Послание 38. К Арсению, сыну

How I rejoiced now after reading your letter, my beloved son, not so much because you have more opportunities to communicate with your brothers, although this is desirable, but because of the grace of God’s word, with which you stop the unbridled lips of heretics! So, may the Lord add to you the word of knowledge and wisdom to convict the defenders of wickedness, so that you can rightly sing along with the divine David: “I have opened my mouth and drawn the Spirit into me, for I have not forgotten Your commandments” (Ps. 119:131, 176). The rampant adulterers, on the contrary, by their deeds seem to utter the following words of Scripture: “Depart from us, we do not want to know Your ways” (Job 21:14). For if they had known, they would not have violated the commandments of the Lord, and having violated them, they would not have collectively recognized these crimes as saving for the Church of Christ, anathematizing those who do not approve of this. Such a teaching is so wicked that it not only violates the holy Gospel (for by violating a part the whole is naturally violated), but the very economy of Christ is abolished, since they are opposite to each other. And that the combination of adulterers, which they called saving economy, is opposite to the Divine economy and the economy aimed at the destruction of sin, this is obvious to everyone. However, this adulterous council is also full of other crimes, which Brother Euprepian will tell you about if you happen to see him again. Be healthy and have courage, my son, repelling enemies invisibly attacking from both sides with the power of faith, fear of God and love. For when they, attacking from the outside through the heresies they introduce, are repelled by Orthodox judgment, they attack, cunning, from within, trying to steal the spiritual treasure. Let us get rid of their trap by raising our hands to God, with the help of the prayers of our common father and all the pious, I, and you, and all our brothers! Hegumen Avlita plays the flute 66, but something incomprehensible and inconsistent with the Holy Spirit. By saying that he looks at Rome, he covers up weaknesses and falsely justifies himself in accordance with the present circumstances, and what he says about Sava and Theoctistus, the most pious monks, and about what is happening in Rome is unfair. For they insisted that bishops converting from the iconoclastic heresy should not be accepted into their camp, and not all of them, but the main and highest leaders of the heresy, according to Saint Athanasius, 67 which is fair. But when the council meeting at that time decided to accept everyone, following the example of the fourth holy Ecumenical Council, then they agreed; because nothing necessary was violated. Regarding the Simonians, nothing was announced then, since this matter was to be considered after the council. And when it was considered, then... firstly, penance for one year or more 68... O boldness! With the help of some monks, whose names I pass over in silence, the patriarch issued a decree about the destruction of the deposition forever, so that those who were deposed by God through the Supreme Apostle Peter could again become priests of Christ. Since those who were of the same mind with Savva not only did not agree to this, but also entered into an argument with him, what does the latter do? He corrects evil with good: he renounces that he prescribed such penance and accepted those who ordained and ordained for money. But by saying this, he is exposed by the then empress, to whom he was keen to impose lawless penance. The day of the Epiphany of Christ has arrived. They came that day and were subjected to penance, having fulfilled their punishment, and demanded permission. He refused, but the empress insisted on their acceptance. The Patriarch again exchanges good for evil: he openly serves with them on that very holiday, of course, not against his will, but voluntarily, since he served, having the opportunity not to serve with those deposed, although others will say that he could not do otherwise. From here came his disagreement with those of like mind with Savva, from here the permission received force, exceeding the divine rules. Rome did not approve of this (let it never be!), but it recognized the council itself not as ecumenical, but as local and correcting its own mistakes. For those who sat were not representatives of other patriarchs, this is false. The Romans were sent here for another reason, not for the council. Therefore, as they say, upon their return they were deposed by the one who sent them, although they were justified by coercion. Other eastern representatives were convinced and carried away by the locals, and were not sent by the patriarchs (because the patriarchs had no such idea), or were later recognized as sent from them out of fear of the people. The people here did this for the purpose of persuading the heretical people to Orthodoxy by pretending that an Ecumenical Council had actually been convened. If you say why we did not oppose then and why after the council we accepted ordination from Mr. Tarasius, then in our justification we say to you and to everyone: on the one hand, we were subordinates and then did not know what became known to us later, and on the other hand, we had a good reason in the words of Tarasius that he would not have imposed penance, and also would not have served with any of such people if knew, but he would have deposed them. Although in reality it was not so, as it turned out, but we, wanting agreement, were content with what was said, reasoning that in a doubtful matter we should be more lenient in inclination towards peace, as St. says in one place. Gregory the Theologian 69, and at the same time because he was approved for Orthodoxy and for the courageous zeal for him on the part of the other Churches. I have outlined this to you, my son, so that you know what you should know, and also that those of like mind with Savva had and have a basis for their opinion, if they did not agree with the patriarch for this reason, and not for any other unreasonable reasons. For just as we, on the basis of the review that he does not accept such people, but even deposes them, had communication with the patriarch, so they, on the basis of what was clearly done, rightly defend the divine rule. And, of course, there is no one who could object to them on this, even if they said that Tarasius accepted the ordainers for money, adapting to the circumstances, even if Peter and Paul had appeared. For they themselves decreed such a rule and themselves say: but “even if we or an angel from heaven preach to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). Probably the name of the monastery, which gave rise to the play on words used here: the words “Aulite” and “flute” sound similar in Greek. Athanasius of Alexandria rule 2. Omission in the Greek original. According to Baronius, this refers to circumstances dating back to the time of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Creations in Russian translation. T.I. pp. 192–193. M., 1889. You might be interested in: