Rules of the Holy Apostles

By modern Western scholars, this work usually dates from about 380 and is believed to be created in Syria ^{[4] [5]} . The first mention with reference to the authority of the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" - in the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 394. According to the doctor of jurisprudence, Byzantine law researcher Andreas Schmink , the author of the article in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium , the canons of the Gangra Cathedral of 340, the Cathedral of Antioch 341, the Laodicean Cathedral 360 ^[6] became the sources for creating the “Rules of the Holy Apostles”. On the other hand, the Orthodox canonist Nicodemus Milas concluded that the aforementioned Local Councils borrowed their canonical decrees from the collection of the Apostolic Rules, which were compiled and collected into one collection at the end of the III century - beginning of the IV century by an unknown pious person who called these rules “Apostolic ", Wanting to show these their true origin ^[7] . Corresponding Member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences , Orthodox historian of canon law, Professor A. S. Pavlov believed that the “Rules of the Holy Apostles” were compiled in the second half of the 4th century by the Antioch cleric, and were created later than the Apostolic decrees , the latter serving as a source for the former; another source for writing the "Rules of the Holy Apostles", he writes, was the rules of the Council of Antioch in 341 ^[8] .

Rule 85 says that the rules are written by Bishop Clement. The work was early translated into Syriac, Arabic and Ethiopian, about 500 years into Latin (only the first 50 rules) ^[6] .

According to N.F. Markov , the author of the article in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia , the Rules are called Apostolic because “their content is an application to the practice of the beginnings of the apostolic tradition, on which they are based, as on their own basis” ^[9] .

In the East

The Patriarch of Constantinople John III Scholastic in the period between 540 and 557 years included 85 rules in the canonical collection in 50 titles.

The 2nd Rule of the Council of Troll in 691 proclaimed the authority of the eighty-five apostolic rules:

Of the " Apostolic decrees " themselves, which contain the Rules of the Holy Apostles, the Council of Trullus reacted negatively and rejected them as damaged by heretics ^[10] ; in his opinion, they were introduced very early by dissenters ( Greek ύπό τών έτεροδόξων ), to the detriment of the church, something fake and ungodly, "dimmed the magnificent beauty of the divine doctrine" ^[11] .

In its first rule, the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 spoke of the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" as follows:

The “Rules of the Holy Apostles” was also published in his collection by the author of the “ Nomocanon of 14 titles” (9th century), although with the remark that “the so-called (οἱ λεγόμεοι) apostolic rules are considered doubtful for some reason.”

In the West

Before the Reformation

Around 500, Dionysius the Small translated the “Rules of the Holy Apostles” into Latin using a list containing 50 rules. In the preface to the translation, Dionysius wrote that the rules were not universally recognized and were considered not apostolic, but apocryphal . Apocrypha called the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" and in Decretum Gelasianum . Pope Gormizd at the beginning of the VI century recognized the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" as apocryphal. Gregory of Tours wrote in the third quarter of the 6th century that in most of the western churches the “Rules of the Holy Apostles” were either unknown or completely rejected. For example, the “Rules of the Holy Apostles” were not included in their canonical collections in the second half of the 6th century: Fulgenzius Ferrand in the Breviato canonum, Martin Bragsky in the Collectio canonum orientalium.

The canonical collection of Dionysius, which included the 50 Apostolic Rules, later came into use in the West. In Italy, this happened earlier than in the Carolling Empire .

At the Lateran Cathedral in 769, the Roman Church defined: “the apostolic rules betrayed through Clement, no more than the fifty, which the holy Catholic church of God in Rome accepts”. In 840, Pope Leo IV wrote in a letter to the British bishops: "The rules that we use in our definitions of church are the rules known under the name of the apostles."

In the Carling Empire, apostolic origin was rejected by Ginkmar, Archbishop of Reims in the second half of the 9th century, in 870, they were not yet included in the code of the Gallican church.

The Grazian Decree , issued in 1151 and received actual recognition of the Pontifical throne in 1170-1180, determined the canonical authority of the 50 Apostolic Rules.

According to Tsypin , the Catholic Church rejected the authority of the last 35 rules also because some of them contain norms that are not consistent with the customs of the Western Church ^[3] .

After the Reformation

The issue of authorship and the time of writing the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" was raised during the Reformation . The apologist for the authenticity of the “Rules of the Holy Apostles” was the Spanish Jesuit Francis Turrianus ( Latin Franciscus Turrianus ), who wrote at the end of the 16th century the work “Canonum apostolorum et decretalium epistolarum pontificum apostolicorum defensio ...”, in which he argued that the “Rules of the Holy Apostles” have truly apostolic origin, since they were composed by the apostles themselves at the Council of Jerusalem , about 49 years old, and were transmitted through Clement . Catholic bishop of Orleans Gabriel de l'Obespin He did not recognize their apostolic origin and believed that the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" is a reduction of church rules and regulations, and they were compiled much earlier than the Council of Nicene 325 or by private cathedrals, or by some bishops. Calvinist pastor and theologian Jean Daye ( lat. Joannes Dallaeus ), who considered the “Rules of the Holy Apostles” to be a pseudo-epigraph and apocrypha , argued that before the Council of Nicaea and generally in the IV century, the rules were not known, but were collected in the V century by an anonymous author ^[12] (unknown trickster ^[13] ). Anglican Bishop William Beveridge Refuting the arguments of Daye, he argued that the “Rules of the Holy Apostles”, although they were not composed by Clement of Rome, were composed of ancient rules published by cathedrals of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. He believed that Clement of Alexandria worked on the collection of apostolic rules and decrees and confirmed his opinion with the testimony of the church historian Eusebius , who says about Clement of Alexandria that he compiled a book of church rules under the name of the canon and collected in it unwritten legends of the apostles and their first successors. Beveridge’s denials against Daye were repeated by almost all subsequent scholars with only minor changes until the 19th century ^[13] .

Catholic professor of theology Johann Sebastian von Drey in the middle of the 19th century, he reasonably refuted the views of Beveridge and came to the following conclusions: “1) In the ancient church there was no special code of rules. 2) Many of the so-called apostolic rules in their content are really very ancient and even coincide with the apostolic times, but the reason for publishing them was much later, and only a small part, borrowed from the Apostolic decrees , could belong to the Donikeyan time. Other of them appeared in the 4th and 5th centuries and were nothing but the repetition and change of what was decided by the Council of Antioch, which was in 341. Some (for example, 29, 81, 83 rules) were even later than the Council of Chalcedon of 451, which could even serve as a source for them. 3) Two collections were compiled from such sources of rules, one of which, among the 50 rules, appeared in the middle of the 5th century, and the other, containing the last 35, at the beginning of the 6th century. ”

Professor Pavlov A.S. considers the Rules of the Holy Apostles an apocryphal collection of canonical content. At the same time, in his opinion, there is no doubt that a significant part of the Rules contains the rules used since apostolic times ^[10] .

• On ordination: a bishop by two or three bishops (1), and a deacon or priest by one bishop (2).
• About the eruption from the dignity: for extraneous things on the altar (3), for the expulsion of the wife (5), worldly cares (6), refusal of the sacrament for no reason (8), for prayers with heretics (11, 45), fornication, theft and oath-crime (25), the use of physical violence (27, 66), for gaining power through secular authorities (30), for ordination outside the diocese (35), drunkenness and gambling (42), for renunciation of Christ (62), for Jewish Holidays (70)
• On the excommunication of the laity: for early departure from service (9), for prayer with heretics (10)
• Prohibition of service: bigamists (17), castrati (21), deaf and blind (78), military personnel (83), excommunicated (32)

The 2nd Rule of the Council of Trull puts the Rules in first place among the canonical documents and recognizes 85 apostolic rules. Following this council, the authority of all 85 rules is recognized by the Eastern Orthodox Church . In the Orthodox Church, the rules are considered as part of the Apostolic Tradition, since they accurately express the doctrine handed down by the apostles to their successors, are in full agreement with the doctrine contained in the canonical books of the Holy Scriptures and are consistent with church practice presented in the writings of the husbands of the apostles and their closest successors.

The Roman Church recognized the canonical authority of only the first 50 rules, rejecting the last 35 rules.

The 2nd Rule of the Council of Thrull also amends the 85th Apostolic Rule, which defines the list of books of scripture and books of canonical.

In the XII century, Alexei Aristin , John Zonara , Theodore Walsamon wrote an interpretation (commentary) of the "Rules of the Holy Apostles." In the 19th century, the interpretation of the "Rules of the Holy Apostles" was written by Nicodemus the Holy One and Nicodemus (Milash) .

• Apostolic Ordinances

• The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium: in 3 vol. / ed. by Dr. Alexander Kazhdan. - NY; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991 .-- 2232 p. - ISBN 0-19-504652-8. - T. 1, P. 141
• Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin , L.V. Litvinova. Apostolic rules // Orthodox Encyclopedia . - M .: Church Scientific Center "Orthodox Encyclopedia" , 2001. - T. III. - S. 119-121. - 752 s. - 40,000 copies. - ISBN 5-89572-008-0 .
• Apostolic rules // Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia . - Petrograd, 1900-1911.
• Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin. Rules of the Holy Apostles // Church Law. Sources of law of the Donicaan era.
• Nicodemus Milash . On the rules of the Holy Apostles // Rules of the Holy Apostles and Ecumenical Councils
• A. S. Pavlov . The course of church law // Theological Bulletin. - 1899-1902. - C. 48 - 51
• A. S. Pavlov . Short Course of Church Law Lectures / Op. A. S. Pavlova // Moscow: Lit. ed., 1895/6 .// S. 70
• Stratilatov I.A. Antiquity and the importance of apostolic rules: (From the appendix of the most apostolic rules) / Soch. Master Ivan Stratilatov. - St. Petersburg: type. E. Weimar, 1865. - 8. - 229 p. ;
• Funk FX Apostolischen Konstitutionen / - Verlag von Wilhelm Bader, 1891 - 374 p.
• Funk FX Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum , 2 Bände, 1905 Band I, Band II
• Johann Sebastian von Drey Neue Untersuchungen über die Constitutionen und Kanones der Apostel. Ein historisch-kritischer Beitrag zur Literatur der Kirchengeschichte und des Kirchenrechts. Tübingen, Heinrich Laupp 1832
• Franciscus Turrianus Canonum Apostolorum et decretalium epistolarum pontificum apostolicorum defensio, in quinque libros digesta. Contra centuriatores Magdeburgenses (etc.). / Quentelius, 1604
• Jean Daillé De Pseudepigraphis Apostolicis: Libri III (1653)
• William Beveridge Συνοδικόν, sive pandectae canonum ss. Apostolorum, et conciliorum ab ecclesia Graeca receptorum; nec non canonicarum ss. patrum epistolarum; nec non canonicarum SS. patrum epistolarum: una cum scholiis antiquorum singulis eorum annexis, et scriptis aliis huc spectantibus; ... Totum opus in duos tomos divisum Guilielmus Beveregius ... recensuit, prolegomenis munivit, & annotationibus auxit. Codex canonum ecclesiæ primitivæ vindicatus ac illustratus, with the appendices, I. Prolegomena in Συνοδικὸν, sive pandectas canonum ; and II. Præfatio ad annotationes in canones apostolicos (2 vols.)
• Johann Wilhelm Bickell Geschichte des Kirchenrechts , nur Band 1 erschienen (in 2 Lieferungen), Gießen 1843/1849 (Digitalisat: Lieferung 1 , Lieferung 2 )
• CH Turner , Notes on the Apostolic Constitutions. II The Apostolic Canons / The Journal of Theological Studies , Volume os-XVI, Issue 7, 1 July 1915, Pages 523–538
• N. S. Suvorov Church Law Course. Volume 1. - 1889 / S. 218
• , Canons des Apôtres

Text of the Rules of the Holy Apostles

• Rules of the Holy Apostles
• The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles.