О святителе Афанасии Великом

Among the saints, our father Athanasius entered his field under Constantine the Great 81. In 325, while still a deacon, he attended the First Ecumenical Council together with Alexander of Alexandria 82, and in 326 83 84 he was appointed Bishop of Alexandria 85. But since he did not want to be in communication with Arius (although Emperor Constantine ordered to enter into communication with him, considering that Arius accepted the definition of the Council of Nicaea), supporters of Eusebius of Nicomedia raised terrible accusations and slander against him 86, because of which in 335 Athanasius was deposed at a robber gathering in Tire 87. The following year 88 he was banished to Treveria of Gaul 89 because the Arians slandered him before the emperor that he was preventing the delivery of grain from Alexandria to Constantinople 90 . 18 months later 91, after the death of Constantine the Great, he returned to Alexandria by order of Constantine II the Younger, son of Constantine, in 337 92. In 341 Athanasius was deposed at the Council of Antioch 93, but when he came to Rome and the charges brought against him were dropped both at the Council held in Rome in 342 and at the Council of Sardicia in 347, he was again called to his see by Emperor Constantius, since Constantius, his brother, stood up for Athanasius, threatening Constantius. Six years later, Athanasius was condemned at Councils, one of which took place in Arelat in 353, the other in Mediolan in 357 95, and he retired to the Thebaid desert 96, remaining there until the death of Constantius. During the reign of Julian the Apostate, he was again called to his see and, having convened a Council, which examined the terms “essence” and “hypostasis,” united the Western with the Eastern 97 . In 362 98 Athanasius was expelled from Alexandria by order of the Apostate. He said to the Christians who were crying about him: “Don’t be afraid, this is a cloud, and it will pass by very soon” 99 . Arriving in Antioch in 363, he taught Jovian the dogmas of the Orthodox faith 100, but was soon forced to hide from the persecution of Valens at the grave of his father 101. After some time, the same Valens called him back, and, having lived in the world until 371 or 373 102, this adamant gave up his spirit to God, having been a bishop for 46 years and having been exposed to numerous and great dangers 103. Along with other works (published in Paris in 1698 in 3 volumes), he left us three canonical epistles necessary for church deanery and dispensation. These messages are indirectly confirmed by the rules of IV Omni. 1, VII Omni. 1, and directly – VI Omni. 2. Thanks to this confirmation, they in some way receive the force of the rules of the Ecumenical Councils. They are found in the “Pandects” (vol. 2) and in the “Synodikon” (vol. 1, p. 333) 104. In the saints of our father Athanasius the Great. Message to Monk Ammun All of God's creations are good and pure, because God's Word did not create anything unwholesome or unclean. For we are the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved, according to the apostle (2 Cor. 2:15). Since the arrows of the devil are insidious and varied, so that he manages to confuse simple-minded people and in ordinary exercises hinders his brothers, instilling unclean and nasty thoughts in them, then let us in this short word expose the deception of the evil one by the grace of our Savior and confirm the thought of the simple. For the pure, all things are pure, but for the unclean, both conscience and everything are defiled (see Titus 1:15). And I am amazed at the trick of the devil, how he, himself an abomination and destruction, inspires apparently pure thoughts. However, what he suggests is rather intrigue or temptation. After all, precisely in order, as I said, to distract the ascetics from their usual saving occupation and to appear victorious in this matter, he whispers to them such empty thoughts, which do not bring anything useful to life, but only lead to unnecessary questions and idle talk, when they should be avoided. For verily, tell me, most beloved and most reverent, what sin or uncleanness is there in the natural process? This is the same as blaming nasal discharge or saliva. We can say more about the eruptions of the womb, which are necessary for the life of a living being. Moreover, if we believe that man, according to Divine Scripture, is the work of God, then how could a bad deed come from pure Power? And if we are the race of God, according to the divine Acts of the Apostles (Acts 17:28), then there is nothing unclean in us. Only then do we become defiled when we commit the most evil sin. And when some natural outflow happens not by our will, then we undergo it according to the natural law, like the rest of what we said. But since those whose only concern is to contradict what is rightly said, or rather, created by God, cite the Gospel saying that it is not what goes in that defiles a person, but what goes out (Matthew 15:11), then it is necessary to expose this foolishness of theirs (after all, it cannot be called a question). First of all, not having solid knowledge, they, out of their own ignorance, distort Scripture itself. The meaning of this Divine saying is as follows: when some people, like these false interpreters, doubted food, then the Lord Himself, delivering them from ignorance, or rather, publicly denouncing deception, said that it is not what goes in that defiles a person, but what goes out. And then he added where it comes from - from the heart, because He knows that there is a nasty treasury of unclean thoughts and other sins. The apostle, instructed in this (δεδιδαγμένος) 105, speaks more briefly about the same thing: Food does not bring us closer to God (1 Cor. 8:8). This means that in our case it would be fair to say that natural flow does not bring us closer to punishment. Perhaps doctors (in order to shame those who disagree, at least with external evidence) will say in defense of this that a living being is given some necessary ducts for the secretion of excess juices that accumulate in each of our members. These excesses are at the head - hair and moisture released from the head, at the womb - its eruptions, and finally, at the seminal canals - the mentioned secretions. What kind of sin is this to God (πρὸς Θεόν) 106, most God-loving elder, when the Lord Himself who created a living being wanted to create members of the body with such ducts? But since it is necessary to prevent the objections of crafty people (after all, they can say that, therefore, the direct use of these organs is not a sin if they were created by the Creator), then we will silence them by asking them the following question: what use are you talking about? About the law, which God also allowed, saying: Increase and multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28)? About that which the apostle also approved with the words let marriage be honorable and the bed undefiled (Heb. 13:4)? Or about the use, although natural, but secret and adulterous? After all, in everything else that happens in life, we will find differences depending on the circumstances. For example, it is not allowed to kill, but to exterminate enemies in war is both legal and worthy of praise, which is why those who distinguished themselves in battles are awarded great honors, and monuments are erected to them that proclaim their merits. So the same thing in some case and at some time is not permissible, but in some case, when it turns out to be opportune, it is allowed and not prohibited. The same can be said about carnal union. Blessed is he who in his youth freely takes upon himself the yoke (see Lamentations 3:27) and uses his nature to bear children; and if for debauchery, then the punishment depicted by the apostle awaits fornicators and adulterers (see Heb. 13:4). There are two paths in life, one is ordinary and everyday, I mean marriage, the other is angelic and incomparable, virginity. If someone chooses the worldly path, marriage, then although he does not deserve blame, he will not accept as many gifts as in virginity. However, he will also accept it, since he bears fruit thirtyfold. And whoever loves the immaculate and peaceful path, even though his path is harsh and difficult to traverse, will receive the most amazing gifts, because it bears perfect fruit, a hundredfold. So there are answers to vicious and crafty questions: they have long been given by the Divine Scriptures. Therefore, Father, strengthen the flock entrusted to you, comforting with the apostolic writings, inspiring with gospel examples, offering advice from the psalms and saying: Revive me according to your word (Ps. 119:107). And the word of the Lord commands to serve Him with a pure heart, which the same prophet knows about - and, as if explaining himself, he says: Create in me a pure heart, O God (Ps. 50:11), so that unclean thoughts do not bother me. And David also says: And strengthen me with the Sovereign Spirit (Ps. 50:14), so that if ever my thoughts trouble me, Your strong power will support me like a solid foundation. So you yourself, giving these and similar advice, say to those who are slower to obey the truth: I will teach the wicked your ways - and, firmly trusting in the Lord that you will convince them to refrain from such evil, sing: And the wicked will turn to you (Ps. 50:14). Let those who maliciously inquire leave their vain labors, and let those who doubt piously be strengthened by the Sovereign Spirit. But you, who firmly know the truth, hold it inviolably and unshakably in Christ Jesus our Lord, with whom to the Father with the Holy Spirit be glory and dominion forever and ever, amen. Apparently, this great father was asked whether the natural ejaculation of semen, or, as it is more often called, expiration, which occurs in a dream, was considered sinful. In response, he wrote this message in which he says that all of God’s creations are pure and God has not created anything unclean or defiled. But since the devil has many different tricks, with the help of which he usually confuses and disturbs simple servants of God, ascetics, and hinders them in their usual virtue, evoking unclean thoughts in their imagination, then we need, with God’s help, to expose this demonic trick and strengthen the thoughts of our simple-minded brothers so that they no longer worry. So, Athanasius the Great begins with the saying of blessed Paul and says that all God's creations are pure for the pure and virtuous, but to the unclean and sinners everything seems unclean and defiled because of their own defiled and unclean conscience. Further, the saint is surprised at the wickedness of the devil: how he, himself unclean, instills in us seemingly pure thoughts, but in fact they are rather temptations and secret tricks 107 in order to interfere, as we said, with the saving work of the brothers and to show that he defeated them with his whispers, as if by some kind of buzzing of insects, bumblebees, and an empty fear of them - and this brings nothing into our lives except bickering and idle talk, which the divine Paul teaches to hate. Then the saint asks St. Ammunah, what sin or impurity is there in a natural outflow that happens in a dream and represents the eruption of some excess? 108 Is it possible to condemn the entire human body in general for those excesses and secretions that come from it, say, for mucus from the nose, phlegm and feces necessary for the human body. After all, if we believe (he says) that man is the creation of God’s hands (as it is according to the Scriptures), then can God’s creation be unclean, while everything that God has created is very good 109? And if we are His race, as the poet Arat 110 and the divine Paul said, then it means that there is no unclean part in us, and we become defiled only when we commit a foul-smelling and lamentable sin. And when a natural discharge involuntarily occurs in our sleep, we undergo it as a necessary consequence of our nature, like those discharges that we have already mentioned. But since those who want to contradict what is rightly said, or rather, what was created by God, cite against us the saying of the Gospel, which says that what goes out, not what comes in, defiles a person, it is necessary to resolve this, and this is not just bewilderment, but absurdity. So, we say that they, being ignorant, interpret the Holy Scriptures according to their ignorant taste. And the Gospel saying has the following meaning. When some expressed doubts (like those about whom we are now speaking) regarding food, fearing that it could defile them, then Christ, delivering them from ignorance and making clear the deception, said that it is not what goes in that defiles a person, but what goes out. And he immediately added where it came from - from the heart, in which are the evil treasures of unclean thoughts and other sins. And the divine Paul taught us this more briefly and clearly, saying: Food does not bring us closer to God. The same would be true to say in the present case: natural flow does not lead us to punishment. And probably, says Athanasius, ordinary doctors will give them the same answer, so that they can be convinced at least by external evidence. After all, they also say that the Creator gave man the necessary channels for excreting excesses from the nourished members, such as, for example, the discharge on the head is hair and moisture coming out through the channels in the head (i.e., phlegm from the nose, saliva from the mouth, tears from the eyes, etc.), and the discharge from the womb is excrement. And just as all these are discharges, so the discharge in a dream is the discharge of the seminal canals. Then St. Afanasy turns to St. Ammun with the words: “So, if God created man and wanted him to have a body with such organs and channels, then what sin is this for man? I think none." But more is needed, says St. Athanasius, to prevent the objections of crafty lovers of debate, because they can say that then there is no sin in the direct use of the seminal organs, because they are intended by God for such use and use. To this we respond as follows. What use and use are you talking about? About the legal one, which God allowed with the commandment to increase and multiply and which the apostle praises, saying: Let marriage be honorable and the bed undefiled, or about the one that is not sanctified, secret and lawless, in other words, about fornication and adultery? If about the first, then it is clear that it is good; and if about the second, then it is clear that it is criminal. And let us not be surprised (says the saint) that the same thing is sometimes good and sometimes bad, because we see that many other things in real life are sometimes good and sometimes bad. For example, murder is impermissible, but when it is committed during a war with enemies of the faith, then it is both permissible and commendable, and therefore the victors in the war receive great honors and statues are erected in their honor that proclaim their victories (see Basil the Great on this. 13). Consequently, we must think about intercourse in a similar way. And then the saint in the words of the prophet. Jeremiah praises those who marry for the sake of childbearing, and frightens the dissolute with the apostolic words that fornicators and adulterers are judged by God 111. Then he says that God has shown us two paths in real life: one is ordinary and low, that is, marriage, and the other is angelic and incomparable, virginity. The one who chooses marriage does not sin at all, but cannot receive the gifts of virginity 112. However, such a one bears thirtyfold fruit (through childbearing), according to the parable of the sower. And the one who loves virginity and monastic life (although it is difficult in comparison with the first, that is, either more difficult than the first path, marriage, or more difficult at first, due to unfamiliarity and because the body is young and attracted to intercourse), receives more amazing gifts than those bestowed in marriage, because virginity brings perfect fruit, fruit a hundredfold. Athanasius then says that the answers to such vicious questions from doubters are contained in the Holy Scriptures. Having called on Ammun to confirm the monks whom he led with advice and admonitions taken from the Holy Gospel, the Apostle and the Psalms of David, he ends the letter with a prayer. See also Dionysius Alexander. 4 and note. to him. His letter to Rufinian, or Ruthian Mr. Ruthian, son and most desired co-servant, Athanasius, rejoice in the Lord. You are writing to your father what is proper to write to a beloved son. And I, most of all my beloved Rufinian, embraced you, who came to me through a letter. Although I could have written to you at the beginning, middle, and end as if I were a son, I restrained myself so that our friendship and testimony would not be known from letters. After all, you are my letter, according to the word of Scripture, recognizable and read in the heart (2 Cor. 3:2). So, believe, truly believe, that I greet you with such affection and encourage you to write to me, because you delight me not a little, but a lot with your letters. Since, out of love for goodness and in accordance with church rules (which is again befitting of your reverence), you asked about those who were carried away against their will, but not corrupted by false faith, and wanted me to write to you what was decided about them at the Councils and everywhere, then know, my dearest lord, that first, after the cessation of the former violence, a Council was held, at which bishops from the external regions were present. There was a Council among our fellow servants living in Hellas, as well as among those living in Spain and Gaul. And both here and everywhere it is recognized that it is for the good of those who have fallen and become leaders of heresy to forgive if they repent, but not to give them a place in the clergy. And for those who do not reject piety, but were carried away involuntarily and by force, it was decided to give forgiveness and a place in the clergy, especially since they brought a convincing justification in their defense, and, probably, this happened to them not without the supervision of God. After all, they claimed that they had not gone over to the side of wickedness, but preferred, in order to prevent any of its ardent adherents from being installed and destroying the Churches, it was better to contribute to violence and bear this burden, so that people would not die. It seemed to us that in asserting this, they speak convincingly, since in their apology they point out that Aaron, the brother of Moses, although he contributed to the crime of the people in the desert, his justification was that otherwise the people, having returned to Egypt, would have become ossified in idolatry. After all, the idea that, by remaining in the desert, they could lag behind wickedness, and if they entered Egypt, wickedness would aggravate and increase in themselves, seemed convincing. That is why it is permissible to accept such people into the clergy, and forgiveness is granted to those deceived and those who have suffered violence. I inform your reverence about this, being firmly confident that your love for God will approve such a decision and will not condemn those who agreed with it for laxity. Deign to read this to the priesthood and the people subordinate to you, so that, knowing this, they do not blame you for such an attitude towards such people. After all, it would be indecent to write to me to them, when your reverence can both announce our attitude towards them and make up for everything that is missing. Thanks be to the Lord, who has filled you with all word and all knowledge. Let those who repent openly anathematize the false teaching of Eudoxius and Euzoius, calling them by name (for these defenders of the Arian heresy 113 blasphemously ranked the Word of God among the creatures). Moreover, let them confess the faith professed by the fathers at Nicaea, and declare that they do not prefer any other Council to this Council. Greet your brotherhood. And you are greeted in the Lord by the brotherhood that is with us. In this response letter from St. Athanasia Bishop Rufinianus is not talking about those who renounced Christ and sacrificed to idols (the Council of Ancyra and even more in detail St. Peter of Alexandria speak about these), but about those who entered into communication with the Arian heretics. It so happened that when the emperors became champions of their heresy, the Arians gained power and forced many Orthodox Christians to accept their heresy, who then repented and returned to the Orthodox Church. Rufinian asks Athanasius the Great how they should be taken. Answering this in the epistle under consideration, St. Athanasius first declares his ardent fatherly love for Rufinian, encouraging him to constantly write to him, and then moves on to the question itself and says: “Since, in accordance with church rules, you ask about those who entered into communication with heretics, and then repented without remaining in heresy to the end, then know that different Councils were held on this issue in different places: in Greece, and in Spain, and in Gaul. (Perhaps the expression “there was a Council among our fellow servants living in Hellas” means that through the messages of St. Athanasius the decision of the Council of Alexandria was announced to the bishops of Hellas. This understanding is more correct, because Dositheus in the “Twelve Books” (p. 181) says that through his messages Athanasius acquired like-minded people in the person of the bishops of Macedonia and Achaia, as Basil the Great writes 115). And the decision we made here 116 was made by all of them. Namely, we affirm that those clergy who not only entered into communion with the Arians and confessed that they had the same beliefs as them, but also became champions of their heresy (so that they persuaded others to convert to Arianism), if they return to the Orthodox Church, must be accepted, but not left at the degrees of the priesthood, but considered henceforth as laity 117. For those who entered into communication with heretics not by free will, but by force and compulsion, it seemed reasonable to us to grant forgiveness upon their return to the Church. Let them take their place in the clergy, that is, as they were priests, so they remain so. They are worthy of forgiveness not only because they suffered violence from heretics, but also because, according to them, they applied the principle of oikonomia. After all, they are justified by the fact that they entered into communication with heretics not truly, but only feignedly and did this out of economy and condescension, so that they would not be completely expelled from the Church, and in their place would not be installed ardent adherents of wickedness, who would finally destroy the Orthodox. They chose to bear the brunt of forced renunciation so that many Orthodox Christians would not perish. Speaking about this, they cite as an example Moses’ brother, Aaron, who submitted to the unreasonable aspirations of the Israeli people and allowed them (due to Moses’ delay) to cast the golden calf, and later before Moses justified his iniquity by saying that he did not want the people to return to Egypt and completely surrender to wickedness. After all, there is no doubt that if they had remained in the desert, they could have turned from wickedness, but if they had returned to Egypt, then by no means - on the contrary, they would have succeeded in wickedness even more. Those whom we are talking about reasoned similarly: if for a time they enter into communication with heretics for the sake of appearance, Christians will remain in Orthodoxy and will not suffer complete collapse, since no one will force them to accept false teaching. And on the contrary, they will certainly be subjected to violence if other bishops who are zealots of heresy are installed in the Churches. So, because of this, they are justified and economy is allowed to remain in their existing rank. This is how St. defines Athanasius about the clergy who entered into communication with heretics. The laity, who were deceived by the Arians or forcibly forced to join their heresy, are given, says the saint, forgiveness if they repent and return to Orthodoxy. And they should be accepted and managed according to the rules of the holy fathers. “All this,” says St. Athanasius, I wrote to your love of God, being firmly convinced that you will consider what seemed reasonable to me the same and will not accuse our Council of laxity, that is, of idleness and uselessness. In other words, you cannot blame us for the fact that we gathered idly and in vain and did not make a canonical and reasonable decision about those who entered into communication with heretics.” After these words, St. Athanasius asks Ruthian to read his message to all the priests, so that they too may know. And in addition, he speaks about what those who convert from communion with heretics should do: openly anathematize the heresies of Euzoius and Eudoxius, the leaders of Arianism, and confess the Creed of the God-bearing fathers who gathered in Nicaea, and also place the First Ecumenical Council above all other Councils. Read also the Apostle. 47, 62, 68 and II Omni. 7. From his 39th holiday message I mentioned the heretics as dead, and about us as having the Divine Scriptures for salvation, and I am afraid that some of the simple people, through the cunning of some, will deviate from simplicity and purity, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:3), and after that they will not begin to listen to other books, the so-called apocryphal ones, which are misleading in that they have the same name as the true books. Therefore, I ask you to be patient, if I am writing what you yourself know as a reminder to you out of necessity and for the benefit of the Church. Intending to write this reminder, in order to strengthen my boldness, I will use the example of the Evangelist Luke and I myself say the same: “Just as some have already begun to compose for themselves the so-called apocrypha and mix them with the inspired Scripture, about which we are completely aware, as they handed down to the fathers who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word from the very beginning, so it was decided by me, at the prompting of the true brothers, having studied everything first, according to to set out in order which books are included in the canon and, according to legend, are considered divine, so that anyone, if deceived, condemns those who deceived him, and if he remains clean, rejoices at the new reminder.” So, all the books of the Old Testament are twenty-two in number, which is how many, as I heard, the letters of the Jews are. In order and title these books are as follows: first, Genesis, then Exodus, then Leviticus, then Numbers, and finally Deuteronomy. They are followed by: Joshua, Judges, and after her Ruth. Then there are four books of Kings at once, of which the first and second are considered one book, the third and fourth also one. After them, the first and second books of Chronicles, also taken as one book; then Ezra the first and second, also for one; behind them is the book of Psalms and Proverbs. Then Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, and Job with them. Finally, the Prophets, namely twelve, are considered one book; then Isaiah, Jeremiah and with him Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, and after them Ezekiel and Daniel. So far the books of the Old Testament have been listed. But something should immediately be said about the books of the New Testament. Here they are: four Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John 118; after them the Acts of the Apostles and seven Epistles of the Apostles, called conciliar Epistles, namely: one of James, two of Peter, then three of John and one of Jude. In addition to these, there are fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, arranged in the following order: first to the Romans, then two to the Corinthians, then to the Galatians and Ephesians, then to the Philippians, to the Colossians and two to the Thessalonians. Then to the Jews and to Timothy two, to Titus one, and lastly - one to Philemon 119, as well as the Revelation of John. These are the sources of salvation, so that the thirsty may quench his thirst by their words. Only they preach the doctrine of piety. Let no one add to them or take anything away from them. Speaking about these Scriptures, the Lord shamed the Sadducees: You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor their power (see Matt. 22:29), and the Jews exhorted: Search the Scriptures, for they testify of Me (John 5:39). But for the sake of greater accuracy, I add the following, since it is necessary to write about this: in addition to those mentioned, there are other books, not canonical, but those that the fathers determined to be read by those who have just converted and wish to undergo the catechumenate by the word of piety. These are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the so-called Teaching of the Apostles 120 and the Shepherd 121. But notice, beloved, that while some books are offered for reading, and others are included in the canon, there is no mention of apocryphal ones. These books are the invention of heretics, who write them whenever they want, but attribute them to being ancient and add years, so that, by passing them off as ancient, they have a way to deceive simple-minded people. In his message, St. Athanasius divides all the books of Holy Scripture into three types: apocryphal, canonical and useful for reading. He calls apocryphal books the forged books that are written by heretics and about which they claim that these are ancient books of Divine Scripture, and thereby mislead the simple, suggesting that these are true and useful books. The canonical books are the books of the Old and New Testaments, which Athanasius lists by their titles. Books useful for reading are books that are not canonical, but not apocryphal, but those that the fathers commanded the catechumens to read. The saint lists these books by title. St. Athanasius says that he was forced to list all these books separately so that if someone was deceived and accepted the apocrypha of heretics, he could correct himself and reject them, and if he did not accept them, he would rejoice at receiving another testimony about these books. Very successfully St. Athanasius here uses the initial words of the Holy Gospel of Luke and, having listed the canonical and useful books for reading that we have spoken about, and also encouraging everyone to study them, as the Lord said to the Jews, he ends the epistle. See also Apost. 85. Note: what Athanasius the Great is said to have done as a child, i.e., baptized his unbaptized peers, is narrated not only by Rufinus, but also by Socrates, Prince. 1, ch. 15 (PG 67, 116A.). Sozomen. Book 1, ch. 17 (PG 67, 913С.). Chronology of events in the life of St. Athanasius the Great, proposed by St. Nicodemus, differs significantly from what is currently accepted. Fully preserving here the dates indicated by the author of the “Pidalion,” we refer those who wish to familiarize themselves with a more accurate chronology of events to the article by Archpriest. Valentin Asmusa and others. “Athanasius I the Great” (PE. T. 4. pp. 22–45). Socrates. Book 1, ch. 15 (PG 67, 113C-116A.); Sozomen. Book 2, ch. 17 (PG 67, 976ВС). Socrates. Book 1. Ch. 27 (PG 67, 152B-157A.); Sozomen. Book 2, ch. 22 (PG 67, 989–992.). Socrates. Book 1, ch. 32 (PG 67, 164V). Modern city of Trier (Germany). Socrates. Book 1, ch. 35 (PG 67, 169C-172A.). Nikifor Kallist. Book 9, ch. 3 (PG 146, 228AD.). See note. to Antiochus. 4. See the preface to Sardik. and Socrates, book. 2, ch. 22–23 (PG 67, 245–248АВ.). See: “Synodikon”, published by Biniy. T. 10. P. 589. Gregory of Nazianzus. A word of praise to Athanasius the Great (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 21.19 // PG 35, 1101CD-1104A.). Sozomen. Book 5. Ch. 12 (PG 67, 1249C-1252AB.); Gregory of Nazianz (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 21. 27, 35 // PG 35, 1113AB, 1124D-1125AB.); note to the 2nd message posted here. Sozomen. Book 5, ch. 15 (PG 67, 1256AB.). Sozomen. Book 6, ch. 5 (PG 67, 1304C.). Sozomen. Book 6, ch. 12 (PG 67, 1325AB.). Socrates. Book 4, ch. 20 (PG 67, 505C-508A). Justinian calls Athanasius a great teacher of the Church (epistle to the V Ecumenical Council), and Basil the Great - a sound head who brings health to the whole body (letter to Athanasius) (Basil. Magn. Ep. 66. 2 // PG 32, 425B.). He says in a letter to his Western brothers: “Our most honorable father Athanasius” (Idem. Ep. 90. 1 // PG 32, 472C.). Cyril of Alexandria (in a letter to John of Antioch) calls Athanasius a zealous defender of the Catholic Church and faith. John Chrysostom calls him equal to the apostles (Ioan. Chrysost. De pseudoproph. 6 // PG 59, 560.). Paul of Emesa (in a conversation he delivered in Alexandria in the presence of Cyril of Alexandria) calls him the pillar of Orthodoxy (Paul. Ernes. In navit. // PG 77, 1444B.). And in the first act of the VII Ecumenical Council, Athanasius is called the most skillful church fighter. In other sources, “speaks openly” (ἀποδεδειγμένως). Probably “before God” (πρὸς Θεοῦ). This passage can also be interpreted this way: the thoughts that the devil inspires are rather intrigues and tricks than ordinary temptation. It may seem that a contradiction arises between Athanasius the Great and the unappearing Basil, because the first in this epistle expresses the opinion that a natural flow occurring in a dream is not sinful, and the second, Basil the Great, in the 309th answer of the briefly stated, insists that this is sinful impurity (PG 31, 1304A.). And yet they are both right and agree with each other. The fact is that Athanasius speaks of such an outflow that occurs without any reason, that is, not from eating too much, or drinking heavily, or prolonged sleep and bliss, or previous sweet and passionate lust, which especially causes the outflow. An outflow that does not occur from the specified causes is a natural discharge, like other discharges listed by St. Athanasius, and does not contain any evil. Therefore, the saint does not simply say: “The expiration is not a sin,” but adds “natural,” i.e. only spontaneous outflow, as a simple discharge, is not evil, because this outflow is a natural consequence of the nature of our body, which, as the creation of a good Creator, cannot but be good. And Basil the Great calls impurity not just any outflow that occurs in a dream, but one that occurs as a result of a delightful daydream experienced during a day of passionate excitement, in other words, through passion, and therefore it defiles not only the body, but also the soul, and the soul much earlier, since it was the first to experience and think evil, and then the body was desecrated. And note that for all that Athanasius the Great does not call the flow of semen unclean, he, however, does not add that those exposed to it should receive communion, but is silent about it. See also Dionysius Alexander. 4. Aratus Astron. Phaenomena / TLG 0653/001, 1.5. The gifts and benefits of virginity are heavenly and excellent, and they cannot be compared with what is bestowed in marriage. Thus, the divine Chrysostom in his word on virginity says: “Virginity is as superior to marriage as heaven is to earth and the angels of men” (Ioan. Chrysost. De virgin. 10 // PG 48, 540.). Augustine in his word on virginity: “The virginal way of life is an angelic way of life, it is care for eternal incorruptibility in a corruptible body.” Jerome (book against Jovinian): “Virginity is a sacrifice to Christ, it is an imitation of the angels.” And in the 22nd letter he says: “When the Son of God descended to earth, He established the angelic way of life, so that He Whom the angels worship in heaven would have angels on earth.” Ignatius the God-Bearer in his letter to the Tarsians calls virgins priestesses of Christ (Ign. Ep. ad Tars. 9 // PG 5, 896B.). Ambrose, in his commentary on the psalms, calls virgins martyrs. Cyprian, in his word on virginity, calls virginity the blooming rose of the Church. Athanasius himself, in his word on virginity, says: “Virginity is unexpendable wealth, an unfading crown, the church of God, the dwelling of the Holy Spirit, the pearl of great price, victory over hell and death” (Athanas. Alex. De virgin. 24 // PG 28, 280D.). Gregory the Theologian in his poems says that virgins imitate the virgin Holy Trinity (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. moral. 1 // PG 37, 523A.), stand before the Lamb and follow Him wherever He goes, as stated in the 14th chapter. Apocalypse (Rev.14:4.). Virginity is one with wisdom, why virginity and wisdom in the form of beautiful wives appeared to Gregory the Theologian in reality and embraced him (Greg. Nazianz. Carm. de se ipso 45 // PG 37, 1371A.). Virginity is so wonderful that marriage itself is of no benefit without it. After all, ap. Paul says that those who have wives should live with them in such chastity and virginity that it is as if they did not have them at all (See 1 Cop. 7:29.). And Isidore Pelusiot teaches: “Man in chastity is like angels, and in marriage he is no different from animals, for whom intercourse is necessary” (letter 1778) (Isid. Pel. Ep. IV, 192 // PG 78, 1281B.). But how priceless virginity is, it must be preserved so carefully, with all one’s strength and with extreme vigilance, because once it has been lost, it is impossible to acquire it again, as Basil the Great says: “Yes, repentance forgives sins, but it cannot make one who has lost her innocence innocent, and therefore she sheds tears all her life” (Sermon on Virginity) (Basil. Magn. De virgin. 59 // PG 30, 789A.). It can be read: “as defenders of the Arian heresy” or “counted themselves among the defenders of the Arian heresy.” Note that this message was read three times at the 1st meeting of the VII Council. Basil. Magp. Er. 204.6 // PG 32, 753B. The mentioned Council took place in Alexandria in 362 mainly thanks to the care and assistance of Athanasius the Great. Present at the Council were Eusebius of Vercellus, Asterius, Bishop of Petra of Arabia, and other bishops of Italy, Arabia, Egypt and Libya - few in number, but remarkable and outstanding men. They approved the dogmatic definitions made at Nicaea, and specifically decided the following on their own: 1. The Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son. 2. God the Word, having become incarnate, took upon Himself flesh, having a soul and a mind (because the Arians said that He took on flesh without a soul, and instead of a soul, the Divinity acted in Him; the Apollinarians argued that He took on flesh without a mind). 3. The words “essence” and “hypostasis,” i.e., “one essence” and “three hypostases,” should be used when discussing God in refutation of the heresy of Sabellius, so that, due to the limitations of expressions, one does not take the Holy Trinity as one, called by three names, but theologize about each of those named – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – as a special Hypostasis. The First Ecumenical Council, while deciding various issues, lost sight of this issue (Socrates. Book 3, Chapter 7 (PG 67, 389B-392A; 393AB); Sozomen. Book 5, Chapter 12 (PG 67, 1249C-1252AB.)). 4. Undoubtedly, the achievement of this Council was that it united Eastern and Western Christians, between whom, due to serious differences of opinion, a great schism had arisen. Eastern Christians piously spoke of God as one essence (οὐσία) and three hypostases (ὐποστάσεις), and not one hypostasis and three persons (πρόσωπα). For this, Westerners accused them of Arianism, because Arius confessed three hypostases in God, but called them of different natures and different essences, and did not accept three persons of the same nature. Meanwhile, Westerners, due to the poverty of their language, have only one word “hypostasis,” which for them means both hypostasis and essence. Therefore, they did not speak of God as three hypostases, so that they would not be considered to recognize three essences in God, but instead of three hypostases they spoke of three persons, and instead of a single essence, of a single hypostasis. For this, the Eastern accused them of Sabellianism, because Sabellius taught about a single hypostasis in God, called by three names. So, this Council called both Eastern and Western and found out from them that the expressions “three persons” and “three hypostases” differ only in letter and sound, but have the same meaning and meaning, and likewise the words “essence” and “hypostasis”, although they sound differently, are used by them in the same sense to designate the same thing. The Council allowed both of them, after they had uttered anathema to Arius and Sabellius, to use these different words as one in meaning and essence of the matter. Thus the Council convinced the eastern and western to unite. After all, for us the truth lies not in names, but in deeds. Gregory the Theologian also mentions this subject in his laudatory speech to Athanasius, in which he says that the unification of the Eastern with the Western is the work of Athanasius (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 21. 35 // PG 35, 1124D-1125AB.), since this Council took place, as we said, through his concerns and assistance. 5. This Council decided that those converting from communion with the Arians to the Catholic Church should be accepted if they anathematize the heresy of Arius and profess the Nicene faith, and also anathematize those who say that the Holy Spirit is not consubstantial with the Son, Jesus Christ. 6. The council also made a determination about the clergy who accepted the heresy of Arius. The last two points are mentioned in the message under consideration. See the story of Rufinus about this Council, contained in the 1st act of the VII Ecumenical Council, and the “Twelve Books” of Dositheus (pp. 178, 180). For the epistle itself, see the “Twelfth Book” of the same Dositheus (p. 637), as well as in the epistle of this Council to the Antiochians, which is placed in the 1st volume of the works of Athanasius (This probably means the edition of Montfaucon: Athanasius S. Opera omnia, quae supersunt / Ed. B. de Montfaucon. Paris, 1698–1700. 3 t.). At the first meeting of the VII Ecumenical Council, Abbot Savva of Studi tried to prove with the help of this message that he should not accept the ordination of heretics. However, St. Tarasius objected to this, saying verbatim the following: “This father (Athanasius the Great) does not proclaim about every convert that he should not be accepted, but only about the leaders of the heresy, its passionate zealots, and about those who in words pretend to speak the truth, but in their minds do evil.” When Tarasius then said: “We have listened to our fathers’ instructions. So, should those ordained be accepted as heretics?” - the holy Council answered: “Yes, Vladyka, we listened and we see, See also Apostle. 68. However, please note that the iconoclasts and all other heretics whose ordination the Church has ever accepted by oikonomia and condescension, and not by acrivia, were baptized correctly, according to the rite of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, the Church accepted both their baptism and ordination. But the Latins, and those who descended from them, and all those like them were baptized incorrectly, why does the Church of Christ not accept both their baptism, the first among the sacraments, and even more so their ordination. Consequently, Latins need to receive baptism and ordination from Orthodox priests and bishops. Many people notice that the divine fathers, interpreters of the Holy Gospel of John, do not interpret the text described in Chapter 8. the story of a wife caught in adultery and is not even mentioned at all. Because of this, they are perplexed or even claim that this narrative is false. But for the sake of truth and information for the curious, we will present in this note what we were able to find out about him after research. This story is mentioned by the divine apostles in the “Ordinances”, book. 2, ch. 24 (Const. Ar. II, 24 // PG 1, 653B-657A.), as well as Eusebius Pamphilus in “Church History”, book. 3, ch. 39, where he, speaking about Papias of Hierapolis, says this: “He uses the First Epistle of John, and also the Epistle of Peter. He also tells the story of a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, as written in the Gospel of the Jews” (Euseb. Hist. eccl. III, 39 // PG 20, 300CD.) (probably this is the Gospel of Matthew, which was written in Hebrew, but this story is not in the current translation). Athanasius the Great himself mentions this same story in his synopsis of the books of Scripture. This is what he says in the synopsis of the Gospel of John: “And again Jesus talks with them (that is, with the Jews - St. N.), and they try to refute His words. Here - about the one accused of adultery" (Athanas. Alex. Synops. 50 // PG 28, 401B.). This narrative is also contained in many of the Four Gospels, which were preserved in the sacred monasteries on the Holy Mountain in parchment manuscripts written 800 or more years ago. Probably this story came into the Gospel from an unwritten tradition, that is, an apostolic tradition. After all, John himself says: Jesus did many other things that are not written in this book (see John 20:30 ~ and 21:25). Now the Epistle to the Hebrews is placed last. The teachings (Διδαχή) of the apostles are called the “Apostolic Decrees” (St. Nicodemus was unfamiliar with the text of the “Didache”, published only in 1883 in Constantinople, so here he mixes these two works.). We spoke about the book “The Shepherd” in the Apostle. 85, and here we will only add that this book, according to some, was written by St. Hermas, whom Paul greets in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 16:14). And the divine Jerome says that the book “The Shepherd” is very useful and necessary (Meletius of Athens. Church History. Vol. 1. P. 172).