О внешнем непогрешительном авторитете в Церкви

Does any member of the Church, taken individually, as such, have personal infallibility of ecclesiastical and dogmatic judgment? No, he doesn't. Even Catholic doctrine does not attribute personal infallibility to the pope, but only ex cathedra. Each member of the Church in his own dogmatic quest is capable of being mistaken, or more precisely, of introducing his own personal limitations, which in the face of Church truth is already sin and error. And this is a natural, tolerated degree of error, without which there is no search and which is corrected by the Church. The apostle wrote about such wisdom. Paul: “It is fitting (δεϊ) for differences of opinion (heresies – αίρέσεις) to be among you, so that the most skillful ones may be revealed” (1 Cor. 11:19). But this division - heresy, due at the beginning, already becomes a separating self-thought, error, heresy in the case of resistance to church reason, error becomes error, error is confirmed in error, error in heresy. And church history testifies that no hierarchical position protects against the possibility of error: there were heretical popes (Liberius and Honorius, not to mention private contradictions between the judgments of different popes, from which it is clear that one or the other had errors), there were heretical patriarchs, in the cathedra of both Constantinople and Alexandria, and bishops, and presbyters, and laymen. Even if history did not testify to the possibility of personal error in any situation, it clearly follows simply from the fact of individuality, which is already associated with individualism, that is, personal limitation. No one can claim to have personal theological infallibility, and it is not associated with any rank. Of course, hierarchs, as bearers of the priestly charisma, are more protected from error than ordinary laymen. However, hierarchical charisma, making the clergyman an organ of mediation in the transmission of grace, does not in itself make its bearer personally holy, and therefore he remains unprotected from sin and error in his human weakness, and error, if it befalls him, is even especially grave. Nevertheless, the grace of the priesthood does not remain inactive and invests the thinking of its bearers with special power and endows it with special authority. And this is valid both in relation to individual hierarchs, and especially their collective voice. Here we come to teacher power and the authority of the hierarchy. Church writers: St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian urges believers to unite around their bishop, and the bishop's teaching is the norm of church truth and the criterion of church tradition. This thought does not receive a dogmatically clear expression, although St. Irenaeus even says that bishops have cum episcopatus successione certum veritatis charisma, anticipating the language of the future Vatican Council, although, however, the restrictive certum deprives this idea of ​​dogmatic clarity. This special authority of episcopal judgment, associated with the rank, belongs to the individual bishop as such, and even more so as the gracious head of the church, which is united with him by the unity of grace-filled life, love and like-mindedness. The bishop, who expresses the confession of the Church and is her mouth, is united with her by a union of love and like-mindedness, according to the liturgical exclamation that precedes the pronunciation of the Creed: “Let us love one another, that we may confess with like-mindedness.” In other words, the right to express church teaching belongs to the bishop, not as standing above the community, but in the community, as its head. In the same way, the body of bishops, the episcopate of the universal or local church, united in a special meeting or in correspondence unity and communication through written communication or mediation, has the highest authority in expressing the doctrine only in unity with the Church and in agreement with it; in other words, he does not legislate or command the church independently of it, but is its grace-filled representative. The authority of the episcopate is, in essence, the authority of the Church, which, having a hierarchical structure, naturally wears out its self-determination through the lips of the episcopate. From the position of the episcopate in the Church, which represents ecclesiastical authority as the celebrant of the sacrament, it follows that doctrinal definitions are also invested with this authority, which is sacramental in origin and essence. They are canons or church laws that must be obeyed by virtue of obedience to the Church. Thus, the hierarchy in the person of the episcopate becomes, as it were, an external doctrinal authority, regulating and ordering the dogmatic life of the Church. Of course, these doctrinal determinations, whether of an individual hierarch or of the entire episcopate, vested with the power of the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop and made ex cathedra in the performance of the duties of the episcopal ministry, should be distinguished from the personal theological opinion of the same bishop as a private theologian or writer. The latter is not at all obligatory for the leadership of the flock and does not at all have the quality of “infallibility”. His authority is measured by the degree of talent and spirituality of the writer, for which the priesthood also has its significance. Only actions in fulfillment of pastoral ministry are binding on the flock. They are also invested with a corresponding sanction, because church punishment threatens those who disobey, and the church sword cuts off the disobedient from the church body, temporarily or permanently, anathematizing the heretics. Church life, ordered and regulated by church authority, cannot be an anarchy in which everyone is given complete discretion. Insofar as the Church is a unity of faith, bound by hierarchical succession, it has its own doctrinal definitions, behind which stands the entire authority and power of the Church, protected by ecclesiastical authority. Therefore, the general position that in establishing doctrinal truths the episcopate acts in unity with the flock and acts as its representative is combined with the recognition of the power of the episcopate to imperatively express church definitions and demand submission to them. Consequently, a moment may come in the life of the Church when the episcopate feels vested with the right to proclaim in the name of the Church, to be its mouth. And from here it is one step to the Vatican conclusion that the bishop, by virtue of the special gift of proclaiming church truth (charisma veritatis), belongs to infallibility ex cathedra (for now we leave aside the question of whether such authority is personal or collective). The doctrine of the external infallible body of church teaching arises. Does such a thing exist, is it necessary and is it possible in the Church? At first it seems that life and teaching answer all three questions in the affirmative. There is the power of the episcopate, which extends to protecting the purity of doctrine, this is indisputable. It is necessary for the Church, like a dam against anarchic self-thinking that destroys the unity of the Church. It is possible, because it actually manifested itself and is manifesting itself in the Church. However, the whole question is what is the meaning of this doctrinal authority. The hierarchy, with its power, protects the teaching and church tradition already accepted by the Church, and it, on the basis of church decree, in the case of new doctrinal definitions, stands guard over their actual entry into church tradition. The first does not raise doubts: it is natural that the depositum fidei - what the Church already has - is protected by hierarchical authority, although it is maintained by the entire Church. The second question is of greater fundamental importance: newly adopted doctrinal definitions, once accepted, are protected by the hierarchy. But, if they are proclaimed by it, where do they receive their power and sanction of truth? Is it from this hierarchy as such, or from the entire Church? According to the first opinion, all power to contain and proclaim the truth would belong to the hierarchy, and the truth would be what it commands to the Church by the power of its charisma veritatis. With this understanding, the Church is divided into two parts, teaching and teaching, into the episcopate with the clergy and the laity. The Church’s own judgment, thought, opinion or tradition does not exist here, for all this belongs entirely to the hierarchy. For the flock, all that remains is the duty of obedience, which is defined, not without silent irony, in Catholic theology as infallibilitas passiva. All the power of judgment, infallibilitas activa, belongs to the hierarchy, which has a special charisma veritatis. At the same time, the concept of veritatis receives an abstract theoretical meaning: it is not true life in the Church, equally inherent in all its members, but abstract knowledge inherent only in the elect (hierarchy) and communicated (or not communicated) by them to those to whom it is otherwise unknown. But the truth is Christ, and life in the Church, the Body of Christ, is life in Truth, true life, which has true self-awareness and self-determination. Through the distinction between infallibilitas activa and passiva, corresponding to the recognition of the power of truth on the side of hierarchy alone, a special kind of esotericism is introduced into the concept of the Church (sometimes even raised to the heavenly hierarchy), in which there are initiates who have gnosis, and uninitiates who do not have it, but can receive it from the hierarchy, and through this, the Christian concept of hierarchy is replaced by the Gnostic one. Charisma veritatis, inherent, of course, in the Church, for it is “the pillar and foundation of the Truth,” life in the Truth, that is, in Christ, becomes the property not of the entire body of the Church, but only of the hierarchy. This was carried out with the greatest, but also terrifying, consistency in the system of papism and enshrined in Vatican dogma. The Pope has in his person all the fullness of the charisma veritatis inherent in the Church, and he therefore has the power on behalf of the Church, ex cathedra, to infallibly proclaim the truth, while ex sese non autem ex consensu ecclesiae, that is, relying exclusively on himself, on his personal knowledge, and not on the conciliar reason of the Church. Therefore he is magisterium infallibile. Although this knowledge is not given to him personally, but in connection with the Church and on behalf of the Church, ex cathedra, it belongs independently (ex sese) to him alone, it is concentrated in him. Consequently, the pope not only proclaims the truth as accepted and recognized by the Church (hence, non ex ses sed ex consensu ecclesia), not only commands fidelity to it, as the highest representative of the hierarchy, but he testifies to this truth, possesses it, finds it for the Church, ex sese, as a kind of sacred oracle that needs to be heeded. With this understanding, truth is external knowledge, belonging to one, but communicated to all others. The external authority of truth externalizes truth itself and limits it. There is no need to go into the details of canonical ecclesiology, 8 but it most clearly reveals a scheme for dividing the Church into teachers and disciples (contrary to the direct word of the Lord to His disciples, including Peter: “But you are not called teachers, for one is your teacher, Christ” (Matthew 23:8). But one-man papism in Catholicism at least has the merit of consistency in the development of the authoritarian principle in doctrine, the judgment of one person is clear (no matter how difficult it is to determine when he speaks ex cathedra). But this cannot be said regarding collective papism, which we have if we provide the functions of the pope to a council of bishops, a collegial episcopate (as was understood at the Catholic reform councils of Constance and Basel). Clarity equal to individual papism would be possible only in the case of complete unanimity and unanimity of the entire episcopate, which, it seems, history did not know at all even at ecumenical councils and which would, in any case, represent a completely isolated exception. Otherwise, the voice of truth would be determined by a majority of votes, i.e., according to the parliamentary system (and, of course, a number of questions arise about the size of this majority, etc.). But whatever this body of church infallibility may be, which proclaims the truth to the Church in the form of a dogmatic order - whether individual or collective - it equally deprives the Church of the gift of universal teaching and integral infallibility and turns the flock into a herd. Only the Lord spoke of Himself as the shepherd of His sheep, and entrusted Peter with shepherding “My sheep.” This means that the Church, as the Body of Christ, has its head in Him; He is the Truth, and the Church can only be a passively receiving body, or “the flock of Christ.” However, it would be in vain for a Roman bishop or a council of bishops to attribute to himself the power of Christ in relation to the Church. As a successor (and then only in the sacramental area) of the apostles, the pope (single or collective) would like to present himself as the vicar of Christ on earth, but Christ did not leave a vicar for Himself, but Himself remains in the Church “always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.” The Church is infallible as a Church in its ecclesiastical character. We can say that this is a tautology, for the Church, as the Body of Truth-Christ, is the affirmation of truth. And each member of the Church, in his churchliness, remains in the truth; therefore, infallibility belongs to the entire Church - “our guardian of piety is the very body of the Church, that is, the very people who always want to preserve their faith unchanged” (message of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1849). It is impossible to think that the brain of the Church, its self-consciousness, belongs only to one of its members, the hierarchy standing above the body of the Church and proclaiming the truth to it. A hierarchy placed above the people, that is, outside the people, separated from them, is no more capable of proclaiming church truth than a people separated from the hierarchy or an individual in his isolation, i.e., it is not capable at all. She herself turns out to be in this separation and opposition to the Church (“ex sese”), extra-church and non-church, for churchliness is unity in love, and church truth is given only by the strength of this church unity. The pope's claim to be the voice of truth destroys church unity, for it puts the pope in the place of the church: l'Eglise, c'est moi. And the same applies to the hierarchy, as a whole episcopate. The guiding dogmatic significance here is the Jerusalem Council of the Holy Apostles, from whom the hierarchy, to the extent of its service, maintains succession. Strictly speaking, the succession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, given to the Church at Pentecost and brought down through the apostles and their successors - the hierarchy, extends to the entire Church. Only for sacramental service, for the priesthood, there is a deliberate “apostolic succession” - succession, but not for teaching and dogmatic self-awareness. This is what we see at the Council of Jerusalem, where the “apostles and elders” gathered, i.e. the oldest representatives of the community, in this case precisely non-hierarchical persons, decreed and proclaimed: “apostles and elders and brethren” (Acts 15:23), i.e. the first hierarchs in the person of St. the apostles in unity with the elders and brothers. This is significant here too, for it expresses all the positive power of church unity (and before this, the IV canon of the definition of the Church of the Vatican dogma with its ex sese must remain silent). And by the power of this unity the meeting proclaimed: “It was pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28), in other words, to the Holy Spirit living in us, in our unity. This to us, uniting the apostles and the brethren, expresses the power of this and: only where each individual I, as well as a separate church estate (in this case, the apostles, elders, brethren), are united into the church and through it cease to be themselves in their isolation, there a new being arises, the multi-unity we, and there only the Holy Spirit acts, the unity of the church is obtained in the Holy Spirit. Thus, the question of the external body of church infallibility, already in its formulation, contains a heresy about the Church, for it replaces its concept as a spiritual organism, the life of which is unity in love, with the beginning of spiritual dominion. Here we come to the very essence of the Orthodox teaching of the Church, in which lies the entire strength of Orthodox ecclesiology. Without understanding it, there is no way to understand Orthodoxy, which otherwise appears to be an eclectic compromise seeking a middle ground between Catholicism and Protestantism. The soul of Orthodoxy is conciliarity. According to Khomyakov’s fair remark, “this one word combines an entire confession of faith.” Russian church usage and Russian theology use this expression in such a broad sense that it does not have in other languages, and it expresses the very strength and spirit of Orthodox churchliness. In the Creed, the member about the Church is translated as follows: “into one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” Here the word conciliar conveys καθολικήυ catholic 9. The direct meaning of the word conciliarity, conciliar (from the word sobor) indicates the connection of the Church with councils, its conciliabilite, defines the Church as containing the teaching of ecumenical and local councils or, in a broader sense, as having the body of its self-determination in the council. Further, the external definition (directly and not contained at all in the Greek word καθολικός as in all its translations) includes the idea that the Church gathers, includes all peoples and extends to the entire universe, and in this sense, conciliarity also means universality, the conciliar church is ecumenical. This understanding was, of course, not alien to the compilers of the creed 10. This understanding can be defined as quantitative; it remains characteristic of Roman Catholicism to this day. However, a qualitative definition of conciliarity or catholicity is still possible. This corresponds to the true meaning of this concept in the history of philosophy, namely in Aristotle, for whom τό καθ'öλου means the general that exists in particular phenomena - τό καθ'έκαστου. This is (in the Aristotelian understanding) a Platonic idea, which exists, however, not above objects and, in a certain sense, before objects (as in Plato), but in objects, as their basis and truth. In this sense, the Catholic Church means: the Church existing in the truth, participating in the truth, living the true life. At the same time, the definition of τό καθ'öλου, i.e., in accordance with the whole, as a whole, indicates what this truth consists of, namely in unity with the whole (öλου), integrity and chastity, multi-unity and all-unity. In conciliarity as catholicity, each individual member of the Church, as well as their totality, are in unity with the whole of the Church, with that “invisible” Church, which, being in inextricable union with the visible one, constitutes its basis. Consequently, the concept of catholicity in this sense is not directed outward, but inward. And a member of the Church is catholic insofar as he is in unity with the invisible Church, in truth. A desert dweller can equally be catholic, as well as those living in the midst of the world, as well as those chosen ones who would remain faithful to the truth amid the general outpouring of unbelief and false teaching. Catholicity in this sense is the mystical and metaphysical depth of the Church, and not at all its external spread. It has no external, geographical sign and generally no empirical manifestation. She is recognized by the Spirit who lives in the Church and experiences everything. However, it must also be connected with the empirical world, that is, with the “visible” Church. Catholicity is conciliarity as active unction, as a common life in the one Truth. However, why is it that catholicity in the external sense, universality, cecumenicite, is usually indicated among the signs of the true Church by the fathers and teachers of the Church, especially by St. Cyprian, at the blessed. Augustine? The Church is defined here not as locally or nationally limited, but everywhere and nationwide, and not as confined to a small circle or sect, but as broad, pan-human. Of course, there is a direct and positive relationship between catholicity in the internal sense and universality, as between ground and manifestation (noumenon and phenomenon). That which is the deepest and most internal is therefore also pan-human, for it unites humanity, which is disunited on the surface of empirical existence. And, in any case, it tends to spread as fully and broadly as possible, although it is delayed in its spread by counteracting causes, which are sin living in humanity, temptations and enticements. In fact, according to the direct instructions of the Lord, as well as other biblical eschatological texts, only the elect in the last times will stand in the truth among temptations beyond the power of man (“if those days had not been shortened, no creature would have been saved”). Thus, despite all the positive reasons for universal truth to become truth for everyone, the negative reasons counteracting this universality are that this universality is realized in a limited amount, and therefore one quantitative criterion of truth is insufficient, and the rule of Vikenty Lirinsky: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est is more an abstract principle and a regular norm than a historical one reality: there is hardly any era in the history of the Church in which this principle would be implemented without restrictions. In particular, at the present time, neither Orthodoxy has even a simple majority in the Christian world, nor Catholicism, with all its external universality, can boast of quantitative dominance and even predominance. External universality, therefore, is a natural and necessary manifestation of internal catholicity, however, not primitive, but derivative, and, moreover, historically conditioned. But at the same time, universality, as truth, catholicity, does not depend on the quantitative scale, for “where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I among them.” Internal conciliarity is not quantity, but quality, participation in the Body of Christ in which the Holy Spirit acts. Life in Christ by the Holy Spirit is life in truth and unity, which is characterized by wisdom and integrity, wisdom of integrity and integrity of wisdom, chastity 11. Church truth is, first and foremost, life in truth, abiding in truth, in a word, not abstract theoretical cognition, but concrete religious existence. It is about this truth that the Truth itself speaks: “you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John 8:32), first of all from sin, and therefore from error. “The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.” These words of the Apostle Paul do not mean that the Church proclaims the truth, but that it contains it in its truth and only because of this proclaims it. Truth is the norm of existence, and only because of this is the norm of consciousness. It is necessary here to overcome the abstract rational concept of truth as an object and norm of knowledge: when a person is in the truth, he, on the contrary, is not separated and not opposed as a cognizing subject to the object of knowledge, but he is one with it, he abides, lives in the truth. But, if this life in truth is available to a person not in opposition to the object of knowledge, but in merging with it, then it is given to him not in isolation and opposition to other people, but in a living and immediate unity, a concrete multi-unity of life, in the image of the Most Holy Trinity, consubstantial and indivisible. Church truth is given to the Church. The word of the Lord has power here: whoever wants to save his soul must destroy it. Only in unity, in liberation from the limitations of one’s self and emanation from it, is truth given. But this departure from one’s self takes place not into metaphysical emptiness, but into fullness. The Church as the Body of Christ, life-giving by the Holy Spirit, is the highest, true reality within ourselves, which we acquire for ourselves in our church existence. And if church existence is recognized by overcoming its isolation, this precisely means that churchliness is conciliarity, as communion with the universal true life of the Body of Christ, as immersion into the immeasurable depths of theanthropic life. Churchness as conciliarity is indefinable rationally, for it is revealed only beyond the boundaries of rational, isolating thinking. It is transcendental to the individual as such, although it becomes immanent for him in his churching. Conciliarity is truth, and truth is conciliarity. This is precisely the meaning of church “infallibility.” This is not the external infallibility (infallibilitas) of judgment, to which it is reduced in Catholic theology: this would be very little, because it means a purely negative property, moreover, relating to the area of ​​​​only rational thinking. Only one or another judgment can be infallible or erroneous: for example, it is infallible that 2 x 2 = 4, but erroneous that 2 x 2 = 5; It is unmistakable that the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea, but it is erroneous that the Volga flows into the Black Sea. The fallibility or infallibility of a judgment concerns here the correctness, the reality of the connection that is established between the subject and the predicate. This is a purely formal assessment of a judgment not from the side of its content (subject and predicate), but only from the side of the correctness of their combination; it is limited to a purely formal verification and has at its disposal only yes or no, affirmation or negation. Infallibility understood in this way (and its Catholic understanding is close to it) should be considered as completely not expressing the idea of ​​ecclesiastical truth. The Church is infallible not in the fact (or rather, not only in the fact) that it unerringly, from the point of view of expediency and practical needs of the time, expresses the truth, but that it contains it. Church, truth, infallibility are synonyms. Life in the Church is life in truth, and therefore they are true, partakers of the truth in content and judgment, the Church, which is a reflective reflection in thought of this truth. Being here precedes consciousness and determines it, and this being, in itself, corresponds not to infallibility, but to truth. So, churchliness is truth, and truth is churchliness, or, what is the same, conciliarity; staying in unity with the Church is staying in the truth, and vice versa. There is a direct and obvious logical circle here, if we look at it from the rational side. But this circle, which is “vicious” in the formal logical definition, is a natural and irreducible property of ontological judgment. In fact, to seek a “criterion” for the truth of an ecclesiastical judgment not in itself, but outside it, means postulating some kind of supra-church consciousness or definition, in the light of which its own ecclesiastical character would become clear to the Church. Such an “external” in the sense of an extra- or super-church definition does not exist and cannot exist. The Church knows itself self-evidently, and recognizes this self-identity as its infallibility. The Catholic attempt to find the external, i.e. The supra-ecclesiastical authority of infallibility in the pope ended in failure, because it turned out to be impossible even for the Vatican Council to proclaim every personal judgment of the pope infallible, that is, ecclesiastical, and thereby put a sign of complete equality between the pope and the Church. The Pope is recognized as infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, on behalf of the Church, as the Church, ecclesiastical or conciliar, in unity with the Church. In other words, the Vatican dogma has not overcome tautology: what is truly ecclesiastical is true, but ecclesiastical or conciliar, ex cathedra, is the true judgment of the Church. The Pope is infallible only when he speaks in a churchly manner, and he speaks in a churchly manner only when he does not sin. But no definition of ex cathedra has been given and cannot be given. Even a direct verbal statement by the pope himself (if, for example, he has fallen into heresy or is mentally insane, or is under external pressure) is not evidence of the ecclesiastical character (ex cathedra) of his judgment. Only the Church, which knows itself, can judge it. And Catholics practically fall into contradiction with the Vatican dogma, to the extent that they turn the pope into a dogmatic oracle and actually invest the power of infallibility in his every dogmatic judgment, and resort to the defense of “ex cathedra” only when there is a clear contradiction or inconsistency in the definitions of the popes. The Church is aware of its self-evidence; truth is axiomatic, not problematic, not proven, but shown. Church conciliarity in relation to individual knowledge corresponds to what is now called the subconscious, or more precisely, should be called super-consciousness 12. There are complexes in mental life that exist only for multi-unity, although they are realized through individual psychology. These are the essence of the phenomena of collective psychology in its various manifestations. However, these phenomena relate primarily to mental life, emotional-volitional, although they also belong to the super-individual realm. Church conciliarity concerns primarily spiritual life. It is the melting of the personal spirit in multi-unity, I in we (“according to the Holy Spirit and us,” that is, not me, and not him, etc., separately), and in this multi-unity of the Church, the Body of Christ, the Spirit of God lives. The opposite pole of conciliarity as a spiritual unity is herdism as a mental-physical unity. The opposite pole of church plurality, in which the individual is elevated to a higher reality, is the collective, in which the individual, remaining in himself, enters into an agreement with others, which is further of a forced nature for him, while free unity in love is the very essence of churchliness. In life, this spiritual content is clothed with a certain spiritual shell, national, historical. However, under different covers there is contained the same one life in the Holy Spirit, and in this very sense the Church is everywhere and all-time, self-identical and catholic. External universality is only a cover that reveals its essence and self-identity. And only in this internal, and not at all externally manifested, sense can the words of Vikenty Lirinsky be accepted: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est. Based on what has been said, there can be no external authority for church conciliarity, because such authority would thereby invariably become higher than the Church and the very Spirit living in it. The Church is the Church, and one cannot go beyond this self-evidence of self-identity. Church conciliarity is immeasurably richer in content than everything that is revealed explicitly in church teaching. The existing dogma, the obligatory teaching set forth in “symbolic books,” always expresses only a certain part of the church’s self-consciousness, which is by no means exhausted by it. There are certainties in the life of the Church that have never been the subject of dogmatic definition. This, first of all, includes the conciliar self-consciousness of the Church, a dogma of which does not exist and did not exist, despite the fact that, it would seem, it should be the basis of all the others (the Roman Church issued its definition of constitutio de ecclesia only in 1870, and it does not contain a definition of the Church itself). All teaching about the Mother of God and Her veneration (except for the definition of the Third Ecumenical Council), veneration of saints, the so-called. communio of saints, afterlife destinies, final accomplishments, the attitude of the Church to life, culture, creativity and much that is contained and revealed in the conciliarity of the church does not have a dogmatic definition in Orthodoxy. (Catholicism tends to dogmatize, if possible, everything, using the apparatus of infallibilis magisterii, but even then, of course, this task is unattainable, this is clear from the fact that the dogma of the Church was proclaimed only in 1870, i.e., after 18 centuries of the existence of the Church without this dogma). Perhaps, in general, there cannot even be a dogma about the Church, because something that is not a discursive, but an intuitive assumption of any dogmatization cannot become the subject of a separate, rational definition. The Church for the Church is self-evidence that lies at the basis of any definition, that light that contains within itself the fullness of the spectrum, but precisely because of this it is itself completely white, inexpressible through other colors; like light, in which colors generally exist. The Church is indefinable, just like the Holy Spirit living in it. The Church is the Church, it embraces everything, but only in it, in churchliness, do church dogmas become discernible. Can there be a dogmatic definition of the Church if it itself lies at the basis of all dogmatic definitions, as the pillar and foundation of the truth? Can light be defined through colors, which alone exist by light? In the dogmatics of the Church, therefore, it is necessary to follow primarily the apophatic path, establishing not only what the Church is, but also what it is not, eliminating false, abstract and heretical teachings about the Church, such as the Catholic one, which clearly equates the Church, in a certain respect, with its organ, the pope, or the Protestant doctrine of the invisibility of the Church, which abolishes its reality 13 . Conciliarity is not only the passive preservation of the truth, but also its active possession, the acceptance of the revelation of the Spirit of God. In other words, conciliarity as a fact includes unction as an act that takes place in time and carries out in parts what belongs to the whole as such. Conciliarity is a fact not only of a mystical order, but also of a historical one; it is, so to speak, the substratum of church history. It not only exists, but is also being accomplished, and this is a continuing revelation that takes place in history as the so-called dogmatic development. Conciliarity is life, and there is no place for immobility in life. In the life of the Church at different times, predominantly one or another side of the truth is revealed, and according to this, different eras in the history of the Church are determined (Christological, pneumatological, etc.). Church conciliarity manifests itself in life, in action before in consciousness. Such an action of the Church is prayer and contemplation, the lex orandi is naturally the basis for the lex credendi. The Church finds itself in actual possession of a certain teaching earlier than it is expressed through cult, ritual, prayer, or icon. Thus, the veneration of the Mother of God arose earlier than theological Mariology. It is not dogma that prescribes religious practice, but, on the contrary, this latter is the basis for dogma (although dogma, once formulated, of course, subsequently serves as the basis for practice). The dogma in its expression already seeks justification for itself in “church tradition,” the evidence of which is sought and summed up together, of course, with evidence from the Holy Scriptures. But in this case, sacred tradition is revealed precisely as the living conciliarity of the Church. If conciliarity is a true, albeit subterranean, source of church dogmatic self-consciousness, but of a suprarational, intuitive nature - knowledge through vision - then in what relation does dogma stand to it as understanding, as truth expressed in rational concepts. And what is dogma? The conciliar consciousness is superpersonal, the truth is revealed not to individual understanding, but to church unity in love. It is mysterious and unknown in its ways, like the descent of the Holy Spirit into the hearts of people. Isn’t this what is meant in the Lord’s words to Nicodemus about the Spirit: “The Spirit breathes where it wills, and you hear His voice, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes: this is what happens to everyone born of the Spirit” (John 3:8). Here the main features of church knowledge are indicated: its certainty (“you hear”) and its unsearchability, for it does not belong to any separate consciousness as such. The conciliar nature of church consciousness was revealed at Pentecost, at the founding of the New Testament Church, when the Spirit living in it descended. The Acts of the Apostles deliberately emphasizes that He descended on the apostles who were with one accord together (όμοΰ έπί τό αύτό). “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:1, 4). The first sermon of St. Peter, which could, of course, only be individual, was essentially also conciliar, on behalf of the church conciliarity, which is expressed in the words: “And Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice” (Acts 2:14), and at the conclusion of the sermon about Christ: “to which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:32). Also, those who listened to the Apostle Peter heard in him the voice not of a single preacher, but of all the apostles. “Hearing this, they were touched in their hearts and said to Peter and the other apostles: What should we do, men and brethren?” (Acts 2:37). And about the first community founded at Pentecost, as evidence of its spirit, it is said: “all the believers were together έπί τό αύτο and had everything in common (here there is no need to understand äπαυτά κοιυα exclusively in relation to property, which is discussed in the next 45 verse) “and every day, remaining with one accord ( όμοθυμαδόυ) in the church" (Acts 2:46). This όμοΰ έπί τό αύτο is generally the norm of churchliness, a special quality of conciliarity - καθ"öλου, integrity, which does not directly have a quantitative meaning, but means going beyond oneself to a higher supra-personal spiritual reality. The Apostolic Church, limited within the boundaries of the Jerusalem community, was, of course, no less a universal church than in the later times of the spread of Christianity in the world. True, in Jerusalem there were, as it were, representatives of the universe, “Jews, devout people from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5), but this is, of course, only a symbolic sign of the universality or supernationality of the Church, which historically contains hyperbole. In addition, according to the direct testimony of the Lord, only in the last times will the Gospel be preached “in the whole world, as a testimony to all nations” (Matthew 24:14). Consequently, catholicity in the external sense, i.e. nationality does not exist at all in the historical times of the existence of the Church, and the testimony of St. fathers, as well as the corresponding judgments of modern theologians, should be understood only in relation to the greater or lesser spread of the Church in the world, as opposed to sectarianism, which definitely opposes universal spread. However, the Church can already be present there, where two or three are gathered in the Name of Christ 14. At the same time, it is quite possible that these cells of churchliness or local churches may not actually know each other and may not be in direct communication with each other. However, this does not mean anything, because their unity in the Spirit does not become less. The same life in Christ is revealed by the Holy Spirit at different times and in different places. In a word, let us repeat once again, catholicity is primarily a qualitative, not a quantitative definition. This is the highest reality of the Church, as the Body of Christ, it is recognized in the living experience of multi-unity, which is conciliarity. Thus, conciliarity is the only way and image of churchliness. This is a continuously occurring miracle, transcendental in the immanent, and, as such, can be an object of faith 15. The Church, as truth, is not given to individual possession, but to unity in love and faith it is revealed as the highest reality, to which the members participate to the extent of their conciliarity. However, positivists, scientific and church, will say (Catholicism is precisely such church positivism): this is the metaphysics of churchliness, which places it beyond the limits of experience, but empiricism is needed, a canon is needed. This judgment is quite fair, but the path goes from metaphysics to canon, and not vice versa. According to the meaning of the word conciliarity (καθ'öλου), it is not only internal conciliarity - life in the Holy Spirit, but also a kind of church collectivity seeking its own unanimity: The conciliar Church is the Church of unction and councils and, in particular, the Church of local and ecumenical unction and unanimity. The Church realizes its internal conciliarity in conciliar confession and church teaching. The path from the first to the second is outlined as follows. What happens in the superconscious, what happens outside of personal isolation, being a touch to the highest spiritual reality, inspiration from it, becomes the property of reflection of personal consciousness, in other words, the superconscious is conscious. Superpersonal, communal experience becomes personal, it is deposited in it as a thought, knowledge, fact, as contemplation and speculation. The Greeks considered "wonder" (θαυμάζειυ) to be the beginning of philosophizing. This same amazement at the mysteries of God revealed in the Church is also the beginning of theology, theoretical and practical 16 . Religious truths are, first of all, practical in nature - religion begins not with theology, but with living God, but it is necessarily combined with teaching, preaching, and theology. The truth, which is revealed in life, becomes the subject of assimilation of the mind and will on the basis of those data, personal and historical, that are characteristic of a particular person. The same truth was revealed to the Galilean fishermen and their humble followers, as well as to the learned and enlightened by culture: the Greek Augustine, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. Consciousness necessarily realizes, as its personal property, what gives it superconsciousness, conciliarity, churchliness. This latter realizes its multi-unity as a society, the Church as a societas. Therefore, church self-consciousness is not an individual matter, but a church-public matter, conciliar in the external sense of the word, more precisely, unction. The Church as a society is, first of all, a collective, which naturally strives for collectivism in its life. In this sense, the Church is no different from other forms of social life: the state, nation, private unions, as well as the Church, strive to achieve collective self-determination and expression of will. The difference between the Church is that it believes in the superhuman truth that is given to its comprehension, and it strives to ensure that when this unity is found, there is agreement and unanimity. If the content is the same, then there must be an identical expression - collectivism of thought, which also becomes direct like-mindedness in the expression of a single self-identical truth revealed in the Church. However, people, despite all their similarities, never repeat each other, and individual differences always remain in the expression of the same content. The Apostle Paul has a wonderful expression of this thought about the regularity of such differences: “It is fitting for divisions (αιρεσεις) (heresies) to be among you, so that the most subtle ones may be revealed” (1 Cor. 11:19). It is fitting, δεϊ - in these words the holy apostle not only testifies to the inevitability of personal opinions, which contain the possibility of divisions - heresies, but also gives his blessing to their highest expediency. However, different thoughts should not become dissent and lead to division based on this; the norm is unanimity, flowing from the love of the Church and the conciliarity of the Church: “one body and one spirit.” It is absolutely natural that the personal discursive consciousness of different persons should testify uniformly to a single truth. This follows from the unity of truth, and this is required by church love, which again dissolves this personal discourse into conciliarity. It is completely natural and inescapable for the church’s self-awareness to carry out collective-public communication in matters of faith. This corresponds to general theological work, which consists of a constant exchange of opinions and - on this basis - unction. This unction is performed in those forms that are characteristic and accessible according to the conditions of place and time: personal interview, as well as written communication, scientific and theological communication at congresses, church meetings and councils. It also has its own stages in the sense of developing and maturing a general opinion. Councils are not parliaments of opinions, where they are adopted on the basis of a majority, but the focus of general church thought, expressed through its authoritative representatives. The Church, based on the unity of life, necessarily strives for unity of consciousness and unity of teaching. This single teaching, within certain boundaries, receives normative significance and becomes the subject of preaching. The immediate concrete experience of the Church contains the grain of dogma (if one can say so, a dogmatic myth), from which dogma arises as a definition of truth in word and concepts. This definition is historically conditioned and, in this sense, pragmatic in nature. Dogma expresses a certain side of the truth either polemically - in the denial of certain deviations from the truth (this is the nature of all Christological dogmas), or it represents an ecclesiastical answer to the questioning of the era, and, of course, this pragmatic, historically conditioned answer contains the general ecclesiastical truth, which cannot be found and given to humanity except historically. But, of course, with all the truth of the dogmas, they cannot be ascribed an exhaustive meaning; they are only milestones, nothing more. Holistic experience contains in its depth more than any of its verbal, rational expression in concepts, and we must not forget the basic proposition that primuna vivere deinde philosophari et dogmatisari. But what is the relationship between the collective experience of the Church and the conciliar experience? Conciliar, super-personal consciousness cannot remain only super-personal - it becomes necessary and personal experience, personal property, it is mediated in personal consciousness. Concrete religious existence in truth is reflected in its contemplative and speculative awareness. Of course, the nature of this mediocrity, the degree of awareness and knowledge for different individuals are different depending on their general state: here there is a distinction between simpletons and scientists, children and adults, laymen and theologians, etc. Religious personal self-consciousness is characteristic of everyone, but it can remain vague and undifferentiated, or it can expand and deepen; in the latter case, theology and theology arise. Both are a normal reflex of a holistic religious experience. Personal self-awareness and personal theology naturally and naturally seek to expand, deepen, affirm oneself, justify one’s faith, and identify it with a supra-personal, conciliar, church consciousness. Mediated by consciousness, this faith again strives to merge with its original source - the holistic church experience, which is evidenced by church tradition. Therefore, theology, which, like personal creativity and personal self-awareness in the Church, is necessarily distinguished by its personal character, cannot and should not remain personal (for this is the primary source of heresy as division), but strives to become the theology of tradition, in it to find for itself both connection and justification. This does not mean and should not mean that it should be a simple repetition in one’s own words of what is already in tradition, as the narrow and formal minds of the “scribes and Pharisees” of our days understand it. On the contrary, it must always be new, alive and creative, for the life of the Church does not stop, and tradition is not the dead legalism of the letter, but its life-giving spirit. Tradition is a living, creative tradition, new in the old and old in the new. Therefore, every new, or rather, newly expressed theological thought seeks to justify, substantiate, reveal itself on the basis of general church tradition, in the broadest sense, i.e. including here, first of all, sacred scripture, and then verbal and monumental tradition. If we get acquainted with the acts of the councils, we will see what place this justification from church tradition occupies there for each of the council’s judgments. Therefore, obedience to tradition and agreement with it is an internal norm for personal church identity. The awareness of the church experience in conciliarity is necessarily personal: it is the standing before God of the soul, God and my self in a living and unceasing relationship. But it cannot stop at this personal self-determination, because it strives to become universal, passing through collectivity to a new, mediated conciliarity. In other words, personal church consciousness, personal theology enters into communication with others, in which each brings his own special gift. Unction takes place, oral and written, personal and public. This unction is the living breath of the Church in its individual members and individual local churches, which is always performed with varying strength, but never completely subsides. This is, one might say, the dogmatic life of the Church. Members of the Church, nourished by a single church experience and finding a foundation for themselves in it, strive to find and realize this unity in their indirect consciousness, in its verbal and rational expression, in the conciliarity of judgment. And although there may be various images of unction, in addition to direct councils, church meetings or councils in the precise sense are the most natural and direct means of unction, 17 and this is the place that councils occupy in the life of the Church, starting from the first Apostolic Council in Jerusalem. Thus, councils are, first of all, the actual expression of the spirit of conciliarity and the implementation of unction. They cannot be understood as merely an external institution, which, by the power of divine or ecclesiastical law, would proclaim a truth otherwise inaccessible to individual members. Councils naturally take their place in the Church, which later receives the force of a permanent church institution (councils in dioceses must meet twice a year, etc.). However, this establishment of canonical legislation, jus ecclesiasticum, is only practical and not dogmatic. A Church, deprived of the opportunity to convene councils for one reason or another, does not cease to be a Church, moreover, remaining conciliar in the internal sense, because such is its nature. In the absence of councils, there still remain other ways of unction or church communion (as was the case even in apostolic times in the relations of different local churches). It should be noted that in our age of printing and developed means of communication, councils have lost most of the meaning that was inherent in them in earlier times, at least in the era of ecumenical councils. Ecumenical unction today is carried out continuously through the press and scientific communication. However, councils even now retain their special, exclusive place in unction, because they, and only they, have the opportunity to directly experience the conciliarity of the Church. Congresses of church representatives, in the event that these congresses are given the opportunity to become a church council, realize the conciliar consciousness of the Church on this issue, previously mediated by individual judgments; They are given the power to reveal the conciliarity of the Church and through this become truly cathedrals themselves. Then, in the consciousness of true conciliarity, and at the same time in the search for it, they say about themselves: it is pleasing to the Holy Spirit (living in the Church) and to us, i.e. they equate themselves with the Church as a collective life in the Holy Spirit. Every church congress prayerfully desires to become a council. However, not all church meetings are church councils, although they claim to be so, and according to external signs they satisfy this. Suffice it to recall the robber false council of Ephesus, the iconoclastic council of 754, the Florentine council, which are not recognized by the Church as councils. It must be firmly remembered that a council, even an ecumenical one, is not an external organ of the infallible proclamation of truth quand meme, as a special body of the Church, deliberately established for this purpose. Such an assumption, first of all, would lead to the conclusion that the Church before councils and without councils ceases to be conciliar and infallible. But besides this, the very idea of ​​an external body for the proclamation of conciliar truth places it above the Church and necessarily ascribes to the external fact of the church meeting the action of the Holy Spirit 18 . Only the Church in its conciliarity and self-identity can testify to and know Church truth. And the fact that this meeting of bishops is a council, testifying on behalf of the Church to the truth of the Church, can only be known by the Church, which says its silent (and sometimes not silent) yes to the self-testimony of the council: “it pleases the Holy Spirit and us.” For this self-testimony of the Church, no pre-established external forms exist and cannot exist. Here again we must remember the word of the Lord about the Holy Spirit: “You hear His (Spirit) voice, but you do not know where it comes from and where it goes.” The life of the Church is a miracle that cannot be subjected to external law. The recognition of a church meeting as a council proclaiming church truth (and in this sense, ecumenical) in the Church, whether it occurs or not, is simply a historical fact. It is also a historical fact that, for acceptance by the Church, the unilateral declaration of itself as a true council by the church assembly is not enough. This is not at all a “review” in the formal legal sense. On the Catholic side, the idea of ​​church conciliarity has recently been mocked as a vicious circle that it contains: the conciliarity of councils is evidenced by church conciliarity, and the conciliar consciousness of the Church is evidenced by church councils. However, in life this logical circle is not vicious; it expresses only the self-identity of the Church in its manifestations. They ask: where, when and how is the universality of the councils confirmed? But, at the same time, it should be remembered that the power of the decrees of even the ecumenical councils was not understood as self-evident, because they were confirmed: almost every ecumenical council directly or indirectly confirmed the previous one (the second confirmed the first, further councils confirmed the inviolability of the Niceno-Constantinople Creed, the seventh council was confirmed by the so-called eighth Council of Constantinople). This would be completely incomprehensible if the councils themselves were considered as external organs of infallibility. Catholicism, in the person of the Pope, has for itself this external body. This idea was agreed upon at the Vatican Council in the sense that the pope ex cathedra generally proclaims church truth ex sese, i.e. in this it replaces the Church. This is also vague (due to the presence of the ex cathedra attribute), but if we accept this idea, then it simply equates the pope with the Church and asserts that the Church is the pope. He who is able to contain may contain this denial of churchliness, which turns conciliarity into subordination to external authority. But even for the system of papism this idea is utopian. After all, for the pope there is a Church, in unity with which he alone is the pope, and the Church unctions with every act of her existence, and this unction is only formalized and proclaimed by the pope, therefore, all the same, ex consensu or in consensu ecclesiae. And the question of the external authority of infallibility is transferred from the very essence of the conciliar judgment to its proclamation. We must now turn to this side of the question. Who in the Church has the authority to proclaim church doctrinal truth? Church power, which is concentrated in the hands of the episcopate. Councils are usually composed of bishops. As mentioned above, this is not a canonical norm that would exclude the presence of clergy and laity (on the contrary, at the Moscow Council of 1917–1918 they were present along with the episcopate). Bishops participate in the council as representatives of their diocese (which is why, as a rule, only diocesan bishops are present). They testify not ex sese, but ex consensu ecclesiae, and in the person of bishops they unify the churches they lead. However, judgment does not exhaust the doctrinal significance of the council of bishops; it possesses not only opinion, but also the power - to make universally binding decisions, to imperatively proclaim dogmatic definitions, as we see in the history of ecumenical councils, as well as some local ones. This is what gives the appearance that the ecumenical council is the external organ of infallible judgment - a collective, many-headed pope. This opinion can sometimes be found in Orthodox literature (not without the influence of Catholicism), and it prevailed at the reformation Catholic councils of Constance and Basel, where two external authorities were opposed and fought: the pope and the council. In detail, this opinion contains many ambiguities: what exactly is infallibility? Is it the episcopal rank as such? However, such an attempt to turn every bishop into a pope, polypapism, is determined by the fact of the undoubted possibility for bishops of falling into heresies, so abundantly attested by church history, and on the other hand, the equally undoubted possibility of disagreements among bishops, due to which there seems to be no case for a doctrinal decree to be passed unanimously. True, dissenting bishops in such cases were anathematized and excommunicated from the Church, which achieved the unanimity of the entire episcopate. However, for this issue, this does not change the fact that what is decisive is not the unanimity of the episcopal estate, but the majority of votes (and it is not known which one). To this we must, of course, add the fact that not the entire existing episcopate was represented at the ecumenical councils, and the number of bishops present fluctuated significantly, and the quantitative predominance naturally always belonged to the eastern bishops. Even a small number of bishops can appear as the conciliar voice of the Church, if the latter recognizes him as such. But if we see external authority in the councils, then the application of the principle of collective papism entails even greater difficulties than individual papism. However, fortunately, the idea of ​​​​collective papism of the entire episcopal class does not at all express the Orthodox teaching on church infallibility, because the office of bishop, as such, does not at all invest its bearer with dogmatic infallibility. The judgment of an ecumenical episcopal council is proclaimed by its head, which for the local Church, naturally, is the patriarch or generally the first hierarch; for the entire universal Church, naturally, the first patriarch, although primus inter pares, and, according to the canons, the Roman bishop was recognized as such. Such recognition on the part of the Orthodox world would also belong to the Pope of Rome today, as the ecumenical First Patriarch, if he, with his entire local Church, renounced his Vatican claims. The Orthodox Church has never denied this primacy of the Roman see, confirmed by the canons of the ecumenical councils. It is necessary to distinguish the proclamation of truth, which belongs to the highest ecclesiastical authority, from the possession of it, which belongs to the entire church body, in its conciliarity and infallibility. The latter is reality itself, the former is only a judgment about it. This judgment, or dogma, has an abstract and pragmatic character, as the Church’s answer to the questions of the perplexed and false teachers. It has the highest, so to speak, absolute purposiveness, although it does not have in itself the concrete religious fullness by which the Church lives (it is, so to speak, a catalog of truth, but not the living truth itself). Nevertheless, this dogmatic judgment is necessary as a truth mediated in thought, and, further, as a norm of church life. The infallibility of an ecclesiastical judgment lies in its expediency or suitability for expressing ecclesiastical truth under given conditions. Dogmatic infallibility is understood through comparison with the infallibility of scientific judgments, or individual scientific provisions. But at the same time, the whole difference that exists here is lost sight of: while these scientific provisions correspond to the interests of knowledge, dogmatic definitions are primarily not of a theoretical-cognitive, but of a religious-practical nature, and only secondarily do they receive a Gnostic meaning. In this sense, we can say that the epistemological nature, say, of the multiplication table and the Chalcedonian dogma, is significantly different, just as the meaning of infallibility and truth, inherent in both in its own way, is different. The Council of Bishops carries out the unction of the Church it represents. At the same time, as the highest body of church authority, making a dogmatic determination, in the hope that this is “pleasing to the Holy Spirit and us,” it does not commit an abuse of power in the conviction that, by declaring it obligatory for leadership, it expresses the infallible voice of the Church. However, by this proclamation the body of ecclesiastical authority does not itself become the owner ex sese of infallibility, which belongs only to the Church in its conciliarity. Church authority (a council of bishops, sometimes even an individual bishop within a diocese) is only a legitimate organ of proclamation of what is, in its own consciousness, an expression of church truth, becoming, as it were, pars pro toto. Therefore, in terms of content, this judgment, although clothed in legal forms, is still subject to acceptance by the Church. The latter is already accomplished in its very proclamation, and then the dogmatic definition of the council of bishops can immediately acquire a conciliar, church-wide character. However, this is not self-evident, because even after the definitions at the councils, rejection of their decrees arose, either temporary (as after the First Council of Nicaea), or final, and, thus, such councils were denounced as false councils (the robber Council of Ephesus, the iconoclast). In such cases, conflicts arise between individual members of the Church and church authorities. It follows from this that conciliar definitions of a dogmatic nature are not blindly accepted out of a duty of passive obedience (as Vatican dogma requires in relation to the pope), but to the extent of personal consciousness and understanding, or, out of trust and obedience to the council that proclaimed them, they are consciously accepted as expressing church truth. Thus, unction takes place, not only preceding the conciliar decision, but also subsequent to it, for the acceptance (or rejection) of the conciliar decision. This has always been the practice of the Church in this regard, and this is the dogmatic meaning of the conciliar proclamation of dogmatic truth. Through it, the external body of infallibility is not introduced into the life of the Church in the form of councils, which ex sese prescribes the Church’s doctrine; such collective papism would not differ dogmatically from individual papism, but practically stands even lower than it, because it rests on a wavering majority instead of individual judgment. The dogmatic oracle, collective or individual, has no place at all in the conciliarity of the church. The Holy Spirit Himself, living in the Church, points out the path to unanimity, for which the conciliar decree is only a means. Thus, we come to the conclusion that if there is no external authority on earth at all, which the Lord Jesus Christ, the head of the Church who ascended from us to heaven and became invisible, did not leave, then conciliar decrees themselves have only conditional authority, which becomes unconditional only through their acceptance by the church conciliarity. The Church has already invested this infallibility in the decisions of seven ecumenical councils, as well as some local ones (for example, the Council of Carthage and the Councils of Constantinople in the 14th century, which established the doctrine of divine energies and the light of Tabor). This idea of ​​conditionally infallible authority in the person of legitimate bodies of ecclesiastical authority - from ecumenical councils to the diocesan bishop within his diocese - may seem contradictory and even subversive, destructive for Catholic and Catholic understanding. The contradiction here can be found in the simultaneous recognition of obligation and submission and acceptance. On the one hand, the orders of the canonical church authority in the person of the episcopate, in general, are subject to execution as such (ecclesiam in episcopo esse, St. Cypr., ep. 66), and, therefore, including dogmatic definitions. However, this obligation does not stem from the infallible authority of the conciliar episcopate ex sese, which, as we have indicated, does not exist, but by virtue of the general right of the church authorities to guard the teaching of the faith and protect its inviolability, and also, in general, to issue decrees binding on the Church. However, such obedience cannot be blind and slavish; it must be not only out of fear, but also out of conscience, and obligatory insofar as it does not meet with direct contradiction in conscience. When the apostles Peter and John were brought to the Sanhedrin, which for them was still the highest legal church authority, and were placed among the high priests and elders, and when they demanded that they stop preaching about Christ, they answered: “Judge, is it fair before God to listen to you more than to listen to God?” (Acts 4:19). This example is of guiding value. The dogmatic definition of a church council, vested with the full power of the church, has, of course, the greatest authority for believers and demands obedience even in cases of vagueness and doubt. However, there may also be cases when it is precisely disobedience to church authority or a church council that has fallen into heresy that is gratified by the Church. This was the case, for example, in the era of the Arian, Nestorian and iconoclastic turmoil. Let such cases be exceptions, but even if there were only one, then it would have a fundamental dogmatic significance, because it already undermines the idea of ​​​​external infallible authority over the Church, which Catholics ascribe to the pope. (Even in Catholicism, where blind obedience to judgment is required, infallibile magisterium with sacrificio del intellecto, the feasibility of external authority is sufficiently subverted by the possibility of a schism that history has known, namely, the simultaneous presence of several popes, or antipopes, and each inevitably has to choose which of them is the true, infallible pope) 19. However, this possibility of acceptance or rejection applies only to new dogmatic definitions. Those that have already been accepted by the conciliar consciousness, such as, for example, the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils, are revered as the truth and require direct submission, and it is the duty and right of the church authorities to protect them from direct or indirect distortion. In practice, non-acceptance of the dogmatic definition of a church council or church authority is, of course, only an exception; it must have a sufficient basis for itself and only then is it justified in the court of history. The general rule is obedience to church authority, so to speak, a priori, on the basis that, while expressing the conciliar judgment of the Church, it also has the grace-filled help inherent in the holy order of bishops. And, on the other hand, only she is called upon to make doctrinal definitions that are generally binding for the entire Church, about which it can be said: rex juridicata pro veritate habetur. If they ask where and when this teaching about church conciliarity was expressed in church writing, then we have to answer that this thought was not expressed verbally, just as in general we will not find a special teaching about the Church in patristic writing. However, the opposite idea about the external organ of infallibility was not expressed (except for individual, clearly inaccurate and exaggerated expressions by Irenaeus, Cyprian, Ignatius the God-Bearer). However, the practice of the Church, i.e. the entire history of councils implies precisely this understanding of the nature of the Church, and when the struggle against the claims of papism emerged, this became even more obvious. Therefore, one can say even more, namely, that the highest church authority in the person of a council of bishops, ecumenical, local or even diocesan, practically has the right to the necessary doctrinal definitions, which as such are subject to adoption, except in exceptional and particularly motivated cases, moreover, disobedience to church authority in itself constitutes a grave church crime and imposes a special responsibility on the conscience of the one who renders it, although even with all this it may appear inevitable. Thus, the highest ecclesiastical magisterium in the Church is endowed with such practically “infallible”, highest authority, which is sufficient for church needs, but not excessive. This is not so much power established by law as authority born from love. It is precisely this character of the highest church teaching that church history testifies to us. Otherwise, it would be impossible to understand the actual history of councils with dogmatic definitions, which did not always and did not immediately put an end to church struggles, although in the end they led to unanimity. In practice, such an unsystematic system is completely sufficient and has the advantage that it combines ecclesiastical freedom and ecclesiastical obedience. Of course, from the point of view of Catholicism, this system is anarchy, compared to Roma locuta, causa finita. However, this is sometimes bought at the price not of internal conviction, but of external prohibition and punishment. So it was with the Vatican dogma, so now with modernism. Forced silence is not consent, much less conciliarity. The absence of external infallible doctrinal authority in the Church, in connection with the possibility of conditionally infallible definitions of church authority, revealing the conciliar consciousness of the Church, is in Orthodoxy the palladium of freedom united with ecclesiasticality, but at the same time it is the subject of the greatest bewilderment: for Protestants it is foolishness, μωρίαυ, for Catholics it is a temptation, σκάυδαλου (cf. 1 Cor. 1:23). Some, placing above all else the personal search for truth, the significance of which is truly essential in Christianity, cannot understand the need to put their subjectivity before the objectivity of the Church and check the former with the latter. For them, church teaching completely coincides with their personal opinion, or, at least, is a collection of individual opinions and their greater or lesser agreement - but church tradition, content with the conciliarity of the church, is simply absent for them. However, from this side, a greater approach to the idea of ​​conciliarity is possible, or at least there are no barriers to it: the coordination of subjective, personal opinions can be understood as an approach to the objective, conciliar truth, its identification (as it actually is). Therefore, for Protestantism, with its spirit of freedom united with the spirit of church unity, the path to an understanding of Orthodox conciliarity is completely open. In fact, Protestantism even contains the idea of ​​a conditionally infallible doctrinal authority confirmed by the Church: what else, in fact, are congresses or councils that established confessional formulas (both the Augsburg Confession and other “symbolic” books), as a semblance of church bodies with a conditionally infallible authority accepted collectively by the Church? And don’t the currently emerging centers of church unction (including the Lausanne Conference) already represent the entry onto this path, admittedly not yet dogmatically realized, but already vitally accepted? This idea meets with much greater intransigence and even hostility from Catholics, which is quite natural after the Vatican dogma. For them, this idea is synonymous with church anarchy and, at the same time, even spiritual slavery, because “personal freedom, not verified by any authority, is slavish unfreedom.” What is peculiar is the idea of ​​Catholic freedom, which consists in blind obedience (infallibilitas passiva) to the ecclesiastical body standing above the Church, and in this sense external 20. Obedience “quand-meme” - or blind obedience - is quite appropriate and natural in a monastery, where “cutting off one’s will” is a condition of monasticism, its, so to speak, spiritual method. However, it is essential here that this path, or method, is freely chosen by those entering the monastery, and in this sense, the most complete monastic obedience, accepted as part of monastic vows, is truly an act of the greatest Christian freedom (although even here obedience does not free one from the Christian conscience and therefore cannot remain blind: in the case of the “elder” or leader falling into spiritual “delusion” or heresy, the bonds of obedience are broken). Quite the contrary, obedience to the pope is universally obligatory for everyone and in all church life (in the area of ​​faith, morals, canonical discipline), and unconditional obedience is required not only externally, but also internally. The necessity of blind obedience to external authority for everyone, no matter how it is embellished, is a system of spiritual slavery, which is incompatible with Christian freedom. Subjectively, in some cases this may be mitigated and even weakened by filial devotion to the Holy Father, and we have no doubt that this is the case for many Catholics. This reveals the general attitude towards hierarchy in the Christian world, spiritual sonship, which is the same in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. But this alone does not exhaust church relations, because his one-sided domination would doom the entire Church to some kind of spiritual infantilism or immaturity, with all responsibility and initiative in the Church being transferred to its head. This is impossible in the life of the Church, and this does not exist, of course, in Catholicism, which is saved by inconsistencies from the deadening power of Vatican dogma. However, dogmatically there is no escape from it. To be in agreement with the pope is for everyone the necessary and only possible path of church self-awareness, for a Catholic must in everything seek not church truth, but the papal definition, which is the truth. Strictly speaking, there is no place left here for personal search and vision of the truth and for unction about it (although in fact it, of course, cannot be abolished in Catholicism). Where is the place for freedom here? Let them point it out. If they say that the very entry or non-entry into the Church is an act of freedom, which, therefore, includes free obedience to the pope, then this will only be a challenge. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus, and only in the Church is Christian life possible. If life in the Church includes, as a condition, obedience to the pope as the living embodiment of the Church, then this means that Christian life excludes freedom and is based on blind obedience to external authority, which should exhaust personal church identity. The presence of external infallible authority in the Church, which Roman Catholicism so values ​​and boasts so much of, is incompatible with personal freedom in the Church. On the contrary, the presence of only conditionally infallible authority in the Church presupposes this freedom and makes obedience to him a matter not of blind obedience, but of personal conviction, the acquisition of truth in the conciliar consciousness of the Church. But doesn’t this make Orthodoxy an arena for the struggle of personal opinions, which acquire the same self-sufficient significance as in liberal Protestantism? Isn't this freedom church anarchy, personal arbitrariness, arbitrariness? Of course, such a deviation is always possible, as personal abuse, as a sin against the Church, for “the world lies in evil” and “every person is a lie.” However, for a member of the Orthodox Church there is church truth, which he seeks in his personal effort to comprehend it. And he must strive to establish his agreement with the Church both in his subjective church experience, without which there is, in general, no approximation to church truth, and in the objective church tradition in its entirety. The first protects against deadening rationalism, the second encourages one to introduce one’s personal self-awareness into the mainstream of the church. To justify your personal opinion by church tradition is the internal norm of the search for truth. Finally, there is also the court of church authorities, which is authorized to take measures of church discipline and is called upon to act against wrong-minded people. The history of the Church sufficiently testifies to this. Therefore, it is completely false to say that in Orthodoxy there is no objective norm of theology, but that everyone is guided only by their own opinions. Nevertheless, it is true that in Orthodoxy, in comparison with Catholicism, there is greater scope for personal theology, for personal judgment in the field of so-called theological opinions (Theologumena). This stems from the fact that Orthodoxy, although it contains the most essential dogmas necessary for faith, does not know a generally binding theological doctrine, according to the principle: in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas. Orthodox teaching, in general, does not tend to multiply dogmas beyond the limits of immediate necessity, and even on the contrary, in the dogmatic field it is more characteristic of the rule: “ne pas trop gouverner ni dogmatiser.” This corresponds to the fundamental fact that the fullness of truth that the Church vitally contains is by no means expressed entirely in the generally binding dogmas it professes; the latter rather represent boundaries or milestones beyond which Orthodox teaching should not go; they are rather negative definitions, a contrario, rather than positive. It is a mistake to think that established dogmas (dogmata explicita, in Catholic terminology) exhaust the entire doctrine (i.e., dogmata implicita); on the contrary, the area of ​​doctrine, actually contained by the Church and revealed in it, is much broader than existing dogmatic definitions and can even be said to never be exhausted by them, because dogmas have a discursive, rational character, and church truth is holistic. However, this does not mean that it cannot be expressed in concepts; on the contrary, in the fullness of truth there is an inexhaustible source of theology. This theology, which has an intuitive nature among mystics and ascetics, receives a more rational, philosophical and theological expression among theologians. This is a legitimate and inalienable area of ​​personal creativity, which should not be bound by doctrine. Subjective one-sidedness in some cases can lead thought to false paths of reasoning, which are corrected by conciliar reason, but here there cannot and should not be one universally binding theological doctrine, which Catholic theology seeks to impose in Thomism. For theology with its teachings is not the same as dogmas; forgetting this difference breeds many misunderstandings. Draconian measures against modernism (understood not only in a specific sense, but in general any modernism, i.e. free and sincere theology), together with the condemnation of a number of thinkers like Rosmini, Schell, Baron von Hugel, and others, strive to introduce theology into the mainstream of one official doctrine, and this inevitably breeds hypocrisy. Freedom (within the specified limits) is the nerve of theology. The ancient church knew different theological schools, as well as separate theological individuals, different from one another, and it can be said that the greater this diversity, the more useful it is for spiritual life. Even in Catholicism, thanks to the magnificent flowering of theological science in it, there are various theological movements characteristic of different monastic orders. Orthodox theology in Russia during the 19th century, as in our days, knows a whole series of original and bright theological individuals, little similar to each other and yet fitting into Orthodoxy: Metropolitan Philaret and A.I. Bukharev, Khomyakov and Vl. Soloviev, Dostoevsky and Konst. Leontyev, priest Florensky and Berdyaev and others, with all their differences, express, each in their own way, Orthodox self-awareness in a kind of theological rhapsody. This is the beauty and strength of Orthodoxy, and not at all a weakness, as it seems to Catholic theologians, as well as sometimes Orthodox hierarchs, who sometimes tend to turn their own opinions into the norm of Orthodox theology. For Orthodoxy, such a claim is only an abuse and a private delusion. Orthodox theology, which developed so magnificently before the division of churches both in the east and in the west, and after this division continued to develop in Byzantium until its fall, and now continues its tradition in Greek theology, received a completely new and unique renaissance in Russian theology of the 19th and 20th centuries in Russia, where, although it is now suppressed by the violence of the authorities, it continues to exist in emigration. It must be said about Orthodox theology that, although it already knew classical times in the patristic period and later in Byzantium, it not only did not exhaust itself, but a great and glorious future was still open for it. Orthodoxy not only has not yet expressed itself, but is only beginning to express itself in the language of modernity and for modern consciousness. This does not, of course, diminish the guiding significance of the patristic period of theology. However, contrary to Rome, sincere theology must be modern, i.e. suit your time. Our time knows colossal revolutions in all areas of thought, knowledge, and action, awaiting a response in Orthodox thought, and cannot be satisfied with archaic theology or medieval scholasticism, which, fortunately or unfortunately, Orthodox theology has bypassed. Fidelity to tradition is not an archaizing stylization, which cannot be sincere and truthful, but a search for the old in the new, the comprehension of a living connection with it. Therefore, the patristic works can only be considered as monuments of Orthodox consciousness, in which it was imprinted through the historical prism of their time. This is not a lex credendi, but only the self-testimony of the Church through holy men on the paths of their thinking about God, but mediated through their modernity, which is not our modernity. Hence the unlimited possibility of developing Orthodox dogma - not the Orthodox dogmas themselves, which do not know development, but their awareness and expression. Whether this wealth of thought will be enshrined in the generally binding decrees of the Church at councils or whether they will remain limited to the decrees of the seven ecumenical councils is unknown and not of decisive importance. The important thing is that unction, the conciliar consciousness of the Church, must constantly move and be enriched in accordance with how we move in human history. And the entry of the peoples of the West onto the path of Orthodox consciousness, as well as the contact of Eastern Orthodoxy with the theological thought of these peoples, historically separated from it, promises a rich and wonderful future for Orthodox theology. It exists, this future, in the depths of the church consciousness, and we are moving towards it. From the indicated property of Orthodoxy, associated with its conciliar nature, comes its uncertainty and, as it were, incompleteness; this impression is obtained especially in comparison with Catholic certainty and completion, which is crowned with the dome of papism. In a number of cases of secondary importance, where Orthodoxy has only theological opinions or pious practice, Catholicism represents ready-made dogmas or, in any case, officially established doctrines (for example, the doctrine of the afterlife and its various areas, of indulgences, of the Mother of God, and many others). To many this seems to be an advantage of Catholicism and evidence of the immaturity and helplessness of Orthodoxy. Of course, we will not deny this general incompleteness, as well as historical immaturity - each has an explanation in the historical destinies of Orthodoxy. Incompleteness is inherent in the Church due to the inexhaustibility of its depths. And the completeness and completion of Catholicism, which stems not from internal maturation, but from violent and premature investment in form and excessive dogmatization, is rather a spiritual cage, which has its own conveniences for the weak, but fetters the Christian spirit, rushing upward and forward. For “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Cor. 3:17). “You, brothers, were called to freedom, and to serve one another through love” (Gal. 5:13). Wed. my articles “Vatican Dogma” (Path, 1929). The different pronunciations of this Greek word express the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism: the former are Catholics, the latter are Catholics. It is characteristic that in the internal sense, universality as truth is used in Christian writing in the east (in St. Ignatius the God-Bearer “where Christ is, there is the catholic (καθολικήυ) church" (Smyrna. 8.2; also Murator, Fragm. 61, 66, 69); on the contrary, in the west (Optat, De schism. donat, II, 2 and especially, Blessed Augustine: De unitate eccl. 2) understand catholicity as widespread throughout the world. In the East, catholicity is understood primarily as a quantity. And this distinction continues to be established to this day. as having its center in the person of the Pope in Rome. In the ancient Russian church consciousness, the power of chastity is the divine Sophia, which is the pre-eternal, intelligible Church, the true foundation and source of church catholicity. Wed. my “Essays on the Doctrine of the Church” (Path, 1927), as well as both sophiological trilogies: “Lamb of God” (1933), “Comforter” (1938), “Bride of the Lamb” (1945) and “The Burning Bush”, 1927, “Friend of the Groom”, 1928, “Jacob’s Ladder”, 1929 (in Russian), also “Never-Evening Light”, Moscow, 1917. In modern scientific statistics, this includes the concept of “populations.” Due to this need to remove the errors of the Church, Catholic and Protestant, it sometimes seems that Orthodoxy balances between them, occupying some kind of middle, intermediate position and being defined only in relation to them, and not in itself. This mistake stems from the fact that only rational definitions are meant, while Orthodoxy is, first of all, a reality that cannot be defined in concepts. In times of persecution or dogmatic unrest (as in the age of Arianism), in fact, the true Church was truly a minority. This idea of ​​the transcendence of the invisible in the Church does not need to be identified with the Protestant idea of ​​the invisible Church. The latter presupposes the distinction and opposition of two worlds and their mutual impenetrability, lack of knowledge, inaccessibility, while the idea of ​​the conciliarity of the Church, the transcendence of a single life in the immanent, on the contrary, denies the gap between both and substantiates the direct and positive relationship between them as form and content, manifestation and essence, phenomenon and noumenon. According to Protestant teaching, there are, as it were, two churches that do not touch each other; according to Orthodoxy, there is only one and the same Church, existing in life in heaven and on earth. However, one can also find similarities in both teachings in that in the life of the Church there is something invisible; not everything is visible and accessible to external observation. The Church is transcendental-immanent, and it cannot be understood only as invisible and entirely as visible (which Catholic theology sometimes tends to do in certain statements). The proper balance is found only in Orthodoxy. The Church is the invisible in the visible, the transcendent in the immanent. It is a super-empirical reality that fills and substantiates the empirical reality. The Church repeatedly sings about the surprise of the angels before the fulfillment of God’s destinies: “the angels saw the Dormition of the Most Pure One in wonder.” This “surprise” is, of course, the highest contemplation and comprehension of the mysteries of God. And the very name of the Church - εκκλησια, Hebrew cahal - originally means assembly. Here, a comparison with the performance of the sacraments by priests, where the grace of the Holy Spirit is given under an external sign, is inappropriate, because the Church does not know the special sacrament of the council as a proclamation of the truth. In general, even Catholicism cannot completely destroy personal freedom and the responsibility it imposes, because here too the unction of the Church takes place with personal acceptance or rejection of the papal oracle. But here such a conflict is resolved by the direct cutting off of those who are unacceptable, as happened with the Old Catholics after the Vatican Council (as well as at the council), and after the papal determination, even if it was violent and hasty, unction is already forbidden. However, we believe that for Catholicism this is a matter of fact, as evidenced by the era of the Reformation Councils. It is usually said that the pope is the head of the Church, exercising his primacy only in unity with it (albeit ex sese), and in this sense he is the “vicar” of Christ. But this idea of ​​vicariance is absurd, for Christ cannot have a vicar for himself. Christ is the head of the Church in the sense that it is the body of Christ and has no other life except in Christ. But what can it mean in the face of this fact that Christ still has a vicar on earth, and in what sense is he the head of the Church? You can also understand the idea of ​​the pope as vicar ap. Peter (although it is also incorrect), but the idea of ​​the vicar of Christ is simply devoid of any content.