Athos case

I do not intend here to touch upon the factual side of the Athos events that have played out over the past year - the press has devoted a lot of attention to them, and an impartial and verified history of them cannot yet be written. I want to dwell on the fundamental clarification of their ecclesiastical significance, for these events, after a centuries-long break, again raise before consciousness the most basic and burning questions of Orthodoxy - about the nature of the Church and about its dogmatic self-awareness. The question has arisen about a new dogma, and in connection with it, questions naturally arise, so to speak, of dogmatic epistemology, or about the conditions of dogmatic self-consciousness: what makes a known teaching a dogma, gives it objective dogmatic significance, puts the stamp of catholicity, church truth? Everyone knows with what geometric clarity this issue is resolved in Catholicism thanks to the dogma of papal infallibility. Roma locuta est, - this is the highest criterion of church truth, the verdict of the pope finally and absolutely resolves the issue, or expressing the same thought in a negative form - the pope ex cathedra cannot be a heretic, fall into religious error, he is a living instrument of the Holy Spirit. True, the sign of ex cathedra establishes the difference between the church-administrative power of the pope, as the supreme pontiff, the bearer of the highest church power (Orthodoxy does not have such a sole head, and therefore does not know the complete parallel of this function of papal power; within local churches it corresponds to the patriarchs and our Holy Synod), and his powers ex cathedra. Not every action of the pope is endowed with infallibility; the pope may make mistakes in administrative orders (for example, he may mistakenly include a completely Catholic book in the Index librorum prohibitorum). However, we should not close our eyes to the fact that potential infallibility creates a sufficient aura that overshadows all the actions of the pope. The infallible ex cathedra high priest and as a church administrator is a power of a completely different nature than the corresponding governing bodies of the Orthodox churches, for the possibility of confirming this order ex cathedra in any case remains in reserve, and therefore, even the compulsory teaching of theology according to the system of Thomas Aquinas or the anti-modernist oath receive a peculiar dogmatic flavor. Therefore, in Catholicism, dogmatic disagreements are possible only until Rome has spoken; Every true Catholic must obey the pronounced sentence of the pope not only out of fear, but also out of conscience, and the dissenter must admit that he is mistaken. 1 In particular, the dogmatic dispute about the meaning of veneration of the name of God would receive a final decision before the court of the pope, and the condemned works would not only be removed from institutions subordinate to church authority (monasteries, theological schools, spiritual libraries, etc.), but also from the library of every Catholic believer, and the authors would have to admit their error and renounce their brainchild. The same question stands completely differently in Orthodoxy. There is no external dogmatic authority in Orthodoxy. Neither the bodies of the highest church government or hierarchy, nor even the so-called “ecumenical councils”, which in essence only proclaimed and approved dogmas, which were, however, accepted by the entire body of the Church, are such; Although the council is a natural and therefore necessary means of establishing dogma, it cannot be considered as a parliament with a decisive vote, and, of course, its “universality” is not understood in the sense of electoral districts, which, by the way, was rarely realized. But let’s give the floor to a recognized authority on the issue of the Orthodox Church - A. S. Khomyakov. He believes “that the division of the Church into the teaching church and the church of disciples is recognized in Romanism as a fundamental principle,” on the contrary, “its absence in the Orthodox Church most decisively determines the character of the latter” ... “The feature I have indicated is an indisputable dogmatic fact. The Eastern Patriarchs, having gathered at a council with their bishops, solemnly proclaimed in their response to the district message of Pius IX that “infallibility rests only in the universality of the Church, united by mutual love and that the immutability of dogma, as well as the purity of ritual, are entrusted to the protection not of one hierarchy, but of the entire people of the Church, which is the body of Christ.” 2 This formal announcement of the entire Eastern clergy, accepted by the local Russian Church with respect and fraternal gratitude, acquired the moral authority of a universal witness. This is undoubtedly the most significant event in church history for many centuries. In the true Church there is no teaching Church. The whole Church teaches, otherwise: the Church in its entirety: the Church does not recognize the teaching Church in any other sense” 3 This point of view was invariably put forward in polemics with papism; in particular, A. S. Khomyakov relies on it. Otherwise, it would be difficult to dogmatically understand, for example, the history of ecumenical disputes, in which heresies sometimes embraced secular and ecclesiastical authorities, the emperor and the patriarch, and the truth found defenders in the person of a few and uninfluential clergy (Deacon Athanasius!) and laity. This explains the internal necessity of unction, and therefore of councils on dogmatic issues in the Orthodox Church. Based on what has been said, how is it now possible to establish a new dogma? First of all, the external organ of universal (in the geographical sense) consciousness has now been completely lost, for the Church has been split for many centuries into at least two parts, Eastern and Western, and each of them lives a separate life. However, the principle of unction, the acceptance and preservation of dogmatic teaching only by the entire body of the Church remains in full force in Orthodoxy and cannot be replaced by anything; only what is perceived as dogmatic truth by the general church consciousness, what has become a fact for it, can be proclaimed as a dogma, and this right cannot be unilaterally appropriated by the highest hierarchy, which is authorized in the order of church administration to condemn only such opinions that contain a direct or indirect negation of already recognized dogmas and in this sense are clearly heretical. In new questions, posed for the first time in church-historical development, until the onset of dogmatic maturity for this or that teaching and its fixation in the church consciousness, there remains freedom for personal search, for what is technically sometimes called “theological opinions” (as opposed to dogmas). And this is freedom in Orthodoxy: thanks to the absence of external infallible authority that could powerfully extinguish personal quests, here the possibility is created, with the internal fidelity of the Church with its already accepted dogmas, of dogmatic questioning: in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas. In essence, this is the situation in which Orthodoxy lived and such thinkers as Bukharev, Dostoevsky with his holistic hopes, V.S. Solovyov with his teaching about Sophia, N.F. Fedorov with the doctrine of the resurrection, Tyutchev, A. Tolstoy, K. Leontiev with his stormy aestheticism, some modern thinkers who consider themselves unhypocritical sons of Orthodoxy Churches. This freedom of dogmatic quest is the vital nerve of Orthodoxy and its most sacred palladium, which must be zealously defended by the faithful sons of the Church. Its fundamental denial would, indeed, be the extinguishing of the spirit. Of course, it is precisely here, in these aspirations, that the danger of self-will and deviation into heresy always lurks; however, heresy itself becomes possible only with the presence of dogmatic life. “It is fitting for heresies (αἱρέσεις) to be among you, so that the most skillful ones may be revealed (1 Cor. 11:19),” the apostle condescendingly notes. Paul, always irreconcilable with persistent heresy. Theoretically speaking, heresy is possible in two directions – thinking and will. The first occurs when one or another “theological opinion” or new teaching comes into clear contradiction with an unshakable dogma already accepted by the Orthodox consciousness. The second is when an individual or group of individuals ascribes to their “theological opinion”, no matter what it is, the nature of a generally binding dogma and, therefore, stands out from church society, branding its members as heretics or spiritually dead people, therefore, when an attempt at dogmatic self-affirmation occurs (this is the original meaning of heresy - αἵρεσις - separation, one-sided assertion). Thus, it should be recognized that Orthodoxy, through its members, is constantly (or rather, should be) in the process of searching for dogmas, their new formation; in the dogmatic development of the Church, the one truth turns into different and new sides. Now let us turn to the Athenian turmoil that arose over the proclamation on Athos as a new dogma, which in the eyes of its adherents constitutes the main criterion of Orthodoxy - the doctrine of veneration of the name of God. The question of the essence of names in general (philosophy of name) and the name of God is one of the most basic, and therefore most difficult to understand, religious and philosophical problems. It is not at all surprising that for rationalistic thinking it seems like a complete misunderstanding, and the new “dogma” is simply “stupid” (on this point, for example, Priest-Associate Professor A.I. Pokrovsky and Archbishop Anthony agree). No less fatal for this teaching is its excessive “pragmatic” simplification, which can actually lead to “moetheism,” i.e., to the direct deification of the letters and sounds of the name of God, to a mechanical or at least magical interpretation of prayer (this is exactly how the new teaching is understood in all three reports on this issue presented in St. the synod, and in its resolution, 4 and against such a coarsened understanding of it, it directs its main struggle; if this, indeed, were all that “imslavity” boiled down to, then this struggle would be completely legitimate and sufficiently motivated). However, the teaching about the name of God has an incomparably deeper meaning; it was an attempt to theologically comprehend the religious experiences experienced by ascetics during prayer (especially the “Jesus Prayer,” constantly repeated first in the mind and then in the heart, this is the so-called “mental doing”). Thus, in the new teaching the question is about the theory of prayer: how to understand the real effectiveness of prayer, in which the invocation of the name of God, and therefore the very name of God, has the main meaning? Obviously, this issue can be approached from different sides: both from the side of theoretical philosophy, namely the doctrine of names, and from the church-historical side - bringing the new question into connection with previous dogmatic discussions, and from the religious-practical side - the experience of “smart doing” (and therefore it is not at all surprising that this question arose precisely in the monastic environment). However, its vitality also corresponds to its difficulty. It is not at all surprising that in church circles this question even now not only does not find unanimity, but even understanding, and in any case it is still premature to talk about its dogmatic maturity. 5 Its immediate solution, which, moreover, does not yet claim a dogmatic meaning, would be direct violence against the religious conscience of either one side or the other, and even more so of those vast circles that are completely neutral on the issue. Essentially, the question has not yet left the stage of preliminary discussion, or, according to the terminology we have adopted, it is in the stage of “theological opinion” and has barely been raised in the general church consciousness. Most are taken by surprise by this question, and the Athenian formula proposed by Fr. Anthony Bulatovich (“the name of God is God”) still causes misunderstanding and misunderstanding equally among the intelligentsia and ordinary believers, among the clergy and monastics. The church authorities, instead of helping to clarify the issue, resorted in this case to their favorite method of clamping their mouths and actually removed this issue from the discussion of spiritual journalists. Thus, this discussion, by the power of things, became the property of the Orthodox laity, thanks to which the only attempt to date to systematically present the issue of venerating the name of God, written by Fr. Anthony Bulatovich, could see the light only in a private publication, precisely under the company of the “religious and philosophical library”, led by such an unhypocritical, but also independent representative of Orthodoxy as M. A. Novoselov. Even today, the ecclesiastical responsibility of the laity remains to take care not to let the dogmatic movement that has begun die out and to maintain ideological interest in it. How can such a difficult dogmatic question serve as a reason for monastic strife and the entire Athonite movement in general, which caused the pastoral-pacifying expedition of Arch. Nikona? On Athos, and as a result of the general tension of religious life, and as a result of the peculiarities of monastic psychology, national passions, personal temperaments, and finally economic interests (to all this was added the frivolous and tactless behavior of Father Anthony, who immediately cursed the new movement without any analysis or even acquaintance with it, and thus added fuel to the fire), - on Athos, the new teaching about the name of God was immediately and, of course, prematurely proclaimed dogma and even made a criterion of Orthodoxy. 6 Two warring monastic parties emerged, each of which claimed leadership in the monastery. The “Imeslavtsy” party overthrew (and, unfortunately, not without violence) the “Imeslavsky” abbot of St. Andrew’s monastery, 7 but the new administration was deprived of the opportunity to receive cash and mail, which the consulate denied it. This created a protracted crisis on Russian Mount Athos. It must be added to this that the supreme church power on Athos belongs to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who, for national-political reasons, is generally inclined to cleanse Athos from the Russians who have multiplied recently, taking advantage of the favorable international position: Athos, liberated from Turkish rule, still remains some kind of political res nullius, belonging primo occupanti, and once a Greek detachment already appeared there. In view of this, not only the church, but also the civil political situation on Athos has long been very confused (back in the spring, I heard from a prominent representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the opinion that inaction of the authorities on Athos, unfortunately, is impossible, and sooner or later it will have to give the final advantage to one or another of the irreconcilable and fighting parties). After the patriarch, with very suspicious speed and ease, spoke out against “imeslavia,” the Greeks had a completely legal and canonical opportunity to remove heretics from Orthodox Athos, which was subordinate to the patriarch, in order to give a numerical advantage to the Greeks, who already had legal dominance. At this time (in the spring) the new teaching was condemned by St. Synod, and it was followed by the Athonite expedition of Arch. Nikon, which began with exhortations and ended with the “transfer of powers to civil authorities.” A flush of shame, indignation, grief, and resentment for the church appears on the face when thinking about this expedition and the sad role to which the Orthodox archbishop allowed himself to play, not avoiding moral complicity in the vile massacre of the Athonite monks. This expedition was condemned with complete unanimity by all independent press organs, right and left, Orthodox and non-Orthodox. Arch. Nikon did not consider it necessary to visit Athos and listen to the Athonite “confessors” even during the preparation of his report to St. synod, when opinions could be freely exchanged; he came there with a ready-made sentence and a demand for obedience under the threat of excommunication and... expulsion, and at the same time he also complains that he was met with coldness and distrust. Instead of wise tolerance and benevolence, the church authorities showed a jealous lust for power, for the sake of which the emerging shoots of church life were torn out and trampled, and where? On St. grief, which from time immemorial was revered as a shrine of Orthodoxy, as “destiny. Rev. Mother of God." By its actions, the synod seems to want to complete the long-standing rupture of the moral connection between it and the church people, and, of course, the suicidal means for it is the resettlement of Athonite “confessors” throughout the cities and villages of Russia, who have tasted the sweets of the archpastoral rod. This gap may not be celebrated while church power is covered by the fence of the state, but this will be revealed immediately as soon as, by the will of fate, this fence collapses. After all, what kind of power and authority would the envoy of the synod, Arch. Nikon without Donets and military force? ... Distracting from the Athos events and focusing on the religious-dogmatic side of the issue, it must be said that the Athos people nevertheless sinned by excessive and premature dogmatization of their teaching and, in particular, their (and generally hardly successful) formula that “the name of God is God.” We do not forget, of course, that they were excited by articles a. Anthony and the defiant way of acting of his opponents, but even a true opinion, if it becomes a means of church division and creates the will for it, can take on a heretical connotation. In this sense, it is also accepted by the premature dogmatization of the Orthodox teaching, which is what is supposed to be like at its core. There is also no doubt that among the mass of monastics, among whom the new teaching has spread, it does not find full understanding and is capable of causing misunderstandings, especially on the basis of its fanatical defense. 8 Nevertheless, these hundreds of monks, now deprived of their spiritual homeland, ready to die for the faith, represent the best proof of the vitality of Orthodoxy, capable, as in the past, of giving birth to both martyrs and confessors, and this movement itself, testifying to the subsurface movement of waters in Orthodoxy, is essentially a joyful event in the life of the Church. If the people of Athos are from Fr. Anthony Bulatovich in Chapter 9 even fell into exaggerations and simplifications, then their service to the Church remains enormous, it consists in decisively raising the question of the name of God before the church consciousness, and, according to the fair remark of the preface in the “Anology”, 1912 in future church history will be called “the year of Athonite disputes about the name of God.” Having eliminated the possibility of preliminary theological discussion of the new teaching, St. The synod itself began to try him. Three persons were entrusted with the preparation of reports: first of all, of course, the universal arch. Anthony, although he himself is a party to this matter and for this reason alone, it would seem, should be “removed,” Arch. Nikon, suddenly elevated to the rank of a first-class theologian and teaching ignorant monks with seminarian importance, and the hitherto unknown teacher of the theological school, Mr. Trinity. Why only this gutta-percha theologian, convenient for his portability (he, together with Arch. Nikon, represented the Russian Church on Athos), turned out to be the only representative of the laity in discussing this issue of paramount importance, why theological academies, prominent representatives of the Orthodox pastorate and the laity were not surveyed, in general why at least the external decorum of “conciliarity” was not observed, there cannot be a satisfactory answer. 10 The issue was resolved in a clerical and private way, and on the basis of three reports a synodal message was drawn up, claiming to set forth “Orthodox wisdom” about the name of God (all three reports and the message were published in Church Gazette, No. 20). One must mentally put oneself in the position of a monk, to whom this message and the reports supposedly clarifying and supplementing it must be accepted “not out of fear, but out of conscience” and who would really try to do this. If we exclude the fair condemnation of those obvious errors to which the teaching of the “Imeslavtsy” (mechanical or magical understanding of prayer) can lead dark people, then on the essence of the question of the name of God, even among the speakers there is no unanimity at all, and from the extreme rationalism of Arch. Anthony (I will leave aside his unbearable journalism), we move on to the unstable, but very close to “imeslavstvo”, albeit veiled position of Troitsky, in the report of Arch. Nikon 11 there are at least three different versions of the doctrine of the name of God, which are difficult to reconcile with each other (here I am unable to confirm what has been said with quotations). Finally, even on the fundamental question of whether the name of God is divine “energy,” there turned out to be a completely irreconcilable disagreement, for, whereas in the synod message, as “Orthodox wisdom,” it is stated that the name of God “is not the energy of God” (p. 285), in the report of Trinity, as an “Orthodox teaching,” it is directly proclaimed that “the name of God, understood in the sense of the revelation of God ... is the eternal energy of God, inseparable from God” (p. 900). I don’t know my own. The operative part of the synodal message is formulated hastily and vaguely (see decisive paragraph 1, p. 285), so that it does not fix the dogmatic idea at all, 12 - it is known how difficult it is to give dogmatic formulas in the history of ecumenical councils. Therefore, I have to say that all these reports and the resolution leave the issue open, and in my opinion there is no possibility of accepting them into the leadership even with the full desire (this should be even more said about the patriarch’s resolution). Although the synod currently invests these decrees with its authority of the highest church authority, it can still do this in a disciplinary manner, but by no means dogmatically. No matter how hard our St. tries to copy our Pope. Synod, it does not have the power over the conscience of believers that legally belongs in the eyes of Catholics to the Roman Pontiff. Here we should return to the fundamental question with which we began. Even if the synod reports and resolutions were free from the indicated shortcomings and provided a clear and intelligible formula, could they even then lay claim to dogmatic significance? Orthodox teaching forces us to answer this question with a decisive no. The very claim to the autocratic establishment of new dogmas (and here we are talking specifically about a new dogma) would not only be non-canonical, but would actually lead to a real heresy, to a perversion of Orthodoxy, to usurpation. Neither the synod nor the patriarch is characterized by dogmatic infallibility. Therefore, the resolution of the synod on the issue of a new dogma can have at most only a conditional force (donec corrigetur), a temporary and preliminary determination, in other words, the action of church authority in the order of governance, but by no means the indisputable voice of the Church. The situation is no different in the case of imeslaviya. By its very nature, the message of the synod can be considered only as such a preliminary determination, more precisely, as an action of church authority, subject to appeal, change and even cancellation, but not as a final dogmatic determination that can only belong to the entire church body. “Imeslavtsy” can also adopt this point of view in principle, of course, in order to continue for themselves and for others to deepen and clarify the issue of honoring the Name of God. From the point of view of the Orthodox teaching on the Church, it remains unshakable that there is no dogma on this issue yet, for neither Athonite monasticism nor St. the synod, nor the patriarch, and therefore it is necessary to give place to free “theological opinions”, eliminating only gross distortions generated by the fanaticism of both sides. The events of this year cannot be seen as a final solution to the issue; on the contrary, this is only a prologue to a further dogmatic movement, and participation in it as possible should be a natural duty of living members of the Orthodox Church. Therefore, the Index is binding on the faithful Catholic not only as a simple prohibition, but also as a requirement to renounce a condemned opinion. On the contrary, the index in Orthodoxy, even if it existed, could only have the force of a disciplinary and pedagogical measure, but cannot receive the shade of a dogmatic decision. The note to this place in the Russian edition contains the original paragraphs of the district message of May 6, 1848. § 16. We have no secular government or, as his beatitude says, sacred government, but are only united by a union of love and zeal for a common mother, in the unity of faith, etc. § 17. In your patriarchate, at councils, you could never introduce anything new, because the guardian of piety for us is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves.” Wed. with this definition, the course of action of the current Patriarch of Constantinople Herman in the Athos case, where he directly states that after the synodal consideration “we unanimously condemned the said newly revealed teaching about the name “Jesus” ... and declare in the Holy Spirit (this teaching) as blasphemous and heretical ... demand on behalf of us and the Church that everyone completely reject the blasphemous error, evade various alien teachings and remained faithful only in the faithful dogmas and in the taught teaching of the Church, beyond which and apart from which no one should innovate” (Materials on the dispute about the veneration of the Name of God, ed. “Religious and Philosophical Library”, Moscow, 1913, p. 47). In this document, the Patriarch of Constantinople not only, terminologically, poses as an infallible pope (cf. the underlined passages), but also, in essence, authoritarianly finds, under the pretext of denying innovations, a completely new dogma, namely, that there cannot and should not be new dogmas in Orthodoxy. On the contrary, even for arch. Nikon is clear that the decision of the patriarch (and therefore the Russian synod) cannot be considered final: “Only the Ecumenical Council, or at least the episcopate of the entire Eastern Church, would have had the power to rebel against this court and judge such power in the Church” (Material to the book on the honorable name of God. Issue I, Moscow 1913, p. 8). A. S. Khomyakov, works, vol. II p. 61. See Church Gazette, May 18, 1913, No. 20. This point of view was also expressed by the editors of Religious-Philosophical. library”, which published the work of the Athonite hieromonk Anthony Bulatovich “Apology of Faith in the Name of God and in the Name of Jesus”, in the preface: “as a central question about the Name of God is connected with all points of the spiritual understanding of life, with the entire circle of faith, and it is not surprising that the most diverse motives appear in the disputes that have arisen. For an ecclesiastical decision, quite a lot of special preparatory work is required... this work not only does not exclude, but also requires new work, in a different direction, in other sections, investigating the same issues.” The adoption of this teaching at the council of monks in the Thebaid monastery is called in the local language the “triumph of Orthodoxy.” According to the understanding of the “Imeslavtsy”, the Athonite constitution provides the choice of abbot for the brethren. Looking at the unbearably smug and false report of the arch. Nikon about his Athos expedition, which is also marked by the usual habit of giving any independent movement a seditious character, and it indicates some features that testify to the power of the “psychology of the masses” on Athos. See Church Gazette, August 24, 1913. Report of Arch. Nikon. In disputes about the name of God, the book of the Caucasian hermit Hilarion “In the Caucasus Mountains” (or about the Jesus Prayer) is often mentioned. This book contains the most fragrant pages of religious poetry from the life of the hermits of the Caucasus, alternating with the author’s ingenuous, sometimes downright seminary, reasoning and extracts from spiritual literature. It is completely unusual for the unassuming author of this remarkable book, a very old man who is currently living in the obscurity of a hermit, to act as the leader of a dogmatic movement, and he himself leaves his judgments at the stage of “theological opinion.” An even more simplified procedure was used by the Patriarch Herman of Constantinople, who declared the new teaching “blasphemous slander and heresy” on the basis of the report of the Khalkin theologians, and the latter themselves admit that due to lack of time and ignorance of the Russian language they could not familiarize themselves with the “Anology” of Fr. A. Bulatovich and based their judgment “on other” (?) Russian and Greek manuscripts, “in the form of instructions and teachings” (Matthew to the book on the honor of the Name of God, 41) On the basis of such dark sources and with such haste, such a decisive verdict was passed! I highly appreciate certain aspects of the previous spiritual and educational activities of the arch. Nikon The first half of paragraph 1 is “imeslavical”: “the name of God is divine, because it is revealed to us by God” (therefore, energy); the second half limits this judgment in every possible way and says that “the name of God is only a name, and not God himself and not His property,” but then how is it divine and how can it be “revealed”? This is how one of its influential members characterizes the significance of the synod: “The Orthodox Church, dominant on paper, but in reality enslaved more than all faiths, is deprived in Russia of what the Latins, Protestants, Armenians, Mohammedans, and Lamaites have - deprived of its legitimate head and given over to the enslavement of secular officials, hiding behind a meeting of six, seven semi-annually rotated bishops and two priests. Who does not know that such an institution is non-canonical, that it was not approved at its founding by two patriarchs? Yes, even if it were approved by all four, it would speak only about the illegal action of the patriarchs, and not about the canonical legality of the synodal government, since no patriarchs can approve and authorize an institution unknown to Holy Orthodoxy and invented solely (sic!) for its weakening and corruption... But the highest government of the Church is a council? Undoubtedly so, but we must not forget that our councils ceased along with the end of the patriarchate,” with which the author connects the cause of all the disasters of the Russian Church. But who is this merciless critic of the synodal regime? This is none other than a permanent member of St. Synod, now dogmatizing through its mediation about the Name of God, is Archbishop Anthony (see his article “Restoration of the Patriarchate” in Voice of the Church, 1912, January, pp. 163 - 4).