Conversations between the testing and the confident about Orthodoxy

“Conversations between the testing and the confident about Orthodoxy” is the famous anti-Catholic polemical work of St. Philaret of Moscow (Drozdov). The saint republished his work three times (1815, 1833, 1841), removing in the final edition the ambiguous wording of the earlier version and supplementing the text with quotations from the patristic works, excerpts from the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the District Epistle of St. Photia. This work consists of 7 dialogues between the “tester” (seeking the truth) and the “confident” (teacher defending Orthodoxy). Each conversation has its own topic. Conversations 1–2 talk about the foundations of the Church, its nature, the sacraments, as well as the obligation to remain faithful to the Church in which a person is baptized. The saint claims that the question of “Orthodoxy” is resolved not through the trial of other churches, but through the internal test of one’s faith and obedience to the Church, of which a person is already a member. Conversations 3–4 contain the dogma of the origin of the Holy Spirit. St. Filaret proves that the Eastern Church preserves the purity of the apostolic teaching, confessing that the Spirit proceeds only from the Father (John 15:26), while the Western addition “and from the Son” (Filioque) is illegal, theologically erroneous and contrary to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. The 5th conversation provides a detailed analysis of the issue of the “primacy” of the Roman bishop. The saint refutes the assertion that the pope was the “visible head of the Church” in the first eight centuries. The rules of the Ecumenical Councils, quotations from the patristic works are given, as well as documents testifying to the canonical equality of all primates of the Local Churches. The author shows that the division occurred not because of the East, but because of Rome's claims to world power, which violated the apostolic and conciliar structure of the Church. Conversation 6 examines the biblical texts (Matt. 16:18–19; Luke 22:32; John 21:15–17) that Catholics use to justify the papacy. St. Filaret proves that: the Apostle Peter was not the “head” of the apostles, but only the first confessor of Christ; the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given to all the apostles; “Tending the sheep” is a pastoral ministry, not power over shepherds; the bishop of Rome is not the successor of the Apostle Peter in the sense of the head of the Church, but only a local bishop. The only Head of the Church is Christ (Eph. 4:15–16). In the 7th conversation the question of the hierarchy in the Russian Church is raised. According to St. Philaret, the Holy Synod, established by Peter I, was not a violation, but a restoration of the ancient church order. The ancient Church was always governed by councils. “The Patriarch is the Synod in one person, the Synod is the Patriarch in several selected consecrated persons.” In conclusion, an extract is given from the district letter of St. Photius, which contains an official condemnation of Western innovations (Filioque, fasting on Saturdays, celibacy of priests, double anointing). This is the first authoritative denunciation of Catholic deviations from the ancient Orthodox tradition. St. Photius calls on the Eastern Patriarchs for unity and calls for decisive opposition to heretical teachings. Beware from evil doers, beware from being cut. (Phil. 3:1) The spirit of true Christian tolerance and love of peace, preserved by the grace of God in the Russian Church, results in the fact that in ordinary and popular instructions, the subjects addressed in the dispute between the Eastern Church and other Christian faiths are sometimes not explained as carefully as this is done in other faiths. But since people belonging to these latter, according to civil tolerance in Russia, meet with the children of the Russian Church everywhere, it happens that these people receive from them suggestions that are incompatible with the dignity of the Eastern Catholic Church, with its pure antiquity and ancient purity. This provided the opportunity to extract from reliable sources a brief and generally understandable concept of the Orthodoxy of this Church, which is presented in the following conversations. It is presented in conversations partly because in the analysis of controversy this way of presentation is more natural and intelligible, partly because the Writer actually happened to have conversations of this kind more than once. Attached to this is an extract from the District Message of Patriarch Photius, with which he, before the Eastern Patriarchal Thrones, denounces the retreat of the Roman Church from the purity of the ancient religion and church rules. Let this disputed matter defend itself before an impartial examiner. However, the author of the conversations offered here, having a desire, according to the instructions of the Apostle, to help ensure that simple souls could be guarded from evil workers, tried to guard himself from cutting, that is, not to give rise to division and enmity between believers in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let us, fellow reader, beware of such workers in the faith who lead us from Christ to some earthly teacher: but we strive towards everyone to observe peacefulness, which, in my opinion, is the crown of our Church. I. I am looking for truth. I wish to be in the true Christian Church. I wish to be saved. D. If these desires are sincere, then the Lord Himself answers you: I am the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). Where there are two or three congregations in My name, I am in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20). The Apostle tells you that you must seek this assembly in the house of God, which is the living Church of God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). I. But now many societies, different from each other, gather in the name of Christ; and even adorn themselves with the name of the Church: and therefore it is not easy to decide which one is better to belong to. W. Don’t you belong to any church? I. Judging by the feelings and disposition of my heart, I am somewhat perplexed as to how to answer this. U. In which church did you receive your first knowledge of God and Christ the Savior? I. In the Eastern Catholic Church. W. Therefore, are you not united with this Church, at least by bonds of gratitude? I. More than just gratitude. I am united to the Eastern Church by receiving the sacraments from her and by the commitment given to her at baptism to confess her teachings. U. Okay. But I wanted to talk about your gratitude first. Have you already paid this debt completely? I. On the contrary. I didn't have the means to do that. U. You always have a means for this - in obedience. I. I am ready for sincere obedience to the Eastern Church if I am convinced that its power over me is pleasing to God. For it is fitting to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). U. Let us, if you wish, apply these apostolic words to the present matter: it is fitting to obey God more than men. It seems to me that they mean that we, feeling obligated to obey any authority on earth, must obey it until it demands from us what God forbids. U. But what does the Eastern Church require of you? I. I think that I should believe as she believes and live as she commands. U. Otherwise, to say that you believe and live as she professes in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol and teaches in the Ten Commandments. U. Now answer: can you doubt that this will please God if you believe and live as the Eastern Church confesses in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol and teaches in the Ten Commandments? I. There is no dispute about the commandments. Is it possible that the Eastern Church does not give any commandment an interpretation that destroys or at least weakens the power of God’s law? U. You have no reason to fear this. In interpreting the law, the Eastern Church is guided, firstly, by the very word of God, secondly, by the rules of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils, thirdly, by the writings of the ancient Church Teachers, whose recognized holiness, glorified by God and the entire Church, vouches for the dignity of their teaching; and to whom those who have separated from the Eastern Church cannot refuse respect. The Holy Eastern Church does not betray the holy teaching, neither to the commandless arbitrariness of a proud and unsanctified mind, nor to the unlimited power of one person, still struggling with his own passions. I. I said that there is no dispute about the commandments. But the question: whether it will be acceptable to God to believe as the Eastern Church professes in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol requires consideration. U. Let's put it another way: isn't everything that is in the Symbol of the Eastern Church the pure truth, revealed by God? I. I wish to hear proof that everything contained in the Symbol of the Eastern Church is pure truth, revealed by God. U. Firstly, not only all the truths, but even all the most important words and expressions contained in the Symbol of the Eastern Church, are taken from the Holy Scriptures, which contain pure truth, revealed by God. Secondly, since your doubts began from the fact that you noticed a disagreement between Christian faiths, then I must also tell you that not a single Christian faith that differs from the Eastern Church, except those who reject the sacraments of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, which are therefore unworthy of the very name of Christian, and whose opinions, of course, do not seem to you worthy of attention - besides these, I say, not a single Christian faith will not require that anything be excluded from the Symbol of the Eastern Church. W. From this it follows that all Christian confessions recognize as pure truth, revealed by God, everything contained in the Symbol of the Eastern Church. I. It occurs to me that the rule that I made above requires correction. I. That we, feeling obligated to obey any authority on earth, must obey it until it demands from us what God forbids. U. How do you want to fix this? I. It seems to me that it would be more correct to say this: we must obey the recognized authority until it demands what God forbids and does not forbid what God commands. U. So be it. Now I ask: can you fear that the Eastern Church will forbid you what God commands? I. As for the moral teaching of the Eastern Church, I have already said that I have no doubt about it. But as far as the teaching of faith is concerned, it is necessary to ascertain whether the Eastern Church does not exclude from its Symbol some important truths, and thus does not prohibit believing what God commands to believe. D. It goes without saying that the Symbol forbids believing that which is contrary to the truths contained in it, such as, for example, that God is not trinity. For every truth excludes what is opposite to it. Besides this. The Eastern Symbol does not prohibit or exclude anything. You say in it: “I believe, I confess,” but not once do you say: “I don’t believe, I undertake not to confess.” I. So can I believe what the Eastern Symbol does not say? U. You can also believe what he does not say, but which, in a clear or hidden way, is contained in the Holy Scriptures, and, therefore, is in the spirit of this Symbol. U. For example, you say in the Symbol: “I confess one baptism,” and do not say: “I confess the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.” However, you can and should believe the latter along with the former. I. I understand. You want to say that since the Symbol, while affirming known truths, does not exclude or thereby reject others that are not contained in it from word to word, then, therefore, it does not prohibit believing anything that God commands to believe. But everything that you have said so far about the Eastern Church and its teachings serves little or nothing to refute the teachings of other Christian churches. W. It was not my intention to refute other churches. I. So do you really want to introduce me into all the churches that disagree with each other? I. But in order to prefer one church to others of different views, it is necessary to refute them. U. Have you thought about what you demand? What does it mean to refute dissenting churches? I. To prove and discover that some well-known churches are non-Orthodox, that is, wrong-minded in the faith. U. What is the name of the action that proves and reveals whether someone is right or wrong? I. Call it whatever you want, I hope there will be no dispute about it. U. I call it court. W. But you want me to prove and find out that certain established churches are wrong. W: So, you want me to judge some churches? I. What then? Are you thinking of striking me with this expression? W. No, I myself am amazed by the word of God: do not judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1). Before the time, judge nothing, until the Lord comes, who will bring the secret of darkness into light, and will announce counsel to the hearts (1 Cor. 4:5). I. But are these words spoken in the Gospel what we are discussing now? D. The first saying is pronounced against those who condemn in general, and the second specifically against those who, being private people, without a special calling, judge teachers of the faith, and even such teachers who, on the basis of Christ, teach wood, hay, and reeds (1 Cor. 3:12). I. It seems to me that it is another matter to judge the unworthiness of teachers, and another to judge the unorthodoxy of churches. W. Is it easier to condemn the whole Church than one person? I. But how can I prefer one Church to others of different views, if I am not at all allowed to judge their unorthodoxy? U. How can you judge them? Ask yourself before God and your conscience: do you feel invested with the power and authority to bind and decide the church? I. I feel my insolence. But I am bold out of fear, so as not to perish outside the Orthodox Church. W. But if you were certain that you were definitely in the Orthodox Church, then would you not agree, as a private person, not to judge at all about other churches that differ from it, but to submit them to the judgment of God? I. In that case, there would be no need for me to judge them. But when I want to be convinced of the Orthodoxy of the Church in which I am, this desire can no longer be forbidden or limited; in this case, am I not obliged to test, at least, the Church in which I am? And in this case, won’t I be forced to judge? U. Let’s try to see if it’s possible to avoid this dangerous necessity? Let us contrast a plausible desire with a true obligation. First, you must judge yourself. For, says the Apostle Paul: even if they had reasoned with themselves, they would not have been condemned (1 Cor. 11:31). And therefore he also says: tempt yourselves, if you are in the faith, tempt yourself: or you do not know that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are unskilled by nature (2 Cor. 13:5). So, test yourself: do you remain in the faith of your heart? Or what is the same, does Jesus Christ dwell in you? And if you don’t feel this in yourself, then test further to see if you yourself are unskilled in anything, that is, are there any free dispositions in you that hinder the action of faith in you and your union with Jesus Christ? A humble Christian always finds such shortcomings in himself, and therefore is always busy judging himself. But at the same time, the purity of faith and the Church is seen more conveniently and truly by the humble, not blinded by arrogance and pride of reason. Secondly, if a caring thought has already arisen in you, is it true that the Church, which acts on you with its teaching and spiritual power, brings you true and saving spiritual help; If you are afraid that doubt will not harm your progress in faith and love, you can enter into reflection about the Church to which you belong, about its teaching and hierarchy, but in modest, reverent, circumspect reflection, paying primary attention to the main and essential things, in which the all-good providence has shown the truth the more obvious, the more destructive the error. Look how simply the Holy Apostle John teaches to test people in their confession of faith: do not believe every spirit, but tempt the spirits if they are from God. Of this know the Spirit of God, and the spirit of deceit: every Spirit that confesseth Jesus Christ in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has passed in the flesh is not from God (1 John 4:1-3). I. By this sign, both the Eastern and Western Churches are from God: since both of them confess Jesus Christ in the flesh, having passed away: however, these are two Churches who disagree with each other. U. Yes, each of them has its own special spirit, or a special relationship to the Spirit of God. I. So I must test this attitude in order to find out which Church’s spirit more accurately corresponds to the Spirit of God. W. Look around whether you are setting yourself too high, and whether you are taking on too much when you want to test the attitude of this or that Church towards the Spirit of God. I. What should I do, however, in order to make sure of the Orthodoxy of the Church in which I am? – Didn’t the Apostle himself command to test the spirit? W. He limited what this test should consist of, precisely this - is it from God? I also showed a sign by which this can be recognized. I. But this sign, common to many churches, cannot confirm me in the Orthodoxy of the special Church in which I find myself. For this, I need a special sign that would show that the special spirit of this Church is from God - it flows from the true Spirit of Christ, corresponds to the Spirit of Christ, leads me to union with the Spirit of Christ, and leads me in a straight and true way. U. You begin to be more moderate and fair in your demands. – What do the words mean – a direct and true path to union with the Spirit of Christ? I. In other words, pure teaching, leading to union with the Spirit of Christ. U. Consequently, the test you desire can be limited to this question: does the Church in which you find yourself teach pure teaching that leads to union with the Spirit of Christ? U. What is pure teaching? I. Such a teaching that contains one truth without any admixture of lies. U. Can there be a lie in a teaching that does not oblige one to believe anything that God forbids to believe, and does not exclude anything that God commands to be believed? I. Of course, there will be no lies here. U. Therefore, instead of the question: does the Church teach pure teaching? – you can put the next one; Is it really true that the Church in her teaching does not oblige us to believe anything that God forbids us to believe, and does not exclude anything that God commands us to believe? I. Now I see why in your study of the Eastern Church you limited yourself to such simple questions that at first glance they did not promise her firm protection. U. Let’s stop here and repeat the truths that you have either spoken or admitted so far. – You said that you are united with the Eastern Church and are ready for sincere obedience to it, if its power over you is pleasing to God. You recognized that we, feeling obligated to obey any authority on earth, must obey it as if it were from God, until it requires what God forbids and does not forbid what God commands. That the Eastern Church in its moral teaching does not require anything contrary to God and does not prohibit anything pleasing to God - you did not argue about that. That in the same way it offers pure truth in the confession of faith, this is clear, as it seems to me, I have proven from the Symbol, which contains the spirit of the Eastern Church. See for yourself what conclusion should be drawn from this. I. My inexperience in such research does not allow me to be sure that I have properly delved into all these arguments. W. I will write the entire real conversation, and you can think about it in freedom, calling on the Spirit of truth for help. W. You said that, judging by the feelings and disposition of your heart, you are somewhat perplexed to which Church you belong. I. I sincerely admitted my bewilderment. W. But you said again in passing that you are united with the Eastern Church by receiving sacraments from it. I. Until thoughts of doubt arose in me, I deeply felt the importance of union with the Church through the sacraments acceptable from it. W. But do your doubts have the power to make a union confirmed and sanctified by grace less important? On the contrary, in the certificate of the importance of the sacraments taught to you by the Eastern Church, you could find such a certificate of the importance of your union with her that would protect you from doubts that would be offensive to her. D. Let's take baptism as an example. Do you believe that this sacrament was performed on you correctly? I. Nothing prevents me from believing this. For the sacrament of baptism is always correct if only performed in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. W. The Apostle says: if you have been baptized into Christ, you have put on Christ (Gal. 3:27). Has this last thing happened to you? I. I believe that this too was accomplished by the grace of God in my baptism; but, testing my conscience, I do not dare to say that I faithfully preserved this Divine vestment. U. Forgive my daring, perhaps jealousy, if I use your confession to expose you. You feel and admit that you have not faithfully preserved the grace of baptism, therefore, just as your loss and your danger are in yourself, then the subject of the saving feat is also in you. But instead of this, you rebel with your doubts against the Church, the giver of grace. You have received a treasure: you have lost it, you must look for it, and you begin to test whether it was given to you with the right hand? I. You reproach me as if you knew for sure that I am only testing the Church, and not trying to internally correct myself. U. True, I cannot see your insides, but we sometimes do not (not enough. - Ed.) penetrate into the depths of our own soul. The word of God alone judges the mind and the thoughts of the heart (Heb. 4:12). Let us stand before the judgment of this word. Jesus Christ says: if anyone wants to do the will of God, he understands the teaching, if it is from God (John 7:17). Consequently, if someone does not understand about the teaching, even if it is from God, he is perplexed whether the teaching with which he has been proclaimed for a long time is from God: is the Church in which he lives Orthodox, he must necessarily take upon himself the suspicion of whether he really wants to do the will of God, whether he preceded the desire for understanding with the desire for internal correction of himself and whether he labored faithfully in this correction? I. With God’s help, I will try in every possible way to nourish a living desire in myself, to correct myself internally and to do the will of God, so as not to put an eternal barrier for myself to the understanding of the truth. W. But let us return to the unfinished discussion about the sacrament of baptism. You said that you received grace in the baptism given to you by the Eastern Church, but did not keep it intact. However, you, without a doubt, know that to return it you do not need a new baptism. U. If you do not need a second baptism, then cannot you think that the grace of baptism has not completely abandoned you? I. I can think so, but at the same time I think that I can return this grace through other sacraments, such as, for example, repentance, which the Church calls second baptism. W. But if baptism had not been performed on you, then you would need both baptism and repentance together, and now repentance without baptism. Therefore, you can notice that through baptism you have acquired something that does not need to be acquired another time. I. This, perhaps, is that since the time of baptism, if not healthy, then at least weak, I am only already a member of the body of Christ. W. So it seems to me that the uniqueness of baptism can be explained only by this assumption. Just as a member of the natural body never ceases to be a member, except through irrevocable cutting off and perfect death, so a person who has put on Christ in baptism never ceases to be a member of the Body of Christ, unless through irrevocable falling away from the Church of Christ and eternal death. W. Let us now extract from this concept of the power and importance of the sacrament of baptism, given to you by the Eastern Church, some thoughts about your relationship to it. You acknowledge that through baptism you became a member of the body of Christ at the same time as you became a member of the Eastern Church, and after that you accept the choice of which church you belong to. Isn't this similar to what happens when a member breaks away from the place it occupied in the body and begins to look for a new place for itself? The union between the parts of one body can be destroyed only by the death of either the whole or some parts cut off from connection with the whole composition. What if, by misfortune, the perplexities arising in you led you to the dissolution of your union with the Eastern Church, of which you are a member? Shouldn't we be afraid that death will fall to the lot of a member that is torn away from a living and life-giving body? I. I wish to remain in the communion of the Eastern Church. But what should I do when I encounter suggestions that arouse doubts in me? U. I advise you to carefully monitor yourself to see if you are biasedly relying on someone who arouses doubts in you. For in this way it may happen that doubts will seem strong to you only because you willingly accept them. I. The thought of a false church frightens me. W. This fear drives away from you the word of God, which says: whoever is a liar, let him be swept away, for Jesus is not the Christ? This is the Antichrist, reject the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22). Do you see who is deceitful in relation to Christianity? – One who does not recognize Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the God-Man, the Redeemer. Consequently, a completely false church would be one that would not recognize Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the God-man, the Redeemer - the church of the Antichrist. I. But even among those who confess that Jesus is the Christ, there are those who mix false and harmful human opinions with the true and saving teaching of the Gospel. W. It's true. But what belongs to the Eastern Church, I have proven that its Symbol contains pure teaching. Let us return once again to thoughts about Holy Baptism. You said that you are united to the Eastern Church by the commitment given to her at baptism in confessing her teachings. How did you make this commitment? I. I think that the Eastern Symbol of Faith, which was pronounced on my behalf at baptism by the recipient, is an act by which I pledged to confess the teaching of the Eastern Church contained in this Symbol. U. Fair. But didn’t you at the same time pledge yourself to always obey the Eastern Church? U. When the words were uttered on your behalf: “I believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,” then what kind of mind did they have? Isn’t it this one: “I promise to believe in the true Church, which is the Eastern Catholic Church”? I. Without a doubt, in this mind the Russian Church accepted my obligation, and without this she would not have agreed to give me baptism. U. So, we can say in one word that you have taken an “oath of allegiance” to the Eastern Catholic Church. I. I did not understand this oath when I made it. U. What then? Do you really think that you don’t owe it to her? I. At least, I am not obliged so much when the reason of my oath did not depend on me, but on the recipient. W. However, you think that you have received the full right granted by baptism. U. In order to recognize your right as complete, it is necessary to recognize equally full the oath, under the condition of which you were given the right to baptism. I. But what if my successor, on my behalf, took an oath to profess a non-Orthodox dogma? W. The obligation would lose its force as soon as you would learn that what it requires is contrary to God, but the Eastern Church does not require anything contrary to God from you. I. I would like to make sure whether the Eastern Church purely professes the dogma of the origin of the Holy Spirit. U. The word of the Lord, the word is pure (Ps. 11:7). The Eastern Church professes the dogma about the origin of the Holy Spirit in the very words of the Lord Jesus Christ spoken to the Apostles: When the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the SPIRIT of truth, which COMES FROM THE FATHER, he testifies of Me (John 15:26). What could be purer than this confession? For the very words of Jesus Christ: WHAT COMES FROM THE FATHER, the God-wise fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council put it in the Creed: WHAT COMES FROM THE FATHER. I. This origin of the dogma is so clear that, apparently, it leaves no room for dispute, however, the dogma itself is the subject of dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches. W. Yes, because we repeat word for word in our Symbol the dogma accepted from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself, the teachers of the separated Western Church argue with us and want us to add to the words of Jesus Christ and say: “He who comes from the Father and the Son.” I. Perhaps the Western Church finds that the Eastern Church, although in the words of Jesus Christ Himself pronounces the dogma about the origin of the Holy Spirit, but misunderstands these words or does not attach the necessary explanation to them? W. Let's examine both of these suspicions. Firstly, you suggest suspicion whether the Eastern Church correctly understands the words of Jesus Christ about the origin of the Holy Spirit? – But don’t you notice that the God-wise Fathers who composed the Symbol seemed to have foreseen this suspicion and completely warned it? They did not put any interpretation on the words of Christ in the Symbol, so as not to give any room to this question: are these words interpreted correctly? But they set forth the very words of Christ, leaving it to the common sense of every Christian to understand them as they say. Secondly, you ask whether the Eastern Church is not to blame for not adding the necessary explanation to the words of Jesus Christ about the origin of the Holy Spirit? – But Jesus Christ, when he told the apostles that the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father, did not find it necessary to attach any explanation to these words. Consequently, the Eastern Church, repeating the same words in the Symbol, does not omit any necessary explanation. Moreover, does the Western Church only require an explanation in this case? U. For example, if I say; “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father,” that is, “receives the beginning of his hypostasis” - this is the explanation. But if I say: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father,” that is, “from the Father and the Son,” what explanation is there? Is this not the addition of a new concept that was not in the previous words? Who can make additions to the words of Jesus Christ, especially in such an incomprehensible matter as the origin and mutual relationship of the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, in the inner Sanctuary of the Divine nature? I. I agree that in the confession of faith one should not make guesswork, much less arbitrary additions to the word of God. But to the words of Jesus Christ, which are now in question, shouldn’t we borrow the necessary addition from other words of Jesus Christ Himself? U. What do you mean by this? I. When Jesus Christ says about the Holy Spirit: I will send, doesn’t this mean that the Holy Spirit also comes from the Son? U. What does I send mean? You can ask Jesus Christ Himself about this. “I,” He says in the same conversation to the apostles, “I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter (John 14:16). You see that I will send from the Father, that means I will ask the Father to give. So, Jesus Christ ascribes to Himself, as theologians say, not the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, or the eternal beginning of His hypostasis, but His temporary sending, or the distribution of His gifts, but Jesus Christ ascribes this to Himself not just to the original hypostasis of the Father, which is why He says: I will send from the Father; I beg the Father. I. Others say, on the contrary, that the word “procession” means the “outpouring of gifts” of the Holy Spirit, or “temporary sending.” U. If you want to see whether this interpretation is correct, then apply it to the words of Jesus Christ: The Comforter will come, and I will send him to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, that is, “is sent.” Don't you see how this interpretation disfigures the whole speech, making it identical and disorderly? I. How would it be more correct to interpret the quoted words of Jesus Christ in their composition? U. For this, let us note, first of all - and you can check this remark by reading the entire conversation of Jesus Christ to the Apostles, from which these words are taken - let us note, I say, that the intention of Jesus Christ was to comfort His apostles in His impending separation from them. In this spirit He says: The Comforter will come. Both of these words are vague and do not yet give complete consolation to those who hear. It will come - where will it come from? Where will it come? Will this coming be alien to the apostles? Comforter - who is this Comforter? Is it not a man filled with the Spirit of God? Isn't it an Angel? Can this Comforter make up for the deprivation of the Son of God? Jesus Christ answers these bewilderments in the following words of his conversation. Where will it come from? - I’ll send it. Where will it come? - Just to the apostles: I will send you. Is it not a man, or an angel, who will be sent? - No, I will send from among not men, lower from the hosts of Angels, but from the Father. But this resolution of the perplexities caused by the first two words gives rise to a new, even more difficult question: who is this great Comforter, whom the Son of God will send from God the Father? And what does it mean that the Son of God, to whom after the resurrection will be given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), at this very time will send the Comforter not just by His Divine authority, but from the Father? – In order to resolve this completely, Jesus Christ finally reveals the very essence of the Comforter: the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father. It’s as if He said this: “I said: I will send from the Father, because I will not send a spirit that has been created and subjugated to My power, but a Spirit who has the eternal beginning of His Divine hypostasis from the Father.” I. But Jesus Christ also speaks of the Holy Spirit: He will receive of Mine (John 16:14). U. Add the following words to these words, then you will see why they are said: He will receive from Mine and will tell you. You see that the Holy Spirit will receive from the Son of God, or, as if from the property of the Son of God, who was already the Teacher of the apostles, he will borrow what he proclaims to the apostles, that is, the truth and teaching, as it was said above in the same conversation of Jesus Christ: When He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth: for it is not from oneself that one should speak, but if one hears, speak, and the one who comes will tell you (John 16:13). All this does not relate to the eternal origin of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. This is how the quoted words of Christ and the Holy Fathers explain: “In this I will say with Mark of Ephesus, Chrysostom and the Divine Cyril are my witnesses. The first, interpreting what it means that the Spirit receives from the Son, says: He will receive from Mine, that is, from My knowledge, that is, he will speak with Me in accordance with Me” (on John, Conversations 78.). Cyril in the Treasure (chapter 14) says: “It is not the difference between His nature and the Father that the Son of God reveals when he says: He will receive from Mine and will tell you; but that the Holy Spirit will use His words.” I. The Son of God says: all that the Father has is Mine (John 16:15). Consequently, the origin of the Holy Spirit “is” and depends on Him just as it does on the Father. W. The Son of God says also to His Father: All is Mine, Thine is the essence. (John 17:10). However, you do not conclude from this that the incarnation “is of the Father,” or belongs to the Father as well as to the Son. You can rely just as little on your previous conclusion about the Holy Spirit. I. The Apostle calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6). U. In order to correctly understand this name, let us take the apostolic words in their composition: God has sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts. You see that the Holy Spirit is spoken of here not in the strictest sign of this name, as about the eternal hypostasis of the Divine, but as about the gifts of the Spirit of God sent down into human hearts. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are assimilated to the Son of God, firstly, by the consubstantiality of the hypostases of the Divine; secondly, because for these gifts the incarnate Son of God, by His merit, as it were, acquired from God the Father the right, according to which He has the power to distribute them to people, outside of His merit, strangers to all that is Divine. This thought is clearly depicted by the prophet David, who speaks to the incarnate and, after humiliation, exalted Son of God: you ascended on high, you took captivity captive, you received gifts among men, or for the sake of men (Ps. 67:19). Therefore, it is not surprising that these gifts or gifts of the Holy Spirit, acquired and given to people by the merit of the Son of God, are called the Spirit of the Son of God, and, therefore, this expression does not give the concept of the eternal beginning of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. I. The Son of God teaches the Holy Spirit by a breath (John 20:22). Therefore, the Holy Spirit also comes from the Son. D. The apostles teach the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17). But you, without a doubt, will not derive from this the absurd remark that the Holy Spirit also comes from the apostles. And from this you see that the first completely similar conclusion is incorrect; and has no power. I. What can you finally say about the origin of the Holy Spirit from the Son? U. Exactly what the ancient Eastern and Universal Church in its Symbol, that is, nothing. Or if you demand that the very silence of the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council be interpreted for you, I can introduce you to an insightful and faithful interpreter of it, namely: Mark of Ephesus, who at the Florence Council, drawing the attention of the Members of the Western Church who competed with him, to the composition of the words of the Symbol: We also believe in the Holy Spirit of the Lord, the life-giving One who proceeds from the Father, who is with the Father and We are worshiped and glorified by the Son, reasoning: “Here we must note the intention of the Holy Fathers. For the accompanying words are the development of its Theology. The Council was pleased to clearly show the image of the unity of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son. And look how distinctively he defines the appropriation of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. It’s as if he says this: The Holy Spirit is numbered by the Fathers to the Father and the Son, as if coming from the Father, and worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son, that is, equal in honor and consubstantial. If the Council had recognized His origin from both, then why didn’t it say: He comes from the Father and the Son, and with them we worship and glorify? This should have been said if such was the opinion of the Council. - Since in the first case the Fathers did not mention the Son when they wanted to determine the guilt of the procession, and in the second case they mentioned it when they wanted to show equality and consubstantiality, it is obvious that they did not recognize the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son; for otherwise they would not have omitted this, and especially when they were preparing an exposition of the dogma. And that this exposition is most perfect, and not half-perfect, as you say, this is evident from the fact that none of the subsequent Councils made a new explanation for this exposition, and did not add the proceeding from the Father and the Son; on the contrary, all the Councils, by their definitions, forbade this and prohibited it, as if prophetically foreseeing what was about to happen among you 1.” I. But the Florence Council recognized the addition: and the Son. D. That is why the Eastern Church did not recognize this Council as correct, as one that contradicts both the word of God and the seven Ecumenical Councils, equally recognized by both the Eastern and Western Churches. I. I was told that Blessed Augustine well explains the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the origin of the Holy Spirit through a comparison of the hypostases of the Divine with certain actions of the human soul. Don't you know this place? W. Such a place is in the XV book about the Trinity in chapter 27. I will translate this place for you. Before finishing his entire work, Blessed Augustine turns to his soul and says: “You have seen much that is true, not with these eyes, with which they see multi-colored bodies, but with those for which the husband prayed, who uttered these words: let my eyes see what is right. You have seen many things that are true and you have distinguished them from the Light in whose radiance you saw: lift your eyes to the Light itself and establish them in It, if you can. For in this way you will see how far the birth of the Word of God is from the procession of the Spirit of God, for which reason the only begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is “born of the Father,” otherwise it would be His brother, but it proceeds. Therefore, since there is a kind of consubstantial communion between the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of both, and not the son of both, so let it not be. But in order to contemplate this purely and clearly, you cannot fix your gaze there: I know you cannot. I speak the truth; I'm talking to myself; I know what is impossible for me. However, the Trinity itself shows you these three things in you, in which you can recognize the image of the highest Trinity itself, which you cannot yet contemplate with steady eyes. It shows you that there is a true word in you when it is born from your knowledge, that is, when we utter what we know, although, however, we do not utter any voice or speech (vocem) that has meaning in the language of any people and do not have it in our thoughts, but from what we know, our thought (cogitatio) is formed, and there is in the eye of the thinker the most similar image of that knowledge (cognitionis), which was contained in memory; these two things, like parent and generation, are connected by a third thing - will, or love (dilectio). And this will comes from knowledge (de cognitione), for no one wants what he does not know at all what it is or what it is; however, the will is not the image of knowledge (cognitionis); and thus in these intelligible things there appears to be a certain distance (distantiam) between birth and procession; for to discern with the mind is not the same as to desire or enjoy with the will, as he who is able will discern and discern.” These are St. Augustine's own words. Let us extract from them the main, mutually corresponding concepts and put one against the other. “Knowledge” or “knowledge” – Father. The “word” or “thought” is the Son. “Will” or “love” – Spirit. “Will comes from knowledge. “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.” I. But why not say that the will comes “from knowledge and thought”? W. You wanted to know how Blessed Augustine explains the mystery of the origin of the Holy Spirit, and I showed this to you. And this is another question, why does he explain it this way and not otherwise. I do not undertake to be his interpreter in such a case when he wants to interpret the incomprehensible. I. He explains a supernatural, incomprehensible subject through a natural, comprehensible subject. W. But I don’t know whether the natural, comprehensible object he chose exactly corresponds to the supernatural, incomprehensible. He thinks that the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit in God is what is “will” or “love” in man. But in the word of God I find that love is a property not of one hypostasis, but of the Divine nature in general, as John says: God is loving (1 John 4:16). That sometimes love is attributed to God the Father, as the Apostle Paul calls the Son of God the Son of the love of God the Father (Col. 1:13). That the Son of God Himself, depicting the Holy Spirit, calls Him the Spirit of truth (John 15:26), and in special spiritual gifts the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, strength, knowledge, piety, the fear of God (Isa. 11: 2-3). I. Let us leave this similarity between the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit and the power of will, or love, as an assumption privately belonging to Blessed Augustine. But I don’t see everything, why shouldn’t he say that love comes “from knowledge and thought”? W. This seems to be easy to explain. Let us consider “knowledge, thought and love” in a certain case. For example, do you have knowledge of your father? U. Do you have thoughts about him? U. Do you love him because you think about him, or do you think about him because you love him? I. I don’t know what to say to this. I love my father because I think about him as a father, and therefore I think about him because I love him. U. That's enough. So, you cannot affirmatively say that your love for your father comes from thinking about your father. But tell me, do you love your father even when you don’t think about him? I. I think that even then love for him is in my soul, when I do not have a definite thought about him. W. What if you had no knowledge at all about your father as a father? I. Then there could be no love, for, as Augustine says, “no one wants or loves what he does not know at all what it is or what it is.” U. So, can’t you, without any doubt in this case, affirm that love comes from knowledge? W. So, don’t you see that St. Augustine is right when he presents as clear and true that the will comes from knowledge, and, therefore. Does the Holy Spirit come from the Father? I. Now I see that this explanation is completely in agreement with the teaching of the Eastern Church. However, they told me about it completely differently. W. I know on what basis they told you that. You yourself, if you do not renounce work, can test whether I am more accurately telling you the thoughts of St. Augustine, or others who told you about this? I offered you his words as they are read in the ancients and in almost all manuscripts, and others retold them to you as they were printed by the champions of the Western Church. I. It seems incredible to me that anyone would spoil the works of respected writers in order to apply them to the opinions of his church. Is it possible to defend faith with lies? W. I leave this suspicion to your own consideration. And I will give you an account of my proposal. Printed: imago simillima cogitationis eius, the most similar image of that thought. Voluntatem de cogitione procedere. Will comes from thought. But in the Venetian edition of 1552 the following remark was made in this regard: vetera interim logo cogitationis, habent cognitionis. That is: “however, in ancient manuscripts instead of: thoughts, worth, knowledge.” Also in the Paris edition of 1679, and in the Antwerp edition of 1700, the following remark is made at the same place: omnes prope MSS, cognitionis ejus. Et infra, cogitione procedere. Ac paulo post, cogitationis imaginem. That is: “in almost all manuscripts: That knowledge. And below: comes from knowledge. And further: the image of knowledge." Judge, who should I have followed? to ancient manuscripts, and almost all manuscripts, or to publishers who do not say why they printed differently from what is read in ancient manuscripts, and in almost all manuscripts? I. These publishers are indeed suspicious of preferring an incorrect reading of the text, out of bias for their opinion. U. They are all the more suspicious because they not only did not respect either antiquity or most of the evidence in favor of a different reading, but also did not want to notice that the reading they accepted obviously damaged the meaning of the text. They read: Sed exillo, quod novimus, cogitatio nostra formetur sitque in acie cogitantis, imago simillima cogitationis eins. That is: “But from what we know, our thought is formed, and there is in the eye of the one who thinks the most similar image of that thought.” Don't you see what absurdity comes out of this reading? – “Thinking is the most similar way of thinking”? Doesn't the other reading, on the contrary, defend itself by the correctness of its meaning? - “Thinking is the most similar image of knowledge.” W. You would be more surprised or would cease to be surprised completely if you had the opportunity to find out how many passages in ancient writers are just as clearly corrupted. I. I would like to hear more clearly how the ancient teachers of the Church pronounced the dogma about the origin of the Holy Spirit. Is there any evidence about this that would not be subject to controversy? W. In the writings of one blessed Augustine, Adam Zernikav and Feofan Prokopovich found more than fifty places in which the dogma of the origin of the Holy Spirit is pronounced as the Eastern Church pronounces it to this day. Among them there are those whose integrity no one doubts. Such, for example, is the following passage from the book “Contra sermonem arianum [“Against the Arian Sermon”], ch. 23. “Let them not imagine that, through certain degrees, the Holy Spirit is from Him (that is, from the Son), just as the Son Himself is from the Father: on the contrary, both are from the Father, He is born, This one proceeds; which two actions in the height of this nature (God) are, of course, difficult to distinguish.” Of the many other similar testimonies found among eastern and western writers, I will present to you the testimony of Pope Damasus himself and the entire Roman Council, the authenticity of which cannot be doubted because Augustine (Sermo 129, De tempore) and Theodoret (Historia Ecclesiastica, book V, p. 11), one in Africa and the other in Asia, wrote about it in agreement; one in Latin and the other in Greek, almost at the same time, but probably without having heard of each other. Damasus, at the Council of Rome, with the consent of many bishops, issued a confession of faith, in which, as I have said, Augustine and Theodoret read the following words: “If anyone does not say that the Holy Spirit is truly and truly from the Father, just as the Son is from the essence of God and God is God’s Word: let him be anathema.” I. I have to offer you an excerpt from the book: Instructions generales en forme de Catéchisme, imprimées par ordrc De Messire Charles-Joachim Colbert, Eueque de Montpellier - “The most important instructions in the form of a catechism,” published at the direction of Charles-Joachim Colbert, Bishop of Montpellier. Here it is in translation: “It is not difficult to prove that those of the Greeks who separated from the Roman Church separated through this from the true Church of Jesus Christ. In order to convince every well-intentioned person of this, one only needs to take into consideration both the Churches as they were at the time of their union. It is certain that at that time the Greeks recognized the pope as the head of the Church. This is proven by the first seven Ecumenical (Generaux) Councils, which were powers in the East and at which the primacy of the pope was legally recognized. Photius himself, who sowed the first seeds of division, did not disagree with this. At the Ecumenical (Generaux) Councils - Lyons and Florence, at which the reunification of the two Churches was discussed, this truth was also recognized by the Greeks. The Church of Constantinople has never demanded more than that it be the second Rome and have first place in it. It is also certain that the Church of Constantinople received second place already at the fourth or not earlier than at the second Ecumenical Council, which did not happen without resistance. So, then, it could rightly be said that the pope was the visible head of the Church, and Rome was the center of unity, as says Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, a Greek by birth, who lived in the second century. If the Church, which recognized the pope as the visible head, was unquestioningly the true Church during the first eight centuries, then it will always be so, for in this point change can never happen in the Church. Consequently, to separate from the Church, which recognized the pope as its head, means to separate from the true Church of Jesus Christ, which means to be a schismatic. Consequently, the Eastern ones, who separated from it, are schismatics.” W. Would you like me to go over this evidence with you? U. Let us consider it in parts, keeping for clarity the very order in which the writer presented his thoughts. In order to convince every well-intentioned person of this, one only needs to take into consideration one and the other Church as they were at the time of their union.” Who do you think the writer means by these words: “those of the Greeks who separated from the Roman Church”? I. Without a doubt, the Eastern Church. W. So, he assumes that the Eastern Church “separated from the Church of Rome”? I. Do you really doubt this? W. I have no doubt, but I am absolutely sure that this assumption is wrong. U. I will explain this to you by example. When, after the death of Solomon, from one people of God two kingdoms became: Judah and Israel, then, tell me, did Judah separate from Israel, or vice versa? I. I see that it would be more correct to say here that the kingdom of Israel separated from the kingdom of Judah. U. Why is this more correct? I. Because the kingdom of Judah remained as it was before, and the kingdom of Israel founded a new government for itself, violating the right of hereditary rule recognized by all tribes of God’s people. U. Let’s apply this example to the present case. The French teacher says that the Eastern Church has separated from the Roman Church. But in order to have the right to say so, it would first be necessary to prove that the Roman Church remained the same after division as it was before, and that, on the contrary, the Eastern Church violated some great law inseparable from the unity of the Church. And since he had not yet done this, he thus allowed a forgery in the very first expressions of his proof, presenting as true what should have been proven. I will say more: he showed the truth in a completely distorted form. I. Do you think it would be fairer to say: the Roman Church separated from the Eastern? U. Yes. And now I will say in the words of the French mentor: “In order to convince every well-intentioned person of this, one only needs to take into consideration both the Churches as they were at the time of their unification.” Considering both Churches at the time of their unification, or, what is the same, considering the Universal Church of the first eight centuries of Christianity, I find the following law adopted by it to protect its unity and purity: “The general confession and regulation of the Universal Church is determined from the word of God by the general consent of the Universal Church through the mediation of its teachers: private churches can only make private regulations for themselves, relating to the deanery of the church, and not relating to the foundation of Christianity.” I. Where did you find this law? U. All Ecumenical Councils together are based on it. They wouldn't exist if he didn't exist. W. Let us turn from the Universal Church of the first eight centuries of Christianity to subsequent times, in which we see two Churches divided among themselves: Eastern and Western, or Roman. Is this law of the Universal Church preserved here? And if it persists, then in which of the two churches that disagree with each other? Let's look at the Roman Church. Read her confession of religion, compiled by the pope according to the decisions of the Council of Trent, printed in the very book of the French mentor you cited, and compare it with the confession of the ancient Ecumenical Church, that is, with the Nicene-Tsar City Creed. First, you find an ancient dogma pronounced with an important change of words, not only of the ancient Symbol, but also of the words of Jesus Christ Himself. “Qui ex patre filioque procedit”, that is, “who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” Secondly, you find dogmas and regulations, of which there was no trace in the ancient Symbol and which are newly defined, for example: Fateor, etiam, sub altera tantum specie, totum atque integrum Christum veruinque sacramentum sumi. That is: “I confess that under one of two forms the whole Jesus Christ and the true sacrament are received.” Indulgentiarum etiam potestatem a Christo in Ecclesia relictam fuisse, illarumque usum Christiano populo salutarem esse affirmo. That is: “I also affirm that the power of Indulgences (indulgences) from Christ has been left in the Church and that the use of them is salutary for the Christian people.” Romano Pontifici, beati Petri Apostolorum Principis successori, ac Jesu Christi vicario veram obedientiam spondeo ac juro. That is: “To the Roman High Priest, successor of Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ, I promise and swear true obedience.” Do you not see now that in the confession of the present Roman Church there are members who are determined by it without the general consent of the Universal Church? I. The Roman Church says that the new members of its confession are determined by it, as by the Universal Church, at the Ecumenical Councils. U. Since the Western Church with its patriarch, or, what is the same, the pope, separated from the Eastern Church and its patriarchs, Western Councils, which took place without the participation of the Eastern Church, and not approved by its consent, obviously do not have the fullness and dignity of Ecumenical Councils. The Council of Trent, on which, according to the Trent Symbol itself, the current Roman Church especially relies, is a private Council of this church, and not of the Universal Church. It is not even a complete Council of the Western Church, since at that time it was already fragmented again. I. The Western Church does not consider the Eastern Church to be a significant part of the former whole. W. This is a very good sign for the Eastern Church, that she, just as her only head, Jesus Christ, is the Stone who was carelessly built (Matthew 21:42), the closer she is to being at the forefront. I hope to prove to you in a few words that to neglect the Eastern half of Christianity as an insignificant part of it does not mean to judge the judgment of God. – Do you know what this disdain is based on? I. In the same book that gave rise to the present conversation, I read the following: “The general spiritual and external desolation (La désolation générale spirituelle et temporelle), to which the Easterners have been subject since the time of their schism, can be taken as proof that God has abandoned them.” W. Look what this proof is. - “General spiritual desolation,” where is it, show me? What does it consist of, explain to me? Is it in some Turkish areas? This is not the case in all of Eastern Christianity, not “universal”. Does it consist in the lack of education of some countries? But the so-called lack of enlightenment is not “spiritual desolation,” for living faith can and does dwell in people who are not educated by the wisdom of this age. – “General outward desolation” is again not true. In Greece, Eastern Christianity is in poverty, but in Russia it is prospering. Look, on the contrary, could not the French mentor’s weapon be turned against himself with greater force? Wouldn't it be more fair to say: “General spiritual desolation”, which is obviously proven by the birth, growth and dominance of anti-Christian unbelief and debauchery in the midst of Western Christianity, leading to a solemn and popular apostasy from Christ, and this was necessarily followed by the “general external desolation”, which was recently (stopped) by extraordinary outside help, but God knows how long it will be stopped - this May not the double desolation to which Western Christians have been subjected in the face of the Universe and posterity be taken as proof that the long-suffering God, who has been waiting for their reformation, has at last “abandoned” them, or at least, through such obvious punishment, threatens them with “abandonment”? Can I say one more thing: By the clear action of Providence, the accomplished election of Eastern Christians (Russians) as the main instrument for the deliverance of Western Christianity from the “general desolation of the spiritual and external” and for the restoration of the Western Church, humiliated and desecrated in its very high priest, and the solemn consecration of the capital desecrated by the apostasy, regicide, and internecine bloodshed, provided by Providence to the priesthood and Christians also of the Eastern Church - can’t all this be taken as proof that God has not abandoned the Eastern Church, but blesses it and is well pleased about it? And this Church is neglected as an insignificant part of Christianity! Remember here again the example I recently gave. When, after the death of Solomon, two kingdoms became from one people of God: Judah and Israel, the first consisted of only two, and the last of ten tribes. At this time, the Israelites correctly said about the Jews that they were an insignificant part of the people of God. But in the eyes of God, this insignificant part constituted the true people of God, in which lay the best hope of the ten apostate tribes themselves. I. I agree that for a zealous defender of the Western Church, the Eastern Church as a whole of Christian nations is not the same as there were some Christian sects in the ancient Universal Church. It has existed for a thousand years after its separation from the West and to this day persists, despite severe and prolonged oppression in the South and East, and in the North from time to time it spreads, establishes itself and prospers. This shows that even today she enjoys the special protection of Providence. U. Consequently, the Eastern Church is, by all considerations, an important part of the Christian world. U. Consequently, the Councils of the Western part of the Christian world, or the Roman Church, not recognized by the Eastern, are precisely private Councils, and not Ecumenical, and the members of the faith determined at them are determined without the general consent of the Ecumenical Church. I. It seems that we should agree to this too. D. Consequently, the Roman Church violated the law of unity adopted by the ancient Ecumenical Church, according to which “the common confession was to be determined from the word of God by the general consent of the Ecumenical Church.” W. Consequently, the Roman Church separated in its religion from the ancient Universal Church. I. For this it is necessary that the present Roman Church separates itself in its religion from the ancient Roman Church. U. But it seems impossible to you! I. Of course, it’s hard to imagine this. U. You can actually see this. Here's an example; in 809, when Pope Leo III was proposed to include the emerging opinion about the origin of the Holy Spirit and from the Son in the Creed, he, despite the fact that this proposal was made under the patronage of Emperor Charlemagne, not only did not agree to it, but also ordered the Symbol to be cut out on two silver boards, in Greek and Latin, without adding the word “and the Son”, and placed it on them the following inscription: Haec Leo posui, amore et cautela Orthodoxae religionis, i.e. “Leo arranged this out of love for the Orthodox faith and for its protection.” But this addition, which Leo III was so wary of, is solemnly recognized by the present Roman Church in the Tridentine Symbol. Isn’t it clear here that the present Roman Church has separated in this part of the confession from the ancient Roman Church? I. But is the deed of Leo III that you told true? U. Writers testify to him: Smaragd, who kept notes about the above-mentioned embassy to the pope, Anastasius the Librarian, Peter Abelyard, Peter Lombard, Peter Damianov. Photius mentions him. The newest writers of the Roman Church do not deny this either: Baronius, Bellarmine, Binius and the Jesuit Kikhovsky. If you want to check my words with them, you can find detailed instructions on them from Feofan Prokopovich in the book “Historia de Processione Spiritus Sancti” [“The Story of the Procession of the Holy Spirit”]. I. It is necessary to find out whether the present Eastern Church has not also separated from the ancient Ecumenical Church? U. Let's test it. And for this purpose, let us turn again to the law of unity that we found in the ancient Universal Church, according to which “the common confession had to be determined from the word of God by the general consent of the Universal Church.” The Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils soon noticed that achieving a general agreement of the Ecumenical Church in new research related to faith becomes more difficult from time to time, partly because of the vastness of the Church, partly because of the spreading influence of various types of men in the cause of God. Therefore, when at the first and second Ecumenical Councils a “sufficient common confession of religion” was compiled, preserved to this day under the name of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, the third Ecumenical Council, both to preserve the most precise agreement and unity with the Universal Church of previous times, and to prevent disagreements that could occur during new research related to faith, extracted from the universal law of unity the following rule, which is found in the Acts of this Council under the number 7. “The Holy Synod has determined that no one will be allowed to pronounce, or write, or compose any other faith (that is, another creed, or Symbol), other than that which was determined by the holy fathers about the Holy Spirit gathered in the city of Nicaea.” From that time on, the rules of each of the following Ecumenical Councils began, in different expressions, with similar provisions confirming the “inviolability of the common religion,” and not one of these Councils dared to make “additions to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol.” It is worthy of note that at the Council of Constantinople, which approved the restoration of Photius to the patriarchate, the ambassadors of Pope John VIII gave the following voice about the Symbol: “It is righteous, let no other religion be formed again (“οροζ” that is, other than the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol. I. Does the current Roman Church recognize this act? U. True, Roman writers try to free themselves from the evidence of this Council through various suspicions, but John VIII himself mentions this Council and names the ambassadors themselves in his letters. Joseph Bryennius, writing at the beginning of the tenth century, a native of Constantinople, says that at that time the signature of the Roman ambassadors under the acts of this Council was still kept; Zonar, Balsamon, Matthew Blastar and even Gratian give the rules of this Council. Fragments of his deeds were preserved by John Veccus, Patriarch of Constantinople, an adherent of the Roman Church. However, I mentioned this in order to show you the ancient opinion of the Christians of the Roman Church; for the Eastern Church, the testimony of this Council is not needed. In the Greek lists of his deeds, he is named and revered by many as the eighth Ecumenical, but since Western Christianity persists in recognizing him as such, the Eastern Church, while maintaining ecumenical consent, holds the sevenfold number of Ecumenical Councils, which the Western Church cannot reject. And therefore it is enough that they affirmed the “inviolability of the common religion,” or the Symbol. This inviolability of the Symbol is unshakably preserved to this day by the Eastern Church, just as in its church decree it maintains everything that was decreed by the seven Ecumenical Councils. Consequently, the present Eastern Church in its common confession and decree is one with the ancient Ecumenical Church. But as I showed above that the Roman Church separated in its religion from the ancient Universal Church, therefore, it would be fair to say that the Roman Church separated from the Eastern, and not the Eastern from the Roman, as the French mentor said. I. I see that by this transformation of one expression, the question of the separation of the Eastern Church from the true Church of Jesus Christ is completely destroyed. However, it seems to me that in the French writer’s discussion of this issue that I have proposed to you, there are subjects that deserve special study. U. We will continue this research. The French mentor continues: “It is certain that at that time the Greeks recognized the pope as the head of the Church. This is proven by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, which were powers in the East and at which the primacy of the pope was legally recognized.” In these words I find the following conclusion: “The primacy of the pope was recognized. Consequently, the pope was recognized as the head of the Church.” I. What do you think about this conclusion? W. It seems to me that the same conclusion can be used to prove the opposite of what the French mentor wanted to prove. “The primacy of the pope was recognized. Consequently, the pope was not recognized as the head of the Church.” I. But how can you prove that this conclusion is correct? U. It is correct as well as the following conclusion: The primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople is recognized in the Eastern Church. Consequently, the Patriarch of Constantinople is not recognized as the head of the Eastern Church. I. Again, I don’t see why you conclude so wrongly. U. Think for yourself, what do you mean by the word “primacy”? I. It seems that this word does not require explanation. U. For example, is there primacy between brothers? U. And between father and son? I. There must be something more here than primacy. U. And between a boss and a subordinate? I. And here there is some relationship other than primacy. U. What is the relationship between a boss and a subordinate called? I. The authorities, or power. U. Don’t you see now that primacy is assigned to one of those who have no power over each other? And from this comes the conclusion I suggested: The primacy of the pope was recognized. Consequently, they did not recognize the power of the pope over the entire Church, or, what is the same, they did not recognize the pope as the head of the Church. I. But the current Roman Church, calling the pope the head of the Church, really assigns him not only primacy over other bishops, but also power over the entire Church? W. You could see this from the dogmas of the Papal-Tridentine Symbol that I cited. It calls the pope “the vicar of Jesus Christ” and prescribes an “oath of obedience to the pope.” This is no longer a simple primacy, which the Eastern Patriarchs give to the Patriarch of Constantinople, but the advantage of power, and even “autocratic” power. I. So, perhaps, the French writer, under the name of primacy, meant the advantage of power over the entire Church? W. But why didn’t he say more clearly: “The power of the pope over the entire Church was recognized,” but only said: “The primacy of the pope was recognized”? Doesn't this mean that he only hoped to prove the latter point, and not the first? I. This should be seen from the continuation of his proof. W. In the continuation of his proof, he speaks only about primacy, but from this he again draws a conclusion about the power of the pope as the head of the Church. I. However, it is testified by seven Ecumenical Councils that at that time the Greeks recognized the pope as the head of the Church. W. He himself destroys this testimony when he says that at the seven Ecumenical Councils only the primacy of the pope was recognized, and not the power of the pope over the entire Church as its head. – But if you wish, and I bear witness to the seven Ecumenical Councils that at that time the Greeks did not recognize the pope as the head of the Church. It remains for you to listen to this testimony for yourself and judge on whose side justice is. The 6th rule of the First Ecumenical Council reads as follows: “Let the ancient customs that exist in Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis be maintained, so that the bishop of Alexandria has power over all of them: for this is customary for the bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and in other regions, let the churches maintain their elderships.” Here you see that the same power that the Bishop of Rome had is given to the Bishop of Alexandria and some other bishops; that this power is not given again to these bishops, but only ancient customs are confirmed by the Council; that according to these ancient customs, just as the Bishop of Alexandria had power over Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis, so the Bishop of Rome had power over some, and even then not many (Rust. Hist. eccl. L. 1 c. VI) Western churches, and by no means over the entire Church of the Ecumenical. Judge by this how far the first Ecumenical Council was from recognizing the pope as the head of the Church. The 3rd canon of the Second Ecumenical Council commands: “The bishop of Constantinople shall have the eldership of honor after the bishop of Rome: for there is a new Rome.” And here, if any advantage is supposed in the Roman bishop, then the only one is the first eldership of honor, and by no means the universal eldership of power. It should be noted, by the way, the basis of the rule now given. Why is the Bishop of Constantinople after the Bishop of Rome? - “For there is a new Rome.” If we turn the force of this reasoning to the Bishop of Rome, then we can say mutually, why is the Bishop of Rome before the Bishop of Constantinople? - “For there is ancient Rome.” This is the advantage that the Second Ecumenical Council gives the pope, and not the power of the head of the Church. The Third Ecumenical Council, confirming to the bishops of Cyprus, and on this occasion to other dioceses in general, the ancient rights of independence from outside bishops, and limiting the power of each Metropolitan to those areas to which it had anciently extended, expresses the following precaution: “Let not the rules of the Father be broken; let the pride of secular power not exceed, under the guise of sacred rites; and little by little, imperceptibly, we will not lose that freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, gave us with His blood” (rule 8). So, this Council did not recognize such autocracy as the Church of Rome now has in the Pope, but took precautions so that such would never appear. Between the rules of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, number 28 (27), is the following: “Following in all respects the definitions of the Holy Fathers and recognizing the now read rule of one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops (that is, the third rule of the second Ecumenical Council), we also determine and decree the same about the eldership of the most holy Church of Constantinople, new Rome. For to the throne of ancient Rome, for the sake of this reigning city, the fathers decently gave primacy. And out of the same respect, one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops granted equal seniority to the most holy see of new Rome, finding it right that the city, exalted by the presence of the king and the Synclite and enjoying equal seniority with ancient royal Rome, should also be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs, as if it were second in line." The first is that the Council recognizes the eldership of the Bishop of Rome for the sake of the reigning city of Rome, but not for the sake of the predominant power of the bishop himself, as the successor of Petrov, Christ's vicar and head of the Church, as the current venerators of the pope profess. The second is that the throne of new Rome, both this Council and, according to its explanation, the second Ecumenical Council, was granted equal seniority with the throne of ancient Rome. Thus, if the Bishop of Rome had primacy over the Bishop of Constantinople, it was only because it is impossible to be the first two, and not at all because he had any special power or higher rank. The Bishop of Constantinople was the same in Constantinople as the Bishop of Rome was in Rome. The Church of Constantinople depended as much on the Roman Church as the Roman Church depended on the Church of Constantinople. The same should be understood about the other Eastern Patriarchs, who were supposed to give only the eldership of the place at the Councils to the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople. The Trullo Council, called the fifth-sixth, because it was compiled in addition to the act of the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Councils, which did not issue church rules, and in itself has the dignity of an Ecumenical Council, because five Eastern Patriarchs were present at it and the act was signed, after the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Council and more than two hundred other bishops, with its 36th canon it renews the previous decrees on the thrones patriarchal as follows: “Renewing the decree of one hundred and fifty Holy Fathers gathered in this God-saved and Reigning City (of the second Ecumenical Council), and six hundred and thirty gathered in Chalcedon (of the fourth Ecumenical Council), we determine that the throne of Constantinople should enjoy equal seniority with the throne of ancient Rome, and also, like this one, be exalted in church affairs, being second over it. After Constantinople, let the throne of the great city of Alexandria be numbered, then Antioch, and after that Jerusalem.” In addition to this clear evidence of the ancient equality of the Eastern Patriarchs with the Patriarch, or Pope of Rome, from the acts of the Councils one can see that Ecumenical Councils were usually convened by the command and authority of emperors, and not popes; that the Patriarch of Constantinople in his letters called the pope “brother and co-servant,” and the pope also called the patriarch the same; that even the bishops of Italian churches signed themselves with the addition of only the words: “by the grace of God,” and not like the current ones: “by the grace of God and the Apostolic See”; that the fifth Ecumenical Council, at which Pope Vitilius, who was at that time in Constantinople itself, did not want to attend, making excuses either by illness or by the small number of Western bishops, carried out its work without his consent, so that the pope, although he later announced his opinion, disagreed with the decision of the Council, but again retreated from it; that the sixth Ecumenical Council, among other Monothelites, cursed Pope Honorius; that in the acts of this Council, both the Roman and Constantinople bishops are given the same honorary titles: His Beatitude Archbishop and Ecumenical, only Constantinople, according to the custom of the East, is called patriarch, and the Roman, according to the custom of the Western and Alexandrian archbishops, is called pope. Judging by these testimonies, how reliable is it that the Greeks recognized the pope as the head of the Church, and is this proven by the first seven Ecumenical Councils? I. However, the French writer was basing this on something. W. Perhaps because he understood the cathedral rules as he wished, and not as they say for an impartial person. However, I truly do not find any other universal rules that could be cited in favor of the French mentor, and the continuation of his proof shows that he was also based on the same ones that I have given so far. The 3rd and 5th rules of the Sardician Council, by which Julius, the Bishop of Rome, is authorized to order a review of the case of the deposition of bishops, could serve in favor of his opinion, but it should be noted: The first is that although there was an intention for the Sardician Council to be Ecumenical, but since at its very beginning the Eastern bishops separated from the Western and were not present at it, it was only a private or local Council, for which it was always recognized as the Eastern Church. Secondly, these rules were not known for a long time either in the Eastern or even in the African churches belonging to the Western; and therefore were not acted upon; and the fourth rule of Sardica during the time of Pope Zosima, with an obvious forgery from the archives of Rome, was presented to the African bishops for the Ecumenical Nicene rule, which forgery was exposed by the Council of Carthage in its letters to Popes Boniface and Celestine. Third, that the Sardician rules, as the rules of the private Western Church, give the pope the right only over the bishops of the Western Church, just as the same right is granted by the 9th and 17th rules of the Fourth Ecumenical Council to the Patriarch of Constantinople over the Eastern bishops and metropolitans belonging to his patriarchate. I. Let's see what else you will find in the continuation of the reasoning of the French writer. W. He says further: “Photius himself, who sowed the first seeds of division, did not contradict this (that is, the primacy of the pope.” Here we must first consider this statement: “Photius sowed the first seeds of division.” I. It seems that this position is both clear and true. U. Not entirely true for me. U. Since you can also ask whether it is some opposition that arouses me against any opinion of Western writers, here, instead of my own, I present to you the opinion of a Western writer. In the book Dictionaire raisonė du gouvernement, des Lois, des usages, et de la discipline de l Eglise par Antoine – Etienne – Nicolas Des Odoarda Fantit, Vicaire-Gėnèral dº Embrum, that is, “Explanatory Dictionary of Government, Laws, Customs and Church Discipline” under the word “Constantinople” you can read word by word the following translated by me opinion: “It seems that the title of Ecumenical Patriarch, which was adopted by the bishops of Constantinople, is the true beginning of the Greek schism, which opened in the ninth century during the patriarchate of Photius.” The truly first seed of division was the name Ecumenical, which, since the time of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, emperors, councils and clergy began to apply to the names of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople. The Council of Constantinople in 536, in whose acts the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch was used many times, was accepted and approved by the Roman Church. But when later the same name was attributed to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, Pope Gregory the Great very strongly rebelled against this name and called it “anti-Christian” (Ep. Liber IV; Ep. XXXII. XXXIV. LVI. Ep. IV. XXIV. XXX. XXXVI. XXXVIII). However, the Patriarchs of Constantinople, firstly, until the eighth century did not write themselves as Ecumenical, but only did not forbid others to do this; secondly, they accepted the title of Ecumenical only as an honorific, just as some in the East were credited with the title of Ecumenical Teacher, but did not connect it with the concept of universal power; thirdly, they attributed the same honorary title to the Roman bishops. But since 606, this “anti-Christian”, in the words of Pope Gregory, name, with Pope Boniface III, sat on the Roman throne so firmly that subsequent popes, as far as circumstances allowed, tried in every possible way, firstly, to appropriate this name to themselves alone, and secondly, to unite world power with it. (!!!) The incident that Boniface so exalted was the following. Phocas, who reached the imperial throne of Constantinople by murdering the Emperor Mauritius, also wanted to kill his widow and three daughters. According to ancient custom, they sought safety in the church. The emperor wanted to take them from there, but Patriarch Kyriakos opposed this. “On this occasion,” says the Roman writer (Binius in not. Ad uitam Bon. III), “Phocas began to be hostile to Cyriacus and began to favor the Roman Church. Boniface, having learned about this, took advantage of his hatred of Kiriak.” “Boniface,” says another Roman writer (Baronius ad an. 606), “living in Constantinople until the death of Gregory, gained the favor of Phocas and acquired his friendship: for this reason, and also “out of hatred of Cyriacus,” the emperor “at the request,” says again the Western writer (Paulus Uarnefridi de gestis Longobard. L. IV. C. XXIII.) “Pope Boniface determined that the throne of the Roman Apostolic Church should be the head of all churches.” From time to time, the popes respected the Eastern Church and the Ecumenical Councils themselves less, and without respecting the ancient rules, they introduced news after news. The Council of Trullo in many of its rules clearly denounces the Roman Church. For example, Rule 13 of this Council begins like this: “Since we have learned that in the Roman Church it is accepted as a rule that those who have been ordained as a deacon or presbyter must undertake not to touch their wives any more, then, following the ancient rule of Apostolic consideration and deanery (that is, the 51st Apostolic Canon), we wish that the legal cohabitation of priestly persons will be firm from now on.” Also, canon 55 reads as follows: “Since we have learned that those in the city of Rome during the fasts of the Holy Pentecost fast on Saturdays on Saturdays contrary to the faithful adherence to the church, the Holy Synod deigns that this too may be inviolably contained in the rule (Apostolic 64), which says: “If the cleric is found, fast on the Holy Day of the Lord or on Saturday, except one only; let it erupt; If he is a layman, let him leave.” But despite the fact that these rules, as I said before, were approved by the five patriarchs and ambassadors of the Pope and the Roman Council, the Roman Church did not submit to them and does not submit to this day. So, the Trullo Council saw the “seeds of division” sown by Phocas and Boniface already vegetating. Now let's see what Photius did, or better, what happened to him? The French writer I recently cited (Dict. Rais. Photius - “Explanatory Dictionary ...", article “Photius”) says the following about him: “He was of high breed and deep knowledge. His dignity was the reason that in 857 (858), being a layman, he was elected successor to Ignatius, Patriarch of Constantinople, whom Emperor Michael expelled, but who was not considered to have been properly deposed. Photius passed through all the ecclesiastical degrees in six days: on the first day he was made a monk, on the second a reader, on the third a subdeacon, on the fourth a deacon, on the fifth a presbyter, and on the sixth he was ordained Patriarch of Constantinople. Soon after his accession to the patriarchal throne, he presided over the Council at which Ignatius was deposed.” Subsequently, the popes considered the ordination of Photius illegal, however, it could be justified by the examples of Nektarios, Tarasius (and Nikephoros) of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Saint Ambrose of Milan. It was declared legal in 861 at a Council of more than three hundred bishops, among whom the ambassadors of Pope Nicholas I took precedence. Ignatius was again deposed.” Let us supplement this testimony of the Western writer with some circumstances that require special attention. Photius, being one of the first officials of the state πρωτοασηκρήτης, had no need to seek the patriarchate of Constantinople, but, foreseeing his misfortunes in this dignity, wrote to Pope Nicholas I (Er. III, VI), that he would rather die than the patriarchate. – Ignatius, even before the election of Photius, signed his abdication of the throne. - Photius began the Council deposition of Ignatius because the adherents of this latter, having gathered in the church of Irene, wanted to depose the innocent Photius. – But even after the first Council, yielding to the adherents of Ignatius, Photius was ready to shake off the dust of his persecutors and leave the throne (Er. III, VI, VIII), if he had been allowed to do so. - At the second Council, how Ignatius, having been brought to Constantinople, was not found to have the right to return to the throne; and Photius was heard and found innocent of anything, and the Roman ambassadors signed this act. This Council is called Ecumenical: Gemist, Briennius, Balsamon, Zonar, Aristen, Nil of Thessaloniki, Nil Metropolitan of Rhodes, Matthew Blastar, Macarius of Ancyra and others. But Pope Nicholas did not recognize the decision of this Council about Patriarch Photius and forced Roman writers to complain to this day, some about the oppression of the papal ambassadors, and others about the oration of Photius (Dict. rais. Photius. Elėmens de l’ histoire Ecclėsiastique par l’ auteur du nouveau dictionaire des Hommes illust res. 1782, p. 172.). Ignatius, deposed from the throne in Constantinople by the Council verdict, was mentally elevated to the throne in Rome. Photius, who personally proved his innocence before the Council of Constantinople, was condemned in absentia at the Council of Rome in 863. The very ambassadors of the pope were subjected to his wrath for signing such a solution to the matter as was revealed by the Council's research, and not throwing the Council of Constantinople and the patriarch at the feet of the patriarch of another church. The emperor denounced this pride of the pope in a letter. But the pope became even more enterprising and, with an insulting letter to the emperor (Er. VIII), ordered to send Ignatius and Photius to Rome. In 886, Pope Nicholas sent his bishops to Bulgaria, newly enlightened by Christianity, attempting to tear it away from the Patriarchal throne of Constantinople and subjugate it to himself. It belonged to the throne of Constantinople, firstly, because it belonged to the regions of the Eastern Empire, and indeed it was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, according to the law of Theodosius and by its location itself; secondly, because the Bulgarian Tsar Michael was recently baptized in Constantinople; thirdly, because the country, inhabited at that time by the Bulgarians, had previously had Greek priests. To this ancient heritage of the Eastern Church, Western mentors brought with them both new power and new teaching, such as: about the origin of the Holy Spirit, about the invalidity of the anointing performed by priests, about the celibacy of priests. (!!!) What could Photius do under these circumstances? - Or, contrary to the 8th rule of the Third Ecumenical Council, together with oneself, enslave the hitherto independent Constantinople, or, better to say, the entire Eastern Church, to the unlimited love of power of the pope, and at the same time subject it to the necessary influence of opinions and customs, which from day to day deviated more from the ancient rules of the Roman Church; or to counter the unjust claims with firmness, and, in the impossibility of maintaining peace any longer, to expose all the innovations and unrighteous claims that were hitherto covered by patience, but at this time, both in the pope himself and in the bishops sent from him to Bulgaria in the most seductive way. The former, perhaps, would have been chosen by the mercenary, but the shepherd should have decided on the latter. And Photius fulfilled this with a district letter to the patriarchs, a Council and a book signed by a thousand Eastern bishops. What was dad to do? It was necessary to overthrow the accuser and then divide his patriarchy. The opportunity for this soon opened up. In 867, Emperor Michael was killed by his adopted son, Vasily, and this regicide and parricide ascended the throne. Photius did not admit him to Holy Communion (Sym. Log. in Bas. n. v. Zonar. ann. t. 111. Georg. Mon. Georg. Hamart. apud Leon. Allat. de synodo Photiana c. XII). The Emperor, not wanting to humiliate himself with the repentance demanded by the Patriarch, expelled him, restored Ignatius, who had been deposed by the Council, and, in order to decorate this violent matter, asked the Pope to cover it with a Council. At this time, Adrian II was on the papal throne after the death of Nicholas. He sent ambassadors to Constantinople, and under their chairmanship a Council of 102 bishops opened in 869, which the Roman Church reveres as the “eighth Ecumenical Council.” The enmity of the emperor, the pope, and the adherents of the Ignatius united in this Council against Photius. He was brought before the Council not before the fifth meeting. Having testified against violence, he decided to remain silent, defending this determination by the example of the Savior. At the seventh meeting, Photius was deposed, cursed, and, as the hostile writer Nikita testifies (T. VIII. conc.), his deposition was signed not with simple ink, but - a terrible thing! - with a feather dipped in the very Blood of the Savior. In addition to cruel imprisonment, enmity invented the most severe torment for the sage - he was deprived of his books. What this Council was like can be judged, by the way, by its 21 rules, by which even the Ecumenical Council is prohibited from accusing or judging the “Holy Pope of Elder Rome” or the “Holy Roman Church". What was to be done, according to this rule, for example, with Pope Liberius, who, having joined the Semi-Arians, signed their confession and condemned Saint Athanasius? According to this rule, Pope Honorius was not the Sixth Ecumenical Council should have judged and condemned for the Monothelite heresy! The more they gave in to the popes, the more they demanded. John VIII, having decided, at all costs, to carry out the ecclesiastical conquest of Bulgaria, threatened Ignatius himself with a curse if he did not bring the Greek priests out of it within thirty days (Er. LXXVIII). But Ignatius accelerated from the papal court to the court of God. Then the emperor, partly irritated by the violent actions of the pope, partly remembering the virtues and merits of Photius, as testified by Leo the Grammar, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Zonar and others, returned him to the patriarchal throne. According to the letters of Basil, Photius and other Easterners, John VIII sent his ambassadors to Constantinople, authorizing them to restore Photius, the “Holy Patriarch, brother and co-servant” of the pope, to reconcile the Easterners with the Roman Church, to destroy the Council that deposed Photius and, finally, the pope did not forget his main subject! - “insist on the concession of Bulgaria to the Roman Throne.” Thus, in 879, 383 bishops, including the ambassadors of Rome and all the Eastern Patriarchs, formed a Council in Constantinople, which many Eastern writers recognize as the “eighth Ecumenical”. This Council, having destroyed the actions of the previous one, approved the restoration of Photius, recognized the “inviolability of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol” under pain of curse and thus did not allow the addition of the word denounced by Photius: “and the Son”; He determined by his 1st rule that “those bound by John should be bound by Photius, and those bound by Photius should be bound by John, without any innovation regarding the seniority of the pope and the Church of Rome,” therefore, he recognized the independence and equality of both thrones and both Churches. And the matter of Bulgaria, like the matter of the borders of the Eastern Empire, was left to the emperor. We can say that here Photius, together with the Council, trampled and suppressed the already growing thorns of discord. (!!!) But the throne of Rome, having not received two coveted things: the eldership of the Ecumenical power and Bulgaria, was moved by new anger and armed itself with new curses against the East. Photius, due to the harassment of the popes, was again dethroned from the throne by Emperor Leo, and died in captivity in a monastery, achieved the last of the nine beatitudes counted by the Savior: blessedness of course, when they revile you, and destroy you, and say all kinds of evil verbs, against you who lie to Me for the sake of (Matthew 5:11). However, thanks to the enlightenment of Eastern Christians in faith and firmness in the ancient rules of the Church! They did not look at papal curses the same way as the Western peoples, when the episcopal throne conquered the royal thrones with the weapon of curses. I will conclude this story again with the testimony of the French writer I cited earlier (in the dictionary under the word “Photius”): “The Pope demanded at the Council that restored Photius that Bulgaria be subordinated to the Patriarchate of Rome. Having not received satisfaction in this demand, and having learned that Photius had installed metropolitans in this country and sent them a mantle, he no longer remained within the limits of moderation. He expelled the ambassadors who were at the Council of Constantinople, canceled everything that was done at this Council, and excommunicated Photius, who, for his part, again separated from the Church of Rome.” This is what the spiritual man of the Western Church says about the division of the Eastern and Western Churches! Judging by this evidence, was it not love of power alone that forced the pope to despise the lawful Council, curse the Patriarch of Constantinople, who had done nothing to offend the faith, and thereby commit a division of the Churches? I say “commit” because after this there were only times of silence, but the times of unanimity are over. If you want to know a few more details about Photius and the division of the Churches, then read the work of Elijah Miniatius, “The Stone of Temptation.” I. What can you say about another position of the French writer we are considering, relating to Photius, that is, that, in his opinion, Photius did not dispute the primacy of the pope? W. And I will not dispute the fact that Photius gave the pope the primacy of place and honor, but the “eldership of the Ecumenical power” was only for a moment in Constantinople attributed to the pope by the accomplices of Ignatius and the persecutors of Photius. I. Continue your comments on the reasoning of the French writer. “At the Ecumenical Councils of Lyons and Florence, at which the reunification of the two Churches was discussed, this truth (that is, the primacy of the pope) was recognized by the Greeks.” Here I ask: why does the French mentor mention these two Ecumenical Councils, in his opinion, when the Roman Church numbers them from eleven to fourteen according to its division from the Eastern? I. Of course, because on these two there were also Eastern Christians. W. So, he admits that the testimony of those Councils at which Eastern Christians were present is more important than others, and more important not only for the Eastern, but also for the Western, for whom he writes? I. This must be admitted. W. Note here in passing how fair, according to the involuntary admission of the French mentor himself, what I said before is that the Councils of Trent and similar Councils do not have the dignity of Ecumenical Councils. I. What about Lyons and Florence? W. Having examined some of the circumstances of these Councils, you will find that these too do not have universal dignity. The Lyons Council was attended by: from the Western Church - Pope Gregory X, King of Aragon, grand masters of the Knights of the Church and Hospitality, ambassadors of France, England, Germany, Sicily and other states, from 400 to 500 bishops, a thousand lower ranks of the clergy; on the contrary, from the side of the Eastern Church - Herman, the former patriarch, Theophan of Nicaea and George Acropolis, the Great Logothet, with several silent clergy. What kind of equality? What kind of freedom? I. But why were there so few Eastern ones? W. Because Emperor Michael Palaiologos did not have in mind the Conciliar search for truth and the legal reconciliation of the Churches, but only sought protection for himself in the pope; firstly, from the hatred of his subjects, whom he irritated by taking away the sight of the rightful heir to the imperial throne and overthrowing Patriarch Arseny, who exposed this atrocity. Secondly, from Western weapons. I. What was the consequence of this Council in relation to Eastern Christians? U. The unfortunate instruments of unclean politics signed the imaginary union of the Churches, but the Greeks agreed so little to this that for this, according to the testimony of Pachymer, the emperor himself was not honored with burial as a traitor to the Church. I. What, however, were the conditions for this connection? W. Will you believe it? – The Pope firmly insisted on his dogma about the Pope, but in the dogma about the Holy Spirit he was less demanding. Herman is allowed at the Council itself to read the Greek Symbol without adding the words “and the Son” (Dict. rais. Lyon - Explanatory Dictionary. “Lyon”). I. What can you say about the Florence Cathedral? W. It is impossible to say about him better than what the creator of this Council himself, Pope Eugene IV, said. U. Having heard that Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus, a special zealot for Orthodoxy at this Council, did not sign the decree on the union of the Churches, the pope said: “That’s why we did nothing!” I. But what does one person mean? U. A lot. Because he was a true trustee of the Greek Church. The Greek emperor was not looking for the spiritual good of the Church, but for help against the Turks; Isidore, Metropolitan of Kiev, and Vissarion, Archbishop of Nicaea, were not looking for the benefit of the Church, but for cardinal decorations, which they later received; The Patriarch of Constantinople died during the continuation of the Council. Others were forced to sign the union by threats and hunger; others signed without knowing what. I. How did the Eastern Church receive this Council? W. Exactly as dad foresaw. In Constantinople, no one wanted to communicate with those who joined the Latins. Isidore was expelled from Kyiv and sentenced to burning in Moscow; he fled to Constantinople and, after the third failure here, to Rome. In Jerusalem, the Council of the Three Patriarchs rejected the Florentine union, condemned the Latinizing Patriarch of Constantinople, Mitrofan, and demanded repentance from the emperor himself. Another Council, which was held in Constantinople under the command of four patriarchs, again examined what was happening in Florence and rejected everything, also deposing the Latin Patriarch Gregory of Constantinople. Witnesses of these incidents: eyewitness of the Florence Council Sylvester, Siropul, Laonik Chalkokondil, George Faranza, Gennady of Constantinople, George Gemist, Allatiy and others. In Russian you can read about this in the book “On Union”. I. Let us read further the reasoning of the French writer. W. He continues: “The Church of Constantinople never demanded more than that it should be the second Rome and have first place in it.” I. I don’t see anything important in these words; I saw from the Council Rules you cited that the Roman Patriarch was given the primacy of the place. U. Let us read further: “It is also certain that the Church of Constantinople received second place already at the fourth, or not earlier than at the second Ecumenical Council, which did not happen without resistance.” Do you notice here either the cunning or the imprudence of the writer? W. At the beginning of this discussion he began to talk about the “Greeks” and in conclusion he will talk about the “Eastern Christians” and here he speaks about the “Church of Constantinople.” I. What is the difference in these names? U. To conclude from the Church of Constantinople to the entire Greek, or better yet to the entire Eastern, means - to put it in academic language - to conclude from a part to the whole. I. He, of course, assumes that if the most important of the Eastern Churches, the Constantinople, was inferior to the Roman, then the other Eastern Churches were equally inferior. W. This is where the deception lies. The Church of Constantinople, he says, received second place no earlier than at the Second Ecumenical Council, so what of that? – First of all, the Alexandrian and Antiochian Churches, also the Eastern ones, were equal to the Roman Church, as I showed from the 6th canon of the first Ecumenical Council. If necessary, I will again contrast a Western writer with a Western one, this is what he writes (Dict. rais. Constantinople - Explanatory Dictionary, the word “Constantinople”): “Until then (until Constantinople rose), the three famous Churches were recognized as supreme over all others and dominated the three parts of the then known world. These three Churches were: Roman in the West, Alexandria in the South and Antioch in the East. However, not all of Europe recognized the Bishop of Rome as a patriarch, not all of Africa was subordinate to the Bishop of Alexandria, and not all of Asia was subordinate to the Bishop of Antioch. The Bishop of Rome, as patriarch, extended his power only to neighboring regions.” I. Let's see what follows from our French writer: “So, then it could rightly be said that the pope was the visible head of the church.” U. Look, what is the conclusion here? “The Church of Constantinople had second place. Therefore, the pope was the head of the church.” I. You have already examined almost the same conclusion. Let's see what happens next: "Rome was the center of unity, as Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, a Greek by birth, who lived in the second century, says." W. Before we consider the very opinion of Irenaeus, let me ask why the French writer, speaking about him, noticed this circumstance: “he was a Greek by birth”? I. Without a doubt, for the fact that the testimony of a Greek against the Greeks should be all the stronger. W. But I am surprised that he did not notice that this circumstance is destroyed by another circumstance, which he also mentioned - “the Bishop of Lyons.” The Lyons, or generally the Gallican Church, due to the circumstances of the place and the people, from ancient times belonged to the Western Church, which is why Irenaeus had to speak about the Roman Church not as a “Greek,” that is, an outsider, but as a Latin, that is, belonging to the Roman Church. I. I would like, however, to hear the exact words of Irenaeus. W. The place where the French writer establishes himself is indicated by himself in the essay “On Heresies,” in Book III, Chapter III. Here are the words of Irenaeus: “Every church, that is, faithful people existing everywhere, must turn for the sake of primary primacy (propter potentiorem principalitatem) (διὰ τό ἐξαιρέτον πρωτεῖον) to this church (that is, as the writer says a little higher, to the church from the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul, founded and established in Rome), in which the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by Christians everywhere.” I. What, in your opinion, does the “predominant primacy” of the Roman Church mean here? U. What is my opinion here? You have already heard about this the judgment of the Ecumenical Church, in the 28th rule of the Fourth Ecumenical Council that I cited, which says: “To the throne of ancient Rome, for the sake of this reigning city, the fathers decently gave primacy.” In the time of Irenaeus, when there was no new Rome, another reigning city, the church of ancient Rome, as a reigning city, of course, had primary primacy, and especially in the opinion of the smaller Western churches. I. How do you understand that, according to Irenaeus, every church should turn to the Roman Church? W. He pointed out in the Roman Church, firstly, its primacy as the church of the reigning city, and secondly, the preservation of the apostolic tradition; Therefore, it is not surprising that it requires special attention from the faithful of its time. However, I still doubt whether it is in vain that I agree with the latest Western writers to understand the quoted words of Irenaeus about the Roman Church. I read in Latin: "Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est eos, gui sunt undigue fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conversata est ea, quae est ab Apostolis, traditio." These words can not only be accepted in the mind as I spoke them before, but can also be translated as follows: “Every Church, and the faithful everywhere, for the sake of primary primacy, must turn to that church in which the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by universal Christians.” This understanding of Irenaeus’ words is justified by the fact that the apostolic tradition was preserved in more than one church in Rome. And, in his own words, he limits himself, speaking about tradition, to the Roman Church only because it would be long to calculate the succession of bishops across all churches. I. I cannot enter into these scientific proceedings without having the means and time. U. You can offer my opinions to knowledgeable people for consideration, just choose impartial ones for this. I. It seems that you said that, according to Irenaeus, whose testimony is now being discussed, “The Roman Church was founded and established by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul.” W. He definitely says this. I. There is something wonderful in this for me. I. The greatness of the Roman High Priest, as I saw from the member of the Trentian Symbol you cited, is affirmed in the fact that this high priest is “the Successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.” I. But from the words of Irenaeus I see: Firstly, that he calls Peter and Paul together and equally the most glorious apostles, just as the Eastern Church to this day calls them both supreme. Where is the Prince of the Apostles now? Secondly, that the Roman Church was founded by Peter and Paul together. Why is now the Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter, and not Paul, or Peter and Paul together? W. You made such remarks to which a zealot of the Western Church would respond, I don’t know. And I will point you again to the testimony of the now disputable writer. Immediately after the words indicated to us by the French mentor, Irenaeus has the following: “The blessed apostles, founding and establishing the Church, entrusted (ἐνεχείρισαν) the bishopric of the administration of the Church to Lin. Paul mentions this line in his letter to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus. According to him, the third from the apostles, Clement, receives the bishopric.” Now I ask Irenaeus, was the first Bishop of Rome, Linus, the successor of the Apostle Peter? “No,” he answers, Anacletus was the successor of Linus, and Linus was not the successor of Peter, for, firstly, it was not Peter who left Linus the bishopric after his death, but Peter and Paul gave it to him during their lifetime. Secondly, they entrusted him with the bishopric by authority, and did not leave him by succession. Thirdly, Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome, but Linus, the second was Anacletus, the third from the Apostles was Clement. If Lin is not a successor, but only Peter’s appointee, then even less can Lin’s successors be considered the successors of Peter. We can also respond to the French mentor with the testimony of a Latin writer about the importance of the Roman throne. Jerome in a letter to Evagrius says: “If we talk about importance (auctoritas), then the world is greater than Rome. Wherever the bishop is, whether in Rome, or on the Don, or in Evgubin, he has the same dignity, the same priesthood. The splendor of wealth and the humility of poverty do not make a bishop either superior or inferior. Why are you offering me the custom of the hail? Why do you say that there are only a few of them? This rarity has produced pride.” Let us also add the Conciliar testimonies of the Latin Church on the same subject. The Council of Carthage says: “Let the bishop of the first throne not be called the head of priests (princeps sacerodo tum), or the high priest, or anything similar to this, but only the bishop of the first throne” (III Carthag. can. 26. ap. Beur. 42. according to the Slavic Helmsman 39). “Whoever wants to transfer cases to the courts overseas (that is, to the Roman throne), will not be accepted into communion by anyone in Africa” (Ap. Beur. can. 31. according to the Slavic Helmsman 26). How clearly the present Roman Church contradicts these rules, calling the Bishop of Rome the Vicar of Christ, and considering the Roman Throne to be the universal supreme court of ecclesiastical affairs. I. It seems to me, however, that somewhere there had to be a focus of church unity. D. It has always been and is in the Spirit of Christ. Thus, the apostle commands to maintain the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body,” he continues, “one spirit, just as you were quickly called in the one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism; There is one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:3–6). If some other focus of church unity is needed, then why did the apostle not add here: “there is one Prince of the Apostles, Peter” and “one bishop of Rome, the head of all bishops”? I. Let's see what else remains from the reasoning of the French writer. W. What remains are the conclusions he draws from his previous provisions, which he considers undeniable, but whose unfoundedness, I hope, you have seen from the present conversation. French teacher says: “If the Church, which recognized the Pope as the visible head, was unquestioningly the true Church during the first eight centuries, then it will always be so; for at this point change can never happen in the Church.” The first proposition of this conclusion: “The Church, which recognized the pope as its visible head, was the true Church during the first eight centuries,” I dare to call false, for the canons of the Councils cited by Me and the testimonies of writers clearly show that the Universal Church of the first eight centuries of Christianity did not recognize the pope as its visible head. But along with the false beginning, all the consequences that they want to derive from it also fall by themselves. So, it seems to me that I now have a firm right to turn the reasoning of the French writer on my side, as follows: If the Church, which did not recognize the pope as the visible head, was unquestioningly the true Church during the first eight centuries, then it will always be so, for in this point change can never happen in the Church. But I must not hide from you that the writer’s last position seems suspicious to me. W. “At this point,” he says, “change can never happen in the Church.” It seems that he wanted to say that the Church, which was true, cannot but always be so. I. What then? And didn’t the Savior Himself say that the gates of hell would not prevail against her? (Matthew 16:18). U. Yes! But the Savior did not say that “the gates of hell will not prevail against the Roman Church,” but only said: I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And the French mentor, if I am not deceived, wanted to say that if the Roman Church was once recognized as true, then it should always be recognized as such. I. And it is truly difficult to imagine that the first of the churches would waver. U. The primacy of human honor is not protection from temptations and the fall itself. I. If so, then you can be afraid, lest all the churches fall one after another. W. From this fear, the Savior’s word about the Universal Church should reassure us: the gates of hell will not prevail against it. Private churches can fluctuate and fall. In the Apocalypse (1:20) they are likened to lamps, in which not only can the light of truth and the oil of love become scarce, but which can even be moved from their place (Apoc. 2:5), that is, sensually and completely overthrown. But while some of them go out and fall, the One who walks in the midst of the seven golden lamps (Apoc. 2:1) carries them from one country to another and kindles them again brighter than before. Thus, any particular church can not only be shaken, but also destroyed, but the Universal Church can never be overcome by any evil force. I. What state do you think the lamp of the Roman Church is in now? W. The Walker among the seven golden lamps sees and knows this. Even in the Thyatira church, which knows deeds, love, service, faith, and patience, and the latter is greater than the former, he finds, however, something worthy of reproach: the imam has little for you (Apoc. 11:19:20). On the contrary, in Sardis, in name only alive, but in deed dead, they acquire even few names, even without desecrating their garments, and they walk in white, as if they are worthy (Apoc. 3:1:4). It is enough for me that in the lamp of the Eastern Church I find pure light that can enlighten my darkness. I. However, by justifying the Eastern Church, you thereby condemn the Western Church. U. I just don’t bother with those special opinions that, upon further research, I find unproven or completely false. But since I do not know how many of the Western Christians are deeply imbued with these special opinions found in the Western Church, and which of them firmly adhere to the faith of the “cornerstone” of the Universal Church, Christ, then the fair respect I have expressed for the teaching of the Eastern Church does not in any way extend to the judgment and condemnation of Western Christians and the Western Church. According to the very laws of the Church, I hand over the private Western Church to the court of the Universal Church, and Christian souls to the court, or rather to the mercy of God. Faith and love excite me to zeal for the holy Eastern Church; love, humility and hope teach tolerance towards those of different opinions. I think that in this I will follow exactly the spirit of the Eastern Church, which at the very beginning of each Divine service prays not only “for the well-being of God’s holy churches,” but also “for the unity of all.” I. But we have already lost sight of the French accuser. W. He has nothing more to see except condemnation of the Eastern Church. “Consequently,” he says, “to separate from the Church, which recognized the pope as its head, means to separate from the true Church of Jesus Christ, means to be a schismatic. Consequently, the Eastern ones, who separated from it, are schismatics.” I. What do you finally say to this? W. After what I said in relation to the evidence of these conclusions, I no longer have the need to say anything about these very conclusions. May the Head of the Church, our Lord Jesus Christ, enable us to “achieve the unity of faith” and lead everyone into that glorious Church in which they do not suspect each other of schism. I. Although we have already talked a lot about the Bishop of Rome, considered as the visible head of the Church, I still have to offer you some perplexities and questions about this. W. I am ready to say that I know and find it fair. I. The Roman Church thinks that the doctrine of the visible head of the Church comes from Jesus Christ Himself. U. Show me the foundations of this teaching. I. They say that Jesus Christ made Peter Prince of the Apostles and, together with his successors, His vicar and visible head of the Church; the successor to this dignity of Petrov is the Bishop of Rome. U. Let's consider both of these provisions. How do they prove that Jesus Christ made Peter “Prince of the Apostles,” his “vicar” and “visible head of the Church”? I. The main proof of this dogma is found in the following words of Jesus Christ: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and if you bind it on earth, it will be bound in heaven, and if you loose it on earth, it will be loosed in heaven (Matthew 16:18:19). W. The same thing was said to all the apostles. W. If you bind the tree on earth, it will be bound in heaven: and if you loose the tree on earth, it will be loosed on earth (Matthew 18:18). I. However, it is not said that on all the apostles, as on the foundation stones, the Church of Christ will be built. W. Not true. This was also said about all the apostles, and also about the prophets. Created on the foundation of the apostle and prophet (Eph. 2:20). The wall of the city of Jerusalem coming down from heaven had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb (Apoc. 21:10:14). I. But Peter is the first foundation stone for the other apostles. W. And this is not true. The first foundation stone of both the apostles and the entire Church is one Jesus Christ. I am the cornerstone of Jesus Christ Himself (Eph. 2:20). For no one can lay any other foundation than he who lies down, who is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). I. Why is it especially said to Peter: You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church? U. In order to answer the question proposed to the apostles by Jesus Christ: Who do you say Me to be? – Peter forestalled others with a decisive confession of the Son of God. You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:15:16). I. How, in your opinion, should we understand the words: on this rock I will build My Church? W. Augustine (Serm. 13. de verb. et retract. L. 1. p. 21.) explains them as follows: “You are Peter,” says Christ, “and on this stone which you confessed; on this stone, which you knew, confessing: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build My Church.” On Me I will build you, not on you I will build Me (that is, My body, My Church). For those who wanted to edify men on the basis of men said: I am Paul, and I am Cephas (that is, Petrov; 1 Cor. 1:12). From this reasoning of Blessed Augustine you see: The first is that the rock on which the Church is built is not Peter the Apostle, but Peter’s firm confession of Christ and Christ Himself. Secondly, those who say: I am Kifin, or Petrov, that is, “I primarily belong to Peter; I recognize Peter as the head of all teachers and the Church itself,” according to St. Augustine, they want to “edify men on the basis of men.” And this is what today's Roman Christians want! I. They also cite the following words of Jesus Christ to Peter as proof of their dogma: I have prayed for you, so that your faith may not fail; W. Jesus Christ, in prayer for all the apostles and all those who believe in Him, asked for incomparably more than what Peter asks here. W. In that wondrous prayer that is found in the 17th chapter of the Evangelist John, He cries out there: Holy Father! Keep them in Your name, that they may be one, as We are. Father! You gave them to Me, I want them, so that where I am, they too will be with Me. I. But why did Jesus Christ, of all the apostles, especially pray for Peter? W. Because he foresaw the special fall of Peter. I. However, he said to Peter: You have turned and strengthened your brethren. U. That is: “You will waver in your faith and fall; however, you will again turn to her and rebel; then try to make amends for your sins and with ardent repentance, zeal, and unshakable confession of the truth, show a saving example to others who waver in the faith.” I. Roman Christians also use in defense of their dogma the threefold commandment of Jesus Christ, according to the threefold question: do you love Me? given to Peter: feed (more precisely from the Greek, “nourish”) my lambs, feed my sheep; - feed (feed) My sheep (John 21:15:17). W. You yourself say that these words contain a commandment. And just like that: a commandment, not an honor; and not so much power as position. And this is the position that the word of God assigns to all ministers of faith: Shepherd the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2). I. But the commandment given to Peter has some special solemnity and significance. I. The solemnity of this commandment is evident from the question that preceded it about the priority of love for Jesus Christ over the other apostles and the threefold repetition of both this question and the commandment itself. W. I don’t dare tell you my opinion about what this solemnity meant, but I will tell you how Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Cyril thought about it. Instead of many, here are the words of the last one: “By Peter’s threefold confession (that is, this: Yea, Lord: Thou art, as I love Thee), the crime of threefold rejection was atoned for (Matthew 26:69–75). “Feed My sheep,” said Jesus Christ, again ordaining him to the rank of apostleship, so that it would not seem violated through rejection, which happened due to human weakness.” With this remark of the ancient church teachers, let us read the very words of the Gospel: The verb to Simon Peter Jesus: Simon the Jonah, do you love Me more than these? That is, you who once boasted and said: Even if everyone is offended because of You, I will never be offended (Matthew 26:33). Tell me now, do you really love Me more than all the other apostles? - And Peter, taught by sad experience, no longer dares to say that he loves Jesus Christ “more than all the others,” but only says that he loves Him: By the way, Lord, know You, as I love You. Jesus Christ, approving this humble answer, asks for the second time not about the love that is superior to all the apostles, which Peter once boasted about, but about love simply: Simon the Jonah, do you love Me? – The same answer is repeated with the same humility. But when Peter was questioned for the third time, then the threefold denial of Christ appeared to his imagination, and this was the reason that the questioning of love in him produced sorrow: Is Peter offended when he told him the third time, “Do you love Me?” So, is Peter’s triumph visible here, or more humiliation? I. I also told you that the commandment given to Peter has a special significance. They think that feeding lambs means leading the Christian people; and to feed the sheep is to control the shepherds themselves. W. This interpretation itself speaks of its dignity. W. To shepherd the “sheep,” you say, means to manage the shepherds themselves. So “sheep” means shepherds? I. Yes, Peter is such a shepherd, before whom even shepherds are like sheep. U. If you are talking about internal perfection, then there are such sheep that can be shepherds of their shepherds, but if you are talking about external power, then Peter is not told: “Feed the shepherds like sheep.” I. I have already said that by the very name “sheep” they mean shepherds. W. I will show you in another way the incorrectness of this interpretation. “Tell me, aren’t there both sheep and lambs in a flock?” W. So, is it not the same to say: feed the sheep and lambs, as it is to say: feed the flock? U. Therefore, “shepherding the flock of Christ” means “shepherding the shepherds and the people”? D. But all the elders are told: Feed the flock of God (1 Pet. 5:2). Therefore, all elders are given the authority to “shepherd the shepherds and the people.” This is what comes out of the interpretation you proposed! I. What does “lambs and sheep” mean in the words of Jesus Christ? U. Listen to the explanation of Theophylact of Bulgaria: “A distinction can be made between lambs and sheep, and between the words βοσκειν, “to feed,” and ποιμακειν, “to shepherd,” that is, to give food and manage the flock. Lambs can be called the simplest ones, which are easily led, and sheep - the most perfect ones. So, he who loves Christ will make diligence both for the lambs and for the sheep; feeding the lambs, that is, exercising gentle supervision over them, and ruling the sheep, which means something highest and most perfect.” I. Why exactly does Jesus Christ command Peter to feed the lambs and sheep? W. From the words of Cyril I cited, you could already see that this was necessary in order to again place Peter in the rank of apostleship, in which he was shaken by his renunciation of Christ. I. You cannot, however, dispute the fact that in very many places of Holy Scripture Peter is foremost among the apostles. U. And I have no need to dispute this. But I already explained to you before that he who takes precedence over others is not yet the head of all. In addition, it should be noted that the Apostle Paul gives eldership before the others not to Peter alone, but to three apostles: James and Cephas (Peter) and John were called pillars (Gal. 2:9). And truly, the last two apostles were awarded special closeness to Jesus Christ: He chose them to be witnesses of His glorious Transfiguration on Tabor (Matthew 17:1) and grave suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:37) - The Apostle James was highly respected, as the brother of the Lord and the primate of the Church of Zion, the mother of all churches (Liturg. Iacob. - Liturgy of Jacob). But with all this, the Apostle Paul equates himself with these pillars of the Church: But from those who pretend to be what they once were, they are nothing different from us (Gal. 2:6). And he even once convicted Peter of doing wrong: And when Peter came to Antioch, his face was opposed to him, for he was shameful (Gal. 2:12). I. Be that as it may, the Bishop of Rome is already quite important in this case, when he is the successor to Peter's primacy. W. Let us also consider this, whether the Bishop of Rome is exactly the successor of Peter and in what sense. – Is the Roman bishop an apostle? I. His throne is called “apostolic”. U. In ancient times, all episcopal sees founded by the apostles were called apostolic. I. In the most precise mind. The bishop of Rome, of course, is not an apostle. W. And Peter was an apostle. Consequently, the Bishop of Rome is not Peter's successor. I. As an apostle. But is there not a successor to him as a bishop? W. We have already talked about this somewhat when we considered the words of Irenaeus about the Roman Church and the succession of its bishops. - The Bishop of Rome is a local bishop, and Peter, like all the apostles, was an Ecumenical Bishop, in the fullest sign of this word. Consequently, the Bishop of Rome is not the successor to Petrov's bishopric. I. They say that Peter established the main throne of his bishopric in Rome. W. This is unfair. Petrov's first and main place of ministry was Jerusalem. Everything that is told about Peter in the Acts of the Apostles happened in the East. Both letters of Peter are addressed primarily to the Jews (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 3:1). The Apostle Paul clearly says that the Jews were entrusted to Peter, as the other apostles recognized: You will understand that the gospel of the uncircumcision (that is, the Gentiles) was assured to me, as Peter was the circumcision (that is, the Jews) (Gal. 2:7). I. But Peter died in Rome, and therefore the main throne of his bishopric remained there. W. And Paul died in Rome, therefore the main throne and his bishopric remained there. How many bishoprics will there be in Rome? I. Paul was not the main founder of the Roman Church. W. Saint Irenaeus says without any distinction that “the most glorious apostles Peter and Paul founded and established the Roman Church.” I. They say that Peter ruled the Roman Church for 25 years. W. This is said in present-day Rome, and in ancient Lactantius wrote that “when Nero was already in government, then Peter came to Rome” (De mor. persec. - “On the death of persecutors,” p. 2). It is known that in the tenth year of Nero’s reign, Peter suffered a martyr’s death. I. Tell me, whose successor, in your opinion, was the first Bishop of Rome? I. But before him, Peter, or, according to the legend of Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, fulfilled the office of bishopric, which was then entrusted to him. How is he not their successor? U. In this sense, every bishop of the primal church was the successor of an apostle. Tertullian says: “Let the heretics open the beginning of their churches; let them show the successive order of their bishops, which through continuous succession would go back to the bishop who was the successor of any apostle or apostolic man who lived with the apostles, just as, for example, the church of Smyrna represents Polycarp, ordained by John, as the church of Rome represents Clement, ordained by Peter, as all other churches represent bishops who, having been elevated to a bishopric by some apostle, taught to their successors the apostolic seed" (Praescrip. contra Haer. C.20:32,36). In this mind, all current bishops legally installed in any church are the successors of the “apostolic seed.” I. At least you will agree that the Roman Church and the Roman Bishop have always had primacy. U. No, and I do not recognize this opinion as agreeing with the truth. The mother of all churches (according to the fathers of the Council of Constantinople - Ep. Synod. ad Damas.), the mother of the Christian name (according to Emperor Justin - Ep. ad Hormisd.), having the initial place in the Universal Church and primacy (according to Avit, Er. XXIII) is the Church of Jerusalem, founded by Jesus Christ Himself, Who was its invisible and visible head, confirmed by the descent of the Holy The Spirit, spread by all the apostles, was longer than all others under the rule of the apostles, flourished first of all with martyrdom and was a great granary, from which the seeds of saving teaching were carried to the face of the whole earth. I. It is true that these advantages are very important. But why did Peter, as the foremost of the apostles, not remain forever in Jerusalem? W. Note therefore that Peter did not think of building the capital of Christianity, as they decided to do later; but wanted to fulfill the commandment of his Teacher: go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). This commandment finally brought him to Rome. I. And he did not bring with him the primacy of the Roman Church? U. Imagine that some ruler, visiting his regions, comes to some city distant from the capital and dies there: does this make this city the capital? W. Peter, not so much a ruler as a minister of the Church, going around the whole world preaching the Gospel, comes to Rome and dies there. And as if the Roman Church became the capital of the Universal Church! Let us imagine for a moment that we are in the primacy of the Church. In the year 64 after the Nativity of Christ, Peter dies in Rome. Let us make the Bishop of Rome the successor of Peter, the first bishop in the world, and, if you like, even the visible head of the Church. - Look what we are doing. Until the end of the first century, the apostle and evangelist John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, and, especially in the Jerusalem Church, its bishop, the apostle Simon the Zealot, a relative of the Lord, remained alive. So we give primacy to the Bishop of Rome over them too? “I’m sure you won’t agree to this.” But if until the end of the first century, while the apostles remain alive in the Eastern Church, the bishops of Rome will not have primacy, then where will they take it in the second century? I. You, however, first said and proved that the Councils themselves gave the primacy of the place to the Bishop of Rome. Where did it come from? W. The bishops of the primal Church, remembering the word of Christ: whoever wants to be first in you, be your slave (Matthew 20:27), without a doubt, each considered themselves to be the last slaves. It must be thought that the question of which of them belongs to the primacy did not occur to any of them until the apostles were alive and until numerous councils began to meet. When the Councils began to meet, then the churches of the most noble cities, where there was a larger gathering of people, therefore, Christians, and, moreover, such churches in which the succession of bishops from the apostles was more accurately known, received primacy over the surrounding, not so famous churches and became their refuge. Such were Antioch, whose bishops were descended from Paul and Peter; Alexandria, whose bishops traced their origins to the Evangelist Mark, and Rome, whose bishops traced their origins to Peter and Paul. Order required that of the three bishops of the most noble churches, one should be given primacy; and, according to the ecumenical canon, “the fathers decently gave primacy to the bishop of the city of Rome, as the reigning city.” Notice this expression of the Council Rule: “the fathers gave primacy,” therefore, it was not the apostles and not Christ who gave it. No! The Church of Christ is in no sense the body of the Bishop of Rome, and therefore in no sense is the Bishop of Rome the head of the Church. The apostles and prophets themselves are the servants of the Church; no one except Jesus Christ is called its head in the Holy Scriptures. He gave these apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers, for the perfection of the saints, for the work of service, for the building up of the body of Christ; until we attain all things to the union of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulfillment of Christ, lest we become infants, tossed about and tossed about by every wind of doctrine, in the lies of men, in the deceit of the wiles of flattery: but since it is true in love, let us grow up in Him all things, of which Christ is the head (Eph. 4:11–15). I. Another question about the hierarchy of the Russian Church. I. She first depended on the Patriarch of Constantinople, then, with the consent of the Eastern Patriarchs, she received her own patriarch, which, of course, makes no difference. After the place of the patriarch was taken by the Holy Synod, did this not result in changes in the hierarchy of the Russian Church? U. Not at all. At all times, all churches had Synods, which took the place of patriarchs. U. Every time a patriarch died in a church, a Council, or in Greek “Synod”, gathered in it, which took the place of the patriarch. I. Did such a Council or Synod have all the patriarchal power? I. Could he elect and ordain a bishop? W. He elected and ordained a patriarch, how could he not elect and ordain a bishop? I. Are there church rules for this? D. The First Apostolic Canon says: “Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.” The cathedral rules command that the bishops of an entire region, and, if necessary, also three bishops, with the consent of others, take part in the resolution of the bishop (I Council of Nicaea, canon 4; Canon of Carthage, canon 13; Canon of Antioch, canon 19). In a similar way, from ancient times other important church affairs were carried out, and to this end the thirty-seventh Apostolic Canon commands: “Twice in a summer let there be a synod of bishops.” The same was confirmed by the First Ecumenical Council (pr. 5). But the Sixth Ecumenical Council, noticing that such frequent meetings of bishops were inconvenient and burdensome for them, prescribed (Project 8) “to hold synods once a year.” Meanwhile, most of the cases that were subject to synods from ancient times were transferred to the patriarchs and metropolitans. I. So, therefore, by the establishment of the Synod, the Russian Church came even closer to the ancient image of the hierarchy, and did not move away from it? U. Exactly. Only, given the space of the Russian Church, as well as the current way of doing things, it was impossible for Russia to have a Synod once or twice a year, but it had to be there always. This is why an indispensable Synod was established. I. Who should be considered the highest in the hierarchy - the Patriarch or the Synod? U. The General Synod of the entire Russian Church could judge the patriarch himself. The Private Synod of elected bishops, in its unity, enjoys rights equal to those of the patriarch, which is why, like the patriarch, it is called His Holiness. The Patriarch is the Synod in one person, the Synod is the Patriarch in several selected consecrated persons. This is how the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs reasoned when they expressed their consent to the establishment of the Holy Synod in the Russian Church, and provided it with the same power that the All-Russian Patriarch had before him. Extract from the district message Photius of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Eastern Patriarchal thrones, that is, Alexandria and others. The Bulgarian people, rude and Christ-hating, turned so much to meekness and knowledge of God that, having rejected the delusion of pagan superstition, they turned beyond all hope to the Christian faith. But before two more years had passed, the acceptance of the right Christian faith by this people, as the products of the Western country, rushed towards the newly planted people in piety. They contrive in every possible way to corrupt these newly enlightened ones and tear them away from the right and pure teaching of the immaculate Christian faith. And firstly, contrary to church rules, they led them to fasting on Saturdays. Usually, even a small deviation from tradition leads to complete disregard for Christian teaching. Further, the first week of Pentecost, separated from the other times of fasting, was allowed for milk, cheese and similar gluttony. Hence, by widening the path for them to retreat, and seducing them from the straight and royal path, they instilled in them disgust and disgust towards presbyters living in legal marriage, the true priests of God. Thus they sowed the seeds of the Manichaean heresy, and souls that had barely begun to grow the seed of piety were damaged by the tares they sown. On top of this, anointing by the elders. They were not afraid to anoint a second time, declaring themselves bishops, and saying that the anointing by the elders was invalid and was being done in vain. They anoint those anointed with myrrh a second time, and through this they trample on the supernatural and Divine sacraments of Christians, as if they were continuous idle talk and loud laughter. And here is the wisdom of these truly unsanctified people: it is impossible, they say, for priests to sanctify the baptized with myrrh: for this is granted by law to the bishop alone. – Where does this law come from? Who is the legislator? Which of the Apostles, or the Fathers, or which Council, where and when took place? By whose votes did he receive the decision? - As if a priest is not allowed to signify the world of those being baptized: so therefore it will not be possible for him to baptize and officiate! Thus, let him no longer be one half, but entirely, be cast out into the circle of the uninitiated. The priest sacraments the Body of the Lord and the Blood of Christ, and with these he sanctifies those who have long been baptized: and how can he not sanctify the newly baptized with Chrismation? The priest baptizes, performing cleansing grace on the baptized: how can we take away from him the right to protect and seal the cleansing of which he is the performer? But if you take away from him the right to seal the cleansing, then you will not leave him the right to serve during the cleansing, and to perform it on anyone: and all this to the end, so that your priest, adorned with an empty name, (by his insignificance) shows in you the head and Bishop of the same rank with him. However, this is not the end of their deviation from the laws. If there is any crown of troubles; they have achieved it. For, in addition to the above-mentioned obscenities, they with extreme insolence dared to damage the sacred and holy symbol, which is unshakably established by the definitions of all Ecumenical Councils, with alien ideas and introduced words. O the tricks of the evil one, (who sows new discord between those of the same faith!) They decided to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. Which of the sanctified Christians can tolerate when two principles are introduced into the Holy Trinity: one for the Son and the Holy Spirit, that is, the Father, and the other for the Holy Spirit, that is, the Son, and thus the unity of command is divided into ditheism? But why would the Holy Spirit proceed from the Son? For if His procession from the Father is perfect (it is perfect, since God is perfect, from a perfect God), then what other procession is from the Son, and for what? This would be unnecessary and without meaning. If the personal property of the Holy Spirit is recognized in the fact that He comes from the Father, just as the personal property of the Son is that He is born from the Father, and the Holy Spirit, as they imagine, also comes from the Son, then it follows that the Holy Spirit differs from the Father in a greater number of personal properties than the Son. For (in their opinion) the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son is a property common to them; on the contrary, the Holy Spirit's own is His procession from the Father, otherwise - procession from the Son. If the Holy Spirit were distinguished by a greater number of properties than the Son, then the Son would be closer to the essence of the Father than the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Macedonian insolence against the Holy Spirit appears again, covering itself with a new guise of these people. The Holy Spirit (they say) comes from the Son: from whom did you hear this? From which evangelists did he borrow this word? What Council is this saying? Our Lord and God says: The Spirit who proceeds from the Father: and those who gave birth to this new temptation say: The Spirit who proceeds from the Son. Who will not block the ears from this daring opinion? It contradicts the Gospel, rebels against the Holy Councils, rejects the blessed and Holy Fathers: Athanasius the Great, Gregory, glorious in theology, Basil the Great, this royal adornment of the Church, John, truly Chrysostom. But why do I mention this or that? This daring and God-fighting voice is armed against all the holy prophets, apostles, hierarchs, martyrs, and against the words of the Lord Himself. If the Son is born from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, then, since it relates to two principles, it must necessarily be combined. If the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father serves for the existence of the Holy Spirit, then what will the procession from the Son bring to the Holy Spirit, when the procession from the Father alone is sufficient for existence? For hardly anyone would dare to say that the procession of the Holy Spirit serves for anything other than being: since all doubling and addition is very remote from that blessed and Divine nature. Western bishops spread such deviations from the laws among the Bulgarian people. The news of this has reached our ears - and we are struck with a mortal blow to the very heart, just as if someone saw his own womb children being bitten and tormented by beasts and serpents before his eyes. For it was natural for him to fall into unbearable sadness and lamentation over the loss of his children, who, for the revival and enlightenment of them, subjected himself to labor, worries and repeated shedding of sweat. Therefore, we lamented as much about the misfortune that happened to them as we felt complete joy when we saw them freed from their ancient error. We have mourned them, and we are mourning them, from their fall, and to restore them we will not allow our eyes to sleep, nor our eyelids to slumber, until we bring them, as far as is possible for us, again into the house of the Lord. And we have condemned the new leaders in retreat, who are tearing apart this newly planted and infant nation in piety with so many and great schisms, these seducers and fighters against God, we have condemned by the Council and Divine Decree: not now again pronouncing judgment on them, but from the Councils and Apostolic Laws revealing and declaring to all the condemnation already predetermined for them. Since the sixty-fourth canon of the Saints, the Apostle, striking those who fast on the Sabbath, reads: “If any cleric fasts on a week or on Saturday, except for the one Great Saturday, let him be erupted; If there is a worldly person, let him be excommunicated.” And the fifty-fifth canon of the Holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council says: “We have learned that those in the city of Rome fast on Saturdays during the fast of the Holy Pentecost, contrary to the faithful church observance: then the Holy Council deigns that this rule should be kept immovably in the Roman Church: If any cleric fasts on a week or on a Saturday other than the one Great Saturday, let him be broken; If there is a worldly person, let him be excommunicated.” Regarding those who abhor marriage, the fourth rule of the Gangra Council says: “If anyone argues and does not want to receive Communion from the presbyter, having a lawful wife, and says that the one who served him is not worthy to receive Communion from him, let him be cursed.” In accordance with this, the sixth Council, having pronounced judgment on them, wrote the following: “Since we have learned that in the Roman Church, as the rank of the rule is maintained, if anyone who wants to be a presbyter or deacon, before the decree of confession, must no longer be with his wife, then, following the ancient rule of Apostolic consideration and deanery, we wish that from now on the legal cohabitation of those appointed to the sacred rank will be firm, without in any way dissolving their copulation with their wives, and without depriving them of mixing during similar. Why, if someone is worthy of ordination to the rank of deacon or subdeacon, such a person cannot be prevented from ascending to this degree if, according to the law, he has cohabitation with his wife; and during the ordination, do not demand from him a confession that he will withdraw from legal copulation with his wife, so as not to humiliate the blessed marriage established by God himself and His presence, especially since the voice of the Gospel cries: God unites them, let not man separate; and the Apostle teaches: for marriage is honorable in all, and the bed is undefiled; and one more thing: if you are attached to your wife, do not seek permission. So, if anyone, contrary to the Apostolic canons, dares to deprive any of those ordained as a presbyter, or a deacon, or a subdeacon of communication and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be expelled; equally, if a presbyter or a deacon wishes to let his wife go under the pretext of reverence, let him be excommunicated; and then remaining uncorrected, let him be defrocked.” The resolution of the first week of Great Lent, and the secondary anointing of the baptized and already anointed, do not, in my opinion, require the introduction of rules for their condemnation: since one legend about this itself shows extreme impiety. However, this terrible insolence alone against the Holy Spirit, and especially against the entire Holy Trinity, even if nothing else was done that was said, is enough to subject them to many condemnations. For information and consideration, according to ancient church custom, we considered it our duty to present this to your brotherhood in the Lord. Moreover, we convince and beg you to be our quick supporters in eradicating these dishonest and unloving opinions, and not to abandon the paternal decree that your ancestors betrayed to you to observe in their deeds; but having chosen with much care and zeal to send in your place locums, men who should represent your person, adorned with piety and priesthood, word and life; in order to drive out the poison of this ungodliness, recently influenced in the heart of the Church, and those who had the madness to sow such tares among the newly planted people and barely established in the faith, themselves to be uprooted, and by a general judgment to be betrayed to that fire, which the words of the Lord determine for the excommunicated. When in this way ungodliness is driven out and piety is established, we have good hope of converting the newly catechized and newly enlightened Bulgarian people again to the faith devoted to them. And besides, not only this people changed their former wickedness to faith in Christ; but also the one about whom many tell a lot, and who surpasses all nations in cruelty and bloodshed, this spoken Ros, who, having enslaved those living around him and being proud of his victories, raised his hands and the Roman Empire: and this, however, has now exchanged the pagan and godless teaching, which he previously contained, for the pure and right Christian faith, and instead of the recent and hostile invasion and great violence against us, he entered with love and humility in alliance with us. And they were so inflamed by love and zeal for the faith (blessed be God forever! I cry with Paul) that they accepted the bishop and the shepherd and Christian worship with great zeal and diligence. So, if at this time, when by the grace of a man-loving God, who wants all people to be saved and to come into the mind of truth, these peoples put aside their old opinions, and instead accept the pure Christian faith, your brotherhood will also rise to help us, and we will help pluck out and burn the tares, then we hope in the Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, that His flock is greater and sicker will multiply, and what was spoken will be fulfilled: everyone will know Me, from the least of them to the greatest; and again: the broadcast of the Apostolic teaching went out into the whole earth, and their verbs to the ends of the world. For this reason, it is necessary that those whom you will send in your place, and who will represent your sanctified and holy person, be authorized by the authority that you have acquired in the Holy Spirit, so that, according to the authority appropriate to the Apostolic See, on these subjects and other similar ones, they can lawfully give opinions, and without restraint approve effective decisions. Since from Italy we also received a certain Council message, filled with unspeakable complaints that those living in Italy bring against their bishop with many accusations and many spells, asking not to despise them who are so miserably perishing, and only by the heavy and cruel predominance of the oppressed, and not to abandon the laws of the Priesthood that are violated, and all the decrees of the Church that are being transformed. The same thing was known to everyone before from the monks and presbyters who fled from there. They were: Vasily, Zosim, Mitrofan and others with them, who complained with tears about this cruel dominance, and with tears called for the protection of churches. Now, as I said, various letters have been received from various persons, filled with lamentation and many tears, as the lists from these letters will show you, presented at the request and demand of the writers: since they, with terrible spells and convictions, begged that this be sent to all the bishops and apostolic thrones. We have added this to this letter so that when the holy Ecumenical Council gathers about the Lord, then, according to the general judgment, what is pleasing to God and in accordance with the rules of the Council will be decided, so that deep peace will embrace the Churches of Christ. For we not only call on your blessedness to this, but also on other pastors of the holy and apostolic thrones, some have already arrived, and others we expect the imminent arrival. Therefore, let your brotherhood in the Lord by delay and delay not force your brothers to wait too long, knowing that if, due to your non-participation, something improper and imperfect happened, then none other than you yourself would be guilty of it. Concil. Florent. Sess. XXIII. This creation had several editions, namely, it was republished three times: in 1815, in 1833, and in 1841. And the text itself changed. The text of 1815 was anonymous, published when St. Philaret was still an archimandrite, in this version there were some statements that could be confusing, and they could be interpreted in different ways. For example, the words that the Orthodox Church is one of the visible parts of one invisible Church, or that both the Western and Eastern Churches are equally from the Spirit of God, or that the Ecumenical Council cannot be held due to the division of the Church into Western and Eastern. This at one time caused criticism, and in later editions already Vl. Filaret made corrections, removed expressions that allowed ambiguous interpretations, but also added excerpts from the Holy Fathers and Councils on the topic, plus an extract from the District Message of St. Photia. This edition is from 1841.