antiquity (Trul. 33, 62, 65, etc.). And in the current church law, church customs should be important when they are interpreters of the laws, or supplement them by determining such particular cases that are not defined by positive law (consuetudo secundum leges, praeter leges). There are, however, customs in the Church which come into some contradiction with the positive law, weaken its force, and even oust it from use (contra legas). They arise as a result of the realization of their necessity and usefulness for the Church, since the law is recognized as inapplicable to the changed conditions of life and inexpedient. Such customs cannot be ignored when the ecclesiastical authority, without making them a law, gives them force by its consent or admission. In any case, no custom can have a place in church law if it contradicts the truths of religion, the basic principles of church government, and is not based on justice; otherwise it will only be an old delusion. In terms of the vastness of their action or distribution, customs can be general, relating to the entire local Church, and particular, operating in any one of its parts. The greater or lesser prevalence, as well as the antiquity of a certain custom, gives it greater or lesser authority.

State Laws Regarding the Church

The significance of state laws in church law has a close connection with the position that the Church occupies in the state, with their mutual relations.

For the history of the law of the Orthodox Eastern Church, the legislation of the Christian, Greco-Roman and Byzantine emperors is of great importance. From the fourth century, when the Christian Church entered into a peaceful alliance with the state, the Greco-Roman Christian emperors took a close part in church affairs. On the one hand, by arranging the life of the state in accordance with the spirit and rules of the Christian faith, they gave church decrees the force of state laws; on the other hand, they promulgated, in accordance with the ecclesiastical authority, various laws concerning the external welfare and internal order of the Church. The Church not only did not refuse the state power such participation, but also turned to its protection, patronage, and assistance (e.g., Carthage 104); however, it also established and protected by its laws the boundaries of the interference of secular power in church affairs. The legal provisions of state power adopted by the Church (in Greek: νομοι) became, along with the church canons, the source of church law. The combination of both was called the Nomocanon. The most important monuments of Christian, Greco-Roman and Byzantine legislation on the Church are: the Code of Emperor Theodosius II (438), which contains most of the decrees of previous emperors on church affairs; the laws of the emperor Justinian the Great, who took a particularly active part in church affairs. In his codex (568), in the first 13 titles of the 1st book, there are the laws of the emperors (after Theodosius II) relating to the Church. Many of his novellas (up to 28) also deal exclusively with ecclesiastical affairs; an extensive codex known as basil; in it the first 4 books contain laws about the Church; a guide to the laws (πρόχειροντωννομον) of Emperor Basil the Macedonian (ed. 870); in it up to 13 titles (out of 40) relate to church affairs; Eclogues of the Emperors Leo and Constantine.

Interpreters of the canons

To some extent, the sources of church law can be attributed to interpretations of church canons, which have gained authority through their constant use in church practice. Such authority in the Orthodox Church is enjoyed by the explanations of the canons compiled by the jurists of the Greek Church (twelfth century): Zonaras, Aristhenes and Balsamon. John Zonaras, first a nobleman of the Byzantine court, then an Athonite monk. His interpretations of all the canons (published in 1120) are limited to pointing to the direct and proximate meaning of the canons; very rarely do they turn to civil laws. Alexis Aristhenes, deacon and steward of the Church of Constantinople, wrote (1160) commentaries on an abbreviated exposition of church rules (synopsis). These interpretations are very brief, sometimes only paraphrasing the text of the rules, or explaining their grammatical meaning; sometimes they confine themselves to remarking that the rule is clear in itself. This work of Aristhenes was in wide use in the Russian Church (placed in the helmsman). Theodore Balsamon was the Patriarch of Antioch and the most famous of the jurists of the Greek Church. In addition to many canonical works, he left (1192) a commentary on the complete code of church rules (Photius Nomocanon). His interpretations are extensive and detailed; in some places they are supplemented by the resolution of practical issues. The main purpose of this work is to clarify the dark places of the canons, to point out and eliminate the discrepancies and contradictions with state decrees that occur between them. In addition, he corrected references to state laws in the Photian Nomocanon, according to their new codes (on the Basilicas) and additions.