Author: Bishop Sylvester of Belgorod

For an episode in church history

In the context of the controversy over the way in which the Church has received persons ordained in schismatic communities, references to various historical precedents can be constantly heard. In particular, the defenders of the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which received members of the UOC-KP and UAOC in communion without repeating their ordinations, cite examples of the Church accepting persons ordained not only by schismatics but even by schismatics. heretics. However, on closer inspection, these examples are far from clear.

Here we will pay attention to only one such example, because references to it are quite common. This refers to the ordination of St. Meletius, who ascended the throne of Antioch in 360. There are claims in the literature that he was ordained by Arians. This is what both ancient church writers and modern researchers say. For example, Socrates the Scholastic in his Church History reports that in Antioch the followers of the Nicene Creed believed that “Meletius was ordained by the decision of the Arians” (Book II, ch. 44). St. Epiphanius of Cyprus writes that St. Meletius was “ordained by Arians, supporters of Acacius [Caesarea]” (Panarion, 73, 28) [2]. Most recently, Bishop Cyril (Caterelos, currently Metropolitan of Cyrene in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople) [3] and the abbot of the cell “St. Anna “in Mount Athos Archimandrite Antipas [4].

As we know, St. Meletius was surrounded with special reverence during his lifetime both in Antioch and in Constantinople. And in 381 he was even chairman of the Second Ecumenical Council. How can these facts be reconciled with the accusations of Arianism? Answers to this question have already been given by some Orthodox authors, [5] and yet we will try to look more closely at this episode in church history.

The life of St. Meletius until his election to the Cathedral of Antioch

Very little is known about the life of St. Meletius before his election to the Antioch Cathedral. In the sources there is only very little information about his fate 360 ​​years ago.

At the time of his election to the Antioch Cathedral, St. Meletius was already a bishop. Around 358, he received the chair in Sebastia (now Sivas, eastern Turkey) in place of the deposed Bishop Eustathius. But St. Meletius’s stay in Sebastia was very short. As bl. Theodoret of Cyrene, Meletius, “dissatisfied with the unrestrainedness of his subordinates, retired and lived in another city” (Church History. Book II, Chapter 31) [7]. It is possible that this was a conflict with the flock, which retained sympathy for the exiled Bishop Eustathius. Socrates the Scholastic writes that from Sebastia St. Meletius moved to Veroia the Syrian, where he also occupied the episcopal chair (Book II, Chapter 44) [8]. But in the research literature the fact of the episcopal ministry of St. Meletius in Veroia is questioned. It is obvious that he simply lived in Veroia in solitude, but did not perform episcopal functions there. It was from Berea that Meletius was called to serve in Antioch.

There are no indications in the preserved sources as to who ordained St. Meletius Bishop of Sevastopol. The question of what theological position Meletius held at the time of his episcopal ordination also remains unclear. In science, these issues remain controversial. As we have said, in Sebastia St. Meletius was appointed instead of the exiled Bishop Eustathius. The latter belonged to the Omiusians (from грμοιούσιος – similar). shared the doctrine of the “likeness” of the Son of God the Father.

The Omiusians rejected the terminology of the Council of Nicaea. They believed that the doctrine of the oneness of the Father and the Son contained the heresy of modalism (Savelianism). In the term “one in essence” (omousios, ὁμοούσιος), used in the Nicene Creed, they saw the danger of merging the Father and the Son “into one essence.” At the same time, they often used a term close to the Nicene Creed in the term “similar”.

The removal of Bishop Eustathius from the Cathedral of Sebastopol was most likely the result of the activity of Bishop Acacius of Caesarea, who was the leader of another theological movement, the Omii. Omii (from the Greek ὅμοιος – similar) is a term used to refer to the followers of Eusebius of Caesarea – the predecessor of Acacius of Caesarea. In their theology, the Omias proceeded from the fact that God the Father could not enter into direct contact with the world, and therefore for the creation of the world he produced by his own will in an unattainable way the only begotten Son. They did not recognize the equality of the Father and the Son, although they did not place the Son of God in line with the created beings, because they considered Him to be the Creator of the world. They believed that the origin of the Son from the Father was unspeakable and unknown. Moreover, if the Omiusians considered the Son to be similar in essence to the Father, the Omii, recognizing the Son as similar to the Father, still did not consider it possible to speak of similarity in essence. Thus the concept of the Omias was not identical with strict Arianism, nor with Omiusianism, nor with the Nicene Creed.

It is believed that the Omii first stated clearly their existence at the Council of Ancyra in 358. This council anathematized both strict Arianism (anomeism) and the Nicene Creed. The participants in the Ancyra Council rejected the term “one in essence”, also seeing in it a danger of Savelianism. Yet, as modern scholars acknowledge, the Council of Ancyra of 358 objectively brought the Church’s victory over Arianism closer.

The testimonies of St. Epiphanius of Cyprus are especially important here. In his Panarion, he included the name of St. Meletius in the list of washes, placing him second only to Acacius of Caesarea (Panarion, 73, 23). Moreover, St. Epiphanius, quoting the text of the confession adopted in 359 at the Council of Seleucia, does not mention Meletius among the 43 bishops who signed this document (Panarion, 73, 26) [13]. This means that the name of St. Meletius was missing from the list of signatories of the Confession of the Seleucid Council, which St. Epiphanius had. That is why modern researchers consider the fact of St. Meletius’ participation in the Seleucia Council to be unproven. It is possible that his absence from the Council of Seleucia is explained by the fact that at that time he no longer ruled the Diocese of Sebastia and as a bishop removed from his chair, he could not participate in the council.

As St. Epiphanius writes, the Omias “hid their thoughts” according to the circumstances of the time. For this reason, among those who joined the current of the Omias, there were people with completely Orthodox views (Panarion, 73, 23) [14]. This remark of St. Epiphanius testifies to the great complexity of the situation in which the Church found itself in the period between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. It was practically impossible to draw a clear line between the various theological currents at that time. French researcher Ferdinand Cavalera, analyzing church life in the East during the years when different Arian and semi-Arian currents celebrated, notes that in the chaos of the struggle between different currents, it was extremely difficult to distinguish those who remained faithful to the Council of Nicaea from those who in principle rejected his teaching [15] *.

It is clear that St. Meletius can in no way be considered a supporter of strict Arianism (anomie). He also could hardly have been an Omiusian, because he was appointed to the chair in Seleucia instead of the Emiusian of Omius. On the other hand, there is no evidence that St. Meletius openly supported the Nicene Creed 360 years ago. Most likely, he was really close to the circle of Acacius of Caesarea. But, as the Cavalier insists, one should not speak here of St. Meletius’ solidarity with the theological position of the Omii, but only of a kind of “belonging to the group.” There is no evidence that St. Meletius was an ideologue and propagandist of the doctrine of the Omii. Contemporaries, although acknowledging the fact that Meletius was close to the circle of Acacius of Caesarea, never spoke of him as a heretic.

The election of St. Meletius of the Antioch Cathedral

Now we must say a few words about the situation that arose in Antioch at the time when St. Meletius was elected to this chair. As early as around 327-330, St. Eustathius (not to be confused with Eustathius of Sebastopol), who was a participant in the First Ecumenical Council and consistently defended its determinations, was removed from the Antioch Cathedral. It is obvious that he was overthrown as a result of the intrigues of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Various accusations were leveled against St. Eustatius: moral impurity, insulting the emperor’s mother, and Savellianism. However, Eustathius was overthrown. He seems to have died in exile soon after, although the year of his death remains a subject of debate in science.

After the expulsion of St. Eustatius, the throne of Antioch passed for a long time into the hands of the Arians, and the strict Nicaeans (who began to call them “Eustathians” after the exiled Orthodox bishop) did not have a single temple in Antioch.

The Council of Seleucia in 359 removed from the Cathedral of Antioch the ultimate Arian Eudoxius, who soon after succeeded to the throne of Constantinople. The Antioch Cathedral remained empty. It was in this situation in 360 that St. Meletius ascended it.

Virtually all available sources unequivocally testify that St. Meletius was appointed to the throne of Antioch under the protection of Acacius of Caesarea. At the same time, most ancient writers are equally unequivocal in claiming that Meletius did not live up to the hopes of the Omiya group. When Meletius arrived in Antioch, he publicly “expressed the literal meaning of the doctrine of God” (Book II, ch. 31). St. Epiphanius also writes that the group of Acacius was deceived in their expectations of Meletius: “This Meletius, appointed by the followers of Acacius, was considered by them to be a follower of their opinion, but he did not turn out to be one, as many say” (Panarion, 73, 28) [18].

The first available document setting out the theological position of St. Meletius dates back to 360. This is his discourse on the words of the Book of Proverbs “The Lord had me as the beginning of His way, before His creation, from time immemorial” (Proverbs 8:22). According to the version of bl. Theodoret’s election of a new bishop took place in Antioch in the presence of Emperor Constantius, who wished all the candidates to deliver a speech on the said biblical verse. The choice of this verse was not accidental, because it was on it that the Arians based their teaching. Therefore, by interpreting this verse, the theological position of each candidate could be clearly manifested. Based on this testimony of Theodoret, some scholars believe that a theological debate was in fact held in Antioch, which led to the decision to appoint a new bishop.

Other sources, however, do not link the sermon of St. Meletius with the procedure for electing the bishop of Antioch. For example, St. Epiphanius writes that this was the first sermon of St. Meletius to the flock of Antioch after his appointment to this chair (Panarion, 73, 28) [21]. It was St. Epiphanius who preserved for us the text of this discourse (Panarion, 73, 29-33) [22].

As can be seen from the text of the discourse, St. Meletius was extremely cautious in expounding the doctrine of the Son of God. He apparently avoids the use of the term “One”, preferring biblical terms. St. Epiphanius generally appreciates this discourse (Panarion, 73, 35) [23].

In the discourse of St. Meletius, the Son is directly called God and Creator of the world. St. Meletius clearly points out that the Son is not just a force, voice or soulless image of the Father, but has an independent hypostatic being. Perhaps the only place where the influence of Omiya theology can be seen is the claim that the Son is like the Father. Still, we can agree with the French researcher Emile Amman, who believes that in the quoted speech of St. Meletius “the Nicaeans could have known themselves.” According to Haman, St. Meletius in this discourse deliberately “stands on the side of traditional faith.” In fact, Meletius here “claims everything that the Nicene Creed claimed”; he rejects all ambiguous interpretations bordering on Arianism from near or far ”[24].

Only a few months after his election to the chair of Antioch, St. Meletius was removed from it. In describing the reasons for his removal, the ancient church writers are practically unanimous. Ascending the Cathedral of Antioch, St. Meletius began to unequivocally support the Nicene Creed. In fact, he joined the emerging “New Nicene” current, which developed the Trinitarian theological terminology. According to both Theodoret and Sozomen, it was the confession of the doctrine of the Trinity that led to the expulsion of St. Meletius from his chair.

The Eustatians and the Meletians

The followers of St. Eustatius, who refused to unite with the followers of St. Meletius, continued to exist in Antioch. Therefore, in fact, two groups of Orthodox were formed in Antioch: the еustatians  ani and meletiani. As bl. Theodoret, “in Antioch the Orthodox people split into two streams: the adherents of the omnipotent Eustathius, who had separated before, gathered separately for worship, and those who withdrew from Arian society together with the wonderful Meletius worshiped separately in the so-called” old church “. . At the same time, both groups professed the same faith, because both defended the symbol of the teachings of Nicaea with equal zeal. They were divided only by the mutual enmity and attachment of each group to its leader ”(Book III, Chapter 4) [25].

Because the community of St. Eustatius’ followers had existed for decades, it was considered the only Orthodox community in Antioch in other local churches. St. Athanasius of Alexandria, as well as the Roman bishops, kept in touch with the followers of Eustathius. However, the Eustathians did not have a bishop. Their leader was the priest Pavlin. In 362, when St. Meletius was in exile, Antioch was visited by Bishop Lucifer of Caralis. He ordained Pavlin bishop. This significantly aggravated the situation, because now two bishops of the Orthodox faith have claimed the chair of Antioch: Pauline and Meletius.

St. Meletius of Antioch became one of the main allies of the Neo-Nicaeans. He was a supporter of St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory the Theologian. However, Rome remained skeptical of him. St. In his correspondence with the Western bishops, Basil the Great tried to dispel their distrust of St. Meletius and persuade them to recognize him as the legitimate bishop of Antioch. For example, in 372 he sent a letter to Rome, signed by 32 Eastern bishops (Letter 92). But these efforts of St. Basil were unsuccessful. The Roman Church continued to deny the authority of St. Meletius as head of the Church of Antioch. Despite all this, in 381 St. Meletius not only took part in the work of the Second Ecumenical Council, but was also elected its chairman. The Fathers of the Council, trying to find a solution to the complicated situation in Antioch, did not question the reality (legality) of the ordination of St. Meletius, nor did they question his Orthodoxy [27].

Even during the work of the Second Ecumenical Council, St. Meletius died without entering into canonical communion with Rome. Therefore, in the Catholic tradition, the term “Meletian schism” was used. This phrase derives from the Catholic teaching of the Church: if the followers of St. Meletius in Antioch did not have communion with the Roman throne, then they must be qualified as schismatics. In the twentieth century, however, Catholic historians and theologians began to abandon this view of St. Meletius. For example, Haman called the phrase “Meletian schism” “too inappropriate.”

Overcoming the church schism in Antioch

After St. Meletius died, some authoritative hierarchs (for example, St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Ambrose of Milan) suggested to their brethren not to elect a new bishop for the Cathedral of Antioch, but to give it to Bishop Pauline and thus put an end to split. However, another point of view prevailed. His closest ally Flavian was chosen as the successor of St. Meletius, and the division in Antioch was preserved. Although Bishop Pavlin’s Orthodoxy was not in doubt, in the East he was considered the culprit of the Antiochian schism. At the same time, the Roman Church continued to maintain official communion with Bishop Pauline.

Bishop Pavlin died in 388. However, he succeeded in ordaining a successor, Bishop Evagrius. That is why the schism did not end even after Pavlin’s death. Evagrius died around 392-393, but Flavian succeeded in persuading the Eustathians not to elect more bishops. This helped to gradually overcome the schism. In 394 the authority of Bishop Flavian was recognized by the Church of Alexandria, and in 398 by the Church of Rome.

We must also mention another important aspect of the ecclesiastical conflict in Antioch. The point is that Bishop Pavlin ordained Evagrius alone. It seems that Pavlin himself was ordained alone by Bishop Lucifer Karaliski. Therefore, St. Flavian did not recognize the legitimacy of the priesthood in the Eustatian community and insisted that all their clergy should be ordained.

How serious the opposition was in Antioch can be seen from the sermons of St. John Chrysostom, who served there as a presbyter from 386 to 397 and was one of St. Flavian’s closest associates. For example, in his discourse on the words of the Apostle Paul, “One is the Lord, one is the faith, one is the baptism” (Ephesians 4: 5). from the Church. ” Addressing the defenders of the Eustathians, Chrysostom exclaims: “What are you talking about? “Their faith is the same, they are also Orthodox”… Tell me: do you think it is enough to call them Orthodox, after the grace of ordination has been scarce and disappeared from them? That what is the use of everything else, since the latter has not been preserved? We must hold on to faith as well as to it (for the grace of the priesthood). And if everyone is allowed, as the ancient proverb says, to fill his hands, to be a priest, then let everyone step forward, and this altar is built in vain, in vain – the church rank, in vain – the priestly image: to destroy and destroy them “( Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians, 11, 5) [30]. As we see, St. John directly denies the existence of the grace of the priesthood among Pauline’s followers and qualifies them as a schismatic community opposed to the Church.

The quoted passage also contains a rather harsh assessment of church schisms as such: “Nothing offends God as much as divisions in the Church. Even if we have done a thousand good deeds, we will still be condemned no less than those who have tormented His body if we destroy the integrity of the Church… A holy man has said something that might seem bold if not he had said. What exactly? He said that such a sin cannot be blotted out even by martyrdom. And really, tell me, what are you accepting torture for? Isn’t it for the glory of Christ? So, being ready to give your soul for Christ, how do you decide to destroy the Church for which Christ gave his soul?… The harm (from divisions) is not less than that caused by our enemies, that even much greater ”(Epistles to the Ephesians, 11, 4) [31].

In the quoted words of St. John Chrysostom, a clear criterion is formulated for the attitude towards the communities separated from the Church. He clearly states that it is necessary, firstly, to take into account whether the Orthodox faith has been preserved in the schism, and secondly, the legality of the ordinations. Neither of these two factors should be overlooked. The canonical rules of the order for ordinations should not be ignored, because otherwise anyone can declare himself a priest and the whole “church order” will be destroyed.

The question of how to receive the “Eustatian clergy” has long complicated church life in Antioch. Only during the time of the Bishop of Antioch Alexander I (414-424) the schism was overcome, for which there is preserved information in the “Church History” of bl. Theodoret (Book V, Chapter 35) [32]. Thus the ecclesiastical conflict in Antioch lasted a total of about eighty-five years (330 to 414).

The Meletius Case and the Seventh Ecumenical Council

In the following centuries, church hierarchs, theologians, and canonists repeatedly referred to the events described in Antioch as an important precedent in overcoming divisions. However, these events gave rise to different interpretations and assessments.

In particular, the question of the acceptance of heretics in the Church was discussed specifically at the VII Ecumenical Council in connection with the question of overcoming the iconoclast heresy. It should be emphasized, however, that at this council the question of the reception of iconoclast bishops was considered not in the context of the legality of ordinations received by Iconoclastic hierarchs, but exclusively in terms of the involvement of one or another bishop in iconoclastic unrest. A decision was made for each bishop individually after examining the question of the degree of his personal participation in the iconoclast movement.

It was during this discussion at the first council meeting that the “Meletius case” was mentioned. During the discussion, the representative of Pope Hadrian – Presbyter Peter said: “As historians say, St. Meletius was ordained by Arians; but, ascending the pulpit, he proclaimed the word “One,” and his ordination was not rejected. ” This assertion was also supported by the Sicilian bishops.

As can be seen from the minutes of the meeting, the reply of the representative of Rome was not specifically discussed. The chairman of the council, St. Tarasius of Constantinople, did not react to it at all. However, the words of the Roman legate did not fully reflect the real history of the ordination of St. Meletius as bishop. It is quite obvious that in the words of Elder Peter, three different historical events merged into one plot: the ordination of Meletius as bishop, his election to the Antioch Cathedral, and his expulsion from Antioch. The Roman legate says that St. Meletius was ordained by Arians, but, ascending the pulpit (ie immediately after his ordination), he professed the Nicene Creed and was immediately expelled from his cathedral. Apparently, Elder Peter simply recounts from memory the plot described by Theodoret and Sozomen. Yet, as shown above, St. Meletius was appointed to the chair of Antioch, already a bishop. And the confession of faith mentioned by Presbyter Peter, St. Meletius, pronounced not immediately after his ordination. Also in his discourse in Antioch, St. Meletius did not use the word “One”.

There is no doubt that the representative of the Bishop of Rome expressed at the council the point of view traditional for the Western Church. This is confirmed by the fact that his words were supported only by the Sicilian bishops (ie again by representatives of the Western Church). The Eastern bishops, on the other hand, did not react in any way to the words of the Roman legate.

Thus, the VII Ecumenical Council did not come out with any assessment of the ordination of St. Meletius. The name of the Saint of Antioch was only mentioned, among other things, during the conciliar discussions.

Conclusions

In the end, several conclusions can be drawn.

First, there is no clear information in the surviving sources as to who ordained St. Meletius bishop of the Sevastopol Cathedral. There is no reliable evidence on the other question – what exactly is the theological position of St. Meletius at the time of his ordination. Although we have reason to suppose that at that time he was close to the group of Acacius of Caesarea, the signature of St. Meletius is still missing from the confession of the Seleucus Council of 359, composed of the Omii.

Secondly, one must take into account the special situation in which the Church found itself in the period between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. At that time, strict Arianism (anomeism) was officially condemned. As for the Omiusians and Omii, these are theological currents, usually classified as semi-Arian and in opposition to the strict Aryans. The theological formulas of the Omias were not condemned at that time, although they were not accepted by the strict Nicaeans. It is also important to emphasize that the Omias (as well as the Omiusians) did not represent a parallel hierarchy. According to Archimandrite Dorothea (Vulisma), at that time heretics and Orthodox were “mixed with each other.” Opponents of the Nicene Creed did not establish their own hierarchy, but sought to elevate their adherents to episcopal chairs. In this situation, in the same church at the same time, the chairs could be occupied by representatives of various groups, religious movements and religious views. Often on the same chair bishops with different dogmatic positions could legitimately be replaced.

That is why in such large ecclesiastical centers as Antioch, adherents of different theological doctrines were able to visit the same temples and participate together in the sacraments.

Only the formulation of New Nicene orthodoxy and its acceptance by the Church led to a strict distinction between heresy and orthodoxy. Therefore, using Archimandrite Dorothea’s terminology, it would be most appropriate to call the Omias “undisclosed heretics.” Their ordination did not at all mean opposition to the Church and a conscious transition to a heretical community.

Third, the appointment of St. Meletius to the Antioch Cathedral was not an ordination but an election. At that time he was already a bishop. Therefore, when the ancient historians of the Church say that he was ascended to the chair of Antioch by the followers of Acacius of Caesarea, they mean election, not ordination. It is this understanding that Archimandrite Dorothea Vulisma has in mind when she claims that St. Meletius was a bishop in Sebastia, and for the Cathedral of Antioch he was not ordained, but only elected.

Fourth, the term ‘Meletian schism’ must be considered incorrect. This phrase is typical of the Catholic tradition because St. Meletius was not in communion with the Roman throne. But in the twentieth century in Catholic literature there is a tendency to abandon this phrase as incorrect.

Fifth, St. Meletius not only took part in the work of the Second Ecumenical Council, but was also elected its chairman. The Fathers of the Council, trying to find a solution to the complicated situation in Antioch, nevertheless did not question the reality (legality) of the ordination of St. Meletius, nor did they question his Orthodoxy. The question of ordination (its recognition or non-recognition) was not considered at all. And the reasons for the “Antiochian schism” lay on a completely different plane.

Sixth, the younger contemporary of St. Meletius, St. John Chrysostom, who lived in Antioch, unequivocally viewed St. Meletius as a legitimate hierarch, without any discussion of his ordination. And he unequivocally defined the opponents of St. Meletius as schismatics. Moreover, St. John pointed out clear criteria according to which they must be taken into account: first, the extent to which the Orthodox faith is preserved in the schism, and second, the legality of the ordinations performed. Neither of these two factors should be overlooked. The canonical rules for the order of ordinations should not be ignored, because otherwise anyone can declare himself a priest and the whole “church rank” will be destroyed.

In our opinion, all this fully proves how incorrect it is to cite the “case of Meletius” as an example of how the Church could recognize ordinations performed by heretics or schismatics.

I consider it my duty to thank the Department of Ancient Languages and Philology of the Kiev Theological Academy for its assistance in my work with foreign language literature.

Bishop Sylvester of Belgorod, rector of the Kiev Theological Academy and Seminary

Notes:

[1] Socrates the Scholastic. Church history. Moscow, 1996. S. 126.

[2] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. Part 4. Moscow, 1880. S. 345.

[3] ιριλλος (τατερελος), επισκοπος Αβύδου. Α Αυτοκέφαλη Εκκλησία της Ουκρανίας // δωδεκάνησος: Επισημον Δελτίον νων Εν Δωδεκανήσω Επαρχιών ου ου υου ΚΓ΄. Ύουλιος-Δεκέμβριος 2019. Σ. 38-39.

[4] Antipa Svyatogorets, hieromonk. Dissenters who became saints upon their return to the Church. [Electronic resource:] https://bogoslov.ru/article/6171932.

[5] Cf. for example: Vasily I. Tulumtsis. Ordinations performed by heretics as arguments in the question of Ukrainian autocephaly. [Electronic resource:] https://web.archive.org/web/20220602043124/https://mospat.ru/ru/articles/87403/.

[6] See: Zaitsev DV Meletius I of Antioch, St. // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 44. M., 2016. S. 573-574.

[7] Theodoret of Cyrus. Church history. Moscow, 1993. S. 115.

[8] Socrates the Scholastic. Church history. S. 126.

[9] For more details, see in: Shmaliy V., Rev. Arianism // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 3. M., 2001. S. 221-223.

[10] Cf. for example: Shmaliy V., saint. Arianism. Pp. 223-225.

[11] Cf. for example: E.P.G. Ancyra Cathedrals // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 2. M., 2001. S. 448-449.

[12] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. Ch. 4. M., 1880. S. 337.

[13] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. Part 4. pp. 342-343.

[14] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. Ch. 4. S. 337.

[15] Cavallera F. Le schisme d’Antioche (IV-V siècle). P. 44-46.

[16] See: Nikiforov MV Eustaphius of Antioch, St. // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 17. M., 2008. S. 286-287.

[17] Theodoret of Cyrus. Church history. Pp. 115-116.

[18] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. Ch. 4. S. 345.

[19] Theodoret of Cyrus. Church history. P. 116.

[20] Zaitsev DV Meletius I of Antioch, St. S. 574.

[21] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. Part 4. pp. 345-346.

[22] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. Ch. 4. S. 346-355.

[23] Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Creations. Ch. 4. S. 356-357.

[24] Amman E. Mélèce d’Antioche. P. 523.

[25] Theodoret of Cyrus. Church history. S. 120.

[26] Basil the Great, St. Creations. T. 3. SPb., 1911. S. 115-118.

[27] Peter (Louis), archbishop. Rules of the first four Ecumenical Councils. Pp. 210-212.

[28] Amman E. Mélèce d’Antioche. P. 520.

[29] Theodoret of Cyrus. Church history. S. 200.

[30] John Chrysostom, St. Creations in Russian translation. T. 11. Book. 1. Petersburg, 1905. S. 103.

[31] John Chrysostom, St. Creations in Russian translation. T. 11. Book. 1. S. 102.

[32] Theodoret of Cyrus. Church history. S. 209.

[33] Cf. more details in: υουλουμτσής Βασίλειος. The Ecclesiastical Church and the Prophecy of the Church of the Ecclesiastical Council of the Church of the Church 2022

[34] Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, published in Russian translation at the Kazan Theological Academy. T. 7. Kazan, 1909. S. 55.

[35] The biography of the famous Eusebius of Nicomedia is very characteristic in this sense – see: Zaitsev DV Eusebius of Nicomedia, Ep. // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 17. M., 2013. S. 246-249.

[36] See: Young F. “Pidalion” history of compilation and publication. Pp. 94-95.

Source: mospat.ru