Seven deacons

Niconian: Here is the 15th canon of the Neocæsarian council: “The deacons ought to be seven in number, according to the canon, even if the city be great. Of this you will be persuaded from the Book of the Acts”. The 16th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council anulls this canon despite the fact that it was based on the Book of the Acts. The commentary on the 16th canon says: “The fathers of that council poorly understood the words from the Book of the Acts regarding seven deacons”. This is a good proof that Church can abolish and change even those traditions that are based on the Apostolic Acts.

Old Believer: You are wrong, thinking that the Six Ecumenical Council abolished a tradition that existed during the times of the apostles. Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council only defined the meaning of words from the Book of the Acts more accurately and specified how to understand the passage regarding seven deacons correctly. The 16th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council itself tells us this: “Since the book of the Acts tells us that seven deacons were appointed by the Apostles, and the synod of Neocæsarea in the canons which it put forth determined that there ought to be canonically only seven deacons, even if the city be very large, in accordance with the book of the Acts; we, having fitted the mind of the fathers to the Apostles’ words, find that they spoke not of those men who ministered at the Mysteries but in the administration which pertains to the serving of tables”. Therefore no apostolic tradition was abolished. We only see that the fathers of the Neocæsarean Council did not understand the passage from the Acts of the Apostles correctly, which is why the Sixth Ecumenical Council corrected this inaccuracy. It is important to note that having defined the percise meaning of the words from the Book of Acts, the Sixth Ecumenical Council preserved the inviolability of the apostolic decree and passed over the vague definition given by the fathers of the Neocæsarean Council in silence iherent to holy fathers. Thus this example, much like the first one, does not justify the reforms of Nikon but condemns them for abolishing apostolic traditions. As for the words from the commentary on the 16th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, included in the slavic Nomocanon, that the fathers of the Neocæsarean Council “poorly understood” (the meaning), I ask you to listen to the student of Venerable Maximus the Greek, monk Zenobius, who in the 56th chapter of his book “Indication of Truth” writes the following:

“For those who thought that the decree talks about hierodeacons that minister at the altar, the fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical council apprehended this decree and established that under seven deacons the fathers of the Neocæsarean meant those, who look after the maintenance of the hungry, not those that minister at the Mysteries; and that was exactly what they wrote, presenting the words of Chrysostom on the Acts as proof that the fathers of the Neocæsarean Council established to have seven servants of those in need, not of the altar. Do you also comprehend the extend of like-mindness between the ecumenical and local councils, for the holy fathers are guided by one Holy Spirit and have one mind? Liar is he who blasphemes against the holy councils of holy fathers, for there is no division or discord among the holy councils, but unity in one Holy Spirit!” And Athanasius said to Zenobius: “The rostovian book includes the canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which says that the Neocæsarean Council poorly understood what the Acts say about seven deacons, and erroneously established to have only seven deacons. That canon of the Sixth Council blasphemes against the Neocæsarean Council. This is what the rostovian book says”. Then he (Zenobius) asked him: “Was the rostovian book written on paper or leather? If it was written on paper, whose style was the rostovian book written in? Was it the style of the old clerks or the style of our contemporary ones?” Athanasius answered: “The book of rostovian canons was written on paper with the writing of our contemporary clerks. It is neither new nor old”. Then he answered them: “This opinion is written in the rostovian book because certain enemies of truth or those who have no fear of God distorted the canons. The canons that I have just presented to you include the decrees of truth. For this book was written on leather during the times of prince Iziaslav the son of Yaroslav, grandsom of Vladimir the Great, who baptised Rus’. Also the canons that I have showed you are the decrees of truth, because they were written during the time of the enlightment of our land, when books were translated from greek to russian. While the Rostovian book was written on paper with hand of our contemporary clerks. For it was distorted by men, who are enemies of truth or do not fear God. If the rostovian book would not be distorted, its canons would be identical with the ancient canons without any addition. But since the rostovian book does not correspond with the old canons, one cannot follow the canons written in it for it was distorted by unrighteous men”.

Niconian: Now I trully see that the Sixth Ecumenical council only specified the percise meaning of the words from the Acts, and that having corrected the inaccuracy of fathers of the Neocæsarean Council, it did not change any apostolic tradition but actually preserved the inviolability of the later in accuracy. However, I am not going to stop at this and will give you another example, which proves that the ancient Church trully abolished the traditions of the Holy Church but did not lose its orthodoxy because of it.

Old Believer: Please do.