A.S. Khomyakov and ancient church polemicists

Theological works of A.S. Khomyakov, the famous second volume of his complete works 1, falls into two very unequal parts: the first contains “the experience of catechetical teaching about the Church,” the second is a whole series of polemical articles against Western religions, articles written on various occasions, either in the form of extensive treatises, or in the form of short letters. Both of these parts of Khomyakov’s theological works are so closely and organically connected with each other that it is completely unthinkable to separate them. His positive teaching about the Church constantly turns into polemics; a polemical tendency is constantly felt in his positive teaching; on the other hand, all polemical treatises are entirely based on the doctrine of the Church. But it seems that the center of gravity of Khomyakov’s theological works lies precisely in their polemical part. If we keep in mind A.S. himself. Khomyakov, his moral character, then, of course, it cannot be said that he lived by polemical interests. The central luminary in the system of his worldview, which left a special imprint on all the traits of his character, was the positive idea of ​​the Church. Perhaps it is an accident that in Khomyakov’s printed works polemics occupy sixteen times more space than the presentation of positive teaching about the Church, but this is so, and therefore we have the right to pay special attention to the polemical principles of A.S. Khomyakova. In addition, it is permissible to think that it is Khomyakov’s polemical articles that have incomparably greater scientific and theological significance. Catechetical teaching about the Church is perhaps capable of causing some confusion; in any case, a strict dogmatist cannot be satisfied with the theological terminology of this treatise. About the controversy of A.S. Khomyakov, we can safely say that it has a very important scientific and theological significance, and not only for its time: and a modern polemicist can find in it a useful lesson for himself. We will talk about this a little later, and now we will briefly outline the essence of Khomyakov’s polemic in the true words of his writings 2 . “There is one Church,” he entitled his experience of catechetical teaching about the Church. “The unity of the Church is not imaginary, not allegorical, but true and essential, like the unity of numerous members in a living body” (§1). “The truth is entrusted to the common church love. The grace of faith is not separate from the holiness of life, and no community and no pastor can be recognized as the guardians of the whole faith.” “One community of Christians cannot express church teaching or give a dogmatic interpretation to church teaching without the consent of other communities; still less is it supposed that any community or its pastor can prescribe his interpretation to others” (§4). “It is not persons or multitudes of persons in the Church who keep Tradition and write Scripture, but the Spirit of God, living in the totality of the Church.” Within the Church, the unity of both Scripture and Tradition is obvious to those who abid and participate in the Spirit of the Church. You understand the Scripture because you keep the Tradition and because you do deeds that are pleasing to the wisdom that lives within you. “But the wisdom that lives in you is not given to you personally, but to you, as a member of the Church, and is given to you in part, without completely destroying your personal lie; given to the Church in the fullness of truth and without any admixture of lies. Therefore, do not judge the Church, but obey her, so that wisdom is not taken away from you.” “The powers of reason do not reach the truth of God, and human powerlessness becomes obvious in the powerlessness of evidence.” “The believer knows the truth, but the unbeliever does not know it or knows it with external and imperfect knowledge, which has nothing in common with internal and true knowledge, with faith that sees the invisible” (§5). “The secrets of the church faith are inaccessible to an inquisitive mind and are open only to those to whom God reveals them for internal and living, and not external and dead knowledge. Pride of reason in itself is a violation of the holiness and inviolability of the Church” (§7). “The Church and its members know by the inner knowledge of faith the unity and immutability of their spirit, which is the Spirit of God” (§3). From here Khomyakov makes a direct transition to the condemnation of Western confessions. “The pride of individual Churches, who dared to change the symbol of the entire Church without the consent of their brethren, was not inspired by the spirit of love and was a crime before God and the Holy Church, just as their blind wisdom, which did not comprehend the mystery of God, was a distortion of faith. For faith will not survive where love has become impoverished” (§7). Any falling away from the Church, whether it be an individual person or the entire Local Church, begins with a proud attack on the truth of the universal Church, when one person or a separate Church puts itself above the Universal Church and arrogates to itself its rights; any falling away from the Church is Protestantism, that is, raising doubts about an existing dogma, denying the dogma as a living Tradition, in short, denying the Church. This is the essence of the fall of Rome. The entire patriarchate arbitrarily, without the consent of the eastern brethren and contrary to the resolution of the Third Ecumenical Council, out of a sense of local pride, changed the ecumenical Creed and thus, as it were, declared that in its eyes the entire East was a world of helots in matters of faith and teaching. It was a disregard for brothers and a rejection of the innocent. The love that binds individual local Churches into the unity of the Church Body was broken. Church life ended for the entire half of the Church. And since there is no true faith outside of church life, the kingdom of purely rationalistic logic has taken the place of the departed Spirit of God. The internal connection between man and the Church was severed. The purely external law, and therefore rational, has taken the place of the moral and living law, which alone is not afraid of rationalism, for it embraces not only the human mind, but also his entire being. Rome severed all connection between knowledge and the inner perfection of the spirit. And the human mind perked up, proud of the independence of logical self-determination created for it and indignant at the shackles arbitrarily imposed on it; This is how Protestantism arose, legitimate in its origin, although a rebellious offspring of Romanism. Thus, all Western confessions are a denial of the Church, a heresy of a new kind, a heresy against the dogma of the essence of the Church, against its faith in itself. “The Western schism is an arbitrary, undeserved excommunication of the entire East, the seizure of the monopoly of Divine inspiration - in a word, moral fratricide. This is the meaning of the great heresy against the universality of the Church, a heresy that robs faith of its moral basis and thereby makes faith impossible.” The Western split is nothing more than glossed over rationalism. Science in it encroaches on faith. But “the Spirit of God, speaking through the Holy Scriptures, teaching and sanctifying through the Sacred Tradition of the universal Church, cannot be comprehended by reason alone. It is accessible only to the fullness of the human spirit under the influx of grace. An attempt to penetrate into the realm of faith and its mysteries, holding before oneself only the lamp of reason, is audacity in the eyes of a Christian, not only criminal, but at the same time insane... Only the power bestowed by the Spirit of God can lift him to those inaccessible heights where the Divine appears.” It seems that there is no particular need to continue such extracts from the polemical works of A.S. Khomyakova. Already in the above excerpts, the essence of the Western heresy is clearly defined: it is the fruit of the pride of the local Church, which has placed itself above the universal Church, it is a falling away from the union of love that binds the entire Church, and this falling away entails a loss of faith. Faith among Western heretics turned into belief, descended into the realm of rational knowledge, for which the secrets of faith are closed. This definition of the Western heresy, of course, is also its best refutation. All of the above content of the polemics of A.S. Khomyakov can be reduced to the following four main theses: 1. The Church is the Body or moral union of love. 2. Separation from this union is a consequence of pride. 3. Those who are separated from the Church do not have love. 4. Therefore, every heresy certainly degenerates into rationalism. The most characteristic thing in the entire polemic of A.S. Khomyakova - this, of course, is that it stands in the closest connection with the teaching about the Church. It was the idea of ​​the Church that inspired A.S. Khomyakov in his polemical treatises. But is this close connection of polemics with the idea of ​​the Church something unconditionally and completely original, for which there were no examples in the history of church theological thought? In the archives of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky has preserved the following note: “Khomyakov is credited with the merit that in his writings he was the first to expose the Catholic Church in rationalism, as well as Protestantism. But is this not the most ancient explanation of the origin of all divisions and heresies from reason? “The mind... boasts... creates love” (1 Cor. 8:1)" 3. Archpriest Gorsky, therefore, regarding the fourth thesis of Khomyakov’s polemical theology noted by us (heresy is closely related to rationalism) claims that it is “the most ancient explanation of the origin of all divisions and heresies.” But we would like to extend the judgment of Archpriest Gorsky to the polemical theology of A.S. Khomyakov in its entirety. Isn’t all of Khomyakov’s polemics precisely the oldest church polemic? Doesn't it reflect the idea of ancient church polemicists? First of all, let us make a remark regarding the most characteristic and most general feature of A.S.’s polemics. Khomyakova. His polemic A.S. Khomyakov was inextricably linked with the idea of ​​the Church. But a wonderful fact: if we want to know the teaching of the ancient church writers about the Church, then to whom should we turn? We will have to turn specifically to the ancient church polemicists. Of the ancient church writers, the question of the Church was primarily addressed by St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, St. Cyprian of Carthage and Blessed. Augustine. But these same fathers and teachers of the Church are the representatives of ancient church polemics. Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer conducted a polemic with the Docetians, St. Irenaeus of Lyons and Tertullian - with the Gnostics, St. Cyprian - with the Novatians and the Blessed. Augustine - with the Donatists. This fact alone says a lot. It is obvious that ancient church polemicists, encountering the fact of heresies and schisms, first of all remembered the idea of ​​the Church, and heresies and schisms were condemned primarily as crimes against the dogma of the Church. That is why the entire ancient church polemic stands in such an inextricable connection with the idea of ​​the Church. And if A.S. Khomyakov condemned Western confessions primarily as “heresies against the dogma of the essence of the Church,” it is clear that here he stands in the most decisive agreement with the basic principle of the ancient church polemicists. But such a coincidence of the polemics of A.S. Khomyakov’s ancient church polemic extends to more than just the point just noted. From the area of ​​ancient church polemics, it is possible to point out parallels to all four of the above-mentioned main points of A.S.’s polemical theology. Khomyakova. 1. The well-known catechetical definition of the Church is, without a doubt, correct, but cannot be called completely exhaustive of the idea of ​​the Church. Of course, there is no need to cite those numerous passages from the letters of the Apostle Paul, where he calls the Church “Body” (σωμα) (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 6:15, 10:17, 12:13, 27; Eph. 1:23, 4:4, 12, 16, 25, 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18, 24, 2:19, 3:15). This name, of course, expresses the idea that the unity of people in the Church is the unity of members in the body. The Church is a “society of men,” but a completely special society. State society can never be called a “body”. The special unity of people in the Church is possible only because the Church has given a new principle of life - the Holy Spirit. In the Church and in the Church, this Holy Spirit gives a member of the Church the strength to be a “new creation”, which in its life can no longer be guided by the principle of legal egoism, but by love. God saved us by the renewal of the Holy Spirit, “whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Titus 3:6). And this renewal consists in the fact that the love of God, which is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal.5:22), has been poured out “into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom.5:5). The Apostle Paul's teaching on love is closely related to his teaching on the Church. Love as a new beginning of Christian life and the Church - these two concepts are inextricably linked in the theology of the Apostle Paul. This connection is little noticed by modern exegetes, but it is pointed out by the holy fathers of the Church. Thus, Blessed Theodoret says about the comparison of the Church with the body: “This likening is fitting for the teaching of love” 4 . And St. John Chrysostom, interpreting the words “one body,” says: “Paul demands from us such love that would bind us together, making us inseparable from each other, and such perfect unity, as if we were members of one body, because only such love produces great good.”5 It becomes clear why in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul the teaching about love usually stands next to the teaching about the Church; All Christian morality is based by the Apostle on the dogmatic teaching about the Church. Thus, in the Epistle to the Romans in chapter 12, the apostle spoke about the Church as a body. This speech ends in the eighth verse (4–8), and from the ninth begins lengthy speeches about Christian morality (Rom. 12:9–15:6). In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, the teaching about the Church (1 Cor. 12:12–30) is immediately followed by the “New Testament song of love” (1 Cor. 12:31–13:13). Something similar can be seen in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians. The idea of ​​the Church and the principle of love is in the same close connection among ancient church writers. Let's give a few examples. Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer writes to the Trallians: “The love of the Smyrna and Ephesians greets you” (XIII, I) 6. It is clear that here the word “love” (αγάπη) directly replaces the word εκκλησία - “Church” 7. But here is a highly poetic description of the love that unites members of the Church, from the treatise of St. Cyprian of Carthage “On the unity of the Church”: “Only those who are like-minded, agreeable and simple-hearted live and abide in the house of God, in the Church of Christ. For this reason also the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove. This simple and meek animal, without bitter bile, does not bite, does not torment fiercely with its claws, loves human dwellings and knows only one common nest; during childbearing, couples raise children together; do not separate from each other while flying; spend their lives in mutual cohabitation; kisses indicate their consent and peace; the law of unanimity is observed in everything. And in the Church the same simple-heartedness must be known, the same love must be achieved: brotherhood must imitate doves in love, and in meekness and quietness equal lambs and sheep” 8 . Such an image of the Church as a union of love and like-mindedness serves for St. Cyprian was the starting point of all his decisive polemics against contemporary church divisions. The Apostle Paul only reveals the connection of the Church with the main principle of Christian life, which is love. Among the ancient polemicists, the idea of ​​the apostle finds precisely a polemical application. This idea finds exactly the same application, as we have seen, in A.S. Khomyakova. 2. Now let us raise the question of the origin of heresies. What is their immediate cause? Ancient church polemicists answer this question quite unanimously. The immediate cause of the origin of heresies is the pride of heretics 9 . It is pride that prompts heretics to contradict the Rule of Faith, that is, the ancient Church Creed. Pride also prompts schismatics to separate from church unity even with the unity of faith. We encounter such judgments throughout the ancient church polemics. St. Ignatius the God-Bearer writes to the Trallians: “Beware of heretics. And you will succeed if you do not become arrogant and separate from God Jesus Christ and the bishop and the apostolic commandments” (chapter 7) 10. The Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, written on the occasion of church discord, contains exhortations to humility and denounces those who “in arrogance and arrogance have become the leaders of despicable envy” (chapter 14) 11. St. Irenaeus of Lyons writes: “Those who create schisms do not have love for God and care more about their own gain than about the unity of the Church; for random and unimportant reasons, they dissect and tear apart the great and glorious Body of Christ” 12 . “Whoever is guided by love will firmly and constantly hold to the faith that leads to salvation,” says Origen 13. Here are some of the most characteristic excerpts from the works of St. Cyprian of Carthage: “The efforts of heretics and malicious schismatics usually begin with self-indulgence, combined with arrogant and proud contempt for the primate. This is how apostasy from the Church and the desecration of the altar occur, this is how the peace of Christ, the order and unity of God are disturbed” 14. “Schisms and heresies have occurred and are occurring when the bishop, who alone is given authority over the Church, is shown contempt by some out of proud arrogance. And what kind of excessive pride is this, what kind of arrogance of heart and arrogance of mind is this - to call the rulers and priests to your judgment! 15 “Heresies have occurred and often occur because the obstinate mind does not have peace in itself and the treachery that sows discord does not maintain unity” 16. “Proud and rebellious people and enemies of the priests of God apostatize from the Church or rebel against the Church” 17. Everywhere, as we see, pride is called the cause of heresies, the cause of church division. And A.S. Khomyakov denounced the Roman Church for its local pride, due to which it placed itself alone above the entire universal Church. Consequently, here too the polemic of A.S. Khomyakova coincides with the polemics of the ancient church. 3. Having separated from the Church out of their pride, the heretics fell away precisely from the union of love, and separation from the Church itself is, first of all, a crime against love. This idea is developed in detail in ancient church polemics. We will focus on the polemical writings of St. Cyprian and Blessed Augustine. One might say that the main idea of ​​the entire treatise of St. Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Church” is precisely that the heretics lack love, and the unity of the Church is a direct consequence of love 18. This idea permeates the entire named treatise from beginning to end. “Christ gave us peace; He commanded us to be agreeable and of one mind; commanded to inviolably and firmly preserve the union of affection and love. The one who violates the love of Christ by treacherous disagreement will not belong to Christ: he who does not have love does not have God. Those who do not desire to be unanimous in the Church of God cannot remain with God” 19. And therefore St. Cyprian constantly repeats that heretics and schismatics have no love. A heretic or schismatic does not preserve either the unity of the Church or brotherly love 20 and acts against the love of Christ 21 . “Marcian, having united with Novatian, became an opponent of mercy and love” 22. It is known about heretics that they retreated from the love and unity of the Catholic Church 23 . “What kind of unity does he maintain, what kind of love does he preserve, or what kind of love does he think about, who, giving in to the impulses of discord, dissects the Church, destroys the faith, disturbs the world, uproots love, desecrates the Sacrament?” 24 But the idea that heresy, first of all, is a sin against love, which binds the Church together, is especially important in the system of the blessed. Augustine. Here this thought has a very important dogmatic meaning. If you read the polemical works of Bl. Augustine against the Donatists, you involuntarily notice that he acts as an apologist for schismatic baptism: he proves its reality. But at the same time, darling. Augustine also proves the complete uselessness of baptism for the heretics themselves. “It is not any other water, but this same water that saves those in the ark and kills those outside; It is not by any other baptism, but by the same baptism, that Catholics are saved, and heretics perish” 25 . The baptism of schismatics does them no good; Moreover, it only brings them harm 26: it does not lead them to eternal life, but to eternal destruction 27. But why exactly does schismatic baptism bring not justification, but condemnation? For this blzh. Augustine decisively and persistently answers: because heretics do not have love, as evidenced by their separation from the Church. Schism itself is a grave sin that prevents the grace-filled action of the Sacraments. The sacraments cannot save schismatics because they have no love 28 . The Apostle says: if I know all mysteries (sacramenta) and do not have love, I am nothing. What is baptism? Sacrament (sacramentum). Obviously, without love it will not bring any benefit... Only love makes everything useful for me. I can have everything great, but without love it will not bring me any benefit 29. When the question arose about whether sins were forgiven in schismatic baptism, Augustine answered: no. In societies that have separated from the Church, people receive baptism, but the grace of baptism, which resolves sins if the baptized is in unity with the Church, in this case is, as it were, paralyzed by the sin of discord, so that the sins of the baptized are retained. If the schismatic turns to the true Church, then the reason delaying the forgiveness of sins is eliminated, and the grace of baptism, which was previously delayed by bitter stubbornness and reluctance to unite with the Church, comes into force 30. He who is baptized from the Church, as it were, passes through a narrow strip of light, again immediately entering darkness. For a while, precisely while he passes through this strip of light, he is cleansed of sins. But since immediately after baptism he again enters the darkness of his schism (ad dissensionis suae tenebras), then his sins immediately return. And that forgiven sins return if there is no brotherly love - this was clearly demonstrated by the Lord when he spoke about the slave whom the master forgave ten thousand talents. When this slave did not take pity on his comrade, who owed him a hundred denarii, the master ordered him to give him everything that he owed him. Just as that slave received forgiveness of his debt for a time, so the one who is baptized outside the Church is also temporarily freed from his sins. But since after baptism the schismatic has no love for his brothers and remains outside the Church, he is again charged with all the sins he committed before baptism 31 . The sins of schismatics are forgiven only when they lovingly unite with the Church. They lacked love. When this deficiency is filled, then what they already had (that is, baptism) begins to benefit them 32 . It is not because schismatics are deprived of hope of salvation that their baptism is invalid, but only because they are outside the Church and in hostility to it 33 . The grace of the Holy Spirit can only be received and preserved by those who are united in love with the Church 34 . In general, darling. Augustine likens everyone who is in rupture with the Church to a sinner who does not have love, although he has not apparently broken with the Church. Both of them have no benefit either from the teachings of Christ or from the Sacraments. The sacraments for a sinner begin to be of benefit only when he stops sinning, and for a schismatic when he unites with the Church, that is, for both, the sacraments will be of benefit when they acquire the love that they do not have 35 . It is clear how important dogmatically the blj. Augustine's idea that heretics sin against the love that binds together the universal Church. Only through this thought are two apparently inconsistent dogmatic positions reconciled: 1) there is no salvation outside the Church and 2) the Sacraments can be valid outside the Church. At A.S. Khomyakov, we have seen how clearly and persistently the idea of ​​the absence of love is expressed in Western confessions, but Khomyakov, one might say, is not aware of what important dogmatic consequences follow from this thought. Khomyakov repeats this thought in strong terms, but does not draw from it those dogmatic consequences in relation to Western confessions that the blessed one made. Augustine in relation to the Donatists. In Khomyakov, the noted thought has a purely polemical tendency, while, for example, in Blzh. It also serves Augustine’s dogmatic interests. 4. Finally, the fourth thesis of the polemical theology of A.S. Khomyakova: in separation from the Church, faith degenerates into rationalism. It must be said in advance that this thesis is revealed in Khomyakov most fully, powerfully and originally. Nevertheless, some fairly close parallels can be pointed out in the ancient patristic polemics. First of all, what attracts attention is, in our opinion, a very characteristic fact: St. Irenaeus of Lyons and his student Hippolytus of Rome, in their polemical works, disparagingly call the communities that separated from the Church a “school” (σχολή, διδασκαλειον) 36. Obviously, these ancient polemicists want to express precisely the idea that outside the Church only a purely scholastic attitude to the truths of faith is possible. And then there is no need to prove in detail that among the holy fathers of the Church the concept of heresy is close to the concept of rationalism; The holy fathers see rationalism as the most characteristic feature of heresies. And it is worthy of special attention that we hear this reproach for rationalism, directed at heretics, from those holy fathers who were in no way inferior to them in terms of education, if only not superior to them. Here, for example, is what St. Gregory the Theologian writes about the Arians: “They abandoned all other paths and rushed and hastened onto one path - the path of reason and speculation” 37 . Guided by the rules of dialectics, the Arians abandoned faith, forgetting the wise rule that the replenishment of our mind is faith 38. Saint Basil the Great says about Eunomius that he was “driven mad by worldly wisdom and fell into such novelty of concepts” 39 . Pope Celestine wrote about the Nestorians that “they strive to comprehend the greatness of God by the method of human research” (Divinae majestatis potentiam in humanae disputationis rationem artare contendant) 40. Let us quote the opinion of Prof. A.P. Lebedeva: “If we want to briefly outline the essence of the principles that guided the Arian circles, then we can call it rationalism or liberal theology. Knowledge is higher than faith, faith must be tested by reason - this is what the representatives of the anti-Nicene movement proclaimed, some loudly, others restrainedly” 41 . This is how it was with the heretics. Orthodox theologians of that time did not allow rationalism in the field of faith. Yes, St. Athanasius the Great said: “What is committed to faith is appropriate to comprehend not with human wisdom, but with the ear of faith” 42. “The doctrine of the Divine is taught not through mental arguments, but through faith and reverently pious thoughts” 43. Likewise, St. Basil the Great says: “In dogmas that exceed reason, in comparison with what the intellect comprehends, faith is better” 44. All of the above shows how closely the main ideas of A.S.’s polemic coincide. Khomyakov with the ideas of ancient church polemicists. A.S. Khomyakov amazed his contemporaries with his knowledge of the patristic writings, and therefore it is not surprising that he adopted the spirit of patristic reasoning, and perhaps even these very reasoning. There is no data to thoroughly resolve the question of whether Khomyakov himself was aware of the close coincidence of his polemical reasoning with ancient church polemics, but one can assume some possibility of an affirmative answer to this question. At least, finishing his polemical pamphlet from 1855, Khomyakov exclaims: “We are not teaching you a new dogma! It is not a new tradition that we impose on you!” Everything that we have said about Khomyakov’s polemics, in our opinion, cannot serve to humiliate his theological works. To be completely original is sometimes very easy and very disgraceful; it is more difficult to remain faithful to Church Tradition. For one and a half thousand years, Orthodox theological science has had the covenant of St. Vincent, monk of the Lerins monastery: “Teach what you have been taught, and, speaking in a new way, do not say anything new” 45. A.S. Khomyakov collected and assimilated what was said in the East and West for several centuries on various occasions, applied it all to Western confessions, supplemented it with various very deep philosophical and historical considerations, and finally presented it in a completely new form and in an inspired tone. Khomyakov said “in a new way,” and this is his enormous merit for theological science. The treasury of patristic writing is an inexhaustible wealth, and whoever brings at least some part from there into the light of God can only be thanked. In particular, on the works of A.S. Khomyakov should be paid attention to by modern polemicists who have to fight heresies and errors. Bearing a vivid imprint of patristic polemics, the polemics of A.S. Khomyakova represents a bright and brilliant point against the dark background of polemics with Western confessions. The West fell away from the Church, at a time when the heyday of patristic writing was already a long time ago. In Greece and Rus' there were many polemicists, but, one might say, there was no polemic. If you read the polemical works of Greek writers of the 11th and 12th centuries, for example, Patriarch Michael Cerullarius, John, Metropolitan Claudiopolis, as well as the works of ancient Russian authors, who usually reproduce their Greek models very accurately, to the point of complete compilation, for example, Metropolitan George, Metropolitan Nikephoros, monk Theodosius, if you read the article of Greek origin “On Fryazekh and other Latinkh,” placed in chapter 48 of Nikon’s “The Helmsman,” you will involuntarily be surprised at the complete absence of any fundamental coverage of the sad church schism that had just occurred. Polemicists are trying only to accumulate more accusations against the Latins, obviously preferring the quantity of “wines” to their quality. Mixing real “guilts” with the usual abuses of individuals, up to 32 deviations of the Latins were counted. Here are examples of the most ancient Greek-Russian polemics against the Latins. Our Metropolitan George denounces the Latins: “They eat bear and donkeys; Their priests eat beaver meat during Lent, saying that it comes from water and is fish. They eat with the dogs from the same vessels: after they themselves have eaten, they give the leftovers to the dogs and then eat again themselves.” The Greek Patriarch Michael Cerullarius, and after him our George, denounce the Latins: “They cut their beards with a razor, which is cut off from the Mosaic Law and from the Gospel” 46 Alexey Sergeevich Khomyakov (1804–1860) - philosopher, founder of Slavophilism - with his theological writings revealing the essence of the Church, had an undoubted influence on the work of the holy martyr. As the author notes, in Khomyakov’s works—philosophical, journalistic, and theological—the experience of a positive disclosure of the doctrine of the Church and polemics against Western confessions that have separated from the Church are “organically closely linked.” (It should be noted that this remark is entirely true in relation to the entire theological work of the Hieromartyr Hilarion himself). Based on a positive understanding of the Church as a union of love in the Body of Christ, Alexey Sergeevich puts forward the thesis that falling away from the Church Body occurs as a result of pride and is a sin against love. We lived with this and similar polemics for a long time. Later, when an internecine war broke out in the West between Catholics and Protestants, Orthodox theologians began to fight with someone else's weapons: they turned to Catholics when they denounced Protestants, and to Protestants when they wanted to destroy Catholicism. What really happened was the same thing that Yuri Samarin outlined in dramatic form in his preface to the second volume of Khomyakov’s works. This kind of polemic still dominates almost unlimitedly in seminary textbooks on “accusatory theology.” Therefore, our polemicists are often similar to those woodcutters who, in order to fell a tree, would tear off its leaves, and even the autumn leaves, half yellowed, which would have fallen without them. Ancient church polemics and polemics of A.S. Khomyakova is principled, she cuts down the tree of error at the root. Closely connected with the idea of ​​the Church, it does not dwell exclusively on individual errors, but points out their common root in opposition to the dogma of the Church, and hence the decisive moral condemnation of any separation from the Church. Polemical works by A.S. Khomyakov represents precisely the experience of applying the principles of ancient church polemics to Western confessions. But these principles should not be forgotten in any controversy. It is very sad that our theological science pays little attention to the idea of ​​the Church, but for polemics it is essential to constantly keep in mind the idea of ​​the Church, always begin with it and always return to it. This is taught by the example of ancient church polemicists. Prague, 1867. A.S. Khomyakov. Theological works. M., 1995. – Note. ed. Anyone wishing to learn more about Khomyakov’s views is referred to his works, as well as to the 24th issue of the Religious and Philosophical Library: The Church, its properties and grace-filled life (according to A.S. Khomyakov). M., 1910. Theological Bulletin. 1900. T.3. November. P.543. Creations of the blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. Part 7. M, 1861. P.134. Conversation on the Post. to (Eph. 11:1). – Works of our holy father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in Russian translation. St. Petersburg, 1905. T.11. Book 1. P.96. Scriptures of the Apostolic Men. St. Petersburg, 1895. P.289. – Approx. ed. Compare: Philad. XI,2; Smyrna XII,1. - Right there. P.301,306. P. Battifol. L'eglise naissante et le catholicisme. P. 1909. P.168–169. Chapters 8–9. – Library of the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Western Church, published at the Kyiv Theological Academy. Book 1. Works of the Hieromartyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. Kyiv, 1891. Part 2. pp. 183–184. See about this: Dr. A. Seitz. Die Heilsnotwendigkeit der Kirche nach der altchristlichen Literatur bis zur Zeit des hl. Augustinus. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1903. pp.84–87,154–156. Scriptures of the Apostolic Men. P.287. – Approx. ed. Right there. P.82. – Approx. ed. Against heresies. IV.33.7. Works of Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. M., 1871. P.527. – Approx. ed. Selecta in Psalmos. Psalm.4. PG. T.12. Col.l148D. Epist. ad Rogatian. 4. (Creations of the Hieromartyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. Part 1. P. 111.) Epist. ad Pupian. 54. (Ibid. Part 1. P. 304.) De unite Eccles. Cap.10. (Ibid. Part 2. P. 184.) Epist. ad Cornel. 47. (Ibid. Part 1. P. 256.) Cfr.: A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Bd. 1. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1886. S.311. Amn.4. De unite Eccles. Cap.14. (Creations of the Hieromartyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. Part 2. pp. 188,189.) Epist. 43 ad Antonian; Epist. 59 ad Stefan. (Ibid. Part 1. P. 234,330.) Epist. 62 ad Magnum. (Ibid. Part 1. P. 360.) Epist. 55 ad Stefan. (Ibid. Part 1. P. 312.) Epist. 62 ad Magnum. (Ibid. Part 1. P. 361.) De unite Eccles. Cap.15. (Ibid. Part 2. P. 190.) See also: De orat. Dominica (Ibid. Part 2, pp. 217–218). Epist. 43 ad Antonian. (Ibid. Part 1. P. 239.) De baptismo VI.24,39. PL T.43. Col.196,197–198. Cfr. II.14,19. – Ibid. Col.138–139; Contra Cresconium II.33,41. – Ibid. Col.391. De baptismo I.2,3. – Ibid. Col.110; Contra Cresconium I.22,27. – Ibid. Col.460. Contra Cresconium IV.21,26. – Ibid. Col.563. Cfr. I.26,31. – Ibid. Col.462. De baptismo I.9,12. – Ibid. Col.116. Sermo ad Caesareensis Ecclesiae plebem. – Ibid. Col.692–693. De baptismo I.12,18. – Ibid. Col.119. De baptismo I.12,19. – Ibid. Col.119,120. De baptismo I.13,21. – Ibid. Col.121. De baptismo I.15,13. – Ibid. Col.121,122. Contra Cresconium II.14,17. – Ibid. Col.477. De baptismo I.10,14. – Ibid. Col.117. Irenaeus. Against heresies. I,31; Hippolytus. Contra haeres. Noeti, and also Philosopher. IX,12. PG. T.16. Pars 3. Col.3386A-B. Wed. more notes: I. Dollinger: Hippolytus und Kallistus, oder die Romische Kirche in der ersten Halfte des dritten Jahrhunderts. Regensburg, 1853. S.102; Prot. A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov. Heresies and schisms of the first three centuries of Christianity. M., 1877. P.93–94. Note 44. The word theologian. 1. – Works like those of our holy father Gregory the Theologian, Archbishop of Constantinople. Part 3. M., 1844. P.14. Creations of St. Fathers in Russian translation, published at the Moscow Theological Academy. T.3. The word theologian. 3. – Ibid. P.61,76. Against Eunomius. Book 1. – Works like those of our holy father Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia. Part 3. M., 1846. P.29. Creations of St. Fathers in Russian translation, published at the Moscow Theological Academy. T.7. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T.1. Kazan, 1809. P.680. A.P. Lebedev. Ecumenical Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg, 1904. P.69. Wed: p.175. Epist. I ad Serapionem. Creations like the saints of our father Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. Part 3. Sergiev Posad, 1903. P.26. Letter to Brother Gregory. – Creations like the saints of our father Basil the Great... Part 6. M., 1847. P.101. (Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation... Vol. 10.) In general, all the material related here is collected in the quoted work of Prof. Lebedeva. pp.64–73,172–175. We have borrowed the most brief and typical passages. Reminders. I,22. Creations of St. Vikenty Lerinsky. Transl. from lat. Assoc. P. Ponomareva. Kazan, 1904. P.39. Prof. HER. Golubinsky. History of the Russian Church. T.1. Part 2. 2nd ed. M., 1904. P.822,824. See more. A. N. Popov. Historical and literary review of ancient Russian polemical works against the Latins. M., 1875; A.S. Pavlov. Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greek-Russian polemic against the Latins. St. Petersburg, 1878 (especially: Applications). P.115–210. You might be interested in: