| Самый древний полный греческий И. Ath. Laur. Β. 32 (X в.) одновременно является и самым большим по составу: в нем содержится ок. 340 канонов (если считать и те каноны, которые располагались на утраченных первых листах) и ок. 3 тыс. ирмосов. И. Hieros. Sab. 83 (ок. 1100; изд.: Hirmologium Sabbaiticum. 1968-1970) уже содержит ирмосы менее чем 300 канонов. К XIV в. репертуар И. сократился более чем на 2/3. Новые ирмосы практически не появляются после 1100 г. (см.: Harris. 2004. P. 181). Известно 5 греческих списков И. X-XI вв. с последованиями канонов: Ath. Laur. B. 32; Patm. 55 (X-XI вв.); Hieros. Sab. 83; РНБ. Греч. 557 (XI в.; фрагмент); Ath. Esph. 54 (XI в.). Раздел каждого гласа состоит в среднем из 40 последований ирмосов (канонов). Последовательность канонов в разных списках различная, каждый список содержит ок. 300-350 канонов, ок. 2,5-3,2 тыс. ирмосов. В XII-XIII вв. последовательность канонов в И. этого типа была унифицирована (хотя остались некоторые различия в выборе ирмосов). Для данного этапа характерно уменьшение числа канонов в каждом гласе до 20-25, числа канонов в каждом списке - до 160-200, общего числа ирмосов - до 1,2-1,8 тыс. К этому этапу относятся следующие списки (нек-рые выходят за указанные временные рамки): Crypt. Ε. γ. III (нач. XII в.); Patm. 54 (XII в.); Paris. Coislin. gr. 220 (XI-XII вв.); Ath. Ivir. 470 (1177 г.; изд.: Hirmologium Athoum. 1938); Crypt. Ε. γ. II (1281 г.; изд.: Hirmologium Crypmense. 1951); Ath. Vatop. 1531 (XIV в.). Для списков XIV-XV вв. с последованиями канонов характерно дальнейшее сокращение объема до 12-15 канонов в каждом гласе, 100-120 канонов и 800-1000 ирмосов в списке, притом что вновь стали использоваться нек-рые из ирмосов, исключенные из И. XII-XIII вв. Списки этого типа: Ath. Laur. Γ. 9 (нач. XII в.); РНБ. Греч. 121 (1302 г.); Sinait. gr. 1256 (1309 г.); 1257 (1332 г.); Ath. Ivir. 1044 (1-я пол. XIV в.); Athen. Bibl. Nat. 2057 (1-я пол. XIV в.); Ath. Vatop. 1532; Ath. Pantokr. 215; Patm. 480; Sinait. gr. 1275, 1276 (все 5 списков - XIV в.); Cantabr. S. Trin. 1165 (XIV в.; см. изд.: Twenty Canons. 1952); Ath. Ivir. 1259 (кон. XIV в.); Sinait. gr. 1262 (1437 г.). |
| II. The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils: 1 . Nicaea (325)20 canons. 2 . Constantinople I (381)7 canons. 3 . Ephesus (431)8 canons. 4 . Chalcedon (451)30 canons. 5 . The Quinisext (or «Fifth-Sixth») Council; also known as the Council in Trullo and often referred to in Byzantine texts as the «Sixth Council» (692), because its entire canonical corpus was given post factum an «ecumenical» status in being procedurally attributed to the ecumenical councils of 553 and 680102 canons. 6 . Nicaea II (787)22 canons. III. The Canons of Local Councils: 1 . Ancyra (314)25 canons. 2 . Neocaesarea (314–325)15 canons. 3 . Antioch (341)25 canons. 4 . Sardica (343)20 canons. 5 . Gangra (first half of fourth century)21 canons. 6 . Laodicea (fourth century?)60 canons. 7 . Constantinople (394)1 canon. 8 . Carthage (419)133 (sometimes 147) canons; also known as Codex canonum ecclesiae Africanae, this collection of canons resulted from the continuous legislation by African councils, which was compiled in 419. 9 . Constantinople (859–861); also known as «First-Second,» because the two councils of 859 and 861 were, for reasons of convenience, considered as a single assembly17 canons. 10 . Constantinople (879–880), sometimes referred to as «Eighth Ecumenical " 3 canons. IV. The Canons of the Holy Fathers: The patristic texts gathered in this category were, for the most part, occasional letters or authoritative answers written to individuals. In collections they are often divided, or classified, in «canons.» The following authors appear in the Nomocanon: 1 . Dionysius of Alexandria (265). 2 . Gregory of Neocaesarea (270). 3 . Peter of Alexandria (311) 4 . Athanasius of Alexandria (373). 5 . Basil of Caesarea (379) [a very authoritative collection of 92 «canons " ]. 6 . Gregory of Nyssa (395). 7 . Gregory of Nazianzus (389). 8 . Amphilochius of Iconium (395). 9 . Timothy of Alexandria (355). 10 . Theophilus of Alexandria (412). 11 . Cyril of Alexandria (444). 12 . Gennadius, I of Constantinople (471). |
| The edicts of councils on non-doctrinal issues have historically been called canons and listed as appendices to the doctrinal decisions of the councils. The commentaries of a few revered ancient bishops on certain issues have also been accorded the status of canon law (Canonical Epistles). Observance of the canons is mandatory for all Orthodox Christians. The canons do not act by themselves, but they serve the bishops as authoritative guidelines in adjudicating specific cases. The canons are based on precedent and do not envisage hypothetical circumstances. The spectrum of the canons coincides largely with the above-mentioned range of subjects. One may liken the application of the canons to the prescription of medical remedies of differing potency. In some instances a practitioner may decide to follow literally (i.e., according to akriveia, a Greek term meaning “exactness”) the recommendations of a canon regarding penance. In other cases, strict interpretation of canon law might pastorally be adjudged counterproductive. Canons must serve oikonomia (a Greek term meaning “judicious economy”), the wise implementation of strategies designed to assure salvation (cf. Eph. 3.2–3 ; 1Cor. 4.1 ). The majority of the canons were issued during the time of the Byzantine Empire, and therefore the canons do not provide a guide for the perplexed in extraordinary circumstances. In all extraordinary cases, the faithful should follow the spirit of the canonical tradition. According to the first canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451), it is imperative that the entire Orthodox Church obey all previously formulated canons. Fidelity to the canons was once more confirmed by the first canon of the Second Council of Nicea (787). At the time of his consecration, a bishop solemnly declares his allegiance to the holy canons (Council of Nicea II, Canon 2). A council that sets out to modify certain canons put forth by another council must be of the same status as the earlier council. A local council, for example, cannot modify the decrees of an ecumenical council. |
| Although dogma may be revealed gradually, this does not mean that dogma itself develops. Development presupposes growth and change from one thing to another. But St. Gregory does not argue that the fullness of the Holy Spirit develops from earlier teachings. Instead, he shows that there were inclinations, or rather brief glimpses. The light of truth emerges gradually, but light does not develop from anything other than its source, the sun. Theology, expressed in the dogmas of the Church, is more than a set of concepts or ideas. It cannot be divorced from Divine Revelation. Theology exists within the sphere of living, breathing humans who have imperfect knowledge and language that is only capable of so much. Doctrines may be formulated in human categories, but ultimately theology is matter of revelation. Dogmas are eternal, other parts of Church life change. At this point it is clear that dogmas remain unchanging, although their revelation may happen gradually. Moreover, the study of dogma as a branch of learning does develop. But what about the other aspects of the Church that seem to develop, such as the canons that deal with the Church’s administrative structure? Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev explains this when he says that “dogmas are absolute truths and canons are applications of these truths for the historical existence of the Church. Dogmas do not concern temporal existence, while canons are temporal” Thus the two deal with different sphere. Here Fr. Nicholas seems to already have in mind a distinction between dogmatic canons—what he simply calls dogmas—and those canons that deal with administrative matters. Dogmas concern the eternal realm of divine truth— matters such as the Holy Trinity. Canons, though, deal with the application of that truth to present needs. Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev explains further that “the truth that canons express is absolute, but the content of canons is not this truth itself, but the mode through which this truth must be expressed in a given historical form of the Church’s life. Canons express the eternal in the temporal.” Historical changes, such as the incursions of barbarians, can lead to changes in the canons, since they are historically situated. Canons that deal with ecclesiastical structure and Church life are liable to change; but the underlying principles, founded on the dogmas of the Church, remain unchanged. |
| In addition to their dogmatic definitions, the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils exerted great efforts towards the strengthening of church discipline. Local Councils promulgated their disciplinary canons according to the circumstances of the time and place, frequently differing among themselves in various particulars. The universal unity of the Orthodox Church required unity also in canonical practice, i.e. a conciliar deliberation and affirmation of the most important canonical norms by the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. Thus, according to conciliar judgment, the Church has accepted: 20 Canons from the First, 7 Canons from the Second, 8 Canons from the Third, and 30 Canons from the Fourth Ecumenical Synods. The Fifth and the Sixth Councils concerned themselves only with resolving dogmatic questions, and did not leave behind any disciplinary canons. The need to establish in codified form the customary practices during the years 451-680, and ultimately to compile a canonical codex for the Orthodox Church, occasioned the convening of a special Council, which was wholly devoted to the general application of churchly rules. This was convened in the year 692. The Council " in the Imperial Palace " or " Under the Arches " (in Greek " en trullo " ), came to be called the Council in Trullo. It is also called the " Quinisext " [meaning the " fifth and sixth " ], because it is considered to have completed the activities of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, or rather that it was simply a direct continuation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council itself, separated by just a few years. The Council in Trullo, with its 102 Canons (more than of all the Ecumenical Synods combined), had a tremendous significance in the history of the canonical theology of the Orthodox Church. It might be said that the Fathers of this Council produced a complete compilation of the basic codex from the relevant sources for the Orthodox Church's canons. Listing through in chronological order, and having been accepted by the Church the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and the Canons of the Holy Ecumenical and the Local Councils and of the holy Fathers, the Trullo Council declared: " Let no one be permitted to alter or to annul the aforementioned canons, nor in place of these put forth, or to accept others, made of spurious inscription " (2nd Canon of the Council in Trullo). |
| in the resolution of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 7th November 2007 (Minutes No. 108) that came in response to the establishment of the dioceses within the “Metropolis of Bessarabia” in the territory of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine with centres in the cities of Bli, Cantemir and Dubsari regardless of the fact that those territories already had lawfully consecrated Orthodox bishops and the names of those cities were part of the titles of the diocesan bishops of the Orthodox Church of Moldova. In its statement of 7th November 2007, the Synod of the Russian Church also pointed out that the Diocese of Southern Bessarabia included “‘former Diocese of Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi and Izmail’ – the area which is part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and has its bishops whose titles contain the names of those cities;” by the Bishops’ Council in 2008, which expressed concern over the unilateral actions of the Romanian Patriarchate that undermined traditional principles underlying the relationships between the Orthodox Churches and jeopardized the Orthodox unity in general. On 25th October 2023, the Synod of the Orthodox Church of Moldova (Minutes No. 11) defrocked six clerics who without permission had joined the “Metropolis of Bessarabia” of the Romanian Patriarchate and had been received without canonical letters of release. The decision was based on the following canonical rules: Apostolic Canons 12, 15, 32, 33; Canons 11, 13, 20, 23 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; Canon 17 of the Council in Trullo; Canons 3, 6, 7, 8, 11 of the Council of Antioch; Canons 41, 42 of the Council of Laodicea; Canon 9 of the Council of Sardica; Canons 23, 106 of the Council of Carthage; Canons 15, 16 of the First Ecumenical Council. Several other clerics of the Orthodox Church of Moldova who later transferred without permission to the “Metropolis of Bessarabia” were suspended from service pending their contrition. Much to their sorrow, the members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church stated that the aforementioned resolutions of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church were in direct contravention of the holy canons, in particular, Apostolic Canons 11, 12, 31, 32, Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council; Canons 5, 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council; Canon 13 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; Canon 17 of the Quinisext Council (in Trullo); and Canons 13, 22 of the Council of Antioch. |
| It is not always clear which canons express essential marks of Christian life and which do not. There are often periods of controversy over certain canons as to their applicability in given times and conditions. These factors, however, should not lead the members of the Church to dismay or to the temptation either to enforce all canons blindly with identical force and value or to dismiss all the canons as meaningless and insignificant. In the first place, the canons are “of the Church” and therefore cannot possibly be understood as “positive laws” in a juridical sense; secondly, the canons are certainly not exhaustive, and do not cover every possible aspect of Church faith and life; thirdly, the canons were produced for the most part in response to some particular dogmatic or moral question or deviation in the Church life and so usually bear the marks of some particular controversy in history which has conditioned not merely their particular formulation, but indeed their very existence. Taken by themselves, the canon laws of the Church can be misleading and frustrating, and therefore superficial people will say “either enforce them all or discard them completely.” But taken as a whole within the wholeness of Orthodox life – theological, historical, canonical, and spiritual – these canons do assume their proper place and purpose and show themselves to be a rich source for discovering the living Truth of God in the Church. In viewing the canons of the Church, the key factors are Christian knowledge and wisdom, which are borne from technical study and spiritual depth. There is no other “key” to their usage; and any other way would be according to the Orthodox faith both unorthodox and unchristian. Church Art The Orthodox Church has a rich tradition of iconography as well as other church arts: music, architecture, sculpture, needlework, poetry, etc. This artistic tradition is based on the Orthodox Christian doctrine of human creativity rooted in God’s love for man and the world in creation. |
| See where violation of the Canons regarding the time for celebrating Pascha leads. From the aforementioned canonical prescriptions of the Orthodox Church it is clear that we must uphold them reverently, without any alteration. For this reason, the Twenty-rst Canon of the Synod in Gangra says: We wish that all things which have been handed down by the Divine Scriptures and the Apostolic Traditions be observed in the Church. And the Second Canon of the Sixth Œcumenical Synod: That no one be allowed to falsify or set aside the aforementioned Canons [of the Apostles, of the Œcumenical and Local Synods, and of the Holy Fathers], or to accept any Canons other than those herein specied, which have been composed under a spurious inscription by certain persons who have attempted to traffic in the truth. Such a steadfast and undeviating upholding of the Canons is demanded by the Seventh Œcumenical Synod, the First Canon of which states: We gladly embrace the Divine Canons and hold fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by those clarions of the Spirit, the all-laudable Apostles, or by the Six Œcumenical Synods, or by Synods locally assembled for promulgating such decrees, or by our Holy Fathers; for all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, ordained such things as were expedient; and those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate... From all of the aforementioned canonical prescriptions it is evident to what a great sin the Roman Catholics fell when they overturned the Sacred Canons, which forbid us to celebrate Pascha along with the Jews. This is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which God does not forgive, either in the present life or in the life to come. For, the same Holy Spirit, God, speaks through the Sacred Canons, because the canonical, as well as the dogmatic, prescriptions of the Œcumenical Synods were composed in accordance with the words of Divine Scripture: “It seemed pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us.” |
| Besides doctrinal definitions, the Ecumenical Councils drew up Canons, dealing with Church organization and discipline; other Canons were made by Local Councils and by individual bishops. Theodore Balsamon, Zonaras, and other Byzantine writers compiled collections of Canons, with explanations and commentaries. The standard modern Greek commentary, the Pedalion (‘Rudder’), published in 1800, is the work of that indefatigable saint, Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. The Canon Law of the Orthodox Church has been very little studied in the west, and as a result western writers sometimes fall into the mistake of regarding Orthodoxy as an organization with virtually no outward regulations. On the contrary, the life of Orthodoxy has many rules, often of great strictness and rigour. It must be confessed, however, that at the present day many of the Canons are difficult or impossible to apply, and have fallen widely into disuse. When and if a new General Council of the Church is assembled, one of its chief tasks may well be the revision and clarification of Canon Law. The doctrinal definitions of the Councils possess an absolute and unalterable validity which Canons as such cannot claim; for doctrinal definitions deal with eternal truths, Canons with the earthly life of the Church, where conditions are constantly changing and individual situations are infinitely various. Yet between the Canons and the dogmas of the Church there exists an essential connexion: Canon Law is simply the attempt to apply dogma to practical situations in the daily life of each Christian. Thus in a relative sense the Canons form a part of Holy Tradition. 7. Icons The Tradition of the Church is expressed not only through words, not only through the actions and gestures used in worship, but also through art – through the line and colour of the Holy Icons. An icon is not simply a religious picture designed to arouse appropriate emotions in the beholder; it is one of the ways whereby God is revealed to man. Through icons the Orthodox Christian receives a vision of the spiritual world. Because the icon is a part of Tradition, the icon painter is not free to adapt or innovate as he pleases; for his work must reflect, not his own aesthetic sentiments, but the mind of the Church. Artistic inspiration is not excluded, but it is exercised within certain prescribed rules. It is important that an icon painter should be a good artist, but it is even more important that he should be a sincere Christian, living within the spirit of Tradition, preparing himself for his work by means of Confession and Holy Communion. |
| It is here that we find the baptismal formula “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, which is uttered by a priest during the Sacrament today. Moreover, this passage says that we have to teach and then baptize, which is where preparatory meetings before baptism originate from. A priest or a catechist must explain to the person who wishes to join the Church the basic tenets of the Christian faith and piety in detail. In addition, it was our Lord Jesus Christ who established monogamy (See Matthew 19:4-9). It was on the basis of His words that the Church developed its teaching of the Sacrament of Matrimony. However, the Church reduced the rigidity of the Gospel where it says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery” (Matthew 19:9). The Church condescends to human infirmity and understands that not everyone is able to carry the burden of staying alone. That is why the Church allows to re-marry twice, under certain conditions. However, there are other canons that aren’t taken directly from the New Testament. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and acts as the successor of Christ the Lawmaker, expanding, amending, and revising Her regulations. Again, this activity of the Church and Her legislative actions in general are based on the principles provided by the Holy Savior in the Gospel. What canons are there? What do they regulate? There are lots of church canons. They can be divided in several big sections. For instance, there are canons that regulate the management of the Church. There are “disciplinary” canons that regulate the life of the faithful and the ministry of the clergy. There are dogmatic canons that condemn certain heresies. There are canons that specify the territorial divisions within the Church, e.g., establish the rights of the top bishops—metropolitans and patriarchs—or determine how often councils at various levels must be convened, and so forth. |
|
|
