Archbishop Vasily Krivoshein theological works. Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church

In 1916 he graduated from the gymnasium and entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Petrograd University.

In 1917 he continued his education at Moscow University.

During the Civil War, he went south to fight in the White Army. At the end of 1919 he left Novorossiysk for Cairo. From 1920 he lived in Paris. Completed his education in Paris Faculty of Philology Sorbonne in 1921.

In 1924-25. took part in the Russian Christian student movement.

In November 1925, Vsevolod Alexandrovich went on a pilgrimage to Athos, which determined his entire subsequent life. In the same year, on the feast of the Entry into the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos, he was accepted into the brotherhood of the Panteleimon Monastery as a novice.

On March 24, 1926, on the feast of the Annunciation, he was tonsured into a cassock with the name Valentine, and a year later, on March 5, into a mantle with the name Vasily.

From 1929 to 1942, he acted as a monastery secretary, as he spoke Greek.

In 1937 he was elected a "cathedral elder", i.e. member of the monastery council.

In 1942-45. he was antiprosop (permanent representative) of the monastery in Kinot of St. Mountains, and in 1944-45. also a member of Epistasia (administrative body of Athos). For 22 years he lived on Athos. During this time, he wrote and published a number of works on the ascetic teaching and theology of St. Gregory Palamas.

In September 1947, Fr. Basil was forced to leave Athos for England.

Since February 1951, he settled in Oxford (England), where (until 1955) he participated in the preparation of the Oxford University, edited by prof. Lamp of the Theological Dictionary of the Greek Patristic Language. Here in Oxford, on May 21, 1951, Bishop Irinej of Dalmatia (Serbian Patriarchate), with the consent of the hegumen of the Panteleimon Monastery, was ordained a hierodeacon, and on May 22, a hieromonk to the house church of St. Nicholas, serving the Orthodox of different nationalities. He served as an assistant to the rector - Archm. Nicholas (Gibbs). Since 1951 under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

During the period of his life in Oxford, he participated in the work of the First International Congress of Patrologists in September 1951, then in each of the Oxford Patrological Congresses, which are the most representative scientific and theological forums of their time.

In March 1959 he was appointed rector of the Church of the Annunciation in Oxford.

By a resolution of the Holy Synod of May 26, 1958, he was determined to be Bishop of Volokolamsk, the second vicar of the Patriarchal Exarch in Western Europe.

On June 14, 1959, in the Assumption Church in London, he was consecrated as a bishop, which was performed by the Exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Europe, Archbishop. Klishinsky Nikolay (Eremin) and Bishop Anthony of Sergievsky (Bloom).

Since November 1959, Bishop Vasily carried out his archpastoral obedience in Paris as an assistant to the Archbishop of Klichy.

From 1960 until his death, he lived at the temple in Brussels.

Vasily remained in this chair for a quarter of a century, until his death.

During the administration of the Brussels diocese, Vladyka Vasily, in addition to the previously existing Russian St. Nicholas Church, achieved the opening of three more Belgian Orthodox churches with service in French and Flemish.

He was the editor of the Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate.

Vladyka Vasily actively participated in the public life of the Russian Orthodox Church.

In 1961 and 1964 he is a member of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church at a meeting on about. Rhodes. At the IV World Conference, he was elected a member of the WCC Commission "Faith and Church Order".

Beginning in the 1950s, he worked hard to study the life and works of St. Simeon the New Theologian, the great Christian mystic of the 11th century. The result of this was the capital work "St. Simeon the New Theologian. Life, Spirituality, Teaching". Ed. Paris, 1980 (360 p.).

In 1963 he was awarded the right to wear a cross on his klobuk.

In 1964 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology by the Council of the Leningrad Theological Academy for a scientific publication in the patristic series of catechumens of St. Simeon the New Theologian.

1.-15.9.1966 - head of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church at a meeting of the International Orthodox Commission for Dialogue with Anglican Church in Belgrade.

11/10/11/1966 - representative of the Russian Orthodox Church at an informal interview with Anglicans on the issue of the Anglican priesthood in London (Lambez).

4.-9.7.1968 - member of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church on Ecumenical Council in Uppsala.

March 20, 1969 - Member of the International Orthodox Commission for Dialogue with the Anglican Communion.

6.-20.10.1969 - visited the USA.

10/19/11/5/1970 - visited the USA.

7.-11.9.1972 - Representative of the Russian Orthodox Church at the 4th Session of the International Orthodox Commission for the preparation of dialogue with the Anglicans.

Dissociated himself from the condemnation of A. Solzhenitsyn, published by Metropolitan. Seraphim (Nikitin) in the newspaper Pravda.

26.7.-2.8.1976 - participated in the Orthodox-Anglican conference in Moscow.

25.7.-1.8.1977 - participated in the meeting of the Anglican-Orthodox Commission in Cambridge.

13.-18.7.1978 - participated in the joint theological commission for Anglican-Orthodox dialogue in the monastery of Athens.

14.-17.10.1979 - participated in the celebrations on the occasion of the 1600th anniversary of the death of St. Vasilios.

9/7/1979 - participated in the meeting of the conciliation committee of the Anglican-Orthodox Commission on religious matters in St. Alban, England.

Sent a telegram addressed to Brezhnev with a protest against the arrest of the priest D. Dudko.

In addition, he participated in a number of scientific, theological and ecumenical forums.

Beginning in 1956, Vladyka Vasily came to his homeland about 20 times, where the Lord judged him to find eternal rest.

On September 15, 1985, Vladyka Vasily, during his regular visit to his native city, together with Metropolitan Anthony of Leningrad celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the Transfiguration Cathedral in Leningrad. In this temple he was baptized and was a parishioner in his childhood and youth. After the service, during the meal, Vladyka Vasily felt very unwell. He was taken to the hospital with a stroke and paralysis on the left side of his body. On Sunday, September 22, at 4 o'clock in the morning, death followed.

During his stay in the hospital, Vladyka Vasily was conscious all the time. Shortly before his death, a canon on the exodus of the soul was read over him.

On September 23, at 3 p.m., the body of Archbishop Vasily, dressed in bishop's clothes, was taken to Transfiguration Cathedral city ​​of Leningrad. The funeral service was performed on the morning of September 24th. The funeral was attended by: Met. Anthony of Leningrad, Metropolitan Minsk Filaret and Met. Rostov Vladimir.

Metropolitan Anthony uttered a word in which he characterized the deceased as a faithful son of the Russian Orthodox Church, a humble monk, a zealous archpastor and an outstanding theologian.

The funeral was attended by Deputy Commissioner of the Council for Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for Leningrad and the region N.N. Kirov.

Archbishop buried. Vasily at the Serafimovsky cemetery in Leningrad, where the graves of his relatives are located. At the Ixelles cemetery in Brussels, there is an inscription on the grave: "He rests in his hometown on the banks of the Neva."

Proceedings:

• "The ascetic and theological teaching of St. Gregory Palamas"
• "Brotherly Beggar" Mystical autobiography of St. Simeon the New Theologian (949-1022).
• "Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate". 1953, No. 16, p. 223-236.
• "Furious Zealot". Rev. Simeon the New Theologian as abbot and spiritual mentor. (Ibid. 1957, No. 25, pp. 30-53; For bibliography, see ZhMP. 1957, No. 8, p. 73).
• "Second Pan-Orthodox Conference on the Island of Rhodes".
• ZhMP. 1964, No. 4, p. 32.
• "International Congress in Venice dedicated to the Millennium of Athos".
• ZhMP. 1964, no. 2, p. 54.
• "The Fourth International Congress of Patrologists at Oxford".
• ZhMP. 1964, no. 2, p. 62.
• "Third Pan-Orthodox Conference on the Island of Rhodes".
• ZhMP. 1965, no. 7, p. 42.
• "XIX International Old Catholic Congress in Vienna".
• ZhMP. 1965, no. 11, p. 46.
• "Inter-Orthodox Commission for Dialogue with Anglicans".
• ZhMP. 1967, No. 6, p. 35-48.
• "Theological discussions on the question of the Anglican priesthood between the English and Russian Orthodox Churches"
• ZhMP. 1967, no. 7, p. 45-53.
• "15th Pan-Orthodox Conference".
• ZhMP. 1969, no. 1, p. 45-53; No. 2, p. 47-52.
• "Unknown creation of St. Macarius of Egypt".
• ZhMP. 1970, no. 12, p. 57.
• "Session of the Inter-Orthodox Commission for Dialogue with Anglicans" (Helsinki, July 7-11, 1971).
• ZhMP. 1972, no. 4, p. 55-58.
• "The saving work of Christ on the Cross and in the Resurrection".
• ZhMP. 1973, no. 2, p. 64-69.
• "Catechetical words of St. Simeon the New Theologian. Introduction, critical text and notes".
• ZhMP. 1964, no. 12, p. 29.
• "St. Simeon the New Theologian. Life, Spirituality, Teaching". Ed. Paris, 1980 (360 p.).
• "Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church".
• "Theological Works", 1968, Sat. 4, p. 5-37.
• "A Few Words on the Question of Stigmata" (translated from French).
• ZhMP. 1986, no. 4, p. 67.
• "Other Chapters. Gregory Palamas or Simeon the New Theologian?" (translated from French). (Report read at the 4th Patrol Conference in Oxford, Sept. 18, 1963).
• ZhMP. 1986, no. 4, p. 68.
• Memory (French).
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1959, 30/31, 95-98.
• Athos in the spiritual life of the Orthodox Church.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1952, 12, 5-23.
• Angels and demons in the spiritual life according to the teachings of the Eastern Fathers.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1955, 6, 132-152.
• Archbishop Veniamin Novitsky (1900-1976).
• "Bulletin of the Russian Christian Movement", 1977, 120, 289-305.
• Authority and the Holy Spirit (French).
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1969, 68, 205-209.
• The authority and infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils.
• Eastern Churches Quarterly, 1975, 7, 2-8 (English).
• Catholicism and structures of the church. Some remarks in connection with the introductory article by S.S. Verkhovsky (English)
• "St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly", 1972, 17, 41-52.
• Compilation and promulgation of a single Orthodox Creed (French).
• "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1966, No. 54/55, 71-74.
• Pan-Orthodox meeting in Jambesy, near Geneva (French)
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1968, 64, 183-216.
• International congress in Venice in honor of the 1000th anniversary of Athos (French).
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1964, 45, 30-31.
• 4th International Congress of Patrologists in Oxford (French).
• "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1964, 45, 26-30.
• The dogmatic constitution of the Church: the point of view of the Orthodox (French).
• "Irinikon", 1966, 39, 477-496.
• Date of the traditional text of the Jesus Prayer.
• "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1952, 10, 35-38.
• Second International Orthodox Theological Conference in America (French)
• "Irinikon", 1973, 46, 165-171.
• Dogmatic Decree "On the Church" of the Second Vatican Council from an Orthodox point of view.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1966, 56, 222-238.
• Holy Spirit in Christian life according to the teachings of St. Simeon the New Theologian.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1975, 91/92, 171-192.
• Ecclesiology of Saint Basil the Great.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1968, 62/63, 122-150.
• Infallibility or perfection? (French)
• "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1976, 93/96.
• More about the Council of Chalcedon and the Malabar Christians. (Regarding the article by N. M. Zernov "What separates us from the orthodox Church of South India").
• "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1961, 38/39.
• "Created Essence and Divine Essence" in the Spiritual Theology of St. Simeon the New Theologian (French).
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1971, 75/76, 151-170.
• Interview with Free Belgium (French) January 26, 1980. Is a New Orthodox Needed? (English)
• "St. Vladimir Seminary Quarterly", 1967, 11, 69-72.
• Confession and the priesthood of St. Simeon the New Theologian.
• "Bulletin of the Russian Christian Movement", 1979, 129, 25-36.
• Church life in the USSR.
• "Information from the Orthodox Church N.F." 5-11 (Frankfurt am Main, 1975), 34-38 (German).
• My meeting with Russia (French). Buenos Aires, 1953, 226 p.
• Mother Maria (Skobtsova). (To the 25th anniversary of his death).
• ZhMP. 1970, no. 5, p. 30-42.
• Metropolitan Joseph (Chernov) (Italian)
• "Christian Russia", 1976, 6, 49-53.
• Montreal meeting.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1963, 42-43, 176-182.
• Some liturgical features of the Greeks and Russians and their significance.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1975, 89/0, 71-88.
• Obituary of the Metropolitan Eulogia.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1961, 38/39, 164-166.
• A few words about the interview with Archbishop. Volokolamsky Pitirim.
• "West Russian Christian Movement", 1974, 114, 268-270.
• Oxford International Patristic Convention.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1951, 7/8, 33-36.
• The original form and later editions of the sermons of St. Simeon the New Theologian. ("Katicheskie sermons" and "Words") in their relationship. (English.)
• Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of Byzantine Studies. Thessalonica, 1953, volume 3. (Athens, 1958) 161-168.
• Orthodox and Vatican II Council (French).
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1963, 41, 16-25.
• In memory of Bishop Confessor (Metr. Joseph Chernov).
• "Bulletin of the Russian Christian Movement, 1975, 116, 225-229.
• Orthodox spiritual tradition.
• "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1952, 9, 8-20.
• Letter to the editor.
• "Russian Thought", October 20, 1967. p. 10.
• Our Reverend Father Simeon the New Theologian. On the memory of death: (Unpublished catechetical speech). Translation.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1953, 14, 89-91.
• A note to the word "On the memory of death" by St. Simeon the New Theologian,
• there, p. 92-99.
• Reverend Simeon The New Theologian and Nikita Stifat. History of the text of catechumens.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1961, 37, 41-47.
• Venerable Simeon the New Theologian. Paris, 1980, 354 p.
• Saint Simeon the New Theologian and his attitude to the socio-political reality of his time.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1961, 38/39, 121-126.
• The problem of the cognizability of God: Essence and energy in St. Basil the Great.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1968, 61, 48-54.
• Meeting of the Theological and Anglican-Orthodox Subcommittee in Romania.
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1974, 85/88, 43-53 (French).
• St. Simeon the New Theologian in the Ages (French).
• "Herald of the Exarchate", 1979, 101/104, 27-32.
• Session of the Inter-Orthodox Commission for Dialogue with the Anglicans.
• ZhMP. 1972, no. 4, p. 55-58.
• The simplicity of the Divine nature and difference in God according to St. Gregory of Nyssa (French) "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1975, 91/92, 133-158.
• Simeon the New Theologian. Catechisms (in Greek and French). v. 1-3. Paris, 1963.
• The theme of spiritual ecstasy in the mysticism of St. Simeon the New Theologian (French).
• "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1960, 35, 10-18.
• The vision of light at St. Simeon the New Theologian (French).
• "Bulletin of the Exarchate", 1976, 93/96, 15-37.
• Proceedings of St. Simeon the New Theologian (English)
• Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 1954, 20, 298-328.

Theological writings

He's not the kind of person who takes advantage of every opportunity to enlighten you. He answered questions.

Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) of Surozh.

From the memoirs of Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein)

Remembering Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) noted a very important homiletic feature of his life, and, consequently, of his work: “He is not one of those people who take advantage of any opportunity to enlighten you. He answered questions." This observation became the epigraph to this edition. We tried, first of all, to answer the questions that arose among us and those close to us when reading the works written by Vladyka and when getting acquainted with some details of his biography.

The choice of papers for the current publication only seems outwardly random. It, in our opinion, very accurately reflects the main theological topics to which Archbishop Vasily devoted himself in different periods of his life from 1935 to 1976. Soteriology, rooted in the ascetic of knowledge of God, and practically oriented ecclesiology - these are the two main theological interests of Vladyka. In one case - a response to the challenge of this world, thrown to human destiny, in the other - a response to the challenge of inter-Christian and intra-church dialogue. The substantiation of the answer is always patristic - not in the sense of an exclusive appeal to the writings of the ancient fathers, but in the very spirit of referring to texts of church culture and patristic style at different times. This is a consequence of the bishop's conviction that antiquity is not a synonym for holiness and truth: the Spirit of God lives in the Church "all the days", no matter how eschatological they may seem. In the history of Christianity, the “end times” are no further from Christ than the era of the early Christian community. These last times of the Apocalypse and the apostolic epistles are simply a special eon - a period that began with the Incarnation and will end with the Second Coming. There will be no more "last" time. The "equidistance" of Christians of all generations from God - and the humble awareness of their helplessness - is a guarantee of a worthy course of church life.

Hence the four Fathers of the Church, the appeal to which formed the basis of the patristic approach of the bishop: Gregory Palamas, Simeon the New Theologian, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa. And it is in this order: from the XIV century to the IV century, from the youngest to the oldest. This connection is based on Athos and the Orthodox spiritual tradition preserved by him. Here there is both the circumstance of chance and the higher logic of theology as a science of history: the power and persuasiveness of the retrospective method are revealed precisely by the transition "from the known to the unknown", from the personally mastered to the intelligible. Not at all when the hypothetically restored chain of cause-and-effect relationships is presented in historical sequence.

Hence the four “times of theology” of Vladyka: Athos, Oxford, Paris and Brussels, when Vladyka responded accordingly to the challenges of the epochs. It is clear that any periodization is conditional: the analysis of the theology of Palamas, begun on Athos, was actively resumed in Paris, and the publication of the works of Simeon the New Theologian, associated with Paris, began as early as Oxford and ended in Brussels. The early works written at Oxford belong entirely to the Athonite period: they embodied not only the previously acquired “bookish” potential, but also the problematics themselves, the very spirit of Athos in them. All the same, periods are certain life milestones that are needed not for history, but for those who seek to understand it. It is at the turn of these periods that a certain “axial time” is formed, which determines life for the next decade.

In addition to comments on theological texts, the book also has a historical context. This "bookish" context does not pretend to be a complete and systematic biography of the lord, designed to explain the transformation of his life into life. Rather, they are materials for a creative biography, which, in our opinion, make it easier to understand the works of Vladyka and their origins. Perhaps this publication will be another step towards the publication of the complete works of Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein) and the compilation of a possibly complete biography of him.

A natural gap in the hagiographic canvas in this case can be filled with logic and events" big story”, and not to the detriment of the “small” facts. The history of the era, the flashes of events that happened next to the author, illuminate and make clear many of his thoughts and actions. Vladyka himself, who accompanied his works with lengthy comments, in his memoirs repeatedly resorted to the genre of notes, talking about the situation “around”, about the movement of armies and the cycle of politics in order to better understand what happened in the middle of this “circle”. To "clarify the circumstances of the events described" and "greater clarity of the story." Inevitably, we enter here into the realm of conjecture. But this area is a natural field of history, the historian's area of ​​responsibility.

There is no history outside the consciousness and soul of the researcher, which in no way detracts from its significance as a science. Where history was born, in the biblical East, knowledge was conceived as a fusion: in order to know, it is necessary to feel. Hence the real meaning of the word "history" - not just a story, but a testimony. The historian must be not an outside observer, but an honest witness, a kind of accomplice in the events being studied. The past centuries, leaving a memory of themselves, whether they be remains or legends, did not even think of placing historical sources at our disposal. Any monument is subjective, because it does not just passively reflect the "temporary years", past times. He sees history through the eyes of his author and is therefore subjective and, if you like, tendentious. Only the work of a historian turns a monument into a source of information about the past.

But the historian, like the ancient author, is also a person. He has his own views, preferences, his own creative limit. The way he saw history is his subjective view, his tendency. Because of this, how many historians - so many sources. As well as how many witnesses - so many testimonies: everyone saw the incident from his place and his point of view.

This is one of the many paradoxes of historical science: the objectivity of history depends on ... the subjectivity of the historian.

Indeed, the more honest a historian is with himself and with people, the more fully he includes in his research the best sides of his mind and soul, the more completely he can dissolve in the era under study, the more truthful and objective his testimony turns out to be. In this sense, the work of a historian is akin to religious testimony, and the feat of a historian is close to the feat of a martyr. It is not for nothing that in the Greek language both "historian" and "martis" equally designate a witness. In addition, the historian has an important advantage over the contemporary of the event. He knows what happened next. And in the light of historical results, it is more convenient for him to guess about the secret conjugations of history, to establish possible reasons and connections. Hence another feature of accompanying texts: abundant quotations. As Vladyka in his memoirs gave free rein not to his assessments, but to their heroes, so we are trying to let those who knew him and his time speak about him. Therefore, in this edition of Vladyka's works, we have refused to completely modernize the system of references and notes he used, so as not to disturb too much the color of the era reflected by them and the originality of the author's scientific work. Where necessary, we have tried to disclose in the comments "deaf" references to specific publications that are familiar and close to the author and his circle, but little known to the modern reader living in Russia.

FOREWORD

"Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church" - a study by an outstanding theologian and patrolologist of the recent past, Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein) of Brussels and Belgium (1900-1985), devoted to the analysis and theological assessment of the most famous symbolic monuments [The symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Church are considered to be historical texts of dogmatic content (with the exception of those compiled and approved at the seven Ecumenical Councils), written with the aim of briefly expounding the basics Orthodox faith.] . Orthodox Church, starting with the Creed of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea (3rd century) and ending with the Catechism of St. Philaret of Moscow (XIX century). This study was proposed by the author to discuss this topic within the framework of the program of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council, preparations for which were carried out at the inter-Orthodox level in the 60s of the last century. Archbishop Basil believed that “the task of the upcoming Pre-Council and the subsequent Ecumenical Council, if God pleases, will be: to find out what exactly among all the numerous dogmatic texts can be considered as a symbolic text expressing the faith and teaching of the Church, how the Church should treat it and what the degree of authority and obligation of this or that text possesses " [Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church. Theological works. Sat. 4. M., 1968. S. 6.].

And although the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council did not take place, Bishop Vasily's work did not remain fruitless - the relevance of his research is growing more and more, and the significance of the characteristics given by him to each of the known symbolic texts is simply impossible to overestimate.

First of all, this concerns the dogmatic monuments of the Orthodox Church of the XVII-XIX centuries. - the so-called "symbolic books" [The "symbolic books" are considered to be the "Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic and Apostolic Church" (1662) and the "Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith" (1723). Often, in addition to these two dogmatic monuments, the "Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church" by St. Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), as well as the "District Epistle of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to all Orthodox Christians" (1848).], - to which in our academic ("school") theology for a long time a degree of almost universally obligatory, unconditional authority was attributed completely unreasonably. Archbishop's research Vasily clearly shows the complete inconsistency of such assessments.

In our time, almost no one seriously interested in history Orthodox theology It is no secret that our theological science from the moment of its inception has been in a very serious dependence on Western, predominantly Catholic, scholasticism. [On why and how this happened, you can learn from the following literature: Hieromonk Tarasy (Kurgan). Great Russian and Little Russian theology of the 16th-17th centuries. Missionary Review, 1903 (reissue: A Break in Old Russian Theology. Montreal, 1979); Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. Warsaw, 1928; Florovsky G.V. Ways of Russian theology. Paris, 1937 (reprint: Vilnius, 1991).]. The Russian scientific and theological school, originating in the Kiev Theological Academy, founded in 1631 by Archimandrite Peter Mogila (later Metropolitan of Kiev), armed itself with "Western scholastic theological weapons and: this, in turn, led to a new and dangerous influence on Orthodox theology not only in theological terms not characteristic of him, but also in theological and spiritual ideas" [Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church. Theological works. Sat. 4. M., 1968. S. 18.].

The essence of this phenomenon was very accurately expressed by Archpriest Georgy Florovsky. Giving an assessment to the domestic academic theology of the 17th-19th centuries, he wrote about the "pseudomorphosis" (false formation) of Orthodoxy, which occurred as a result of the "opening" of scientific and theological knowledge and spiritual and ascetic experience. That is, we are talking here about the fact that in the Orthodox theology of this period the living connection was lost between the “theory” that was taught in seminaries and academies, and the “practice” that the Orthodox Church actually lived in the face of the ascetics who preserved the continuity of the patristic spiritual and ascetic tradition. Academic theology acquired an extremely abstract, scholastic character. Reasonable theological knowledge began to be regarded as something self-sufficient, it turned into an artificial system of answers to artificial questions not rooted in the spiritual experience of the Church (of course, this refers only to a general trend, from which, thank God, there were exceptions).

Western scholastic influence left the deepest mark on the so-called "symbolic books" and educational dogmatic manuals, which received in the XVII-XX centuries. ubiquity in the Russian spiritual and academic environment. As a result, it came to the point that "symbolic books" written according to Western models, and in some places literally written off from them, began to be a priori perceived as a "common denominator of the patristic heritage", as a "doctrinal voice of the Orthodox Church", and the scholastic method of "theology" [First, this or that thesis is affirmed as something self-evident, and then, in most cases, taken out of the general context, “suitable” quotations from the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers are selected to “substantiate” it. Such a method is capable, perhaps, of making a certain impression on the reader who is not experienced in theological problems, but it is unlikely to satisfy people who are serious about patristic teaching and questions of spiritual life in general. How artificial such constructions are can be judged at least by the fact that, resorting to such a method of "theologizing", its inventors - medieval Catholic scholastics - skillfully substantiated, for example, the primacy of the Roman high priest, the dogma of purgatory, the doctrine of indulgences, etc. .], the most characteristic expression of which is the "Orthodox-dogmatic theology" of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), as the only possible one.

But, starting already in the middle of the 19th century, our "school" theology began to be more or less sharply criticized by a number of prominent Orthodox hierarchs, theologians, and pathologists, among them St. Filaret (Drozdov), St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov), archbishop. Philaret (Gumilevsky), Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), St. Hilarion (Troitsky), Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky), S.L. Epifanovich, N.N. Glubokovsky, I.V. Popov, Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, V.N. Lossky and others.

So, shortly before his death, St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov) proposed "to revise the catechisms and theology and supplement them, giving them an Orthodox-Oriental character, similar to the character of the worship of the Orthodox Church" [On the need for a Council on the current state of the Russian Orthodox Church. Item 7. Notes of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov 1862-1866].

Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) was even more resolute - he insisted on the need for a "war of liberation in the field of Russian theology." In his report The Theology and Freedom of the Church, he exclaimed: “Latin and German slavery torn our theology away from the Fathers of the Church and brought us closer to Anselm and the other fathers of scholasticism!.. Look, what a disagreement between the Church and the school!.. the pulpit and the choir at the same time speak different theological languages" [Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky). Theology and Freedom of the Church. On the tasks of the liberation war in the field of Russian theology. Introductory reading September 12, 1915. Theological Bulletin. September. 1915. T. 3. Sergiev Posad, 1915. S. 133.].

A very apt judgment on the problem of “symbolic books” was given by the pre-revolutionary theology professor Nikolai Glubokovsky: “In essence, there are no “symbolic books” in Orthodoxy in the technical sense of the word. nature of Orthodoxy. It considers itself the correct and authentic teaching of Christ in all its originality and integrity; but then - what special, distinctive teaching can it have, besides the teaching of the Gospel of Christ? The Orthodox Church itself does not use any special " symbolic books, "satisfied with common traditional monuments that have a creed-determining character" [Glubokovsky N.N. Orthodoxy in its essence. Cit. by: Florovsky G.V. Selected theological articles. M., 2000. S. 264.].

But the most detailed and balanced critical assessment of the "symbolic books" of the 17th-19th centuries was given precisely by Archbishop. Vasily (Krivoshein) in the proposed study "Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church", first edition ["Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church" were published in Russian only once in the journal Theological Works (Sb. 4. M., 1968. P. 5-36) and remained practically inaccessible to most Orthodox readers.] which has finally come true.

The special attention of the archbishop. Basil pays attention to the theological analysis of the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East", which both historically (1662) and in terms of the degree of authority erroneously attributed to it, became the first "symbolic book" and can be recognized as the most typical and striking example of "Western captivity". The authorship of this historical monument is still not quite correctly assimilated by the Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mohyla. In fact, this text arose as a result of a revision of the original edition by the Greek theologian Meletios Sirig, a contemporary of the Grave, a revision so significant that Peter Mogila himself did not agree with the changes made and, despite the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, refused to recognize and publish the corrected Confession. . Instead, he published his "Small Catechism", in which he preserved unchanged all his pro-Catholic errors, even as obvious as, for example, the doctrine of purgatory, the blessed vision of the essence of God by the saints, the time of the change of the Holy Gifts in the Eucharist (thus called the bread-worshipping heresy), etc.

If we also take into account some facts from the biography of Met. Peter, then his recent canonization in the Ukrainian Autonomy of the Russian Orthodox Church as a locally venerated saint ("a fighter against Roman Catholicism"!) is, to put it mildly, bewildering. So, it is known that Peter Mohyla actually usurped the Kievan cathedra [On the anti-canonical actions of Peter Mohyla, see: Golubev S.T. Metropolitan of Kiev Peter Mogila and his associates. Ch. I-II. Kyiv, 1883-1898.], forcibly deposing from her an outstanding Little Russian ascetic-hesychast, a zealous confessor of Orthodoxy Isaiah Kopinsky, the author of the anonymously published book "The Spiritual Alphabet", in the hands of which St. Seraphim of Sarov. But even more impressive is little known fact on the ownership of the Grave and his associate Adam Kisel of a new project of union with the Roman Catholic Church addressed to the Papal Curia, and without any dogmatic conditions, but on the rights of such a wide autonomy that the Vatican did not consider it possible to accept this project ["Today there is no doubt that Peter Mohyla almost brought matters to a new "Kiev Union", and even after his death (1645) such a danger persisted. The only radical way out of the situation was found by Bogdan Khmelnitsky" (See: Lurie V.S. Afterword // Archpriest John Meyendorff, The Life and Works of Gregory Palamas: An Introduction to Study, Note 17.].

However, despite the alteration of the original openly heretical text made by Meletios Sirig, the Orthodox Confession still remains, according to the archbishop. Basil, the most "Latin-wise" document among the symbolic monuments of the 17th century, not only in form, but also in content and spirit. Even in its corrected form, the Confession "slavishly" follows the well-known Roman Catholic Catechism of Peter Canisius and almost literally borrows entire pages from it. [Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church. Theological works. Sat. 4. M., 1968. S. 21.].

Today, when the question of the degree of authority of certain sources of the doctrine of the Orthodox Church is still open, a serious critical analysis of the "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East" and other "symbolic books" of the 17th-19th centuries. is of the most fundamental importance for modern Orthodox theology - whether it will remain squeezed into the "Procrustean bed" of Latin scholasticism, or, having overcome the stereotypes of the religious schemes of late medieval Catholicism, will finally begin to develop in the patristic mainstream. And in this regard, the theological works of Bishop Basil, his patrol studies and, most importantly, the example of his entire ascetic life can serve as a reliable guide.

One of the greatest pathologists and at the same time a strict ascetic monk [Before his episcopal service, Archbishop Basil spent about 20 years ascetic on Athos, combining an active study of the patristic heritage with scientific work. He was faithful to this ascetic attitude throughout his life.], archbishop Basil was a rare, almost exceptional in our time, an example of a harmonious combination of a deep mind and the most extensive theological erudition, including an excellent knowledge of primary sources, with sincere love for Orthodoxy, with fidelity to the spirit of the Holy Fathers. In his personality, one might say, the gap characteristic of "school" theology between "theory" and "practice", between scientific and theological views and the spiritual and ascetic ideal, was completely overcome - dogmatics and ascetics again found themselves in an inseparable unity. In his works, theology began to acquire its original, apostolic and patristic meaning, - it again became an experimental evidence that what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have seen and what our hands have touched, about the Word of life - for life has come, and we have seen and testify, and we proclaim this to you eternal life who was with the Father and appeared to us(1 John 1-2).

We hope that the written heritage of the archbishop. Vasily (Krivoshein), of which, unfortunately, only a small part has been published in Russia today [In addition to several articles published at different times in BT and ZhMP, three books by Archbishop. Basil (Krivoshein): St. Simeon the New Theologian. M., 1995 (another edition: Publishing House of the Brotherhood in the name of the Holy Prince Alexander Nevsky, Nizhny Novgorod, 1998); Theological works (articles, reports, translations). Publishing house of the Brotherhood in the name of the holy prince Alexander Nevsky, Nizhny Novgorod, 1998; Memories. Publishing house of the Brotherhood in the name of the holy prince Alexander Nevsky, Nizhny Novgorod, 1998.], will still have a beneficial effect both on the development of our theological and patrological science, and on the formation of the theological and spiritual-ascetic views of the new generation of Orthodox Christians. We also hope that his study "Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church" will become in our spiritual education one of the basic documents for the study of doctrinal primary sources of the Orthodox Church.

Considering that this study is practically unknown among the wide circles of readers interested in theological issues, its publication today can be regarded as an event of extreme importance.

Alexey Zaitsev

SYMBOLIC TEXTS
IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

The Pan-Orthodox Conference on the island of Rhodes (September 24 - October 1, 1961) included the following section in the program of work of the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council:

"IN. – Symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church:
1) Authoritative texts in the Orthodox Church.
2) Texts with relative authority.
3) Texts with auxiliary authority.
4) Compilation and publication of a single Orthodox Confession of Faith”.

The question of symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church, of their place and significance in Orthodox theology and in Orthodox consciousness is not at all new to the Orthodox Church. True, the question was usually raised about the so-called “symbolic books”: do such “books” exist in the Orthodox Church and does she recognize any special significance for them, while the compilers of the above section, obviously deliberately, avoid this expression, as controversial and not universally recognized, and use the expression “symbolic texts” instead. The choice of this term “symbolic texts” took place, as can be assumed, not without the influence of the works of John Karmyris, Professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology of the Theological Faculty of the University of Athens, who worked a lot in the study of dogmatic monuments of the Orthodox Church, Greek par excellence, both ancient and in features of its latest period (after the fall of Byzantium). Particularly attracted the attention of Prof. Karmyris polemical Orthodox texts of the 16th-18th centuries directed against Western faiths, Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as the question of the influence of these heterodox confessions on Orthodox theology. The fruit of these many years of scientific research was the publication of prof. Karmyris of a voluminous two-volume work (over a thousand pages in total) in Greek called "The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church". As you can see, Prof. Karmyris here avoids the expression "symbolic books”, replacing it with the words “dogmatic and symbolic monuments”, thereby avoiding the specific theological associations associated with the term “symbolic books” and at the same time expanding the subject of his research: in addition to the polemical confessions of the 16th–18th centuries, to which the term “symbolic books” is usually applied, prof. Karmyris includes in his work a number of other monuments of the Orthodox Church, one way or another expressing her faith and teachings - the creeds of the Ancient Church, the dogmatic decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, as well as local ones approved by the Ecumenical Councils, Hesychast Councils of the XIV century, letters of the patriarchs, etc. We must keep all this in mind for a correct understanding of the section of the program of the Pre-Council on "symbolic texts" and the terminology used in it. That is why we considered it necessary to dwell in such detail on the works of Prof. Karmiris at the beginning of our report.

So, in accordance with the idea of ​​the compilers of the program of the Pre-Council, we will understand by symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church all Orthodox dogmatic monuments expressing her faith and theological teaching on behalf of the Church. The task of the upcoming Pre-Council and the subsequent Ecumenical Council, if God pleases, will thus be to clarify what exactly among all the numerous dogmatic texts can be considered as a symbolic text expressing the faith and teaching of the Church, how the Church should treat it and what degree of authority and binding this or that text possesses. And, of course, since we are talking about the dogmatic monuments of the Ancient Church, its Creed, worked out and approved at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils and fixed in an unchanged form at subsequent Ecumenical Councils, about the dogmatic resolutions of the seven Ecumenical Councils in general and about the same kind of dogmatic resolutions of the ancient Local Councils approved by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (more precisely, the second canon of the Trullo Council of 691-692, considered as a continuation of the Fifth and Sixth), there is no particular question. Dogmatic definitions (oros - Greek .) Ecumenical Councils undoubtedly have an indisputable and irrevocable authority in Orthodoxy, although one can think that their decisions can be at future Ecumenical Councils, if any, are convened, supplemented and additionally explained, as in ancient times subsequent Ecumenical Councils supplemented the decisions of previous ones. Thus, for example, the Second Council supplemented and even modified the text of the Creed of the First Council, while the Fifth and Sixth Councils supplemented and clarified the Christological definitions of the Third and Fourth Councils. The question arises primarily about the nature and degree of authority of the resolutions of the Local Councils and other dogmatic monuments not approved by the Ecumenical Councils: whether they belong to the era of the Ecumenical Councils or, as is the case in most cases, to more recent times. In this connection, the question sometimes arises of the very right of the Orthodox Church to work out and approve dogmatic decrees after the era of the Ecumenical Councils. This right is disputed by some, either because they deny any dogmatic development in the Church, or because it is recognized only in the Ancient Church and the very number of the seven Ecumenical Councils is recognized by them as sacred and final, or, finally, because the Orthodox Catholic Church, according to after the fall of the Roman Patriarchate from it, it allegedly ceased to be the Ecumenical Church and alone without Rome has no right and cannot convene Ecumenical Councils.

These opinions cannot be accepted. True, the Orthodox Church rejects the idea of ​​dogmatic development in the sense that modern Roman Catholic theology understands it, beginning with Cardinal Newman, who tries to justify new Roman dogmas that are not contained in Holy Scripture or in the ancient fathers (such as the Filioque , the infallibility of the pope, the virgin birth, etc.), the assertion that the very content of faith and Revelation increases in its volume in the process of church history so that what was at the beginning only in an embryonic form, so to speak, in the form of obscure allusions in Scripture and Tradition, not yet realized by the Church itself, is further revealed, revealed and formulated in the Church's consciousness. The Orthodox Church denies the idea of ​​such a development or evolution of the very content of faith and Revelation, but acknowledges that the truths of faith, unchanged in their content and scope, for “faith was once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), were gradually formulated in the Church and refined in concepts and terms. This is an indisputable historical fact, recognized even by the most conservative Orthodox theologians, like Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov).

In support of it, it is enough to point to the gradual introduction into church use of basic theological expressions that are not found in Holy Scripture. Thus, for example, the word "catholic" (to designate the Church) is first found in St. Ignatius of Antioch (Epistle to the Smyrnians 8, 2 - about 110 A.D.), the word "Trinity" - for the first time in St. Theophilus of Antioch (Epistle to Autolycus 2, 15 - about 180), the expression "Theotokos" - for the first time in written sources from Hippolytus of Rome and Origen in the first half of the 3rd century, although its popular use is more ancient. An even later origin of the words “Orthodox” and “Orthodoxy”, they are first found in Methodius of Olympus, at the beginning of the 4th century. We are not talking about the term “consubstantial”; its history is very interesting. First encountered among the Gnostics (Valentin and others) in the 2nd century, the term “consubstantial” was rejected by the Church in the use and understanding of the heretic Paul of Samosata at the Council of Antioch in 270, but accepted and approved in its Orthodox understanding at the Council of Nicaea in 325 Usually such an introduction into the theological use of new terms or a new formulation of dogmas was a response to the appearance of heresies that distorted church faith and tradition. However, this cannot be made into a rule. New formulations were sometimes evoked by the inner needs of the Orthodox themselves to clarify their faith and piety. So, one can think that the expression “Theotokos” arose among the people in Alexandria, expressing their reverent attitude towards the Mother of God and their faith in the incarnation ...

Also untenable is the widespread “pious” opinion that only the Ancient Church of the era of the seven Ecumenical Councils was given the grace-filled power to determine the truths of the faith, and in more recent times it has lost this gift. Such an opinion, for all its seeming conservatism, is an unconscious echo of the Protestant doctrine of the “corruption” and “fall” of the historical “Constantinian” Church, opposed in Protestantism to the original, Apostolic Church. But the Orthodox Church is aware that she is a genuine and undiminished continuation of the Ancient Apostolic and patristic Church, or rather, that she is the Apostolic and patristic Church of our time and that she possesses all the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit until the end of time. Let us recall here with what power he taught about this fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, inherent in the Church in our days, the great spiritual writer X-XI centuries Rev. Simeon the New Theologian. He even considered the greatest of all heresies to be the opinion, widespread even in his own time, that the Church has now lost that fullness of grace which she possessed in apostolic times. True, he had in mind, first of all, the gift of holiness and contemplation, but grace, according to the disciples of the Orthodox Church, is the one power of God, and all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are united with each other and are unchangeable in the Church according to the promise of Christ. And how to determine the historical limit, after which the period of decline allegedly begins in the Church? The second century is the moment when the New Testament canon was defined, what do the Protestants think? The 5th century - the period after Chalcedon, as many Anglicans tend to believe? Or the end of the era of Ecumenical Councils, as many Orthodox believe, while rejecting the possibility of convening a new Ecumenical Council, since, in their opinion, there can be only seven Councils, for seven is a sacred number. As evidence, some passages from the service of the Seventh Ecumenical Council are cited, where the number of Councils of seven is compared with the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. But, after all, such argumentation or even rhetoric was used earlier to defend the authority of the Fourth Ecumenical Council from attacks on it by the Monophysites. It was said that there should be four Councils, because this number is sacred according to the number of the four Evangelists, the four rivers of Paradise, etc. There were seven Councils, but the Church never decreed that this number was final and that there would be no more Ecumenical Councils.

Even less acceptable is the opinion that the Orthodox Catholic Church does not have the right to convene Ecumenical Councils alone after the Roman Patriarchate has fallen away from it and without its participation in the Council. The Church of Christ was not divided because of the falling away of Rome. However regrettable and even tragic this split was, the fullness of truth and grace did not decrease in the Church because of it, just as it did not decrease in the Ancient Church after the no less tragic and regrettable separation from it of the Nestorians and Monophysites. The Orthodox Church is now conscious of its identity with the Ancient Church, with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Creed. And it retains the right to convene Ecumenical Councils and pass dogmatic decisions on them in its entirety to this day. Moreover, in ancient times, before the fall of Rome, not a single Ecumenical Council was convened by the Roman popes or even on their initiative, none of them took place in Rome, and none of them were chaired by papal legates, although they were signed first. under conciliar acts, as having the primacy of honor.

So, there is no doubt that even after the end of the period of the seven ancient Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church had the right to express dogmatic judgments and draw up definitions on matters of faith, to clarify and formulate its theological teaching. And church history shows us that the Orthodox Church has indeed done just that for centuries. However, since for all this historical period, due to circumstances that we will not talk about here, because this is beyond the scope of this report, not a single Ecumenical Council was convened - or rather, not a single Council received universal ecclesiastical recognition as an Ecumenical - then all these local church decisions, confessions of faith, epistles, etc., all these, as they say, “symbolic texts”, as they were not considered and approved by the Church as a whole at the Ecumenical Council, are devoid of authority, indisputability and all-church recognition. For only the Ecumenical Council, as expressing the entire Catholic, Ecumenical Church, has the gift, by virtue of the promises of the Lord to His Church, according to the grace preserved in the episcopate by apostolic succession, to pass infallible and authoritative decisions and areas of faith and to give such a character to theological definitions and ordinances of Church instances of a smaller scale - Local Councils, patriarchs and bishops.

One of the tasks of the future Ecumenical Council, therefore, will be to single out from the entire multitude of theological resolutions of the “post-conciliar” period of church history only those that can be recognized as full-fledged exponents of the Orthodox dogma, similar to the ancient dogmatic monuments recognized by the seven Ecumenical Councils. The criterion on the basis of which the coming Ecumenical Council could make such a selection, if its conciliar self-consciousness finds it necessary, can be thought approximately as the following:

1) The coincidence in essence of the considered dogmatic texts with the teaching of the word of God, the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers. The Church sacredly preserves “the faith once” and once for all “given to the saints” (Jude 3). “Following the holy fathers,” is how the fathers of the Fourth Council of Chalcedon begin their famous definition of faith (oros). This is the path that true Orthodox theology must continue to follow. Loyalty to fathers is his main feature. Not just because they jealous the fathers, although the testimony of antiquity is always valuable, but because in their creations the faith of the Church is truly expressed, as the prophets foretold it, Christ taught in word and deed, the apostles preached by the power of the Holy Spirit, determined the Councils, explained the fathers. “This is the apostolic faith, this is the fatherly faith, this is the Orthodox faith, this is the faith that affirm the universe.” And this faith must invariably be expressed by every Orthodox confession and definition.

2) Any “symbolic text” worthy of being approved as an authoritative expression of the Church’s faith must not only be Orthodox in essence, but also, in terms of formulation, expression, and justification, must stand at the height of patristic theology. The Holy Fathers were not only confessors of the right faith, but at the same time great theologians, subtle thinkers, profound visionaries and spectators of the Divine mysteries. Texts that are decadent, unsuccessful in form or expressed in terms not characteristic of Orthodox tradition, poor in theological thought, cannot claim to be recognized as monuments of Orthodoxy on a par with ancient creeds expressing the high theology of the fathers.

3) Finally, the new texts, although they must express the unchanging faith of the Church, "once delivered to the saints," nevertheless should not be a simple repetition of recognized dogmatic definitions, because then the meaning of their publication and proclamation is lost. They should give identical in spirit, but new in form answers to newly arisen errors, spiritual questions and difficulties, to clarify or complete what was previously left unsaid or not clearly expressed, because the question itself was not yet mature enough or was clarified in the Church's consciousness and not there were still those false teachings to which it would be necessary to counter the church teaching. Only such symbolic texts, faithful to the spirit of Orthodoxy, sufficiently perfect in form and theological thought, new in the issues they resolve, can be singled out and submitted for approval by the future Ecumenical Council to proclaim them as teaching, authoritative and church-wide.

From these preliminary theological considerations of a general nature, we can move on to a concrete consideration in the historical order of the main symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church and at the same time try to determine our attitude towards them, in accordance with the program of the Pre-Council, where it is proposed to distribute them according to different degrees of their authority and obligation ( authoritative texts, texts of relative authority, and texts of auxiliary authority). Of course, we will consider only texts that were not compiled and approved at the seven Ecumenical Councils.

First of all, from the era preceding the Ecumenical Councils, we have the oldest dogmatic monument - the symbol of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, compiled by him around 260-265. Undoubtedly Orthodox in content, although expressed more in the philosophical terms of the disciple of Origen than in biblical terms, as is characteristic of church symbols, it more reflects the personal faith of St. Gregory the Wonderworker than the doctrine of the Neo-Caesarian Church. The creed was well known to the fathers of the 4th century, in particular, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, and was used by them in a polemic with the Arians, since it clearly expresses the belief in the uncreated Persons of the Holy Trinity. Nevertheless, the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils did not consider it necessary to refer to it in the Council Acts or include it in their decisions and recognize it as the official Symbol of the Church along with Niceno-Tsaregrad - partly, one might think, because of its private nature, even more because that, in their opinion, the Nicene-Tsaregrad Symbol was and should be the only Symbol of the Church, unshakable and irreplaceable by any other text, even if there is nothing contrary to Orthodoxy in it. Such, we believe, should be our attitude towards the symbol of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, contrary to the opinion of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov), who equated it - in the sense of authority - with the confessions of the Ecumenical Councils. We must highly value and love the symbol of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, as an ancient and vivid in content and form monument of his and our faith, but do not attach to it the significance of an authoritative and church-wide confession, which it never was.

Further, from the very era of the Ecumenical Councils, we have two relatively ancient dogmatic monuments, which, however, are not known to the Ecumenical Councils and the attitude towards which on the part of the Orthodox Church is understood by many differently. These are the so-called Apostolic Symbol and the Symbol of St. Athanasius of Alexandria. Regarding the first of them, the so-called Apostolic, it must be said that although it contains ancient elements dating back to the apostolic preaching (like all ancient symbols, however), in reality it is nothing more than a late revision of the baptismal Symbol of the Roman Church III-V centuries. Its original language is Latin. In its current text, it was formed no earlier than the 6th-7th centuries. in the West and, although it was subsequently translated into Greek, in fact remained completely unknown to the Orthodox East. It has always remained a private, local, predominantly baptismal Symbol, and at the Ecumenical Councils the representatives of the West have never tried to quote or refer to it. For the first time at the Ferraro-Florence false cathedral of 1439-1440. the Latins tried to rely on it in order to bypass the issue of the Filioque (as is known, in the Apostolic Creed the term about the Holy Spirit is limited to the words “credo in Spiritum Sanctum” and nothing is said about its origin). They met, however, a rebuff from St. Mark of Ephesus, who declared that this Symbol was unknown to the Church. As for the so-called Symbol of St. Athanasius, also known from the first words of his original Latin text under the name “Quicuque nult (Who wants to be saved)”, then, although the exact time and place of its origin are still disputed among themselves church historians, about the belonging of his St. Athanasius is, of course, out of the question. Everything speaks against this: the Latin text of the original, the obscurity of the monument in the East, non-Athanasian terminology, the absence of the classical Athanasian expression “consubstantial”, later Christology, the absence of St. Athanasius of references to this Symbol and, finally, that St. Athanasius was a determined opponent of the compilation of any other symbol than the Nicene, and would not, of course, contradict himself by composing his own symbol. It is most likely that the Pseudo-Athanasian symbol was composed on Latin in the VI-VII centuries. in southern Gaul, the final text of it was established only in the 9th century. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is presented in it in the spirit of the blessed. Augustine with his primacy of essence over Persons, so that the starting point is not the Father, as in the Nicene and other ancient creeds and as all the Greek Fathers theologize about it, but the one God in the Trinity, and the “monarchy” of the Father as a single Source and Culprit is clearly diminishes. All this is typically Augustinian theology, which gave birth to the Filioque and subsequently culminated in Thomas Aquinas with the identification of essence and energy in the Godhead. Indeed, the current Latin text of the Pseudo-Athanasian Symbol contains the teaching of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, although not in the Filioque expression: "Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio... procedens". This symbol, first mentioned in the West in 660 at the cathedral in Autum, gradually by the 9th century. came into general use there, but remained, however, completely unknown in the Orthodox East. We first met him there in the 9th-11th centuries, when the Latins began to rely on him in their clashes with the Orthodox Greeks over the Filioque, as was the case in the well-known dispute between the Greek and Latin Benedictine monks over the Filioque on the Mount of Olives in 807 -808 years and under Cardinal Humbert in 1054 in Constantinople. The Latins, in the 13th century, translated the Pseudo-Athanasian symbol into Greek for polemical purposes. However, other Greek translations soon appeared, made by the Orthodox, where the place et Filio was excluded. In this “corrected” form, the symbol has gained relatively wide distribution and authority in Orthodox theology. In the Slavic translation (without et Filio, of course!) they even began to print it since the time of Simeon of Polotsk in the Followed Psalter, and at the end of the 19th century in the Greek Book of Hours. In recent editions, however, it has ceased to be printed. The significance that the Pseudo-Athanasian symbol acquired in Russian theology of the 19th century is evidenced by the following opinion about it by Metropolitan. Macarius: “About the same time, the symbol of the so-called Afanasiev ... appeared, although it was not compiled at the Ecumenical Councils, but accepted and respected by the whole Church.” A little further, he recommends, as an immutable foundation of theology, along with the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol and the creeds of the Ecumenical Councils, the symbol “known under the name of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, accepted and respected by the whole Church. The last statement is factually false. Never and nowhere has the Orthodox Catholic Church expressed its judgment about the Pseudo-Athanasian symbol and has not accepted it. More cautiously expresses his attitude to the Pseudo-Athanasian symbol, as well as to the so-called Apostolic, prof. I. Karmiris. Without at all defending their authenticity and fully recognizing their Western origin, he, nevertheless, considers it expedient to officially recognize both symbols, although not on a par with Niceo-Tsaregrad, but as ancient and venerable dogmatic monuments that do not contain anything contrary to the Orthodox faith (after the Filioque exception, obviously). Such recognition of them, although as secondary sources of dogma, would have, according to prof. Karmyris, a positive ecumenical significance in our time, precisely because of the Western origin of both monuments.

It is difficult, however, to agree with the expediency and correctness of such a recognition. The so-called Apostolic Symbol, of course, does not contain anything contrary to faith, but it is clearly insufficient to be recognized as the official symbol of the Church. Recognition of it, even incomplete, would undermine the position of the Nicene-Tsaregrad Symbol as the only and unchanging and as the only basis for all ecumenical negotiations. The Church does not reject the "Apostle's" Creed. She, as Bishop rightly said. Mark of Ephesus, he simply does not know. And there is no reason to retreat from this position. Especially since the tendency to bypass the Filioque question by means of it still exists today (mainly among Anglicans, where the “Apostolic” Symbol is quite popular). It would be even more erroneous to give some church act a general church and official value Pseudo-Athanasian Symbol. True, if we throw out the Filioque, which may not have been in the original text, as did its Orthodox Greek and Slavic translators, then there is nothing in it that directly contradicts the Orthodox faith. In its Christological part, it even expresses well and accurately the Orthodox teaching of the post-Chalcedonian period. Its triadology, however, bears Augustinian features, which later gave rise to a number of deviations from the truth, and therefore the Pseudo-Athanasian Symbol itself cannot in any way be proclaimed a model and source of Orthodox teaching, even if it is secondary. It would therefore be desirable that this Symbol cease to be printed in Russian liturgical books, where he ended up without any church decree in the era of the dominance of Latin trends. In this respect we should follow the example of our brothers the Greeks, who ceased to publish it in their Orologion.

Let us now pass to the era after the seven Ecumenical Councils. Here, first of all, we should dwell on the Council of Constantinople in 879-880, convened under Patriarch Photius and Pope John VIII, and on the decisions of this Council. Both in its composition and in the nature of its resolutions, this Council bears all the hallmarks of an Ecumenical Council. All five Patriarchates of the then Church, including the Roman one, were represented at it, so this Council is the last Council common to both the Eastern and Western Churches. It was attended by 383 fathers, that is, it was the largest Council since the time of Chalcedon. It was convened as an Ecumenical Council and calls itself in its acts "the great and Ecumenical Council." And although it was not officially recognized by the Church as the Ecumenical, because usually such recognition was made at the subsequent Council, but it was not, a number of prominent church figures over the centuries called it the Eighth Ecumenical Council: for example, the famous canonist of the XII century. Theodore Balsamon, Nil of Thessaloniki (XIV century), Nil of Rhodes (XIV century), Simeon of Thessaloniki (XV century), St. Mark of Ephesus, Gennady Scholary, Dositheus of Jerusalem (XVII century), etc. Moreover, in the West, as Prof. Janitor in his famous monumental work "Photian Schism" and as is now customary in historical science, even Roman Catholic, this Council of 879-880. up to the 12th century. also considered the Eighth Ecumenical. No rejection of him by Pope John VIII and no "second Photian schism" (i.e., a break with Photius John VIII) actually ever happened; all these are legends invented by the enemies of Photius and only in the XII century. accepted in the West, when, in connection with the ever-increasing claims of the popes to worldwide jurisdiction, papal canonists began to consider the Eighth Ecumenical Council not the Council of 879-880, but the anti-Photian false council of 867. But also by the nature of its activities, the Council of 879-880 also has features of the Ecumenical Council. Like the Ecumenical Councils, it issued a series of dogmatic-canonical decrees. Yes, he

1. Proclaimed the immutability of the text of the Creed without the Filioque and anathematized all who change it. “So,” decides the Council, “if anyone, having come to such an extreme of madness, dares to expound another symbol ... or makes an increase or decrease in the Symbol transmitted to us from the Holy and Ecumenical Council of Nicaea ... let him be anathema.” This decision is all the more significant because just at that time in the West in many places the Filioque was already introduced into the Symbol, and in Bulgaria the Latin missionaries insisted on its introduction. The papal legates made no objection to this decree of the Council.
2. Recognized by the Seventh Ecumenical Council the second Council of Nicaea against the iconoclasts of 786-787.
3. He restored relations with the Roman Church and recognized the legitimacy of Patriarch Photius, thereby indirectly condemning the anti-canonical interference of Popes Nicholas I and Adrian II in the affairs of the Church of Constantinople.
4. He demarcated the power of the Roman and Constantinople Patriarchs and rejected the claims of the Bishop of Rome to jurisdictional power in the East, not recognizing his right to accept into his jurisdiction and justify by his power clerics condemned in the East (as well as vice versa, to receive clerics condemned in the West in the East). And, what is especially important, the Council at the same time forbade any future change in the canonical position of the Bishop of Rome.

Such are the dogmatic-canonical decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 879-880. Their significance as a symbolic monument of the Orthodox Church is beyond doubt. It seems highly desirable that the future Ecumenical Council proclaims the Council of Constantinople of 879-880, which passed them. Eighth Ecumenical Council, as being such in its composition and as expressing the primordial faith of the whole Church in the question of the Creed and the rights of the Bishop of Rome in connection with the questions that then arose about the addition of the Filioque and about the claim of the popes to universal jurisdiction. Thus, the decisions of this Council as an Ecumenical Council would receive all-ecclesiastical and undeniable authority, and the upcoming Ecumenical Council could be considered the ninth. Such a decision to proclaim the Council of 879-880, correctly understood, could have a positive ecumenical significance and even serve as the basis for a dialogue with the Roman Catholics. Indeed, in this way, our unity with Rome at the Ecumenical Councils will last for another hundred years (i.e., for the period from the seventh to the eighth Ecumenical Council), and we will have not seven, but eight common Ecumenical Councils with the West, if only Rome agrees again recognize the Council of 879-880 Ecumenical, as he did in his time in the person of Pope John VIII. Let's hope that modern Roman Catholic historical science will help him to do this.

Of the subsequent Local Councils that made decisions of a theological and dogmatic nature, it should be noted the Councils of Constantinople, convened under the emperor Manuel Comnenus in 1156 and 1157. to discuss Eucharistic issues and disagreements in understanding the final words of the prayer before the Cherubic hymn “Thou art the Offerer and the Offered” and about who the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered to: God the Father or the whole Holy Trinity. The first of these Councils was attended by two patriarchs, Constantinople IV of Constantinople and Nicholas of Jerusalem, and 24 bishops, and the second also included two patriarchs, Luke Chrysoverg of Constantinople and John of Jerusalem, the archbishops of Bulgaria and Cyprus, and 35 bishops. This was the first Council in the Orthodox Church to deal specifically with the doctrine of the Eucharist (with the exception of the Council of Trullo, which touched upon it indirectly and rather from the ceremonial side in its Canons 101, 23, and 32). He definitely teaches about the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and not just the remembrance of it, and about the unity of this sacrifice with that offered on the Cross, as expressed in his conciliar anathematisms: and figuratively the sacrifice of His Body and Blood ... and therefore they introduce it, because this is a different sacrifice than the one perfect from the beginning ... anathema. The Council's decision deepens and clarifies our understanding of the redemptive work of the God-man Christ and its relationship with the Persons of the Holy Trinity. It is very important that the theology of the Council, faithful to the holy fathers, but at the same time not afraid to shed light on new issues, also bases its decisions on liturgical texts, thereby affirming their significance as a source of church theology. And the inclusion of these decisions in the proclamations of “eternal memory” and the anathematization of the Week of Orthodoxy testifies to the acceptance by the Church of the dogmatic definitions of the Council. These anathematizations were proclaimed by the Russian Church until 1766, when the rite of Orthodoxy was replaced by a new one, in which the names of individual heretics and heresies were not mentioned and instead other anathematizations were pronounced, in most cases of a more general nature. IN Greek Church these anathematizations are pronounced even to this day, as can be seen from the text of the Greek Triodion. Nevertheless, the consciousness of the significance of the dogmatic decisions of the Council of 1156-1157. almost lost in school theology, and in the collections of symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Church they are omitted or mentioned only “in passing”. This is partly explained by the fact that the compilers of such collections are mainly interested in texts directed against Western religions - Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, while the decisions of the Council of 1156-1157. directed against the delusions that arose in the bowels of the Byzantine Church, although not without some Western influence, as one might think. However, it is impossible to agree with such a restrictive approach to symbolic texts. Church rulings made against "internal" errors can be of just as much, and sometimes even greater, theological significance than decisions about Western denominations. That is why the dogmatic resolutions of the Council of 1156-1157. should find their rightful place among the symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Church, as authentic and authoritative spokesmen for her faith and teaching in eucharistic matters.

The same, and even to a greater extent, can be said about the so-called "Hesychast" Councils in Constantinople in 1341, 1347 and 1351. Formally, these Councils, even the largest of them, the Council of 1351, were not Ecumenical. In fact, almost only one episcopate of the Church of Constantinople was represented at them - in total from 20 to 50 bishops, judging by the number of signatures under the Acts of the Councils, some of the signatures were given later in places. True, the Council of 1347 was attended by the Jerusalem Patriarch Lazarus, and at the Council of 1351 by the representative of the Antiochian Patriarch Ignatius, Metropolitan Arseniy of Tyre. However, it is better not to talk about the latter, since he behaved shamefully, took the side of the opponents of St. Gregory Palamas and left the Cathedral without waiting for its end. He even made a written statement in which he disputed the right of the Patriarchate of Constantinople alone, without the participation of other patriarchs, to resolve dogmatic issues. Despite this, Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch soon signed the acts of the Council, as did Patriarch Lazarus of Jerusalem. The Bulgarian and Serbian Churches, independent at that time, did not participate in these Councils, but already in 1360 the Council of the Bulgarian Church convened in Tarnovo confirmed the decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 1351. The Metropolitan of Moscow, St. Alexy, upon his confirmation as metropolitan in Constantinople in 1354, the Council of 1351 soon gained such authority that the well-known church writer and canonist of the 14th century. Nil, the Metropolitan of Rhodes, even calls it the Ninth Ecumenical in his work “A Brief History of the Ecumenical Councils” (the Eighth for him, as we have already seen, the Council of 879-880). Formally, it is difficult to agree with this because of the incomplete representation of the Orthodox Church on it. Nevertheless, in essence, by the nature of the dogmatic decisions adopted by them. The Councils of Constantinople of the 14th century, especially the Council of 1351, belong to the most important and significant in the Orthodox Church, not inferior in their significance to the ancient Ecumenical Councils. Faithful to Orthodox tradition, following in everything the holy fathers and at the same time standing at the height of patristic theology, they continued and in many ways clarified and for the first time conciliarly formulated many aspects of the theological teaching of the Church, especially in matters relating to spiritual life, grace and the deification of man by it. They theologically substantiated the possibility of man's communion with the Divine and his unity with Him without falling into any kind of pantheistic mixing of the Creator with the creature (this is the meaning of their teaching about uncreated grace and about the incomprehensibility and impregnability of God's essence). Theologically, with its teaching on actions, or energies, the Council of God of 1351 is a continuation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. On his teaching about two actions or energies, Christ - Divine and human, uncreated and created, as the Sixth Ecumenical Council formulated in its Acts, - the Council substantiates the doctrine of the uncreation of Divine energies. The divine distinction between the essence and energy of God, the simplicity of God, not violated by this incomprehensible difference, the naming of energy as “Divinity”, the doctrine of God as the source of His actions and in this sense higher than His energy, participation in God by energy, and not by in essence - these are the main provisions adopted by the Council of 1351. To this must be added the ecclesiastical recognition and approval at the Council of 134! d. the Jesus Prayer, as expressing the true spirit of Orthodox piety and characteristic not only of monks, but of all Christians.

Among the documents approved by the Council of 1351, the Confession of Faith of St. Gregory Palamas, in a brief but perfect form expressing the general church teaching on all major theological issues - both ancient, including the procession of the Holy Spirit, and considered for the first time at the Council. Orthodox triadology is expressed in it especially brightly and at the same time biblically and patriotically traditionally. If we compare this Religion of St. Gregory Palamas with the Pseudo-Athanasian symbol, the superiority of the former is evident to every Orthodox thinking person, The famous Svyatogorsk Tomos of 1339, compiled by St. Gregory Palamas and signed by the elders and abbots of Mount Athos (among the signatures are Serbian, Georgian and Syrian signatures). Strictly speaking, this document cannot be called a conciliar act, because, except for the bishop of the town of Ierisso, neighboring Athos, none of its signatories was then in the episcopal rank. True, at least three of them were honored with it later: St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, Kallistos and Philotheos, future Patriarchs of Constantinople. As it were. The Council of 1347 approved the content of the Svyatogorsk Tomos, which in many respects was the source of all further, conciliar decisions, thereby giving it the significance of an important symbolic monument. Of dogmatic significance, of course, are the anathematizations and longevity of the Triodion, introduced into it by Patriarch Kallistos in 1352, i.e., a year after the Council. In them in short form the main theological provisions of the decisions of the “hesychast” councils of the XIV century were formulated. This was the ecclesiastical liturgical recognition of these councils and gives their decisions great dogmatic authority. Nevertheless, all these theological conciliar resolutions, although, of course, contrary to the insinuations of some Roman Catholic polemists, were never rejected by the Orthodox Church, nevertheless, in fact, they were almost forgotten in the school theology of subsequent centuries (XVI-XVIII, and even the XIX century. features), which fell under the influence of Latin scholasticism or Protestant ideas and was in a period of decline. And if they were interested in the “hesychast disputes” and the Councils of the XIV century, then not in essence, not in their theological content, but mainly as an episode of the struggle against the Latins and their attempts to interfere in the affairs of the Byzantine Church. This approach to "hesychast disputes" is especially characteristic of Greek theologians. Even prof. Karmyris, who has an undoubted merit and deserves our gratitude, as the first to place the acts of the Councils of 1341-1351. in the collection of symbolic monuments of the Orthodox Church, considers it necessary to explain their placement in his book not by their meaning in essence, but by the fact that they are "indirectly directed against the Latin Church." This approach, however, is insufficient and one-sided. Of course, in the end, the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas on the difference between the essence and energy of God is incompatible with the system of Thomas Aquinas, who identifies the essence and actions of God and considers grace not as uncreated God's energy, but as a created gift. And since Thomistic theological and philosophical system was, until recently anyway, erected in Roman Catholic Church almost into dogma, council decisions of the XIV century. may be regarded as having an anti-Roman character. However, they were not directed directly against the Latins, and apart from the doctrine of the journey of the Holy Spirit in the Confession of St. Gregory Palamas, they did not touch upon controversial issues between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. Theological disputes of the XIV century. were the result of a collision of various currents in the bowels of the Byzantine Church itself, and only in the second period of their development were the opponents of St. Gregory Palamas began to use arguments from the philosophical arsenal of Thomism, which by that time had begun to become known in Byzantium. Therefore, the decisions of the Councils of 1341-1351. can be regarded as the fruit of the spiritual and theological development of the Orthodox Church itself, and not as the result of a collision with the heterodox world with its problems alien to Orthodoxy, as was the case when compiling the Confessions of the 17th century, Peter Mohyla and Dositheus in particular. Since, however, the theology of St. Gregory Palamas temporarily fell into oblivion in the Orthodox Church and interest in him began to revive only in the 20th century, it is necessary to determine the attitude of the entire Church to the decisions of the Local Councils of the 14th century by a new conciliar act of the upcoming Ecumenical Council, confirm their significance and recognize them as equal or similar to dogmatic decisions of the ancient Ecumenical Councils.

An important symbolic text of the late Byzantine period is also the Confession of Faith of St. Mark of Ephesus at the False Council of Ferrara-Florence 1439-1440. He developed its content in more detail in his District Epistle to all Orthodox Christians, written by him after the council on the island of Limnos in 1440-1441. Although the Orthodox Catholic Church rightly rejects the Ferrara-Florence Cathedral and ranks it among the false councils, it highly honors the speeches of St. Mark of Ephesus and sees in them an authoritative expression of his faith and teaching. Through the mouth of St. Mark spoke Orthodoxy itself in Florence. And in terms of its content, this Confession expresses in a short, convex and vivid form the basic beliefs of our Church, especially on controversial issues that separate us from Rome (the procession of the Holy Spirit, papal primacy, etc.). All this without excessive controversy and with a predominance of a positive presentation of the truths of faith. That is why this Confession must be counted among the main symbolic texts of the Orthodox Church.

Let us now move on to the post-Byzantine period of Orthodox theology with its numerous confessions of faith, patriarchal epistles, catechisms, etc. Almost all of them, except for catechisms, which are predominantly educational and school in nature, express the reaction of Orthodox theology and the church hierarchy to Protestant and Roman Catholic creeds with which the Orthodox Church had to face directly during this period. Sometimes, however, they were the result of “internal” clashes between Protestantism and counter-reformation Roman Catholicism, when both denominations fighting each other tried to win Orthodoxy over to their side and lean on it, drawing it into this “internecine” Western dispute alien to it. It is natural, therefore, that the Orthodox theological monuments of this era have a polemical, anti-Protestant or anti-Latin character. At the same time, their very appearance among the Orthodox is explained, in part, at least, by imitation of the compilation in the West of the so-called “symbolic books”, which appeared there at that time, in the 16th century. first among the Protestants (the Augsburg Confession of 1530 among the Lutherans, the "67 Terms or Conclusions of Zwingli" among the Zwinglians in 1523, Calvin's Catechism in 1536 and his "Geneva Agreement" of 1551 among the Reformers, and quite numerous other symbolic documents) , and after that - in response to Protestant symbolic literature - among Roman Catholics (canons and decrees of the Council of Trent 1545-1563, the confession of faith of the same Council, the Catechisms of Peter Canisius, 1554, and Rome, 1566). ). It is quite natural that Protestantism, as a new denomination that broke away from Roman Catholicism, had a need to formulate its faith in “symbolic books”, which became adequate and authoritative expressions of their new faith, although the attitude towards them in Protestantism has always been internally contradictory, since for the very principle of "authority" is difficult to find a place in Protestantism. On the other hand, the Roman Catholics, who also broke away from ancient church tradition and came into conflict with Holy Scripture in the development of their doctrine and church institutions, felt the need in the face of emerging Protestantism and, in opposition to it, to formulate their dogmatic attitudes, so different from faith and teachings of the ancient church. Hence the Roman Catholic symbolic books of the sixteenth century, which, as approved by the popes, received an authoritative and obligatory character in Roman Catholicism, even more than the ancient decrees which they actually replaced, for the teaching power in Roman Catholicism belongs to the pope. In addition, the Protestants, who soon split into many sects, tried to stop this process of fragmentation by publishing many new confessions of faith and “formulas of consent” (such as the Lutheran “Formula of Concord of 1577-1580”).

Orthodoxy was in a completely different position in the 16th-17th centuries. No matter how low the level of theological education fell in it due to historical circumstances and no matter how heterodox influences penetrated into its midst, the Orthodox Catholic Church basically preserved the faith of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers, or rather, was the Church of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers. She had no internal reasons for new formulations of her faith, and if she then embarked on the path of compiling new confessions of faith, then the reasons for this were, so to speak, “external”, historically “accidental” or “practical” - the result of her contact and even clashes with Western confessions, which often occupied in relation to Orthodox world aggressive position (propaganda, missions, diplomatic and political intrigues). Therefore, Orthodox confessions and patriarchal epistles of the 16th-18th centuries. were not the fruit of the organic development of Orthodox theology, which were, for example, the "Palamit" Councils of the XIV century, but attempts to give answers to questions that are often alien to Orthodoxy, but practically posed by life as a result of a collision with a heterodox world, and sometimes to disputes between Roman Catholics and Protestants, in which both sides stood on common premises that are not acceptable to the Orthodox Church (as, for example, in the dispute about salvation by faith alone or by faith and works). We will not now go into detail about the well-known fact that, in the struggle against Latinism and Protestantism, Orthodox theology was forced to arm itself with Western scholastic theological weapons and that this, in turn, led to a new and dangerous influence on Orthodox theology, not only by theological terms not characteristic of it, but also theological and spiritual ideas. It happened that some theologians, such as Fr. Georgy Florovsky, is called a “pseudomorphosis of Orthodoxy”, i.e., dressing him in theological forms of thinking and expression that are not characteristic of him, although fidelity to the foundations of Orthodoxy was nevertheless generally preserved by the miracle of God and the gift of the Holy Spirit, abiding in the Church. This was a period of deep separation from patristic tradition in theology (although not in the liturgical life of the Church) and, at the same time, a lowering of the level of theology with all the outward development of theological science and learning. This decline in the theological level is clearly felt by anyone who, after reading the works of the Holy Fathers or the Acts of the ancient Councils (up to and including the Councils of the 14th century and St. Mark of Ephesus), proceeds to reading the Confessions of Faith of the 16th-17th centuries. We will try to trace these non-Orthodox influences in more detail when considering individual confessions and epistles of this era.

First of all, in chronological order, we will need to dwell on the three epistles of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople to the Lutheran Wittenberg theologians of the University of Tübingen, who sent him the text of the Augsburg Confession. This correspondence (1573-1581), begun at the initiative of the Lutherans, did not end, as is well known, and in his third epistle Patr. Jeremiah states that he considers it useless to continue. Its significance lies more in the very fact that it was the first direct meeting of Orthodoxy with Protestantism than in its very content. The epistles set out quite well certain provisions of the Orthodox teaching, the Latin influence is hardly noticeable in the expressions (however, “matter and form” are found in the teaching on the sacraments, but the term “transubstantiation” in the teaching on the Eucharist is avoided). The main defect of the Epistles, however, is that while Protestantism is primarily a heresy about the Church (or rather "against" the Church), Patr. Jeremiah does not develop any Orthodox theological teaching about the Church and instead gives a teaching about the seven sacraments. In response to the Lutheran-Augustinian doctrine of man, which underlies the Lutheran doctrine of justification, he does not have Orthodox patristic anthropology, as well as the doctrine of grace as the uncreated power of God. And yet, just here one could find points of contact with Luther, who rebelled against the Roman Catholic doctrine of the multitude of creaturely grace forces as mediators between God and man. In general, the epistles are limited to the refutation of individual Protestant errors without trying to understand their basic principles. Naturally, this kind of dialogue with the Protestants could not be fruitful and soon ceased. Nevertheless, the messages of Patr. Jeremiah II are valuable historical monuments of the state of Orthodox theological thought of the XIV century. in the Middle East, when it had not yet come under the strong influence of Latin scholasticism. Valuable is also the firmness with which Patr. Jeremiah II defends Orthodox positions. This is the meaning of his messages. give them greater value it would be an exaggeration.

Much more interesting is the “Confession of the Eastern, Catholic and Apostolic Church” by Mitrofan Kritopoulo, the future Patriarch of Alexandria, 1625. It also refers to Lutheranism and can be characterized as the first attempt at a theological assessment of Lutheranism from an Orthodox point of view. In theological terms, this is the most outstanding symbolic monument of the 17th century, which most successfully expounds the Orthodox teaching. This does not mean, however, that it does not have shortcomings. It also lacks theological synthesis and is dominated by polemics on individual points. At the same time, some influence of Lutheranism is felt, although at the core Mitrofan Kritopoulo, of course, is Orthodox. For example, his teaching about the Church is rather vague; he teaches about the fall and its consequences in the spirit of the blessed. Augustine (taking away donum superadditum, "pure nature" remains). In the teaching on the sacraments, the influence of Protestantism is especially felt, or, in any case, the desire to speak in a language acceptable to them. Only three necessary sacraments are recognized - Baptism, the Eucharist, Repentance, the rest are called "mysterious rites", only by "economy" are called sacraments by the Church. In particular, chrismation is mentioned only in passing and not as a sacrament. No common doctrine about the Eucharist, more details are emphasized, although essential ones - leavened bread, communion of the laity under both types, strict Eucharistic fasting, etc. Following St. Mark of Ephesus, Kritopoulo avoids the scholastic expression "transubstantiation" (metousiwsiV) and speaks only of "change" (metabolh). He also speaks out against the veneration of the Holy Gifts outside the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Definitely rejects the Latin doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God, And, perhaps most positively in his Confession, expounds the doctrine of redemption, although without much depth and consistency in it, but in the general spirit of the holy fathers and without the Latin doctrine of satisfaction.

On the other hand, the Latin influence is felt in his teaching about the seven degrees of the priesthood, including the lower degrees. A curious feature of the Confession of Critopoulo is the naive Greek patriotism, which is expressed in emphasizing that Christ was crucified by the Romans and Jews, and not by the Greeks, and that Christ was “glorified” when the Hellenes wished to see him. On the other hand, Mitrofan Krytopoulo resolutely rejects the claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to a special position and “primacy” in the Church and insists on the equality, if not of all, then at least of the four Eastern patriarchs and that only Christ is the Head of the Church, for a mortal man cannot be the head of the Church. It is very characteristic for Kritopoulo to mix dogmas with the mores and customs of his era (i.e., with the mores of Christian peoples, mostly Greeks, under Turkish rule in the 17th century). Thus, outlining the Orthodox teaching on marriage, he writes that among the Orthodox, parents agree on a future marriage, and the bride and groom do not see each other and should not even know each other until the marriage itself.

It must be said that Kritopulo does not have a teaching about Tradition at all, but only about individual traditions - church or folk. Thus, it can be said that the Confession of Mitrofan Kritopoulo is a very interesting and valuable monument of Greek life under Turkish rule. As a symbolic text, it is just as valuable as a monument of its era, in which the dogma of the Orthodox Church is presented better and under less heterodox influence than in other dogmatic monuments of the same era. It is still difficult to see in it an unconditionally authoritative symbolic text, because, as we have seen, it contains many shortcomings and peculiarities of time and place. In addition, the Confession of Mitrofan Krytopoulo, as well as the messages of Patr. Jeremiah II, does not have a conciliar, even local, character, but is his personal act, although its author occupied the highest position in the Orthodox Church. However, at the time of writing his Confession, Mitrofan Kritopoulo was still only a hieromonk, and the Confession itself, sent by him to the Protestant University in Helmstadt in Germany, was printed there only in 1661.

While the messages of Patr. Jeremiah II and the Confession of Mitrofan Kritopoulo were directed against the Lutherans, all other confessions of the 17th century. have, first of all, in mind the Calvinists. The reason for their compilation was the appearance of the “Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith”, Calvinistic in spirit, published anonymously by the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lukar in Geneva in Latin in 1629 and in Greek in 1633. There is no doubt that it really belonged to Patriarch Lukar. This Confession was rightly said by Prof. Karmyris that “we are not dealing with an Orthodox confession under Calvinist influence, but, on the contrary, with a Calvinist confession under Orthodox influence.” And indeed, his place is rather among the symbolic books of Calvinism, which we spoke about above, rather than among the Orthodox symbolic monuments. Lukar's confession caused great confusion in the Orthodox Church, especially in the Greek Middle East and southern Russia. All Orthodox confessions and epistles of the 17th century were a reaction to it and a refutation of it. They can be defined as anti-Calvinist polemical documents that used Roman Catholic arguments for the purpose of their polemic and were colored to a greater or lesser extent by the spirit of Latin scholasticism. Least of all, this Latin spirit was revealed in the first of the anti-Lukarevsky documents - the resolution of the Council of Constantinople on September 24, 1638, which anathematized Cyril Lukar and was signed by three patriarchs and 20 metropolitans. Sharp in form and short in content, it well expounds the Orthodox teaching on the change of the Holy Gifts, while avoiding the Latin term “transubstantiation.” However, the so-called “Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East” has gained great fame. Originally written in Latin Metropolitan of Kyiv Peter Mohyla and his closest collaborators - Isaiah Kozlovsky and Sylvester Kossov, approved in 1640 at the Council in Kiev, convened by Peter Mohyla, it was sent for approval to Patriarch Parfeniy of Constantinople and submitted to the latter for consideration by the Local Council in Iasi in 1641-1642. There, the Latin text was translated into Greek colloquial language by the learned theologian Meletios Sirigus. He fairly remade it, throwing out or changing the most obvious Latin deviations from the Orthodox faith of the original text, such as, for example, about the time of the change of the Holy Gifts, about purgatory, etc. This alteration was done, however, very hastily, and even Meletius Sirig himself, although he was a staunch opponent of the Roman Catholic Church, was, as a graduate of the University of Padua, under Latin influence in theology. Naturally, the “cleansing” he carried out in the Latin text of Met. Peter Mohyla, could not be sufficient, and the Greek Orthodox Confession, even in such a corrected form, still remains the most “Latin-wise” text from the symbolic monuments of the 17th century. In this revised form, it was approved in Constantinople by a patriarchal letter dated March 11, 1643, signed by four Eastern patriarchs and 22 bishops and sent by Met. Peter Mogila in Kyiv. The latter, however, did not agree with the changes made to the text and refused to accept and publish the corrected Orthodox Confession sent to him. Instead, he published in 1645 his "Small Catechism", where he again returns to his Latin errors. Be that as it may, the Orthodox Confession remained unknown in the Russian Church until 1696, when it was translated in Moscow from Greek into Church Slavonic under Patriarch Adrian.

Turning now to the very content of the Orthodox Confession, it can be said that, basically and essentially, it is, of course, an Orthodox symbolic monument of its era and in all controversial issues that separate the Orthodox from Roman Catholics, such as, for example, Filioque, papal primacy, or with Protestants, as the veneration of Sts. icons and relics, the invocation of saints, the sacraments, etc., it always adheres to Orthodox teaching. This is quite understandable, otherwise it would have been rejected by the Orthodox Church, and not signed by so many patriarchs and bishops. This does not prevent it from being a vividly Latin document in form, and sometimes in content and spirit. Following in its exposition the well-known Roman Catholic catechism of Peter Canisius, which we mentioned above, and almost literally borrowing whole pages from him, especially in its moral part, the Orthodox Confession completely assimilates Latin scholastic terminology, such as, for example, the matter and form of the sacrament, the intention (intentio) of the performer of the sacrament as a condition for its validity, transubstantiation (transsubstantiatio), the Aristotelian doctrine of substance and accidents to explain transubstantiation, the doctrine of the performance of the sacraments ex orere orerato, etc. in the Divine Eucharist... The Son of God Himself by transubstantiation, so that the essence (substance) of the bread is transformed into the essence (substance) of His Holy Body, and the essence (substance) of the wine into the essence (substance) of His Precious Blood. Therefore, we must glorify and worship the Holy Eucharist in the same way as our Savior Jesus Himself.” Last words about the worship of St. The Eucharist is very obscure and can easily be understood in the sense of the Roman Catholic teaching on the veneration of the Holy Gifts outside of the liturgy. Latin is the teaching of the Orthodox Confession about the “indelible seal” of the priesthood, as well as the teaching that the human soul is created every time by a special creative act of God at the conception of a person, the so-called “creationism”. The Orthodox Confession presents this teaching as the only possible one. Meanwhile, among the Greek Fathers, a different point of view on the origin of the soul prevails, and Orthodox theology holds the same view. In any case, in Orthodoxy the doctrine of the origin of the soul is not a dogma. The doctrine of justification by faith and works is unsatisfactorily expounded in the Orthodox Confession with the Roman Catholic opposition of them and with a "mercenary" view of works. The teaching of the Orthodox Confession about penance as a necessary part of confession has the same character of mercenarism and satisfaction. The strongest Latin influence is in the moral part of the Orthodox Confession, where we meet with the teaching, unknown in Orthodox tradition, about the so-called "church commandments" that are different from the commandments of God. However, here, too, the Orthodox Confession tries to put an Orthodox content into the Latin forms. With a few exceptions (Basil the Great, Pseudo-Dionysius, Pseudo-Athanasius, Augustine), references to the holy fathers are almost completely absent in the Orthodox Confession - a characteristic sign of separation from the patristic tradition, which is felt throughout the theology of this symbolic monument. It can also be said that the most characteristic of it is not the presence in it of certain inaccuracies or deviations from Orthodox theology - after all, they are still of secondary importance, but rather the absence of any theology, the paucity of theological thought. Let's take two examples. Anyone familiar with the Latin trend of the Orthodox Confession naturally expects to find in it the scholastic teaching about the Lord's redemption and death on the Cross as satisfaction (“satisfaction”) of God's wrath for Adam's transgression. In fact, however, it does not exist in the Orthodox Confession, at least in a developed form, although it is implied in many places. The fact is that there is no theology of redemption in it, everything is limited to a “mosaic” of quotations from Holy Scripture and a few incoherent remarks. Another example is the dogma about the veneration of Sts. icons. In his explanation, his Orthodox Confession is limited to indicating that the veneration of Sts. icons do not violate the second commandment, for it is one thing to worship false gods and their idols, which is prohibited by the second commandment, and another thing is the veneration of Christ, the Mother of God and the saints and their images on icons. Such reverence is good and useful, for it helps to elevate the mind to the depicted archetype. Meanwhile, the Holy Fathers - Rev. John of Damascus and St. Theodore the Studite - icon veneration is justified, in addition to the above arguments, first of all, by the reality of the incarnation and incarnation of the Son of God and the doctrine of Divine images. The Son, being the eternal Image of the Father, reveals His creatures. In the incarnation, He takes the form of a man created in the image of God, becomes a real man. Therefore, we depict Christ according to humanity, thus confessing the reality of the incarnation, faith in the Son of God, who became visible and depicted and reveals to us the Father, whose Image He is. All this deep patristic theology is absent from the Orthodox Confession, and it does not establish any relationship between the incarnation and icon veneration. As a conclusion, we can say that, although we do not have sufficient grounds to reject the Orthodox Confession as a historical monument that played a positive role in defending Orthodoxy from its enemies in the 17th century, we do not see in it an authoritative symbolic text and a source of Orthodox theological teaching. Can.

Another symbolic monument of the 17th century has almost the same Latinizing character. – The Confession of Faith of the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheus, better known to us (in conjunction with other documents) under the name “Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith”. The reason for the compilation of this Confession was the confessional disputes between Roman Catholics and Calvinists in France. Both sides sought to prove that their dogma was shared by the Eastern Orthodox. And since in the Near and Middle East the interests of the Roman Catholics were defended by France, and the Calvinists by Holland, the ambassadors of these powers in Constantinople put pressure on Patriarchate of Constantinople in order to obtain from her the text of the confession of faith, favorable for the denomination they represent, in order to use it to fight the enemy. So, as a result of the persistent harassment of the French ambassador in Constantinople, Count de Nointel, who insisted that the Orthodox Church reveal its negative attitude towards the Calvinist Confession of Cyril Lukar, the Local Council met there in January 1672, chaired by Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople and with the participation of three others eastern patriarchs and about 40 bishops, who compiled a tomos of faith in an anti-Calvinist spirit. Soon after that, in March of the same year, a participant in the Council of Constantinople, Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, continued the anti-Calvinist action of this Council: taking advantage of the fact that the bishops and clergy, who had gathered there for the festivities of the consecration of the Church of the Nativity of Christ in Bethlehem, arrived in Jerusalem, submitted for the approval of the audience compiled by him Confession of faith. They approved it with their signatures on March 16, 1672, and included it in their conciliar decree condemning Calvinism. This document was sent to Constantinople to the French ambassador. It was signed by 69 people present, of which only eight bishops from Patr. Dositheus at the head (by the way, among the signatories is Archimandrite Joasaph, the representative of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, who arrived at the feast). All these documents (the resolution of the Council of Constantinople in 1672, the Confession of Dositheus and his approval in Bethlehem) are sometimes referred to as the Acts of the Council of Bethlehem in 1672, although, as we see, there was no real council in Bethlehem, but there was a liturgical assembly of a small number of bishops of Jerusalem patriarchy. The Council of Constantinople in January 1672 also cannot give ecclesiastical authority to the Confession of Patr. Dositheus, as he assembled before his composition, as we have seen. However, the Confession of Dositheus received wider ecclesiastical recognition fifty years later, when it was approved at the Council of Constantinople in 1725 by four eastern patriarchs with the patriarch of Constantinople. Jeremiah III at the head, included in the second reply to the English non-urors and sent to them through the Holy Synod of the Russian Church. For this reason, the Confession of Dositheus (and the documents accompanying it) is often called among us the Confession or even the Epistle of the Four Eastern Patriarchs.

Of all these documents, we will focus only on the Confession of Dositheus, as representing the greatest theological interest. As is well known, it is a response to the Confession of Cyril Lukar and follows exactly, one might say, “slavishly”, his text, contrasting the Orthodox teaching with his statements in the same order and on the same points. This, of course, connects the freedom of exposition and the incompleteness of the Confession of Dositheus, this partly explains the fact that this Confession (in its first edition, in any case) is directed exclusively against Calvinists and does not at all speak of Roman Catholic errors. The reader gets the impression that heretics - Calvinists (Patriarch Dositheos writes about them in non-ecumenical terms) rebelled and separated not from the Roman Catholic Church, but from the Orthodox Church, and that in general there are only Orthodox and Protestants, and there are no Roman Catholics or else their teaching is in complete agreement with the Orthodox. In general, the Confession of Dositheus, like the Confession of the Eastern Church (Peter Mohyla), sets out, of course, the Orthodox teaching, otherwise it could not have been approved by the four Eastern patriarchs, but it expresses it in forms borrowed from the Latins and with many deviations from the Orthodox legends in detail. So, it, following Latin scholasticism, teaches about various types of grace - anticipatory grace (gratia praevenies), special grace (specialis), contributing grace (cooperativa). Such a distinction is alien to patristic tradition. Latin terminology is particularly common in the doctrine of the Eucharist. We can say that here Dositheus even surpasses Peter Mogila in his passion for Latin. Here is a typical example: “After the consecration of bread and wine, the essence (substance) of bread and wine no longer remains, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord under the form and image of bread and wine, or, which is the same, in the accidents of bread and vir.” According to the Roman Catholic model, the sacrament of chrismation is called the word bebaiwsiV - a literal translation into Greek of the term confirmatio. The teaching of the Confession also has a Roman Catholic character about the indelibility of the priesthood, about the division of the Church into heavenly and militant, as well as the distinction between “servile” worship of saints and “super-servile” worship of the Mother of God. Dositheus makes no distinction between canonical and deuterocanonical books Old Testament, which also does not correspond to Orthodox tradition and is borrowed from Roman Catholics. The theological doctrine of the atonement, as in the Orthodox Confession, is completely undeveloped, almost absent, everything is limited to a few texts, so it is difficult to understand what convictions Dositheus holds here. He probably considered the question of redemption to be outside the framework of the anti-Calvinist controversy and did not consider it necessary to dwell on it. But what especially “jarries” the Orthodox feeling in the Confession of Dositheus is the prohibition for the laity to read Holy Scripture, especially the Old Testament. In defense of this prohibition, Dositheus refers to the experience of the Church, which allegedly became convinced of the harm resulting from the reading of Holy Scripture by the laity, and tries to justify it by asserting that, as Scripture itself says, salvation comes from “hearing the word of God,” and not from reading it. . Needless to say, the “experience” referred to here is the “experience” of the Roman Catholic, not the Orthodox Church. There it is understandable, because the church system, and indeed the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, is really not in agreement with Scripture, and the laity should not know this, but in Orthodoxy this is not so, he has nothing to fear from Holy Scripture. We are not talking about the fact that this “experience” of banning the reading of Holy Scripture turned out to be very unsuccessful and was one of the reasons that caused the Protestants to fall away from the Roman Catholic Church. And the reference to the fact that salvation is not from reading, but from “listening” is nothing but sophism. In any case, nowhere in patristic tradition and in the decrees of the Ancient Church can one find any indication of the dangers of reading the word of God. It is interesting to note that in the Russian translation of the Confession of Dositheus, made in 1838 by Metropolitan Filaret, the passage about the prohibition of the laity to read the Bible is omitted.

Yes, Patr himself. Dositheus realized and openly acknowledged over time the shortcomings of his Confession and in its third edition (Iasi, 1690) made a number of changes and additions to it directed against the Roman Catholics, about which he, in his original text, as we have already said, nothing does not speak. So, he changed Article 18, where a doctrine close to the Roman doctrine of purgatory developed, spoke out, though indirectly, against the doctrine of the pope as the head of the Church (“a mortal man cannot be the eternal head of the Church” - Article 10), added to the original text prohibition "to add or subtract anything from the text of the Creed", etc. All this undoubtedly improves the original version of the Confession. But at the same time, it turns it into only a personal document, since at the “Council” in Bethlehem its text, which has not yet been corrected, was approved. It is true that in 1723 the Eastern patriarchs approved the corrected text, but right there, in the cover letter to the Anglicans, they refer to the Paris edition of the Confession of 1672, i.e., to the text that has not yet been corrected. All this limits the significance of the Confession of Dositheus as a conciliar document. And its numerous theological shortcomings, as well as the random nature of its occurrence, encourage us to look at it more as a historical monument of the 17th century. symbolic content, rather than as an authoritative and binding symbolic text of enduring significance.

We will not dwell in detail on other symbolic texts published in the 18th-19th centuries. eastern patriarchs and their synods. In contrast to the documents of the XVII century. they are directed mainly against Roman Catholics, although some of them have Protestants in mind. Let us note the most important of them: a) The District Epistle of Patriarchs Jeremiah III of Constantinople, Athanasius III of Antioch, Chrysanthus of Jerusalem and seven bishops of the Synod of Constantinople to the Christians of Antioch against Roman Catholics and Uniate propaganda, 1722; b) The confession of faith of the Synod of Constantinople in 1727, chaired by Patriarch Paisios II of Constantinople, with the participation of Sylvester, Patriarch of Antioch, and Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, and 11 bishops of the Synod of Constantinople. Also directed against Roman Catholics. The author of this document, as well as the previous one, is Chrysanthus, the Patriarch of Jerusalem; c) District epistle of Patriarch Gregory VI of Constantinople, Athanasius of Jerusalem and 17 bishops of the Synod of Constantinople against the Protestants, 1838; d) District message of the same persons against Latin innovations, 1838; e) Answer to Pope Pius IX in 1848 by four patriarchs: Anthem VI of Constantinople, Hierotheos II of Alexandria, Methodius of Antioch and Cyril II of Jerusalem, approved by the Synods of the Churches of Constantinople, Antioch and Jerusalem (29 signatures of the bishops); f) Answer to Pope Leo XIII in August 1895 by Patriarch Anfim of Constantinople and 12 bishops of his Synod. All these epistles are valuable evidence of the constancy of the faith of the Orthodox Church in the difficult era of Turkish rule for her, important historical documents of her struggle against the aggression of Rome in the first place. Written on specific occasions, they usually do not have a systematic theological, but a popular missionary, apologetic character. They do not give a general overview of the Orthodox dogma, in contrast to Roman Catholicism or Protestantism, but confine themselves to a consideration, sometimes more complete, sometimes partial, of the individual disagreements existing between them. The essential here is not always distinguished from the secondary, theological and historical argumentation is not always at the same height, which is explained by the circumstances of the time. But in general they defend the Orthodox faith well. Here are the Roman Catholic deviations from ancient faith: Filioque, primacy and infallibility of the pope, baptism through sprinkling, unleavened bread, absence of epiclesis, communion of the laity under the same species, purgatory, supererogatory merits, complete bliss of the righteous until the general resurrection, the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. All these epistles, adopted at best by the four Eastern patriarchs, even with the participation of their synods, as was the case in 1848, by the Church of Constantinople alone in most cases, without the participation of the Russian Church and other autocephalous Churches, do not in themselves possess church-wide authority, as accurate and complete expositions of the Orthodox dogma, but are generally respected as historical monuments of a dogmatic nature.

A common feature of all these confessions of faith and messages of the XVI-XIX centuries. it was, as we have seen, that they were compiled by the eastern patriarchs without the participation of the Russian Church (the Orthodox Confession is no exception, for its author, Peter Mogila, was not a metropolitan of the Russian, but of the Church of Constantinople, and the text of the Confession was changed, however, for the better, by the Greeks without his knowledge). Nevertheless, they were not disputed in the Russian Church, and some of them received special significance in her and Russian theology, so that they were even sometimes called “symbolic books”. First of all, these are the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic and Apostolic Church and the Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith (Confession of Dositheus). To these two monuments they began to add, as a third symbolic book, the Extensive Catechism of Metropolitan Philaret. Such was the conviction of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov). “Constant leadership - he writes, “in the most detailed exposition of dogmas in Orthodox dogmatic theology, one must recognize 1) the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic and Apostolic Church, 2) the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, and 3) the lengthy Christian Catechism.” And in another place: “Orthodox Confession truly constitutes an epoch in ... history (of Orthodox theology). Until now, the sons of the Eastern Church did not have a special symbolic book in which they could find for themselves the most detailed guidance given on behalf of the Church itself, guidance in the matter of faith. The Orthodox Confession of Peter Mohyla ... was the first symbolic book of the Eastern Church. Here, for the first time, all the dogmas are set forth in her name as accurately as possible... Here, therefore, the most detailed and at the same time most reliable guidance in the matter of faith is given, both to all Orthodox, and, in particular, to Orthodox theologians, with a detailed disclosure of dogmas. Professor P.P. Ponomarev also distinguishes these three monuments from other symbolic texts, although he speaks about them much more cautiously than Metropolitan. Macarius. Referring to the fact that the Holy Synod approved them as a “guide”, but “does not openly call them symbolic books,” Ponomarev writes in his article in the Theological Encyclopedia that, “while maintaining the strict nature of the views of the Holy Synod, one should look at the aforementioned monuments precisely as a guide to the acquisition of theological knowledge, and, using the expression of scientists, to call symbolic books, but only in the relative, and not the absolute sense of the word "and at the same time" under the indispensable condition of their exact agreement in content with the ancient ecumenical teaching. But even with such a limited allocation it is difficult to agree. Regarding the Orthodox Confession and the Confession of Dositheus, we will not repeat what we have already said about their content, advantages and disadvantages. In any case, they do not withstand the criterion of comparison with the "ancient ecumenical teaching" either in terms of accuracy or in terms of the level of theological thought. Many symbolic texts of the era after the Ecumenical Councils are incomparably more valuable than them. And their “acceptance” by the Russian Church is relative and relatively late. True, the Orthodox Confession was published in Moscow in 1696 under Patr. Adrian and to him, as well as to the Confession of Dositheus, refers Spiritual regulation Peter the Great in 1722. It is difficult, however, to give ecclesiastical significance the certificate of the Spiritual Regulations, for he himself needs a certificate of Orthodoxy and Churchness. Be that as it may, both Confessions enjoyed almost no influence in Russian theology until the 30s and 40s of the 19th century, that is, until the era of the chief procurator of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov.

A graduate of the Jesuits and under Latin influence, Protasov wanted to introduce orders in the Russian Church according to the Roman model.

He wanted us to have obligatory detailed manuals in the field of theology, as is the case in the Roman Church. To this end, he began to put forward the idea of ​​the authority of "symbolic books" - the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mohyla and the Confession of Dositheus, especially since their Latin appearance was close to his heart. Be that as it may, as Ponomarev correctly notes, “the special attention of the Russian Church to the Orthodox Confession falls on the 1930s and 1940s. 19th century, from what time does the special treatment of it in Rus' actually begin in the works of Russian learned theologians (though not in all)”, as we will see. In 1837, by decision of the Synod, the Orthodox Confession was translated into Russian. The following year, 1838, the Confession of Dositheus was also translated by the same decision, and since then their wide and obligatory distribution in theological school and theology began.

As regards the Catechism of Philaret, we, of course, cannot give here a detailed theological analysis of this book. We will only say that in terms of its theological level, it is undoubtedly higher than the Orthodox Confession and the Confession of Dositheus, to which he refers in his last, “pro-Tasov” revision. As is known, the text of the Catechism, published in 1823-1824, was twice changed. In the edition of 1827-1828, when, however, the matter was limited to the replacement of biblical and patristic quotations in Russian with Church Slavonic ones, and in 1839, when more significant changes were made to the text at the insistence of Chief Procurator Protasov in cooperation with Metropolitan Seraphim (Glagolevsky ) and other members of the Holy Synod. It must be said that the “correction” of the Catechism in the spirit of its greater Latinization and harmonization with the Confessions of Peter Mohyla and Dositheus was not always successful. So, in this edition, to the word “offered” (about the Holy Gifts), “or transubstantiate” was added. True, after that the word “transubstantiation” is explained, with reference to the Confession of Dositheus, in Orthodox spirit in the sense of an incomprehensible and real interpretation, nevertheless, one can only regret the inclusion in the Catechism of this scholastic term, alien to Orthodox tradition. Even more unsatisfactory for the Orthodox consciousness is the teaching of redemption in terms of the "infinite price and dignity" of the Sacrifice on the Cross and "the perfect satisfaction of God's justice." Yet in everything to follow the Confession of Peter the Grave of Metropolitan. Filaret refused and, in spite of the pressure exerted on him, did not include in his Catechism the Latin teaching on the so-called "church commandments" encountered, as we have seen, in the Orthodox Confession. In general, for all its shortcomings, the Catechism of Filaret is an outstanding monument of Russian theology in terms of clarity of presentation, but it would be wrong to single it out from many other symbolic texts and elevate it to the level of a “symbolic book”. For, as we have seen, there are shortcomings in it, and the Holy Synod itself, in its approval of the Catechism, does not call it a "symbolic book", but limits itself to recommending it as a "guide". In addition, the authority and significance of the Catechism of Philaret is limited to the Russian Orthodox Church. Outside of it, especially among the Greeks, he is little known. It cannot be looked upon as a symbolic monument of pan-Orthodox significance.

A characteristic feature of Russian theology is the second half of XIX- early 20th century is his desire to free himself from Western heterodox influences - whether it be the influence of German Protestantism or the fetters of Latin scholasticism. This trend fought, first of all, against the Latin Protestant doctrine of redemption as the satisfaction of the majesty of God, offended by the fall of Adam, against the outwardly legal understanding of salvation and sought to oppose the patristic teaching to it. Directly this trend was directed against the "Orthodox dogmatic theology" of Met. Macarius, where such an understanding of the atonement found its classic expression in Russian theological literature. Indirectly, it also affected the Catechism of Filaret and, to a much greater extent, both symbolic monuments of the 17th century. - The Orthodox Confession of Peter Mohyla and the Confession of Faith of Dositheus. Although the satisfaction-juridical understanding of redemption in them, as we have seen, is not theologically developed, both symbolic monuments were rightly seen as a vivid manifestation of the Latin spirit, ultimately responsible for the theology of Macarius. To characterize this anti-Latin trend in our theology, it is enough to point to such works as “ Orthodox teaching on Salvation” by Archimandrite, future Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky), similar theological articles by Metropolitan. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) or the famous book of Hieromonk Tarasy (Kurgansky) “Great Russian and Little Russian theology of the 16th-17th centuries.” Valuable criticism of our school theology, which has developed on the "symbolic books" and on the dogmatics of Macarius, can be found in the interesting objections of Prof. A. I. Vvedensky at a dispute on April 9, 1904 at the Moscow Theological Academy under the protection of Archpriest. N. Malinovsky of his master's thesis “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, part 1 I and II, published in the "Theological Bulletin" under the title "On the Question of the Methodological Reform of Orthodox Dogmatics." But this rebellion against “Macarius” (and thus against the Confessions of the 17th century) is expressed in its most striking form in the interesting, albeit one-sided, speech of Archimandrite, future Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky), delivered on September 12, 1915, at the Moscow Theological academy on the topic “Theology and freedom of the Church. On the tasks of the liberation war in the field of Russian theology. Noting that our criticism of Roman Catholicism was usually partial (this remark is quite applicable to the theological manner of symbolic monuments of the 17th century), Archbishop. Hilarion says: “There were dozens of Catholic heresies, but they did not indicate the main pernicious error of Latinism.” And then he attacks the main soteriological provisions of scholastic theology: “In the scholastic doctrine of salvation, first of all, two forts, two concepts: satisfaction and merit, must be demolished to the ground. These two concepts must be thrown out of theology without a trace, forever and finally.” And he ends with the following fiery appeal: “I consider it my moral duty to call you to fight against this harmful Latin-German dominance and its sad fruits in our theology.”

Of course, not all criticisms of "Macarian" theology were equally successful. So, for example, Mr. Anthony in his book “The Dogma of Redemption”, with his “moral” interpretation of dogmas, actually denies the redemptive significance of the death of Christ on the cross, within the framework of his theology it is superfluous and its place is occupied by the Gethsemane prayer. And Archbishop Hilarion identifies the whole redeeming and saving work of Christ with one incarnation and in his speech says literally nothing about Christ's death on the cross. He wants to base his theology on church hymns, but he quotes only the hymns of the Nativity, the Theophany, the Annunciation, completely ignoring the texts Holy Week, the feasts of the Cross and even St. Pascha, so that in his concept there is no place not only for death on the cross, but also for the Resurrection of Christ, but only for His Nativity and Incarnation.

In general, the reactions of Russian theological thought late XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, there was a lack of genuine knowledge of the patriotic tradition in its entirety, a positive disclosure of the dogmas of Orthodoxy on its basis. Hence its one-sidedness and shortcomings. Nevertheless, scholastic-Latin theological schemes were recognized by the theologians of that time as inconsistent with church understanding and as inadequate and inferior forms of expression of the Orthodox dogma. And thus the acceptance of the Confessions of the 17th century. as "symbolic books" or mandatory manuals in theology, a decisive blow was dealt.

The question of the existence in the Orthodox Church of “symbolic books” expressing her dogma, having an obligatory general ecclesiastical significance and equal or similar in authority to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, has been discussed more than once in Orthodox theology of modern times, both Russian and Greek. We have already cited the views of some Russian theologians. We add that among the supporters of symbolic books and defenders of their authority, one can also rank prof. A. Tikhomirova, prot. N. Yanyshev, E. Popov, I. Sokolov, as well as the famous Serbian canonist Bishop Nikodim (Milash). Among those who deny the very existence of symbolic books in Orthodoxy, we point to Prof. N. Glubokovsky. “In essence, in Orthodoxy,” he writes, “there are no symbolic books in the technical sense of the word. All talk about them is extremely conditional and corresponds only to Western religious schemes, in contradiction with the nature and history of Orthodoxy. It regards itself as the correct and authentic teaching of Christ in all its originality and integrity; but then what special, distinctive teaching can it have, besides the teaching of the Gospel of Christ? The Orthodox Church itself, up to the present time, does not use any special “symbolic books”, being content with common traditional monuments that have a creed-determining character.” Does not recognize the authority of "symbolic books" and contemporary Russian theologian prof. arch. Georgy Florovsky. “The so-called “symbolic books” of the Orthodox Church have no binding authority,” he writes, “no matter how often they are used by individual theologians at different times. Their authority is relative and derivative. And, in any case, they are not authoritative in themselves, but only insofar as they agree with the uninterrupted tradition of the Church. Special "symbolic books" of the new period of the Orthodox Church, according to Fr. G. Florovsky, cannot have, for it is not some new and special Church, but is identical with the Ancient Church.

In Greek theology, too, one can note an ever-increasing tendency to challenge the authority and obligation of the symbolic texts of the 17th century. So, if the theologian of the late 19th century Z. Rosis recognized their authority, almost equal to the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, then the well-known and highly influential prof. X. Andrutsos (1935) treated them with more restraint and gave them only an auxiliary value. “As secondary sources,” he writes in his “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Eastern Church,” “can serve (for Orthodox theology) all the beliefs compiled at the Local Councils, insofar as they are consistent with church teaching. These are the so-called symbolic books written about the Calvinist Confession of Lukar, among which the predominant place belongs to the Confessions of the Grave and Dositheus. Modern Greek theologians go even further. Prof. P. Trembelas in his “Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church” already avoids the word “symbolic books”, and speaks only of symbolic texts, behind which he recognizes the significance of mainly historical monuments. “No matter how lower (these symbolic texts) are in the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, they do not cease, however, to be valuable auxiliary means for compiling Orthodox dogma, because they express the consciousness of the Orthodox Catholic Church in the era of their publication.” Prof. I. Karmyris more specifically rejects the existence in the Orthodox Church of "symbolic books" equal in authority to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. He calls them “simple symbolic texts” and writes that “the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, conditionally called, by alien imitation, are naturally deprived, as they do not originate from the Ecumenical Councils, of the absolute, eternal, ecumenical and obligatory authority of the creed and have only a relative , temporary, local, and not universal authority and, from this point of view, can be characterized as ordinary and flawed Orthodox beliefs, expressing the spirit of the era when they were compiled, and certifying the uninterrupted continuation and identity of the Orthodox faith in all ages.

It is interesting to note that the discussion of the issue of symbolic books in the Orthodox Church has gone beyond the boundaries of Orthodox church circles and has become of interest to Western theological science. We are referring to the curious dispute between two Protestant scholars, Wilhelm Hass and Ferdinand Kattenbusch. Gass in his work “Symbols of the Greek Church” based the exposition of her doctrine on the “symbolic books” of the 17th century, in particular, the Confessions of Peter Mohyla and Dositheus. Such a method was rejected by Kattenbusch in his critique of Gass's book. Kattenbusch argued that there is no separate Greek Church, but that there is an Orthodox Eastern Church and that the expression of her teaching should be sought not from Peter Mohyla and Dositheus, but from the great fathers of the 4th-5th centuries, when a specifically Greek tradition was formed in theology and worship. Gass objected that the ancient fathers belonged to the whole Church, and not to the Greek one alone. Therefore, in order to “save” the doctrine of the Greek Church, one must rely on the monuments belonging to it alone, i.e., the Confessions of the 17th century. Gass was, of course, right in his assertion that the ancient fathers belong to the whole Church, but he did not understand and did not notice that the modern Orthodox Church is a continuation of the Ancient one, or rather, it is the Ancient Church itself in the present, and not a special new one. Therefore, the great fathers of antiquity can better express its faith than Peter Mogila, Meletius Sirig or Dositheus.

Let us now try, in the light of all that has been said above, to answer the questions of the compilers of the program of the Pre-Council with their proposal to classify all symbolic texts in the Orthodox Church into three categories: a) authoritative texts; b) texts with relative authority; c) texts with auxiliary authority. First of all, it seems to us that in such a three-level classification, with its division into “relative” and “auxiliary” authority, there is something scholastic, overly systematic, a desire to distribute everything into paragraphs and categories. We do not think that from the Orthodox point of view it seems possible or even desirable to carry out such a principle in detail and strictly in the realm of theology. And the very question of authority and authority in Orthodoxy is very complex and is posed in it differently than in Roman Catholicism or Protestantism. We will not, however, delve into it, this would take us far from the immediate topic of our report... It seems to us undeniable that in the Orthodox Church there are texts of undeniable authority and enduring significance. Such, undoubtedly, is the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, although even here one can make some difference in terms of authority between the New and Old Testaments, on the one hand, and between the canonical and other books of the Old Testament, on the other. Such are the dogmatic resolutions of the seven Ecumenical Councils and the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed approved at them. It is difficult, however, to agree with Prof. Karmyris, who calls them equal in authority and honor with Holy Scripture, “as containing the Holy Tradition, which, together with Holy Scripture, constitutes two equally authoritative and equally worthy sources of the Orthodox faith.” Not because we wanted in any way to belittle the significance of the Creed or the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, but because here a comparison and identification is made in dignity between the two sides of the same primary phenomenon, i.e. Divine Revelation, namely - its revelation and imprinting in the Scriptures and the dogmatic monuments of the Church, theologically comprehending this Revelation by the power of the Holy Spirit and giving the key to the understanding of the Scriptures. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the “two sources of faith”, Scripture and Tradition, is also unacceptable – the sad legacy of the Council of Trent, from which modern Roman Catholic theology is trying to free itself. How well says Mr. Philaret in his Catechism, Tradition is not a source, but the original method of spreading Revelation, which retains its significance for the present time “for guidance in the correct understanding of Holy Scripture, for the correct performance of the sacraments and for the observance of sacred rites in the purity of their initial establishment.” Finally, with all the inviolability and binding nature of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils as the voice of the Church, expressing her faith and consciousness on them, historical circumstances and Church benefit may raise the question of the possibility of further clarifications or even other formulations of some dogmatic issues resolved at the Ecumenical Councils, as we we see in modern negotiations with the so-called “Monophysites”, of course, however, not in the sense of rejecting previous decisions. However, all this is entirely the competence of the future Ecumenical Council. In the sense of theological completeness and ecclesiastical inviolability, one can also distinguish between the Oros of Chalcedon about two natures in Christ and the admissibility of adding the Filioque to the Symbol. There is no conciliar decree that the Oros of Chalcedon is final and not subject to further development or interpretation. And in fact, at the Fifth and Sixth Councils, the Chalcedon decree was continued and interpreted. On the contrary, the text of the Creed was recognized as final and any addition to it was declared inadmissible at two Councils - the Third, Ephesian, and the Eighth, which can be considered the Council of Constantinople 879-880. That is why an agreement with the Monophysites at the forthcoming Ecumenical Council seems, humanly speaking, more achievable than with the Roman Catholics.

In terms of authority, along with the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed and the dogmatic resolutions of the seven Ecumenical Councils, including the dogmatic resolutions of the Local Councils approved at the Fifth-Sixth Council of Trull, it is possible to put only the resolutions of the Constantinople Council of 879-880, which at the upcoming Ecumenical Council should be proclaimed by the Eighth Ecumenical Council, so that the coming Ecumenical Council will be the Ninth in a row. At the forthcoming Ecumenical Council, the decisions of the Constantinople Councils of 1341-1351 should be equated with these resolutions. about the essence of God and Her actions, about uncreatedness and grace, and about the vision of the Divine Light. Of particular importance among the theological documents of these Councils is the Confession of Faith of St. Gregory Palamas at the Council of 1351, briefly, clearly, accurately and deeply expressing the Church's faith not only on the issues directly considered at the Council, but also on all major theological issues, including the procession of the Holy Spirit. The same general ecclesiastical character must also be recognized for the Confession of Faith of St. Mark of Ephesus at the Ferraro-Florence false cathedral, where through the mouth of St. Mark spoke to the whole Holy Church, Orthodoxy itself. It is possible to rank among them the resolution of the Council of Constantinople in 1156-1157. about the Eucharist as a sacrifice (and not just a remembrance) offered by Christ for humanity to the entire Holy Trinity.

This is approximately the limit of authoritative texts in the Orthodox Church. The so-called Apostolic Symbol cannot be counted among them, as it is locally Western in origin, unknown to the Ecumenical Councils and insufficient in content. It is also impossible to give an authoritative character to the Symbol of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea - a valuable historical monument, but a purely personal, not a general church document. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol surpassed all these symbols in form and content, and no other symbol should challenge its uniqueness in the Church. The Pseudo-Athanasian Symbol, as also unknown to the Ancient Church and as reflecting the Augustinian triadology and containing in its Latin original (though perhaps not originally) the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit a Patre et Filio, can certainly not be regarded as an authoritative symbolic text, and it should have been excluded from the church books altogether. Confessions of faith and dogmatic resolutions of Local Councils, patriarchal epistles and statements of church leaders from the 15th century. and to this day cannot be regarded as authoritative and obligatory symbolic monuments and be equated with the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, as not having a general church character in their origin, as usually low in terms of theological thought, and often breaking away from patristic and liturgical tradition and as bearing traces of a formal and sometimes significant influence of Roman Catholic theology. They retain their significance only as historical evidence of ecclesiastical and theological self-awareness and its constancy in the main throughout church history. In this sense, they deserve all respect and study. Moreover, in the main they have always been faithful to the Orthodox faith, although they did not particularly successfully clothe it in non-Orthodox “robes”. Their authority is therefore secondary or auxiliary, as the program of the Pre-Council expresses.

The foregoing is especially applicable to two symbolic monuments of the 17th century that gained particular fame in the Russian Orthodox Church - the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mohyla and the Confession of Faith of Patriarch Dositheus (the so-called Epistle of the Four Patriarchs). Above them on the theological level is Mitrofan Krytopoulo's Confession of Faith, although it is not a conciliar document and has its shortcomings. Above them is the third “symbolic book,” as some Russian theologians put it, the Long Catechism of Metr. Filaret. However, with many of its merits, it is not without flaws, and its fame in historical terms is limited to the Russian Church alone. There are no sufficient reasons to elevate it to the authority of a universally binding symbolic text.

To symbolic monuments one can add the theological resolutions of the Great Moscow Council of 1666-1667, with the participation of Patriarch Paisios of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch, on the indescribability of God the Father on icons, etc., as well as the resolution of the Constantinople Council of 1872, condemning phyletism as a heresy against the unity of the Church. We speak of both councils only in their dogmatic part, regardless of the condemnation of the Old Believers and Bulgarians, which had only historical significance. Such are the church monuments and episcopal confessions of faith during episcopal consecrations, formulas for renunciation of false teachings and confession of faith when heretics or non-believers are accepted into Orthodoxy. The difficulties here lie in the fact that all these formulas and confessions have often changed in the history of the Church and there is no unity of practice between Local Churches. All these questions require careful study. The Church at the future Ecumenical Council will appreciate all these decrees and confessions, accept or reject, if necessary, and speak out about their church authority. As historical monuments of church tradition and theological thought, they have their value and significance even now.

We must not forget that the Orthodox dogma is expressed not only in official documents, creeds, confessions and conciliar resolutions, but also in church service- in the Divine Liturgy, first of all, in the church hymns of the liturgical circle then. It can be said without exaggeration that the anaphora of the liturgies of St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom in its theological and dogmatic authority is in no way inferior to the dogmatic decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. This is especially true of the Anaphora of St. Basil the Great, where all the main points of Christian teaching: creation, fall, incarnation, resurrection, salvation, the final fate of man - are expressed so fully, vividly and deeply. Yes, and trinitarian theology is revealed in it with the same force. And all this theology is the fruit and expression of the conciliar Eucharistic prayer, the source and root of our faith. Church hymns, chosen by the Church from the works of the Holy Fathers, are also the fruit and expression of common church prayer and valuable monuments of faith. It can be said that they reflect Orthodox dogma more authentically and deeply than all the scholastic confessions of the faith of the 17th century.

We must also always be aware that our faith is expressed, interpreted and formulated in the works of the holy fathers as a whole. Only on the basis of their creations can we correctly understand the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, which follow from them and are explained by them. Of course, the Church never dogmatized the works of the holy fathers, did not follow their separate theological opinions, did not close the development of theological thought with them. Nevertheless, the Ecumenical Councils began their dogmatic resolutions with the words “Following the Holy Fathers”, thus expressing their conviction that loyalty to them in spirit is the main sign of Orthodox theology. In the light of patristic tradition, fidelity to it, not in letter, but in spirit, we must evaluate all the symbolic monuments and texts of the post-conciliar era and determine the degree of their authority. No absolute criterion here, however, is possible and is not needed.

COMPILATION AND EDITION
UNIFIED ORTHODOX PROFESSION

Compilation and publication question unified The Orthodox confession of faith is somewhat new for Orthodoxy, at least if we emphasize the word “single”, as it was, apparently, in the thought of the compilers of the program of the Pre-Sobor. In the past, of course, in the post-conciliar era, we have many confessions of faith. Among them we note first of all the confession of faith of St. Gregory Palamas at the Council of Constantinople in 1351 and St. Mark of Ephesus at the False Council of Ferrara-Florence 1439-1440. Also known is the Confession of Faith of the Patriarch of Constantinople Gennady Scholarius, presented by him after the conquest of Constantinople to Sultan Mohammed II. Having a limited purpose - to make Christian faith more understandable to the Mohammedans, it is not distinguished by dogmatic precision and is devoid of theological interest. In post-Byzantine times, we also have a number of confessions of faith. Among them, the most famous are the confessions of the faith of the (future) Patriarch of Alexandria Mitrofan Kritopoulo (1625), Metropolitan Peter Mohyla (1640-1643), Patriarch Dositheus (1672), the Council of Constantinople in 1727, compiled by the Jerusalem Patriarch Chrysanthos. All these confessions of faith, drawn up on specific occasions and in response to certain theological problems, did not claim, however, to be unified and comprehensive and capable of replacing all others. Of course, there can be no fundamental objections to the possibility of compiling in our time a new Confession of Faith of a particular and even general nature and its approval at a future Ecumenical Council. The Church preserves in our time all her gifts of grace. The Holy Spirit assists her now to formulate her teaching and avoid falling into error. The question is, however, not about the possibility in principle, but about the expediency and necessity of publishing in our time such a confession of faith of a general nature and about the practical feasibility of such an undertaking.

First of all, it must be said that "single", that is, so to speak, general and comprehensive confessions of faith are more characteristic of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism than Orthodoxy. As new creeds in many respects, different from the faith and teaching of the Ancient Church, both of these creeds - it is difficult to say which is more - have the need and vital necessity for the purpose of self-preservation to formulate their new creed in more or less detailed confessions of faith. From this arose symbolic books in Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. In a different position is the Orthodox Catholic Church. It is not only a faithful continuation of the Ancient Church, it is the Ancient Church itself at the present time, identical to it in faith and teaching. For this reason alone, it is less necessary and less common for the Orthodox Church to compose new confessions of faith, especially those of a general nature.

It is impossible, of course, to deny that in recent centuries, since the time of the Ecumenical Councils, many new delusions have arisen in the world, both among the Orthodox and in the non-Orthodox, heterodox and unbelieving world around them. It would seem that to respond to them, to determine one's attitude towards them, is the duty of Orthodoxy. However, this issue is more complex than it appears at first glance. To begin with, the Church from ancient times has avoided judging and analyzing in detail beliefs and teachings that are far from her, while she has always considered it her duty to speak out and respond to the errors and deviations that have arisen on the basis of Christianity itself. Thus, the Ecumenical Councils did not discuss or analyze pagan beliefs or philosophical teachings, but refuted and condemned Christian heresies. The Church, of course, completely rejected non-Christian teachings, but she considered it sufficient to oppose her faith to them in a positive form, without analyzing, officially and all the church at least, these beliefs alien to Christianity in detail. It would be wrong to elevate such a course of action to an immutable rule, especially since external circumstances have now changed; the example of the Ancient Church still retains its general validity. On the other hand, many errors of our time, although they seem new, in reality, however, only revive under new names the ancient heresies, already defined and condemned at the councils. Finally, the intellectual and spiritual questions and needs of modern humanity are so diverse and numerous that it is extremely difficult to embrace and answer them in a “single” confession of faith.

In general, it must be said that the idea of ​​a “single” all-encompassing Confession of Faith is not characteristic of Orthodox Church consciousness. The desire to define everything and precisely formulate all the objects of faith violates the primordial principle of theological and ecclesiastical freedom in unity and love, so clearly expressed in the famous saying of the blessed. Augustine: "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas". And what the holy fathers considered to belong to this realm of free theology can be inferred from the following words of St. Gregory the Theologian: “Philosophize to me about the world or about the worlds... about the resurrection, judgment, retribution, the sufferings of Christ, for in such subjects it is not useless to reach the goal and it is safe to make mistakes. Let us pray to God to be successful in this, now a little, and a little later, perhaps in a more perfect way, in Christ Jesus Himself.” In other words, the questions of creation, redemption, the last destinies of man belonged to St. Gregory the Theologian to the realm of theological freedom, where “it is safe to err.” This does not mean, of course, that the Church should not concern them, but it is not in her nature to determine them dogmatically and conciliarly. In general, the Orthodox Catholic Church, in contrast to Roman Catholicism, does not tend to issue dogmatic decrees unnecessarily when there is no danger of error, for dogma in the mind of the Church is more a protection from error, an indication that one should not think about God than a positive disclosure of the doctrine of German "Orthodox dogma", as Prof. A. I. Vvedensky, “there are neither fetters for thought, nor shackles, but only protective definitions by which the Church wants to put the human mind in the proper perspective, in which it would open the possibility of unhindered and unstoppable movement forward, with the exception of the dangers of deviation aside and on the way deceitful."

Finally, the compilation of a new general Orthodox confession may serve as an occasion for temptation among “these little ones,” simple pious believers, who may see in the very fact of its compilation a recognition that the Orthodox teaching, as it has hitherto existed, was somehow insufficient and even wrong, in need of correction. This cannot be disregarded, for, as the response of the Eastern Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX in 1848 says, “neither the patriarchs nor the councils have ever been able to introduce innovations in our country, because the defender of the faith is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves, which wants his faith to be eternally unchanged and uniform to the faith of the fathers. Of course, in this case it is rather a psychological obstacle, because we are not talking about a new faith, but about its new and additional formulations, which has happened more than once in church history. Nevertheless, the proclamation of a new unified confession of faith can still cause difficulties and even splits. More importantly, the compilation of such a single Orthodox Confession of Faith, truly worthy of this name, is practically difficult to implement. After all, such a confession must express the fullness of the Orthodox Church Tradition, as it was revealed in the Holy Fathers in their entirety. At the same time, it should not be a mechanical repetition of what they said or a mosaic of patristic texts and quotations, but their creative synthesis and arrangement for our era, a “neopatristic synthesis”, as the well-known modern Orthodox theologian Fr. Georgy Florovsky. And for such a synthesis, faithful in spirit to the holy fathers and at the same time free and integral, the time has not yet come. Firstly, because the study of the Holy Fathers itself, despite all the development and successes of patrology in recent decades, has not yet reached a level that provides a sufficient basis and necessary material for a synthesis. Moreover, as the congresses of patrologists that have taken place in recent years have shown, the participation of Orthodox theologians in the revival of pathological sciences now observed is still very modest. And we cannot rely on the results of the work of heterodox scientists alone, no matter how highly we value them. scientific works. Therefore, one may fear that the compilation of a common Orthodox Confession of Faith will not be within the capabilities of our Orthodox theologians at the present time. Rather, a Confession of Faith will be compiled, the text of which, if not immediately, then after a few decades, will be felt by everyone as unsatisfactory and unsuccessful, too reflecting the state of theological thought and science of their era with its shortcomings and one-sidedness. This will not prevent him, however, once he receives conciliar approval, from hanging like a dead weight over free and creative theological thought and creating fetters and constraints for it, instead of being its guide and pointer. The Holy Spirit, of course, will protect such a conciliar text from errors against faith, but since the human factor also operates in the Church and the Holy Spirit does not create violence against human freedom, human weakness will inevitably come to light in editing the text of the unified Orthodox Confession of Faith in all its ugliness.

It seems to us, therefore, that the time has not yet ripened for compiling and publishing a unified Confession of the Orthodox Faith.

Archbishop Vasily of Brussels and Belgium (in the world Krivoshein Vsevolod Alexandrovich) was born on June 17, 1900 in St. Petersburg in the family of the Minister of Agriculture.

In 1916 he graduated from the gymnasium and entered the Faculty of History and Philology of Petrograd University.

In 1917 he continued his education at Moscow University.

During the Civil War, he went south to fight in the White Army. He entered the 2nd regiment of the division of General Drozdovsky (Volunteer Army of General Denikin). He froze his arms and legs and in February 1920 was evacuated from Novorossiysk to Cairo.

In the autumn of 1920, he moved to Paris and entered the philological faculty of the Sorbonne, from which he graduated with a diploma in 1924. According to the PSTBI, in 1920-21 he studied at the Faculty of Philology in Paris, and in 1922-23. Studied at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Munich.

In 1924 - 1925. took part in the Russian Christian student movement, was at its congresses in Arzheron.

In September 1925, he left France for the Congress of the Movement in the Khopovsky monastery in Yugoslavia, from where in November of the same year he went on a pilgrimage to Athos, which determined his whole subsequent life. In the same year, on the feast of the Entry into the Church of the Most Holy Theotokos, he was accepted into the brotherhood of the Panteleimon Monastery as a novice. He was under the guidance of the confessor, Archimandrite Kirik, and carried out obedience in the workshop for repairing church vestments.

On March 24, 1926, he was tonsured into a cassock with the name Valentine, and a year later, on March 5, into a mantle with the name Vasily. Got a new obedience: learn Greek, which he carried out first in the monastery, and then in Karey, the capital of Athos (1927-1929).

From 1929 to 1942, he acted as the monastic secretary for Greek correspondence with church and civil institutions, and also, as he knew Western languages, he was obliged to "lead" foreign guests who visited the monastery.

In 1937 he was elected a "cathedral elder", that is, a member of the monastery cathedral.

In 1942 - 1945. he was antiprosop (permanent representative) of the monastery in Kinot of St. Mountains, and in 1944 - 1945. also a member of Epistasia (administrative body of Athos).

For 22 years he lived on Athos. During this time, he wrote and published a number of works on the ascetic teaching and theology of St. Gregory Palamas.

In 1947, he was arrested by the Greek authorities for fictitious "collaboration with the Germans" and was forced to leave Athos.

In September 1947, Fr. Basil settled in Athens.

In February 1951, at the invitation of the rector of the Russian church, St. Nicholas the Wonderworker in Oxford, Archimandrite Nicholas (Gibbs) and with the blessing of the abbot of the Panteleimon Monastery, Archimandrite Justin, arrived in England and began to work on the preparation of the Oxford University publication, edited by prof. Lampe, a theological dictionary of the Greek patriotic language (the dictionary was published in 1962-1968, while Father Vasily collaborated in it until 1955).

Here, in Oxford, on May 21, 1951, Bishop Irinej of Dalmatia (Serbian Patriarchate), with the consent of the abbot of the Panteleimon Monastery, was ordained a hierodeacon, and on May 22, a hieromonk to the house church of St. Nicholas, serving the Orthodox of different nationalities. He served as an assistant to the rector - Archim. Nicholas (Gibbs).

Since 1951, he was under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Beginning in the 1950s, he worked hard to study the life and works of St. Simeon the New Theologian, the great Christian mystic of the 11th century. The result of this was the capital work “St. Simeon the New Theologian. Life, spirituality, teaching. The book was published in Paris in 1980.

During the period of his life in Oxford, he participated in the work of the First International Congress of Patrologists in September 1951, then in each of the Oxford Patrological Congresses, which are the most representative scientific and theological forums of their time.

In 1956 at the invitation of the Moscow Patriarchate, he was a member of the first trip to the USSR of the delegation of the Western European Exarchate.

In March 1959 he was appointed rector of the Church of the Annunciation in Oxford.

On May 26, 1958, by a decree of the Holy Synod, he was appointed Bishop of Volokolamsk and with a stay in Paris, the second vicar of the Patriarchal Exarch in Western Europe. The consecration, however, was somewhat delayed due to difficulties in obtaining a visa. On June 14, 1959, at the Assumption Cathedral in London, he was consecrated as a bishop, which was performed by the Exarch of the Moscow Patriarchate in Western Europe, Archbishop. Klishinsky Nikolay (Eremin) and Bishop Anthony of Sergievsky (Bloom). In his enthronement speech, the newly appointed bishop said:

“I am happy to belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Church of Confessors of the Faith of Christ, holding high the bright torch of Holy Orthodoxy. [...] I believe that our stay in Western Europe is not something accidental, but determined by the Providence of God, and that we are all entrusted with the task of testifying before the peoples of the West about the truth of the Orthodox faith, spreading it among the non-Orthodox, contributing to the creation and strengthening of the Western Orthodoxy with the ultimate goal of the reunification of all Christendom into One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Since November 1959, Bishop Vasily carried out his archpastoral obedience in Paris as an assistant to the Archbishop of Klichy.

On May 31, 1960, he was appointed Bishop of Brussels and Belgium. Vasily remained in this chair for a quarter of a century, until his death.

From 1960 until his death, he lived at the temple in Brussels.

During his administration of the Brussels diocese, Bishop Vasily, in addition to the previously existing Russian church of St. Nicholas, achieved the opening of three more Belgian Orthodox churches with services in French and Flemish. Actively participated in the public life of the Russian Orthodox Church.

He was the editor of the Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate = Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate.

In 1961 and 1964 he is a member of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church at a meeting on about. Rhodes. At the IV World Conference, he was elected a member of the Commission of the World Council of Churches "Faith and Church Order".

In 1963 he was awarded the right to wear a cross on his klobuk.

In 1964 he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology by the Council of the Leningrad Theological Academy for a scientific publication in the patristic series of catechumens of St. Simeon the New Theologian.

The sixties were also marked by the appointment of a vicar bishop of the Archdiocese of Belgium for Holland. At the same time, it was proposed to expand the title of the archdiocese by introducing a mention of Holland into it, but this idea was abandoned, "so as not to violate the law on the historical seniority of the Belgian archdiocese." As a result, the area of ​​Vladyka Basil's pastoral care over the Dutch diocese did not diminish at all, and his jurisdiction extended practically throughout the Benelux.

From September 1 to September 15, 1966, he was the head of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church at a meeting of the International Orthodox Commission for Dialogue with the Anglican Church in Belgrade. For many years he participated in dialogue with the Anglicans as part of various commissions.

On June 24, 1968, he was appointed a member of the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the IV Assembly of the World Council of Churches.

In addition, he participated in a number of scientific, theological and ecumenical forums.

Beginning in 1956, Vladyka Vasily came to his homeland about 20 times, where the Lord decreed that he would find eternal rest as well.

On September 15, 1985, Vladyka Vasily, during another visit to his native city, together with Metropolitan Anthony of Leningrad, celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the Transfiguration Cathedral in Leningrad. In this temple he was baptized and was a parishioner in his childhood and youth. After the service, during the meal, Bishop Vasily felt very unwell. He was taken to the hospital with a stroke and paralysis on the left side of his body. On Sunday, September 22, 1985, at 4 o'clock in the morning, death followed. During his stay in the hospital, Bishop Vasily was conscious all the time. Shortly before his death, a canon on the exodus of the soul was read over him.

On September 23, at 3 pm, the body of Archbishop Vasily, dressed in bishop's clothes, was delivered to the Transfiguration Cathedral in Leningrad. The funeral service was performed on the morning of September 24th. The funeral was attended by Metropolitan Anthony of Leningrad, Metropolitan Filaret of Minsk and Metropolitan Vladimir of Rostov. Metropolitan Anthony uttered a word in which he described the deceased as a faithful son of the Russian Orthodox Church, a humble monk, a zealous archpastor and an outstanding theologian.

Archbishop Vasily was buried at the Serafimovsky cemetery in Leningrad, where the graves of his relatives are located. At the Ixelles cemetery in Brussels, there is an inscription on the grave: "He rests in his hometown on the banks of the Neva."

His Excellency

chancellor of the glorious German state

Mr Adolf Hitler

Your Excellency,

With deep respect, the undersigned representatives of the twenty sacred royal, patriarchal and stauropegial monasteries Holy Mount Athos, we have the exclusive honor to turn to Your Excellency with a fervent request to deign to take under your high personal patronage and care this sacred place, of which we are abbots and representatives, inheriting in this the founders and benefactors of this sacred place - the Byzantine emperors and their successors.

The Holy Mountain, Your Excellency, was formed in the 9th century after the Nativity of Christ into a pan-Orthodox monastic state, where from ancient times monks of various Orthodox nationalities live in love and harmony, freely arriving on the Holy Mountain; Spiritually it depends on the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, it is administratively self-governed by the Sacred Assembly of representatives of twenty sacred and dominant monasteries, and statewise it was under the patronage and care of the Byzantine emperors and their heirs.

This autonomous state was protected (in its rights) by successive statutes and chrysovulla of the founders and benefactors of sacred monasteries - the Byzantine emperors Basil the Macedonian (882), John Tzimisces (972), Constantine Monomakh (1046), Manuel II Palaiologos (1406), Stefan Dushan ( 1346) and other Slavic and Volosh sovereigns, the firmans of the sultans and, finally, the Charter of 1926, of which two copies are attached.

Approved in this way, this special and autonomous structure of this sacred place, which was the subject of discussion and decisions of various international treaties, was finally protected by Art. 62 of the Berlin Treaty of 1878, as follows: “The monks of the Holy Mount Athos, whatever their country of origin, retain their possessions and former rights and will enjoy, without any exception, full equality of rights and advantages.”

The goal and purpose of the monks laboring in the Holy Mountain, regardless of their place of origin and nationality, throughout the more than a thousand years of the life of the Holy Mountain is the preservation, prosperity and provision of its sacred cloisters, cultivation through the tireless diligence of the monks laboring in it of church and classical writing, ascetic life and unceasing prayer for the peace of the whole world.

Preservation of this system of an autonomous monastic state, which completely satisfies all those who strive in the Holy Mountain Orthodox monks regardless of nationality and corresponding to their purpose and purpose, we ask and pray fervently, Your Excellency, to take under your high patronage and care.

We implore the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords with all our heart and soul to grant Your Excellency health and longevity for the benefit of the glorious German people, and we sign with deep respect.