Очерки учения о церкви 1

1. The church is invisible and visible. 2. Foundation of the Church. 3. Old Testament Church. 4. The Incarnation as the foundation of the Church. 5. The spiritual nature of the Church. 6. The Church as a God-established society. 7. Internal unity of the Church. 8. External unity of the Church. 9. Does Orthodoxy have the external authority of dogmatic infallibility? 10.Church and “heterodox”. 1. The church is invisible and visible “I believe in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” According to the definition of the 9th member of the Creed, the Church, being an external fact, is at the same time an object of faith, which is “the presence of what is expected and the evidence of what is not seen,” oὐ βλεπομένων ( Heb. 11:1 ). As visible, the Church is a divinely established society with certain forms. But what is it as invisible and expected? The invisible side of the Church extends, first of all, to its personal composition, for it includes not only people now living on earth, but also those who have departed in the faith, and not only people, but also Angels. The Divine power of grace that acts in the Church and animates it is also invisible. The Divine foundation of the Church, which has the Lord Jesus Christ as its Head, filled with the Holy Spirit, bearing the seal of the Holy Trinity, in whose name all who enter the Church are baptized, is also invisible. How can we better determine the relationship between the visible and invisible sides of the Church? There may be two deviations in the teaching about the Church: one leading to a more or less complete severance of the clear connection between the visible and invisible Church, the other leading to its externalization, to its transformation into an organized society of like-minded people, like a state or a party. Both deviations emerged in that era of crisis of church consciousness in the West, which is called the Reformation. In the eyes of the leaders of the Reformation, the Church is a society of saints who are only interspersed with the earthly Church 2 and are even outside of Christianity (Lutherans), or pre-elected (Calvinists) and generally known to God alone (Scottish Confession). The logical emphasis here lies on the contrast between the invisible, genuine Church and the visible, as essentially inauthentic, only containing, but at the same time hiding, the true Church. The saints in the Church are indeed unknown to the world and known only to God, but from this fact the conclusion is drawn that the Church itself is not holy as a divinely established society: it is holy only by the holiness of the saints. Thus, the Reformation turns the Church into an idea or only an ideal task, generally incompatible with the limits of earthly experience. 3 Thus, here a gap is made between idea and reality, invisible and visible, Heaven and earth, Divine and human, that is, the Incarnation of Christ from the Virgin Mary is rejected in a hidden form. But at the same time, the Church is also rejected as the genuine and true bearer of the power and grace of God. In the dispute with the reformers, the Catholic side emphasized mainly that the holiness of the Church is not contradicted by the participation in it not only of the righteous, but also of sinners, and that the Church is a visible society, as obvious and tangible as the kingdom of Gaul and the Venetian Republic (Bellarmini, Eccl. milit, p. 2). 4 However, the decisive importance here is not the very definition of the external, visible boundaries of the Church, but the comprehension of its nature. The main property of the Church is that under the external forms and manifestations of its life grace is given and the action of Divine power is accomplished. The Church is Divine, grace-filled life on earth, in this world and beyond its borders at the same time. The Church is the continually occurring deification of man and in him of the world. The most characteristic thing for the life of the Church, therefore, is precisely the inextricable union of Divine and human life, the fusion of form and content without eliminating or dissolving human nature, endowed with permeability for grace-filled transformation. Thus, the Church is the unity of the supermundane (transcendent) and world (immanent) existence. Such unity is a mystery that overcomes the mind, and therefore the life of the Church is the mystery of faith, which is revealed only in the life experience of its members. In this sense, the Church cannot be shown to a non-believer, like Gaul or Venice, but for a believer it is completely tangible and visible, its existence is subject to the forms of spatiality and temporality, common to all world existence. The Church is the action of the Spirit of God dwelling in man, she is the embodiment of Christ the Savior, living in the world and abiding in it “always, now and ever and unto ages of ages,” she is the receptacle of the Holy Spirit, who descended on the earth at Pentecost and abides in the Church, she is the revelation of the Holy Trinity in the world. The entire history of the Church is mysterious, and it itself is, one might say, a continuous sacrament, which manifests itself in individual prayer sacraments, and in particular, in the sacraments of the Church in the proper sense. And just as in the Sacrament everything is visible, having its established form, but everything is invisible, precisely what fills this form. The unbelieving eye sees only one appearance here, but the believer knows the content of this appearance. The Church is a ladder between Heaven and earth, through which the descent of God and the ascent of people to Heaven takes place. The Church is life of grace in God, and therefore it can neither be defined nor described. However, by the will of God, it is fused with external forms and institutions, which must be sacredly and inviolably observed, and can be shown as “Gaul and the Venetian Republic”... In this sense, the Church is a divinely established society, founded by the Lord Jesus Christ and having its own specific system. The Church on earth was founded by the direct will of the Lord Jesus Christ, during the days of His earthly life, and established by His Blood, shed for the life of the world. “It is finished,” announced from the cross (John 19:30) and tearing apart the church veil of the Old Testament Church, was also the foundation of the Church of Christ. Another event that completed the foundation of the Church was Pentecost, the outpouring of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, and through them on every creature. However, despite this, it also speaks of the Old Testament Church, which existed before the coming of Christ, of course, by the power of the coming appearance of Christ. And in this sense, the beginning of the Church was laid in paradise (“you laid its beginning in paradise” - Orthodox rite). This beginning is directly connected with the promise spoken by God about the seed of the woman. However, it is not without reason to consider the paradise state of the ancestors before the Fall as the beginning of the Church. The ancestors lived in direct communion with God: “And they heard the voice of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day” (Gen. 3:8). There was no church in paradise, just as there was no church in heavenly Jerusalem (in Rev. 21:22): “But I saw no church therein, for the Lord God Almighty is his church, and the Lamb.” We have absolutely no idea what the fate of the world would have been if the Fall had not occurred. However, it could not change the very foundation of the creation of the world, for God so loved the world that in His eternal council He determined the incarnation and sacrifice of His Son on the cross for the salvation of the world and the creation of the Church. The Church is the unchanging foundation and goal of peace. The world was created by God for the sake of the Church as its container (“He chose + peace will be when God becomes all things in everyone. This is “the building up of the mystery that was hidden from eternity in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, so that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known... to the principalities and powers in the heavens” (Eph. 3:9-10). “The great mystery of godliness: God was revealed in flesh, justified in the Spirit, showed himself to the angels, preached among the nations, accepted by faith in the world, ascended in glory" (1 Timothy 3:16). The world was created for the Church and has its highest foundation in the Church 5 . If the Sixth Day ends and is crowned with the creation of man, after which all fullness is fulfilled and God rests from His works, then this creation of the world and in it man in the image and likeness of God has its pre-eternal foundation in the Wisdom of God, which is also the pre-eternal image and foundation of the Church. The Church is the Heavenly Jerusalem, descending to earth in the fullness of time (Rev. 21), the glory of God, which will be revealed in us (Rom. 8:18), a dwelling in Heaven, a house not made with hands, eternal (2 Cor. 5:1; Phil. 3:20). The Savior speaks about this glory in His high priestly prayer: “Now, Father, glorify Me with You with the Glory that I had with You before the world was. And the glory that You gave Me I have given to them” (John 17:5, 17:22). The world was created by God out of nothing, but by Divine fullness and wisdom, which was an artist before Him and whose joy is in the sons of men (Proverbs 8:31). The world was created by God as the Church in its foundation and in its completion. The life of the world is the becoming Church, the fate of the world is the history of the Church. The Church could not arise from a non-existent, as different human societies or states arise, it could not be founded, as human institutions are founded, which may or may not exist. Its origin and foundation are subordinated to the highest internal necessity inherent in the very creation of the world and man. In its implementation, the Church arises in time, but at its core it exists eternally, as the Divine fundamental principle and goal of the universe. This is the mystery of the Incarnation, unknown even to the Angels. The Lord created the world for man, and He created man in order to have a friend in it, to make him a child of God, to introduce him to Divine life. The Most Holy Trinity, the consubstantial love of the Three Hypostases, self-closed and self-sufficient Reciprocity, the Divine Trinumber, all-blessed and all-satisfied, unable to have any replenishment, in His generous love creates from non-existence in His image and likeness a hypostatic man, and wants to associate this human hypostasis with His love and His life, so that to completely deify her, to create from man “a god by grace.” This means creating it for the Church and for the sake of the Church, for she is the grace-filled life of the deified creature. God loved the world so much that in His eternal Council He predetermined the incarnation of the Only Begotten Son, in order to give eternal life to those who believe in Him, to save the world (John 3:16–17). The Incarnation is the accomplishment of the Church through the deification of human nature, and with it the sanctification and transformation of all creation, the creation of a new Heaven and a new earth, and in them the justification of everything. For the creation waits with hope for the revelation of the sons of God - ... in the hope that the creation itself will be freed from slavery to corruption into the freedom ... of the children of God ... (Rom. 8:19-21). ...According to His promise, we look forward to new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells... (2 Pet. 3:13). Adam and Eve, created in the image and likeness of God, had to find in Him the strength to freely assimilate to this image, in other words, to the complete churching of their lives, and along with themselves, of all creation, whose destinies were made dependent on man. The first couple were settled in paradise to cultivate and preserve it and received the commandment of God as the internal norm of their life - not to eat the fruits of the tree of good and evil. This commandment contained the secret outline of the path of man’s churching. He had to first of all show obedience, but this obedience could only be an expression of his love for God, filled with boundless filial trust. Disobedience was also a dislike for God-Love, therefore, an eclipse and distortion of the image of God in his human likeness. Eating the forbidden fruit was at the same time evidence of lack of faith: the worldly elements, the fruit of the tree, turned out to be in the eyes of a deceived person a more powerful means to imaginary deification (you will be like gods) than the power of God’s grace. There has been a turning in man from God to the world, a falling away from living and direct communion with God. In other words, the person left the path of churching and entered the path of secularization. By this he violated the norm of his own nature and brought the whole creation along with him. God's sentence over fallen man was as much an award of punishment as it was a revelation of the irremovable consequences of such self-determination: man, having become only natural, lost power over nature and over his own body, became mortal and bore the stamp of condemnation for sin. In the Fall, the connection between the Church and the world was broken, the path of churching was rejected. However, human sin was not allowed to surpass God’s mercy, and human weakness was not allowed to destroy God’s plan for creation. The Church was not destroyed by the Fall of man, although the ways of its construction on earth changed. There was still a living seed left in sick human nature that could be raised in the garden of God. It was...the seed of the woman...that...would erase the head of the serpent.... In the human race, a branch of grace was chosen, which was supposed to grow the “seed of the woman” - this is the race of the Mother of God. In the paradise of God, along with the judgment of the first parents, the foundation is laid for the genealogy of Christ, with which the Gospel is revealed. Despite sin, by the power of God's help, the gradual healing of the human race begins in order to accommodate the Church and accept the incarnate Christ. This is a kind of preliminary churching, preparation for the Church, like a church vestibule. This is the so-called Old Testament Church as a divinely established society that preserves intact faith in the true God and is protected by sacred ritual and law. This is a prototype of the coming Church of Christ, its preparation: “pass away the shadow of the lawful grace that has come” (dogmatist) Several facets can be noted in its history: 1) From Adam to Noah, when the Holy Tradition, the establishment of sacrifices, which, judging by the example of Cain and Abel, has its origins from the beginning, are kept in the chosen race of patriarchs, and the rest of humanity is gradually engulfed in corruption. 2) From righteous Noah to Abraham: the Lord chose Noah and his loved ones for salvation in the ark, which is the unchanging image of the Church, from general destruction, and God made a covenant with Noah with the sign of the rainbow that there would be no more new flood. 3) From Abraham to Moses: God made a covenant with Abraham that true worship of God should be preserved in the race of Abraham, but this race would be exalted by God as a chosen branch, about which all the tribes of the earth would be blessed, and as a sign of this covenant, circumcision was established for male infants - a prototype of baptism. The race of Abraham became the chosen people of God, so that God, appearing to Moses, called Himself: ... the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob... (Ex. 3:6). And the Lord Jesus in the genealogy of St. Matthew is called “the son of David, the Son of Abraham”... 4) From Moses to the prophets: The Lord revealed his name Jehovah through Moses and through him led the Jewish people out of Egypt. Through Moses, God gave the people a law, established a subordinate priesthood, sacrifices and times; a sacred place of worship of God was established - the tabernacle, and then the church erected by Solomon. The Lord protected the chosen race from all generations with the fence of the law like a vineyard, according to the word of the prophet Isaiah (5:1-2, 5:7): ...My Beloved had a vineyard on the top of a fat mountain. And He surrounded it with a fence, and cleared it of stones, and planted choice vines in it, and built a tower in the midst of it, and dug a winepress in it, and expected that it would bring good grapes, but it brought wild berries... The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are His beloved planting.... 5) From the prophets to Christ. Jews were given not only the “law,” but also “prophets,” divinely inspired men who were called upon to cultivate the New Testament spirit in the people under the law, to awaken the aspirations of the Messiah and prepare for His meeting, to call for the Coming One in the Name of the Lord. Prophetic preaching akin the consciousness of Jewry to the coming salvation so much that it turned out to be possible in the fullness of time and timing such a firm and clear consciousness of the expected salvation, which was discovered by Priest Zechariah, the father of the Forerunner (Luke 1:67-79), Simeon and Anna the Receivers of God (Luke 2:29-35, 38), and finally it became possible for the appearance of John the Baptist with his absolutely clear knowledge of the approach of the Lamb God's, taking away the sin of the world. The most important task of the Old Testament Church was to ensure that, together with the education of consciousness, a successive, hereditary holiness would be cultivated in the human race and that the pre-elected holy family would be protected, in which from generation to generation personal holiness would be preserved, increased, strengthened, assisted by the grace of God. The history of the Old Testament Church among the evangelists (Matthew 1:1–17; Luke 3:23–38) is entirely concentrated in the genealogy of Christ the Savior; there is this genealogy. The “Law and the Prophets” led to the fact that the Holy Branch could appear on the tree of God’s chosen people, so that the Virgin Mary could blossom on it with an Unfading Flower. And both genealogies precisely reveal the meaning of the Old Testament as the education of the human race for the Nativity of Christ through the Blessed Mary. True, both genealogies lead to Joseph or from Joseph, but it is known that the clan of Joseph and the clan of Mary must be the same clan, and only the Jewish custom of calculating genealogies through male tribes forces in this case to lead the genealogy not to Mary, but to Her Betrothed (however, this may also have its own special meaning - to show that, as a result of the sacred genealogy, the entire human race is the mother of the Lord, more precisely, the mother of the Mother, as and it is sung in the Christmas carol: “we (offer) Mary the Virgin”). With the Nativity of Christ, the times of the Old Testament Church ended, and although the church veil was torn only after Calvary was “accomplished,” the internal prototypes had already turned pale and parted before the Prototype, their fulfillment, and the Virgin Mary, the animated Church, without any obstacle entered the Holy of Holies of the man-made church and with Herself internally abolished its representative significance. The Lord fulfilled all the righteousness of the law, which he came not to break, but to fulfill, however, at the same time putting into it a new meaning and content, revealing it only ... as a shadow of future blessings, and not the very image of things ... (Heb. 10:1). 4. Incarnation as the foundation of the Church Through the Fall of Adam, man was rejected and the direct path of ecclesiastical life to which he was called became unbearable for him. He became a sad captive of this world and the prince of this world. In order for him to be able to return to the God-established path, it was necessary for new life, new forces to appear in him, and these forces, however, would not destroy, but would preserve his human nature. The renewal of the old Adam was accomplished by the appearance of the New Adam, God and Man, the Lord Jesus Christ. In it, humanity, preserved intact, united - inseparably and unmerged - with the Divine and again acquired its true, original state, freed from decay and corruption. Intended for churching, it became the Church in Christ, having completely accepted the divine life, deified humanity. The perfect deification of human nature in Christ is His foundation of the Church. The real foundation of the Church is therefore the completed incarnation of Christ the Savior, in which all humanity, perfect human nature was united with the true divine nature, the “fullness of the Divinity” in the person of the Logos, the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, with the full penetration of both natures (περιχώρησις), but also without any mutual absorption. This fundamental truth of faith was solemnly proclaimed and approved at the IV Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon in 451. “Following the holy fathers, we all teach in agreement to confess one and the same Son of our Lord Jesus Christ, both His perfect in Divinity and His perfect in humanity, Him truly God and truly man, from the rational and bodily soul, consubstantial with the Father in Divinity and Him consubstantial with us in humanity, similar to us in everything except sin, first born of the Father in Divinity, in the last days of Him born of the Virgin Mary the Mother of God according to humanity, one and the same Christ, the Son of the Lord, the Only Begotten, from two natures, inextricably, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly cognizable ἀχωρίστως γνώμενον); Moreover, the difference of natures is never destroyed by union, on the contrary, the property of each nature is preserved and (both) they are united into one Person and one hypostasis, without dividing or falling apart into two hypostases.” Having become the God-man, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, took upon Himself humanity, except for sin, and made it His own nature, uniting it with His Divinity. In fulfillment of this saving plan, He shared all the destinies of fallen humanity (except for sin), lived them out completely, right up to suffering on the cross and death. But this overcoming by the sinless God-man of the destinies of fallen man had a reviving, saving, redeeming significance. With His suffering the Savior weakened sin in human nature, and with His blood and death on the cross He defeated the power of death. Despite the fallen state of man, He revealed him in a sinless, proper, natural state. He glorified him by resurrection because death could not hold the sinless Dead. He rose in glory and, together with Himself, resurrected and gave the power of resurrection to the entire human race. In the resurrected Body of Christ, humanity has achieved the highest state destined for it at creation, but which it lost even in possibility through the power of sin. Man was created for the glory of God, that is, for the Church, to become the Church and to be Her. In the fall, this path to churching was rejected by him. The new Adam, Christ, completed this path to the end, and Christ’s humanity became the Church. This is what the great High Priest Himself testifies to in His high priestly prayer: ...And the glory that You gave Me, I have given to them... Father! whom You have given Me, I want them to be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory, which You have given Me, because You loved Me before the foundation of the world... (John 17:22, 24). The Lord in His Person glorified the entire human race and communicated to all of them the power of His Resurrection: at the Last Judgment... the Gentiles will be gathered... (Matthew 25:32). Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will live... (1 Cor. 15:22). The Lord, as a perfect Man, received upon humanity His perfect outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which descended on Him in the form of a dove at the baptism of John in the waters of the Jordan; according to His Divinity, He always remained inseparable from the Holy Spirit coming upon Him from the Father. After baptism, He appeared already...filled with the Holy Spirit... (Luke 4:1) and could testify about Himself with the words of Isaiah: ...The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me... (Luke 4:18). But after His resurrection He sent this Holy Spirit from His Father, as He promised at the Last Supper to His disciples: ... You have no need, so that I go ... I will send Him to you ... (John 16:7). Pentecost, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the Church in the person of the apostles, was the completion of the salvation of mankind through deification; it was the final action of the work of Christ, His incarnation: ... He (the Holy Spirit) will glorify Me, because He will take of Mine and proclaim it to you... (John 16:14). Just as in the pre-eternal life of the Holy Trinity the Holy Spirit rests on the Son, who reveals the Father, so in the world the Incarnation of Christ would remain incomplete if it did not lead to the descent of the Holy Spirit, who exists inseparably with Christ. Therefore, the deification of humanity is accomplished by Christ’s Incarnation by the power of the Holy Spirit, and both the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent by the Father and reveal Him. Consequently, the foundation of the Church is the work of the entire Holy Trinity, and each of the Three Hypostases is revealed according to its hypostatic property: the Father sends, the Son incarnates, the Holy Spirit descends and carries out the work of the Son. 5. The spiritual nature of the Church The Lord brought new, grace-filled life to man, life in Christ and with Christ. The unity of Divine and human nature, the incarnation of God and the deification of man, gave man the opportunity for such complete, deep and mysterious unity with Christ that he can say about himself through the mouth of the Apostle Paul: ...And it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me... (Gal. 2:20). This connection is so indestructible and indestructible that it can be testified to by the words of the same apostle: “Neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39). The Lord Himself spoke of Himself: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture says, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water. This He spoke of the Spirit, which those who believed in Him were about to receive” (John 7:38–39), and He solemnly proclaimed in the high priestly prayer: “Thou hast given Him (the Son) authority over all flesh, that He may give eternal life to all that Thou hast given Him” (John 17:2). Life with Christ becomes life in Christ, life of Christ in us. Here the mystery of the unity of two natures in Christ is repeated or realized again: He is united not only with His personal body of incarnation, with His humanity, but in it with every person who seeks Him. In this sense of perfect communion of life with Christ, the Church is called in the Word of God the Body of Christ: “You are the Body of Christ, individually members” (1 Cor. 12:27). The Church “is His Body, the fullness that fills all in all” (Εφ.1:23, 4:12; Col. 1:24). To understand the true meaning of this definition, you need to see in it more than a simple simile, understand the expression of some essence. The nature of the body in relation to the spirit living in it is that it is, on the one hand, an obedient instrument for the dictates of the spirit, and on the other, a means of manifestation of the spirit, its tangible revelation. The body has a common life with the spirit; they can be distinguished, but cannot be separated and opposed. Of course, this definition refers to either the original, pristine state of the body, not distorted by sin, or the state of the glorified, spiritualized body, the Body of the Risen Christ, but it does not fit the current state of our body, which, by virtue of its sensuality and materiality, is a prison for the spirit. Calling the Church the Body of Christ, the apostle testifies to the unity of Christ with humanity, which will be revealed at the Last Judgment, when the Lord Himself will clearly testify to His presence in every person: “...as you did to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me;... and because they did not do it to one of the least of these, they did not do it to Me” (Matthew 25:40, 25:45). The Apostle therefore teaches individual members of the Church to view their bodies as members of the Body of Christ. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” (1 Cor. 6:15). Another definition of the Church, which is given by the Word of God, is borrowed from the marriage relationship. The Church is called the Bride of Christ or His Wife (2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 21:9, 22:17): “...I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you to Christ as a pure virgin” (2 Cor. 11:2). “...the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife made herself ready. And it was given to her to be clothed in fine linen, clean and bright; The fine linen is the righteousness of the saints. And the Angel said to me: Write: Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev. 19:7-9). “And (the angel) said, Come, I will show you a wife, the bride of the Lamb... and she showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, which came down out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21:9-10). And the very mystery of marriage is explained by the Apostle as “a mystery... in Christ and in the Church” (μυστήριον μέγα) (Eph. 5:32). These comparisons express the same idea as above. The relationship of the groom and the bride, and especially the husband and wife, is carried out, on the one hand, by the union of the two together, even in a carnal relationship: “and the two will become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5–6; Mark 10:8), are the common life of the two, and on the other hand, they are determined by the hierarchical relationship, the difference between the husband, as the head, and the wife, who has the duty of obedience. Just as the body is obedient to the dictates of the spirit, with which it lives one life, so the wife is obedient to the suggestions of her husband, with whom she is united by carnal and spiritual unity. Thus, rejecting here a special consideration of both of these definitions, we can indicate their general idea and content: they speak of the Church as life in unity with Christ, as the ongoing deification of man. However, the spiritual essence of the Church cannot be exhausted only by definitions relating to unity with Christ, for this unity leads with it and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or is conditioned by it: deification is accomplished by the Holy Spirit for those who put on Christ. Therefore, the Church must be recognized as the repository of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, dating back to Pentecost. The tangible entry into the Church at Baptism was accompanied by a clear outpouring of the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the primacy of the Church (according to the Acts of the Apostles): “Paul... came to Ephesus and, having found some disciples, said to them: Have you received the Holy Spirit when you have believed? They said to him, “We have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit... And when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit descended on them, and they began to preach in tongues and prophesy” (Acts 19:1-6). (Cf. also Acts 8:17; 10:44–46). And insofar as life in the Church is life in Christ, it is life in the Holy Spirit: “Truth, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:17 - Ed.). The acquisition of the Holy Spirit is the goal, the essence, and the task of Christian life, as it was once said by St. Seraphim in agreement with all the teachers of the Church. Therefore, the Church, which is once called the house of Christ in the Word of God (Heb. 3:6: “Christ is like a Son in His house, and we are His house”), is repeatedly called the house of God and the church of God as the temple of the Holy Spirit: “Do you not know that you are the church of God, and the Spirit of God lives in you”? (1 Cor. 3:16–17, 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:19–22). For the Holy Spirit there are no barriers and no boundaries, He penetrates everything, even the depths of God, He breathes where He wants, and no one knows when He comes and where He goes. He sanctifies, transforms, transubstantiates every nature, inspires and replenishes what is deficient and heals the weak. “Every soul is alive by the Holy Spirit,” and without the grace of the Holy Spirit there is no true and eternal life, life in God. Church life is the grace-filled kingdom of the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Holy Spirit working with grace in people. The action of the Holy Spirit has different degrees and is associated with different images of His influx. Like the Kingdom of God, life in the Church is “truth, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” In the oldest text, the petition of the Lord's Prayer “Thy kingdom come” read: “Let the Holy Spirit come.” It was breathed into the apostles by the Risen Christ, who were thereby ordained by the Great Bishop to the priesthood: “Receive the Holy Spirit, forgive your sins, they will be forgiven, and hold on to them.” With these words they were given priestly authority. Church Sacraments and consecrations are performed by the invocation and power of the Holy Spirit: a) the consecration of the Holy Gifts at the Liturgy, preceded by the prayer of the 3rd hour for the sending of the Holy Spirit, ends with the words pronounced during the general blessing of the Holy Bread and Cup: translating by Thy Holy Spirit; b) the consecration of baptismal waters (like the consecration of water at Epiphany) is accomplished “by the power and action and influx of the Holy Spirit,” “by the invisible manifestation of the Holy Spirit”; c) confirmation - “the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit”; d) in the consecration of oil: “Send down Your Holy Spirit and sanctify this oil”; e) in ordination, the grace of the Holy Spirit is requested and sent down to the person being ordained. The Holy Spirit is the sanctifying power in the Church. The future age, when God will be “all in all,” the kingdom of glory, differs from the present kingdom of grace, when life in its state remains unenlightened and the Spirit of God gilds only the tops. However, in essence it is one and the same life - life in the Holy Spirit, eternal life. So, the Church possesses the treasure of eternal life in Christ and the Holy Spirit. She is this eternal life on earth and in this age the beginning of the age to come. 6. The Church as a divinely established society Although the power of the Church is a grace-filled life in God, invisible in the eyes of the world, the Church does not, as a result, become invisible in her external existence in this world. Her life does not lead to disordered, improvised inspiration and ecstasies, to which pietism and mysticism, all “spiritual” Christianity, wants to reduce it. The grace-filled life in it is also combined with its external signification through visible signs and actions, which are characterized by grace-filled power. It is, of course, impossible for a person to establish such a connection and unity between an external sign and the spiritual essence that fills it, in other words, to acquire the necessary form of sacred symbolic actions on his own. This is possible only by God Himself, if He pleases, through His revelation in divinely established worship and worship. And we, indeed, see even in the Old Testament, which had only a “shadow of future blessings” (Heb. 10:1) of the New Testament, God Himself gives regulations concerning both the organization of the church and worship together with the priesthood. The entire ritual law in all its details was given to Moses directly by God at Sinai, in other words, it appeared as a result of God’s direct command, thereby establishing the visible Church on earth (see Ex. 25–31; Lev. 1–8, 23–24; Num. 8–10, 15; Deut. 16–17). “And I will sanctify the tabernacle of meeting, and the altar, and Aaron, and his sons I will sanctify, that they may serve as priests to me. And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and I will be their God.” ( Ex. 29:44–45 ). Thus, “the first covenant had a statute regarding worship and an earthly sanctuary” (Heb. 9:1). But both the New Testament and the Church of Christ have decrees regarding divine services and an earthly sanctuary, although they are different from those of the Old Testament, as is the new priesthood. He is as established as the visible Church. And, indeed, the Church as a society, having external signs, signs, forms of its life, was founded by the Lord Jesus Christ and filled with the Holy Spirit. The concept of the Church as a society, which has taken the place of the Old Testament cahal, we have in the Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles, “There is no other foundation of the Church except the one Christ,” according to the word of the Apostle, “for no one can lay another foundation than that which lies, which is Jesus Christ” ( 1 Cor. 3:11) (Right. Confess. Part I, answer to question 85) (Compare the general texts: Matt. 16, 18, 10; 10, 14, 16, 17, 21). The New Testament preaching about the Kingdom of God also has as its subject the nature of the Church. 6 The foundation of the Church was laid by the Incarnation of Christ, Who took upon Himself and completely deified human nature and redeemed man by His death on the cross, “acquiring (the Church) with His blood” (Acts 20:28). At this sanctification, human nature was preserved in all its strength and integrity, freely submitting to the Divine nature: according to the dogma of the VI Ecumenical Council, in Christ there are two wills and two desires - Divine and human, thanks to the unity of which their complete mutual communication or penetration is established. And the Church is the intact humanity of Christ, united with the Divinity and in its visibility containing the invisible, ever-present power of the Divine. The Church is a living intersection, the unity of two lives, two worlds: Divine and human, natural and grace-filled. Therefore this life is revealed and realized in visible forms, the supersensible in the sensible. But these forms are given and established by the God-man himself, who communicates His life to His Body directly (as in the Eucharist, in the remission of sins) or through the apostles in further tradition, like a seed from which a plant develops through all centuries until the end of the world and the Second Coming. The Church has - and it alone - a grace-filled, supernatural, Divine life; it is a source that irrigates the world and humanity with the waters of the eternal belly, and outside this source there is no moisture. The communion of grace-filled life is given to a person not individually, in isolation, but collectively through connection with the Church as a divinely established organization. The fruits of this life are invisible, just as life itself in God is hidden, but its forms are visible and established by God. At the same time, the Church does not stand between God and man, obscuring Heaven for him; on the contrary, the very turning towards Heaven is given only in the Church and through the Church. Others may think that this introduces external formalism where free inspiration and personal creativity should reign. But form is not formalism, just as personal disposition is not isolation and isolation. Formalism is associated with the absence of internal movement of the soul, spiritual effort. And here we have the unity of two wills and natures in the life of the Church, the Body of Christ: the mysterious life in the Church is this unity of divinely established forms in which the grace of God is given, and human will, feat, effort, which the Kingdom of God requires. Therefore, the Church is not and cannot be a simple society of like-minded people as “followers” ​​of the teachings of Christ, like numerous societies pursuing worldly goals accessible to human forces. By its very nature and tasks, it can only be founded by God Himself, Jesus Christ; it can be given or not given to a person, but otherwise it cannot arise or occur in a natural order. From here it clearly follows that the Church is, and only can be, wholly and only the Church of Tradition, sacredly preserved from the beginning. The Lord, during the days of His ministry, and especially after His Resurrection, appearing to the apostles, opened their minds to comprehending the hidden things in Scripture and taught them His institutions. And, enlightened by the descent of the Spirit of the Comforter, the apostles passed on this teaching to their successors, and this sacred tradition, being creatively preserved, that is, developing and being realized in life, crystallized into forms of church life that have sacred authority and are subject to preservation until the end of the world. Therefore, the New Testament Church has its own law and charter of worship and worship, although, of course, different from the Old Testament. The main such establishment is the church hierarchy, endowed with the power from above to mediate between God and people, to bring down the grace of the Holy Spirit. This power, originally given to the apostles and passed on by them to their successors, together with the teaching and all Tradition, is the basis that the Church is Apostolic in its power. She has the same grace-filled power and authority as in the times of the apostles. This self-identity of the Church at all times of its existence is not contradicted by the fact that the Holy Tradition is preserved creatively, not as dead capital, but as a living tradition, finding for itself different historical forms of expression: the apostolic succession of grace remains inviolable. The presence of divinely established forms gives an external definition of the visible Church as a society bound by a hierarchical organization and the unity of Tradition, and, as a result, by the unity of a grace-filled life. The boundaries of this society are not set; on the contrary, the Church is called to accommodate all nations: “... go and teach all the nations” (Matthew 28:19). The Old Testament Church was established by God's covenant exclusively with the chosen people, whose task was to prepare the sacred vessel for the incarnation of God, the consecrated and Holy Virgin. The New Testament, not bound by such a limitation, is the accomplishment of salvation for everyone who wants to embrace it. However, entry into the Church is accomplished only through new birth by water and the Spirit, through Holy Baptism. Beyond its threshold is all of humanity, who lived before Christ and who live after Christ in ignorance of Him, although without resistance to Him. The ways of his salvation remain for us an unknown mystery, about which the apostle speaks: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His destinies and unsearchable His ways!” (Rom.11:33). The Apostle Peter speaks of preaching in hell (1 Pet. 3:19–20), and he also testified that “God is no respecter of persons, but in every nation whoever fears Him and does what is right is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:34–35). Among church writers, some (Clement of Alexandria, Saint Justin the Philosopher) spoke about “Christians before Christ,” and our Church expresses the same thought, sometimes giving (Moscow Annunciation Cathedral and other churches) a place in the vestibule of the temple for images of pagan sages (Plato, Aristotle, etc.) But the visible Church includes all the baptized, i.e. not only the righteous, but also sinners. Therefore, the earthly Church, militant entirely, consists of sinners who are being saved, although redeemed by the Lord, but still working on the work of their salvation. No one’s fate and no one’s condition can be considered definitively determined until earthly life has ended, due to the transmutability of human nature to sin. The net of the Church attracts fish of all kinds (Matthew 13:47-50), and division will occur only when the tares are separated from the wheat, which for a time grew together in one field (Matthew 13:24-30). 7. Internal unity of the Church It follows obviously from the very essence of the Church, which is, first of all, grace-filled life in God. And just as there is one God, one Christ and one Holy Spirit, so, according to the power of this unity, the Church is one. This is precisely what is said first of all in the high priestly prayer of the Lord: “That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us” (John 17:21) “I am the vine, and you are the generation” (John 15:5). Such unity is, first of all, the self-identity of a life of grace. This same property is also its catholicity, or integrity (from the Greek καθ'ὅλον. The Russian translation “catholic” as conciliar is inaccurate). Integrity is not a quantitative, but a qualitative definition; it is inherent in the divine grace-filled life as such. It is indivisible, although diverse in manifestations, degrees and forms. “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit, and diversities of ministries, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of activities, but the same God, who works all things in all... For we were all baptized into one body by one Spirit... and we were all given one drink of one Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:4-5, 12:13). This is the only basis for the unity or, what is the same thing, the catholicity of the Church, which is, therefore, not an extensive magnitude dependent on external extension, but an intensive, spiritual quality inherent in every genuine church experience. The Church is one, because its life is unique, unity is the quality of churchliness. Life in God always has the property of integrity, and therefore universality, both in the sense of its qualitative sameness in different places and at different times, and in the sense of its external uniformity, resulting from internal unity. Spiritual life has its own special language, common to all: the miracle of Pentecost, which abolished the division of languages, always continues in the life of the Church. Only by the power of this self-identity or catholic unity in the Church does that word usage become legitimate and understandable, which otherwise may seem like a blatant contradiction and incongruity: “The Church of God which is in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1). How can the Church of God, Universal and One, be connected and, apparently, identified with a local community (moreover, suffering from such disorders and sins as the Corinthian one)? This, however, becomes completely understandable and natural if we keep in mind the internal unity of the Church as a life of grace, manifested and realized in numerous private Churches and local communities. But what is this connection that exists between the internal or qualitative unity of the Church and the external or quantitative unity, which finds its expression in organization? This connection undoubtedly exists: the internal unity is justified and to a certain extent presupposes the external, and this latter can be realized in two directions: as the sameness of church life in different places and as the connection of the hierarchical organization. The unity of church life is established by the community of doctrine, dogmas, the entire Church Tradition and, above all, the Word of God, the celebration of the Sacraments, worship, and all worship of God. There is one powerful stream of Church Tradition, immeasurable in its depth, in which individual lives merge and into which every private community flows. This is not repetition, but community, not sameness, but unity, not separate being, but being in separateness, not “similarly existing,” but “consistent.” The entire treasury of Church Tradition, graciously contained by the Church, does not fit within the framework of any particular church experience, and yet it is possible only on its general basis, just as every drop of water has in itself the taste and moisture of the whole ocean and every leaf on a tree is nourished through the trunk from the entire root. The Holy Spirit, filling everything, moves the life of the Church. This also does not mean that each member of the Church in his personal possession contains all dogmatics, exegesis, and liturgics. However, he cannot and should not, without thereby falling away from the unity of the Church, carry in his religious consciousness any aspiration that contradicts church teaching and is incompatible with it (such as Arianism or Tolstoyism). To be a weak, uninformed member of the Church does not mean to be a heretic who distorts or rejects its teachings. At the same time, members of the Church contain its teaching not on the basis of their personal research or personal conviction - it can only have an intermediate meaning, as a path leading to the Church - but on the basis of the authority of the Truth itself, vitally recognized in the Church, which is the pillar and affirmation of the Truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Not everything in the Church is accessible and accommodating to every member - this has been and is the case at all times of the Church’s existence, for it accommodates the noble and the simple, the rich and the poor, masters and slaves, old and young. The depth of the Church's knowledge obviously exceeds the strength of an individual person, no matter how gifted he may be. But he must check himself by the Church, learn from the Church, question the Church, look for truth in her, and not in himself. For him, churchliness is a criterion for the truth of his opinions; he should have no other concern or desire than to be a churchman, to be in internal harmony with the Church, and any self-indulgence and self-thinking should be alien to him. However, such obedience to the Church is not external, passive, but internal, creative - the obedience not of a slave, but of a son, not of fear, but of love. A lover has no greater concern than to be in harmony with his beloved, while a son has to be in unity with the Heavenly Father and Mother - the Church. But this unity is only complete and possible when it is sincere and free. The Church for its members is a beloved and loving Mother - not power, but authority, and therefore - the power of authority. For one who knows the outpouring of the Spirit of God in the Church, opposition to the Church is opposition to the Holy Spirit, there is a desire to “lie to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:3). In practice, it follows from this that throughout the vast composition of church teaching, its different parts are distinguished, having for a given moment different degrees of clarity and meaning. There are truths that are unshakable and clear for everyone - necessary (necessaria) - such, for example, is the Creed, which is not without reason proclaimed at the Liturgy of the faithful, and there are truths sought, representing the subject of inquisitive and pious theology and not only allowing for their interpretation, but even, for the time being, obliging those who are called and prepared for this to clarify them to the best of their ability: in necessaris initas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas 7 (St. Augustine). The preservation of church freedom - in its place and within its borders - is one of the conditions for the inviolability of church authority. Church discipline, internal and external, is only vital and strong when it is based on a free consciousness of one’s duty and love: in omnibus caritas. But each member of the Church has a duty: to recognize his faith, to become a member of the Church in relation to the teachings of the Church and to strive to achieve it by the means available to him, especially through his life’s feat. “Whoever loves God has been given knowledge from Him” (1 Cor 8:3). “And you have the anointing of the Holy One and have everything... This very anointing teaches you everything, and it is true and not false, but whatever it has taught you, abide in it” (1 John 2:20, 2:27). The source of teaching, accessible to everyone and equally necessary, is the life of God, which is worship, participation in prayers and the Sacraments of the Church, in its grace-filled performance of God. Christ Himself, indwelling the faithful through the Sacraments of the Body and Blood, gives them His strength and His mind; The Holy Spirit himself, living in the Church and communicating in the Sacraments of the Church, teaches them all truth. The entire order of church services, the church with holy icons and sacred images teaches and edifies the believers. In the establishment and preservation of Church Tradition, human effort and will, theological thought and theological science, driven by the spirit of churchliness, also have their significance. From the first centuries of Christianity to the present day, theology has provided its services to the Church, which the Church has appreciated, exalting the special gift and feat of the “fathers of the Church and its universal teachers.” The work of the ecumenical councils would not have been possible without these theological efforts. And although different epochs of the Church’s existence required different gifts and different efforts, the need for theology, based on all available means of scientific research, was evident at all times of its historical existence, and in particular in our time. Church Tradition is preserved not as a talent buried in the ground, but as one that is constantly multiplied and converted, given at interest, according to the word of the Gospel parable. The unity of Tradition and divine action is the vital realization of the unity of the Church. But this unity is also expressed in the general structure of the Church, its organization, which is the same for all private Churches. Along with the coexistence of inner life, there are also similar coexistences of its external forms or organization, which flow from this internal coexistence. With this we move on to the teaching about the Church as an organization. The Church is a hierarchically organized society, having ecclesiastical authority and citizenship, or flock. Power in the Church is connected with the priesthood and is inherent in this latter. The Lord, our Supreme Bishop, ordained the apostles to serve, giving them the power to knit and decide. This apostolic power, which is successively preserved in the priesthood, consists of sacred rites, the right to perform the Sacraments and church teaching. This power can neither be taken away nor diminished, for it is given by the Lord himself, and the distinction between the laity and the priesthood cannot be abolished, because the priesthood has a special gift of the Holy Spirit, bestowed upon the initiate at ordination. The priesthood exists not by the power of human election, not by commission from the community, as Protestantism teaches, but by the Sacrament of Ordination. The most ancient Tradition of the Church testifies that the leadership of church life was in the hands of the hierarchy and, in particular, bishops were at the head of church communities. “Nulla ecclesia sine episcopo” (Tertullian; There is no church without a bishop (lat.) – Ed.). “He who is not in unity with the bishop is not in the Church” (Saint Cyprian). The succession of episcopal power from the apostles is established by the lists of bishops of the most ancient Churches: “Smyrna, for example, represents Polycarp, appointed by John, Roman - Clement, ordained by Peter; Likewise, other Churches indicate those men whom, as elevated to the episcopate by the apostles themselves, they had as bishops of the apostolic seed” (St. Irenaeus). The basis for the doctrine of the degrees of hierarchy and its apostolic origin is also found in the Word of God, where it is said that the apostles laid hands on presbyters and bishops (although this episcopacy and presbytery in its then form does not completely coincide with the present one). (Acts 14:23, 14:20, 14:28; Titus 1:5; 2:1–13; 1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:16, 4:12; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Tim. 5:22, 6:17). The Protestant denial of the priesthood, which is in connection with the general damage to the entire doctrine of the Sacraments in Protestantism, is based on the idea of ​​​​the universal priesthood of all Christians: “You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for your own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). These apostolic words, indeed, express the idea of ​​a certain universal anointing inherent in all Christianity. But why might this hinder or contradict the existence of deliberately established different degrees of priesthood, based on the special gifts of the Holy Spirit through apostolic succession? Absolutely no serious reason can be given for this. The transformation of priests into simple elects of the community, which by this election entirely gives birth to them and transfers to them the rights of serving the word and sacred rites, introduces the false democratic principle of installation from below, through election, and thereby destroys the hierarchical principle, which rests not on election, but on decree or dedication. 8. External unity of the Church The implementation of the hierarchy introduces the beginning of the external unity of the Church, along with the internal. Thanks to the hierarchy, the Church is an organized society that has legal power and order, or law: prayerful-dogmatic and mystical unity is complemented by canonical unity. The highest ecclesiastical power is naturally associated with the rank of bishop, which, in case of need, belongs to the application of ecclesiastical punishments. Thus, the natural structure of the Church as an organized society is expressed in a number of bishops, living in fullness of life within their own boundaries. However, these private bishoprics correspond to the plurality of the “holy Churches of God,” which we also encounter in the Word of God (cf. Rev. 1:11–20). “All the Churches of Christ greet you” (Rom. 16:16), - the word Church is declined in the plural. Thus, a foundation is laid not only for the uniformity of the church organization, but also for its plurality. This corresponds to the fact that the Lord chose the twelve apostles, and this twelve in its entirety represents church supremacy, as was expressed during the election of a new apostle in the place of Judas to complete the twelve (Acts 1:15-26), and the first authority of the Universal Church was the Council of the Apostles and Elders (Acts 15). These bishoprics do not remain alien to one another, they are in communication with each other, and this communication also takes an organized form. According to the 34th Apostolic Canon, the bishops of each country must have a first among themselves, who is the center of unity of a number of communities, and in the history of the Church this local primacy has taken on different forms: archdioceses, metropolitanates, patriarchies. However, patriarchates, even extensive ones, are only ecclesiastical provinces, or dioceses. These provinces are also in spiritual communication with each other, which receives one expression or another according to needs and capabilities. The most striking expression of this communication are the Ecumenical Councils, which received the authority of the highest authority for the Universal Church and established a number of church laws (canons) that have general significance throughout the entire Church. The possibility of new Ecumenical Councils in the future is by no means excluded, even, apparently, in recent times it has become more likely than not long ago, but even in its absence, it is to a certain extent compensated for by unction, communication of individual Churches on various issues to establish common opinions in case of need, and spiritual unity in prayers and the Sacraments. Thus, as an organized society, the Church breaks up into a number of separate autocephalous Churches, guided in their lives by the general church legislation - the sacred canons and the community of faith and life. Does this sufficiently express and ensure the unity of the church organization and all church life? Doesn’t the beginning of autocephaly introduce bad plurality, diversity, provincialism into church life, along with national passions and political influences? Doesn't a united Church need a single and personal authority? This is the question that naturally and inevitably arises when we try to understand the nature of church unity, and it is persistently put forward from the Catholic side along with accusations against Orthodoxy of anarchy, inconsistency, indecision, and schism. For Catholics, the unity of the Church is primarily expressed in the presence of a single head of the Church, the Roman Pontiff, vested with full power throughout the entire Church (plena et suprema potestas jurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, ordinaria et immediata sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles - Full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the entire Church, ordinary and direct, both over all churches and each individually, and over all pastors and faithful and each individual (lat.) - Ed. The Roman Church is a monarchy, not limited by anything or anyone from below, and it is this monarchical principle that is revered here as ensuring and establishing the unity of the Church. The Roman understanding of the unity of the Church as an absolute church monarchy is by no means caused by its essence. Although there is power in the Church, it is still, first of all, not the organization of power, but the unity of life. The presence of a number of autocephalous Churches does not hinder this unity, just as, on the contrary, a one-man regime cannot always ensure it. Transferring the norms and concepts of state law into the area of ​​church life obscures and distorts the essence of the issue: the Church is involuntarily equated with a state organization or party, an imperialist spirit develops in it with a predominance of legal consciousness (“juridism”). External conveniences, real or apparent, associated with church centralism are accompanied by a weakening of intimate, mystical self-awareness. To take the path of external unity of power for the purposes of church unity would mean to imperceptibly replace the very task - to want not so much the unity of church life as the monotony of church order. The very appearance of such a desire would indicate a violation of the internal church balance. The unity of the Church is an internal norm and task that should not be simplified or distorted by the introduction of alien principles. On this basis, the primacy of the power of the Church is hostile and unnecessary. However, the same cannot be said about the primacy of authority, which is a symbol of church unity and is generated by it. According to the same law of church life, according to which local churches must have the first bishop in each nation, patriarchates were formed, and the relations between patriarchs were also determined by a certain difference in authority. The primacy of authority in the ancient Church undoubtedly belonged to the chair of the Apostle Peter, the Roman Church. Due to the growing claims of the Roman See, which wanted primacy not only of primacy, authority, but of power, which later received dogmatic justification at the Vatican Council, the primacy of authority was also rejected by the Eastern Church. After the break with the Roman Church, the first place of the Roman See in the choir of autocephalous Churches remained unfilled (because, of course, the Byzantine Patriarch could not replace it). This remains the case to this day. 8 The difference between the Church East and the West, Orthodoxy and Catholicism was and is that in the eyes of the first, the Church itself gives rights and establishes the authority of one or another see, in particular the Roman See, while in the eyes of the second, the Pope of Rome has power ipso jure (in his own right (lat.) - Ed.) over the entire Church by divine institution. The Roman understanding of the Church as a sole papal monarchy inevitably distorts the nature of church unity, which is established not so much by the organization of power as by the unity of life, and tilts it towards the primacy of power and thereby unwittingly nationalizes the church from within. Roman doctrine rests dogmatically on a series of arbitrary assertions. The first of these statements is that the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted Peter with authority over the apostles and the Church (Matthew 16:16–19) on the way to Caesarea, when Peter, on behalf of all the apostles, to whom the Lord’s question was addressed, confessed his faith. The Roman interpretation of this text created a thousand-year hypnosis, under the influence of which Catholics perceive this text as establishing the primacy of Peter's authority over all the apostles. 9 At present, this exegetical arbitrariness is dogmatized by the decree of the Vatican Council, which anathematizes all who assert that “the blessed Apostle Peter was not made by the Lord Jesus Christ prince (principem) of all the apostles and the head of the whole militant Church” or that the primacy of the Roman See belonged only to honor, and not to “genuine and real (verae propriaeque) jurisdiction.” For Catholic believers, this fiction is an obvious fact, which they read in the Gospel, although there is nothing similar in it, according to the understanding of the entire Universal Church before the division, and even at the present time - not only in the entire Orthodox world, but also outside of Orthodoxy. The second statement based on the Roman doctrine is that the power that belonged to the Apostle Peter was entrusted not only to him personally, but also to all his successors in the person of the Bishop of Rome; those who deny this dogma are also anathematized by the Vatican Council (Const, de Eccl. Chr., cap. 1, 2). This statement of succession, of course, is no longer read from the Gospel; it represents the fruit of the centuries-long development of the Western Church towards monarchical imperialism. And although the Roman See of the Apostle Peter (however, we must not forget that it was not the only one, for both the Alexandria and Antioch churches were founded by the Apostle Peter, the Roman See was the joint work of the Apostles Peter and Paul) enjoyed high veneration in the Universal Church and was given primacy of honor (canons 1 Ecumenical 6, 2 Ecumenical 3, 4 Ecumenical. 28, Trul. 36, Zeph. 1), but, of course, the Vatican dogma has never been a common belief of East and West. And finally, the third statement of Roman doctrine is the declaration of the sole absolute power of the pope in the Church, church autocracy. This power is expressed in complete and supreme jurisdiction over the entire Church in all matters, not only of doctrine, but also of life and discipline, direct and immediate, ordinaria et immediata, both individual churches and pastors and believers (Const, de Eccl. cap.3). This concentration of all ecclesiastical power in the person of the pope, dogmatized by the Vatican Council, also means the concentration of all ecclesiastical character in him. 10 Indeed, in the presence of such unconditional and, moreover, divinely established power, the tasks of church life and the implementation of church unity are reduced to obedience; church unity becomes a matter of discipline and obedience, from top to bottom. There is no room here not only for arbitrariness, which should not have access in the Church, but also for Christian freedom, to which the Lord has called us (Gal. 5:1). The power of the pope, as absolute, knows no appeal: sedes Romana a nemine iudicatur (The Roman throne is not judged by anyone (lat.) - Ed. ), - and since the pope can, in principle, order everyone, everything and about everything, then he becomes above the Church, above the Church, or, in other words, he himself is the true churchliness, to which all members of the Church must apply themselves and test themselves according to it. It turns out that there is an inevitable shift in the internal center of churchliness. This also corresponds to the qualitatively different nature of church experience or church life in Catholicism compared to the universal Church: here the Church is, first of all, an organization of power, a church empire, the primacy of power, subordinate legislation, which leaves no room for freedom and unity in love. This is the reaction of the Old Testament in New Testament Christianity, in the original struggle of nomism and freedom within the Church. (Of course, we are talking here only about dogmatic outlines; real life can be and, of course, is deeper and richer and more ecclesiastical than one might expect, judging by the inexorability of the doctrine). It cannot be denied that church monarchy has a number of practical advantages. If you just agree to it, it is convenient and frees you from insoluble difficulties. Such are the frictions and disputes over the jurisdiction of its delimitation and the resulting fragmentation and diversity in the historical practice of the autocephalous Churches. This is the human side and, of course, the human weakness of the historical Church in the freedom and diversity of its conciliar existence. If you go all out and surrender your autonomy to the papal throne, disputes about jurisdiction fall silent, of course, in order to immediately be revived only in a different, hidden form - a struggle within the papal curia or on the ground. But the main thing is that you cannot give up your birthright for any practical conveniences or lentil stew. In church life, the principles of obedience and freedom are combined, mutually conditioning each other: obedience outside of Christian freedom, the removal of personal responsibility assigned by God to everyone, is a “yoke of slavery” (Gal. 5:1) and servility, but the Church of Christ does not consist of slaves. However, freedom, understood as self-will and the absence of church authority, is not church freedom. The Church is not a state and should not define itself and recognize itself in the image of the state; it is a completely special communion of people, in which the forms of organization should not be completed here on earth, but, starting here, continue and end in Heaven. The head of the Church is Christ, and therefore the Church does not have an earthly head, it cannot have the only vicar of Christ, which the Pope claims to be. Otherwise, this single governor, becoming the head of the Church, obscures the Head of the Invisible and covers the sky with the continuous roof of his dome. But Christ has many vicars, whom he established in the apostles and their successors, the bishops. Every bishop, as a bearer of grace-filled power, is the vicar of Christ, however, not in his own isolation, not in the singular, so to speak, but in the plural, in connection with other bishops, with the entire episcopate. The Lord chose twelve apostles, and this twelve apostles, with the Apostle Peter at the head (and this primacy does not mean, of course, anything beyond apostleship in the sense of power - there is no indication of this in the Word of God) and forms a plural, conciliar authority in the Church, which has the first (or first) in its midst, but does not and cannot have a head, for its Head is the Lord, sitting at the right hand of the Father. The dome of the building of church power always remains unfinished and cannot be completed so that Heaven can be opened. A certain incompleteness and discordance are inherent in the very style of church organization, it is its property, even if this is a defect from a legal and state point of view and entails many difficulties and practical inconveniences. The polyphonic and motley choir of different tribal autocephalies, which may or may not have gathered for centuries in external unity, nevertheless presents a picture more consistent with the nature of church unity than the centralized Roman monarchy. The Church always has local authority: the local bishop or the highest authority - the patriarch, metropolitan, synod, thus she never suffers from anarchy and remains hierarchical. This power, within its legal limits, operates unlimitedly and requires unconditional submission (for example, in matters of discipline or jurisdiction). But at the same time, it is fundamental: each of these local authorities is not categorical and absolute; it does not destroy or remove personal responsibility from each member of the Church, not only for disobedience to it, but also for submission. She does not allow herself to be subjected to the blind and slavish, but knows only the free and Christian. It does not deprive anyone of the right and duty of judgment; it is this that is the basis of church conciliarity, whereas in the presence of the individual, without appeal, in virtually every act of the always infallible authority of the “Vicar of Christ,” there is no place left for judgment, there is only obedience. Therefore, church unity, as an organization of power, is realized as a duodenum, a conciliar plurality, and from this foundation laid by Christ there should be no deviations towards unity of command, even in the name of mystical unity. Against the claims of the Roman autocracy in the Church, it is necessary to affirm the Church's plurality of leaders, headed by Christ. This multi-authority in the conditions of human history, due to our sins, often, and perhaps always, displays certain anarchic features, threatens dispersion and provincialism, this must be fought to the best of our ability in the name of preserving the inviolable freedom of Christianity, which the Church autocracy is tempting to sacrifice for the sake of dubious practical advantages. The church schism is obviously rooted in differences in church experience, in different feelings of the Church, in differences in church psychology, which, unfortunately, has long penetrated dogmatics and church history. People begin to see and understand the same facts differently in the light of different inner experiences. This is precisely the impression left by the centuries-old controversy about papal primacy. At present, it seems, all paths have been trodden, all arguments have been studied, all words have been said on both sides, and each remains in the sincere consciousness of its rightness, and each renewal of the dispute only testifies to its futility and ineffectiveness 11 . Certain internal events must take place - the internal emancipation and denationalization of the church in the heart of Western Christianity, in order to see with our own eyes that the Lord placed over the Church not just one prince of the apostles, but the entire twelve, a living plurality, united and sealed not by unity of power, but by one life, faith and love. 9. Does Orthodoxy have the external authority of dogmatic infallibility? 12 The simplest answer to the question posed would be given then if we, following the Catholics, succumbing to the Catholic bias of thought, could answer with formal and also Catholic clarity: such authority in Orthodoxy is the Ecumenical Councils and Councils in general, or even the bodies of the highest church government, or individual higher hierarchs, sometimes capable, due to human weakness, of being Catholic in their thoughts, to give their own opinions dogmatic infallibility. Moreover, the whole difference with Catholicism would consist only in the body of this infallibility: for Catholics it is a single body - the Roman Pontiff, to whom, according to Vatican dogma, belongs infallabilitas ex cathedra (infallibility (in an official speech) from the pulpit (lat. - Ed.) in matters of religious and moral teaching; For the Orthodox, this is a collective body - the Council of Bishops. The very possibility and necessity of external infallible authority is not questioned, which indirectly confirms the special charisma fidei” (the grace of faith (lat.) – Ed. ), attributed by the Vatican definition to one pope, here belonging to the totality of bishops; the latter, therefore, possess charisma infallabilitatis’” (the grace of infallibility (lat.) – Ed.). Is this true or not? Here is the first and preliminary question. Do Orthodoxy and Catholicism differ only in the nature of the organ of infallibility, or does the difference go much deeper, so much so that Orthodoxy denies the existence of such an organ, and even its very possibility? Strange as it may seem, this basic question does not always receive a unanimous resolution in theological literature, or rather, it is not always posed with sufficient clarity to eliminate ambiguity and obscurity. Thus, it is not at all stated as such in the authoritative manuals of Orthodox dogma by Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, and Metropolitan Macarius. In the first we find the following definition: “The highest church authority is the Ecumenical Council... Their definitions were mandatory for everyone. Thus, the Ecumenical Councils, according to the practical consciousness of the Church, constitute the highest ecclesiastical authority in the entire Church of Christ” (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed. St. Petersburg, 1882, part II P.265). “The focus of spiritual authority for the Church of the universe in the Ecumenical Councils... at them all matters concerning the entire Church were finally decided, as the history of these Councils testifies; higher than the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, no other authority was recognized in matters of faith, and unconditionally submitting to the decisions and legalizations of the Ecumenical Councils was considered an indispensable duty both for all believers and for the shepherds themselves” (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. 3rd ed., St. Petersburg, 1868, vol. II pp. 231–232). Both definitions do not go further than stating the fact of the practical significance of the Ecumenical Councils and their power. A characteristic position on this issue was taken by the Old Catholics, who broke away from Catholicism precisely on the basis of the Vatican dogma: for them the question of the Church appeared as a question of a conciliar or individual structure of the body of infallible church power (just as it was raised at the Reformation Councils of Constance and Basel). An authoritative expression of Orthodox consciousness, lovingly kissed by the entire Orthodox world, is the famous letter of the Eastern patriarchs of 1849, in which the idea of ​​the absence in Orthodoxy of an external organ of infallibility is secretly expressed, for the observance of the truth is entrusted here to the church people as the church body 13. A clear and radical formulation of the question of doctrinal authority in Orthodoxy belongs to Khomyakov, who thereby inscribed his name indelibly in the history of Orthodox theology as an apostle of freedom in Orthodoxy. “Knowledge of divine truths is given to Christian love and has no other guardian except this love” (Khomyakov. Collected Works. T.II p.162). “God himself in the revelations of living love is the Church” (Ibid., p. 209). “The rational freedom of the faithful does not know any external authority over itself; but the protection of this freedom is in his unanimity with the Church, and the measure of justification is determined by the consciousness of all the faithful” (Ibid., p. 245). Therefore, “the entire Church accepted or rejected the definitions of the councils, depending on whether they found them consistent or contrary to their faith and their Tradition, and assigned the name Ecumenical to those of them in the decrees of which it recognized the expression of its inner thoughts. That is, to their temporary authority on matters of discipline was added the importance of indisputable and immutable properties in matters of faith. The Ecumenical Council became the voice of the Church” (p.48). “Why were (heretical) councils rejected, which did not present any outward differences from the Ecumenical Councils? The only reason is that their decisions were not recognized as the voice of the Church by the entire church people, that people and in that environment where in matters of faith there is no difference between the learned and the ignorant, the clergyman and the layman, man or woman, sovereign or subject, slave owner and slave, where, when necessary, at the discretion of God, a child receives the gift of knowledge, a child is given the word of wisdom, the heresy of a learned bishop is refuted by an illiterate a shepherd, so that all would be united in the free unity of living faith, which is the manifestation of the Spirit of God. This is the dogma that lies in the depths of the idea of ​​freedom” (pp. 71–72). Khomyakov knocked down the Catholic formulation of the question, which also penetrated into Orthodoxy. She placed Orthodoxy in the position of an indecisive, inconsistent Catholicism, which has the undeniable merit of consistency and develops the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe external body of church infallibility to the end. The question is exactly this: either freedom of Orthodoxy, or... papism? So, what is really the situation in Orthodoxy with the infallible authority of church truth? The question of the infallible authority of the Church represents an exceptional difficulty in posing and discussing and, perhaps, the impossibility of a final theoretical resolution; the reason for this is not external and removable difficulties or ambiguities, but the very essence of the problem, in which the ineffability and inexpressibility of everything that concerns the Church in its essence is felt most acutely. Nevertheless, even without hoping for a solution to the problem, it is necessary to pose it in all its depth, for it is not only fundamental in understanding church life, but also characteristic of both directions of Christian thought and life: Western and Eastern. In the teachings of the Western world, the main motive is the idea that external, absolute doctrinal authority belongs to the Church not only due to its historical development, but as a necessary constitutive sign of the very concept of churchliness. The church in this sense can be defined as an organization of power and authority. Eastern Christianity, in contrast to this, vitally asserts (although this is not always fully recognized) that the Church does not, should not have, and cannot have such external authority. And this statement should not be feared, circumvented or obscured by unclear formulas, that we do not have the authority of the pope, but we do have the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, etc. The question here is about the very essence of churchliness, which does not allow any ambiguity or compromise. Orthodox doctrine does not know the external doctrinal authority of the Church, cannot and should not know it; fidelity to patristic Tradition cannot be considered equivalent to the Catholic understanding of infallibility. The latter is defined as the ability not to make mistakes in judgment and relates primarily to the field of theoretical thinking, albeit in the field of dogma. In the philosophy and methodology of sciences, the question of the reliability (infallibility) of knowledge, or, what is the same, the question of the signs of truth, is fatal and eternal; but if science does not and cannot know external authority, this does not mean that bad relativism is inevitable for it: it must be content with internal signs of truth in self-evidence, self-consistency, etc.; in a word, its immanent criterion. However, even this system cannot be transferred from the sphere of science to the field of church consciousness (which is the sin of the Western, both Catholic and Protestant traditions), because this criterion is satisfactory for scientific thought; but the Church is not only thought, or knowledge, or teaching, but the original depth of a single, integral religious experience, in relation to which all the words and thoughts expressing it are secondary functions, as if reflections of its individual moments and layers; while claiming to express the whole, they must be qualified as inadequate to it. Therefore, dogmas, as judgments or thoughts about faith, are qualitatively different from the theoretical constructs of science. They are only logical projections, a superlogical principle, an expression in a word of what is actually inconceivable in a word; the criterion for their truth is not the agreement of thought with itself (formally an immanent criterion), but their vitality, that is, precisely what is the basis of their definition and is only projected in words and judgments. Therefore, when speaking about dogmas, we have to bear in mind not the truth of certain formulations and definitions (which have a derivative and purely auxiliary meaning), but the correctness or incorrectness of the experience that is their basis. If it stems from the single and integral life of the Church, if it is ecclesiastical and true, then its dogmatic definition corresponds to its purpose; but if it represents the fruit of life deviation, separation from the one life of the Church, heresy (αἵρεσις means precisely separation), then its projection into the logical sphere, dogma, has the property of arbitrary reasoning, false teaching and sin. Thus, speaking about dogmatic definitions, one should speak not so much about their truth or falsity, but about their ecclesiastical (catholicity - conciliarity) or hereticality. And heresy, according to this, is not a verbal or logical error in the thinking of Divine objects, but a vital perversion of the heretic himself, a painful change occurring in the human heart. Every heresy is separation from the Church, falling out of it, a kind of spiritual loneliness and the self of a separate existence. This separation from the one absolute life is the reason for the inevitable spiritual impoverishment of the heretic. In contrast to this, the Church is always complete, infinitely rich and always equal to itself, for it contains within itself the fullness of everything and is moved by the Holy Spirit. And therefore, the external expressions of the life of the Church, its dogmatic definitions, have absolute truth precisely because of the ontological completeness of its life. But here lies the main difficulty of the question, for since the truth of dogmas depends on the fullness of life, the right to express them can belong only to the one who possesses this fullness, that is, exclusively to the Church itself - the Holy Spirit living in it. Trying to find some external exponent of church consciousness (whoever he is: the Council, the pope - it makes no difference), pointing to a certain external criterion, we thereby necessarily move away from the general church point of view and replace the entire Church as such with its individual moment; Now the question arises: what is the Church? Where is she? Is it in the totality of everything created by God and living the Divine life, or at the point that we take as the criterion of church consciousness? As a result, it becomes clear that Orthodoxy does not know any absolute body and accepts for the Church only itself, in its implementation, manifested in every breath of life and not allowing any pars pro toto (part instead of the whole (Latin) - Ed.), external authorities, but knowing only pars in toto” (part within the whole (Lat.) - Ed.). However, despite this, Orthodoxy wants to be and cannot help but be the Church of Tradition. Everything that it has, in which it is rich - dogmatically, canonically, liturgically - it wants to sacredly observe, sacredly honor, protect. But this must be free submission to authority, and not submissive obedience to authority; obedience as a consequence of love, as love itself. For love signifies unity, and an arbitrary action, such as separation from the Church, falling away from its unity, is an unloving, self-affirming and proud act. If, for example, I do not, out of weakness, observe the fast prescribed by the Church, then I commit a well-known sin; but if I do not accept fasting, do not consider it necessary and useful for myself, contrasting my smallness with the church consciousness, then I thereby separate from it, fall out of it, and become a heretic. My consciousness then drags out a ghostly individual existence and seems to itself to be independent and self-founding, whereas by its nature it should dissolve in absolute truth, live in the Church. But how can you not listen to what you consider higher than yourself, what you bow to, what you pray to? After all, Tradition, although it is outside of us, is an expression of the total church consciousness, its bearer and guardian. And therefore it freely subjugates everyone who is also involved in this consciousness. The most captivating, most stunning property of the Church is precisely this freedom, which must necessarily be combined with church discipline and obedience. By denying it, we deny the very idea of ​​the Church, replacing it with a dead legal mechanism of organized obedience and submission, putting the Old Law in the place of New Testament grace, falling out of Orthodoxy into jurisprudence. But life in the Church is a single integral act, and therefore it is always distinguished by its creative character, not in the sense of creating something new from nothing, but as a vital, living and, therefore, free embodiment of the data of church consciousness. Therefore, in Orthodoxy, obedience is always associated with the freedom of the sons of God, with the boldness of God’s friends, with the non-quenching of the Spirit, and the non-humiliation of prophecy. The Church can never be the dead guardian of tradition; it always requires the boldness of love. Therefore, freedom is an integral definition of Orthodoxy; it is often felt as a terrible responsibility, as a weight, the burden of which bends the shoulders of the weak and timid and which is so easy and tempting to shift onto the shoulders of another; but to do this means to succumb to the temptation of scribes and pharisaism, to embark on the path of a dead understanding of churchliness, to heed the great inquisitor of Dostoevsky, who offers a person to free himself from this difficult gift of freedom. But it is this that constitutes the very essence of the spiritual personality for whose sake God created the world and for whose salvation the Son of God became incarnate and suffered... However, the temptation is great to renounce freedom for the sake of blind obedience and to see the abiding face of the Church on its surface, to believe that its inner nerve comes out and becomes the outer expression of its being. This is the construction of papism. However, Protestantism, which usually opposes itself to it, in fact, being separated from it by a very thin line, is essentially the same construction, only understood differently. Protestantism is the religion of an arrogant, isolated, frozen human personality, striving to find its justification in itself, and only in itself, and wanting to become the Church for itself and through itself. Thus, what in papism is actually denied in the name of unity of organization and power, in Protestantism is sacrificed to the pride of man. Protestantism thus turns out to be egopapyism, in which everyone, by the strength of his own reason, knowledge, etc. wants to be a pope for himself, therefore claiming infallibility in matters of faith. Tradition is completely rejected and swept aside by them, which destroys the unity of churchliness, grace and inspiration, for which Tradition serves as an external expression and a concretely perceived fact. This is done in the name of freedom and reluctance to submit to supposedly imposed external authority, but it is precisely in the consciousness that church authority is not external, not imposed, but loved and dear, in which one’s own will and love finds expression - and lies the true feeling of churchliness, which distinguishes Orthodoxy equally from both Catholicism and Protestantism. In Protestantism, all spiritual power, devoid of roots in church soil, should naturally be directed towards the efforts of the human mind, that is, that spiritual ability of man that feels most independent and self-sufficient. This is what we see in reality, since Protestantism tends to become scientific Christianity, the religion of scientists and professors who multiply religious-scientific literature not only because of scientific sport, but also because of the natural piety of the human spirit, striving to serve God, even in the wrong way. Of course, Catholicism cannot be denied scientificity, but there it is not a sea of ​​individual research, but a strictly developed and agreed theological doctrine - a doctrine, all parts of which are developed with the possible completeness and accuracy and are interconnected like parts of a code of laws. And in contrast to these two styles of religious thinking, in Orthodoxy we have not so much theology as theology, not doctrine, but rather “contemplation and speculation,” inspirations of religious experience that do not fit into any predetermined framework and are free in their vital tension. It is an ever-ongoing story of an ongoing church experience, full of freedom and inspiration. And this makes it clear that in Orthodoxy there are so many theological opinions and individual judgments, which, without losing any of their value and significance, are sometimes not consistent with one another: in dubiis libertas (freedom in doubtful matters (lat.) - Ed.). This circumstance is always reproached by Catholic disciplined thought to Orthodoxy. But to this it can be objected that in Catholicism this unity of the system is purchased by the loss of freedom and, therefore, by the internal paralysis of church thought, in Orthodoxy this eternally created theology (which, when it wants to take on a doctrinal character, usually turns out to be a weak chip from Catholicism), although due to our weakness it allows manifestations of spiritual licentiousness, irresponsibility and anarchism, however, in moments of spiritual tension it is truly inspired by love - freedom and the realization of true churchliness. Freedom, which is the fundamental principle of Orthodoxy, does not in the least prevent the Church from being hierarchical, which is also expressed in the division into the clergy - the Church teaching and the flock - the Church listening. And it is the clergy who has the right of authoritative judgment in matters of faith and worship and the authoritative preaching of the Word of God, associated with the performance of worship as its element. Therefore, Orthodox Councils are meetings of bishops. However, this does not mean that the attentive Church is completely excluded from participation in the doctrine, as is the case in Catholicism, where passive infallibility (infallabilitas passiva) consists exclusively in the obligation of blind obedience. Observance of church truth, its living preservation in consciousness and feeling belongs to the entire church people, the entire Body of the Church. Each member of it not only passively accepts, but also actively affirms in their personal church consciousness the common church experience. Therefore, the very division of the church people into only those who command and only those who obey turns out to be incorrect. But such a state of affairs, in which every living member of the Church in one way or another actively participates in the vital revelation of Church truth, extremely complicates the most controversial question about the meaning and authority of the Ecumenical Councils. For the seven Ecumenical Councils have the authority of unconditional bindingness for Orthodoxy, and their definitions have the highest character of church infallibility that can be imagined: it is not without reason that Pope Gregory the Great equated the authority of the first four Councils with the authority of the four canonical Gospels. However, this does not yet give us the right to determine the essence of Orthodoxy by the decisions of the seven Councils, for, on the one hand, Orthodoxy existed before them, and on the other hand, they far from exhaust the entire content of Orthodoxy. For the Councils met and spoke out about the heresies that arose and, accordingly, dogmatically developed the doctrine of the divine-human nature of Jesus Christ, which was the subject of religious disputes in the 4th-5th centuries. This explains the fact that in the conciliar definitions (except for the condemnation of Nestorianism at the Third Council) there is not a word about what constitutes an integral and essential part of the Orthodox faith and life: veneration of the Mother of God. Therefore, the question is extremely difficult, but equally inevitable: in what sense do Ecumenical Councils have indisputable authority in Orthodoxy? Do they have power similar to the papal power, or is it determined by other completely unique features? Historical facts illuminate this question for us, but do not resolve it, because its solution lies not in the order of fact, but of norm; however, these facts themselves may have a dogmatic meaning, being norm-setting facts, and from this point of view it is important to consider how the recognition of the authorities of the Ecumenical Councils was made, from what moment did they become Ecumenical? Here, from the very beginning, we must set aside the formal criterion: the real representation of the entire Christian world at the Ecumenical Councils was actually impossible, and was not at all required by church consciousness. The overwhelming majority at the Ecumenical Councils, which took place within the Byzantine Empire, was naturally represented by Greek bishops, the Pope was represented through his legates, but at the II and V Councils even these latter were completely absent. The name “Ecumenical” belonged to the Councils rather due to the fact that they were assembled by emperors, who were revered as the legitimate holders of universal Christian power. Further: the significance and authority of the Councils were not recognized and came into force immediately after their completion. Thus, the First Council of Nicea in 318, the definition of which in the Creed is fundamental in Orthodox doctrine, was not only not immediately recognized as Ecumenical, as it considered itself to be, but served as a signal for the emergence of new heresies and new councils that did not recognize it; and only the Second Council of Constantinople in 381 finally confirmed it, giving it the significance of an Ecumenical Council. This is of extremely important, fundamental significance, for the very fact of confirmation of one Council by another sufficiently indicates that the Council does not have external formal authority: 14 it receives it in the subsequent life of the Church; The Council becomes Ecumenical in the consciousness, with the consciousness and through the consciousness of the Church; he acquires the authority of infallibility as a result of his agreement with church self-consciousness. Only the Church itself can establish this agreement, recognize that this Council represents the true face of the Church. The formula with which the church decrees began: “It has pleased the Holy Spirit and us” is not of decisive importance here 15, for the decrees of local councils also began with it, and it was also used by the robber council of Ephesus of the heretic Dioscurus, to which the Church responded with an anathema. This formula expresses, first of all, the prayerful wish of the convening fathers that the definitions they make be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and not by the personal understanding of individual members; it testifies that there really was a church meeting here, and this definition is not an expression of individual opinion, but of some church unity. Therefore, it is announced, sanctified by the name of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the question of complete and formally correct representation is comparatively secondary, just as neither the number of bishops, nor the location of the Council, nor even the Council itself is of significant importance. The thought of a saint and ascetic, revealing in himself the face of the Church and remaining with her in constant inner unction, can mean more in the Church than a numerous and correctly constituted meeting of bishops, just as before the Council of Nicea the truth was on the side of Deacon Athanasius against almost the entire episcopate. Thus, in the history of establishing the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, there is a period that we must recognize as the time of their “conditional dogmatic authority.” The latter remains, therefore, until the general church consciousness gives final sanction to the decisions of the council. 16 However, the Ecumenical Council itself, as a meeting of hierarchs, is the highest visible church authority, obligatory for every son of the Church, for whoever does not submit to the bishop thereby tears apart the Body of the Church. Therefore, the decrees of the Councils, the canons, are issued by them in the form of imperatives and authoritative commands, mandatory decrees and are invested with all the power of power inherent in the episcopal rank. But the final acceptance or rejection of them by the church consciousness - not as commands of the Council, emanating from the highest church authority, but as an expression of the will and consciousness of the entire Church - is accomplished by the power of that inner freedom to which the sons of God are called and which imposes on them the right and duty to test and accept all doctrinal definitions according to the measure of their spiritual age. Orthodoxy does not know the special spiritual charisma of the doctrine, which Catholicism knows, and therefore the dogmas are valid to the extent that they are accepted by the Church; but if they have already been accepted by the church consciousness, they receive the authority of infallibility. Of course, this final acceptance cannot be expressed by any formal act, otherwise it would not resolve the problem, but would only push it to the next instance. It is impossible to indicate where and when this acceptance takes place; but its fact has, for a given time, the highest spiritual certainty, although this certainty cannot be determined rationally. This is how it is, and this is what church tradition is determined by. The position of church authority, so difficult and controversial in a logical sense, should be fearlessly affirmed as a characteristic property of Orthodoxy. In Catholicism, this question is much simpler and clearer and is exhausted by the formula: Roma locuta est, causa finita (Rome has spoken, the question is closed (lat.) - Ed.). But Orthodoxy knows no other Rome except the Church, led by Its invisible Head, the Lord Jesus Christ, and filled with the Holy Spirit. His actions are mysterious and unsearchable and cannot be confined to any one formal moment that can be indicated in advance (like the accomplished words and actions in the Sacraments). The Council is important not as an infallible authority in matters of faith, which it does not possess, but as a means of awakening and revealing church consciousness, as well as the highest body of church power. Thus, the unction has the initial significance, the Council itself acquires authority only in the fullness of time and after it, but, starting from some time, it becomes completely reliable. In the dogmatic consciousness of the Church, the main fact is that not all dogmatic truths are expressed through unction at Councils, but many are accepted through the constantly occurring internal unction, by the conciliar mind of the Church. Conciliar definitions in this sense are only lonely reefs rising above the ocean of religious life, and do not exhaust all the immeasurable wealth hidden in the depths under the water. Closely related to these considerations is the question of the further development of dogmatic consciousness or, as they sometimes say, of progress in dogmatics, of the creation of new dogmas. This question was put forward with particular force in Catholic theological thought, and partly among us - among the anxious circles of religious and philosophical meetings of the nineties, where claims to the right to compose new dogmas grew parallel to the dogmatic futility and emptiness of claims. The following should be noted about this. In the church consciousness there is only one inseparable, indecomposable and indisputable dogmatic fact - not teaching, not doctrine, but grace-filled life by the power of the Holy Spirit. Regarding this life and this power, the very posing of the question of the development or progress of dogmas is impious and absurd, for in the Holy Spirit everything is, everything is given and nothing can happen or change. And this gracious power and Divine fullness cannot be expressed, taken into account, strictly speaking, by any teaching or doctrine expressed in human concepts and words. In this sense, there is and cannot be any comprehensive depositum fidei (statement of faith (Latin) - Ed.), except in a relatively historical sense, and church truth exists completely independently of the extent to which people know and recognize it. And just as before the Ecumenical Councils and the earlier dogmatic formulation of the doctrine the Church was not poorer than after that, in the same way the Church in itself, in its being, did not change and was not enriched by the fact that these or those aspects of the dogmatic system gradually and consistently unfolded before people. However, turning from the Church itself in its essence to those people who are part of its composition and through whom its history unfolds, we see that in this area eternal dogmatic creativity and a new revelation of the ever-present truth cannot but occur. And just as each person, delving into himself, finds new facets and new depths in himself, similarly the church consciousness is capable of endless and creative dogmatic enrichment. This, of course, does not mean the need to compose new dogmas or strive to convene new Ecumenical Councils for this purpose, but there is no reason to dogmatically assume that the possible number of Ecumenical Councils should necessarily be limited to seven, although historically this is quite possible. It can be assumed that the seven former Ecumenical Councils approved the essential foundation of Orthodoxy, but, on the other hand, one cannot help but see those unwritten and not formally enshrined, but in fact in the church consciousness, dogmatic provisions that received significance, like everything related to the veneration of the Mother of God; or turn a blind eye to the burning, irreducible need to dogmatically illuminate and develop questions about the name of God, about Hagia Sophia, etc. These questions arise in the church consciousness not by chance and not by human whim: what for centuries seemed indifferent to people suddenly becomes in the center of consciousness and causes a storm of contradictions and disputes. And so, at the time of maturation of such questions, working on them becomes a duty associated with the precious gift of freedom and immeasurable daring, but also with a terrible responsibility for the use of this gift. The fact that from these questions each one finds its own time for awakening in consciousness, its own historical moment in church history, should not confuse us. In the dome of Orthodoxy, like the vault of heaven that crowns the earth and is the true heaven on earth, just as in its images in our churches, there are many stars that simultaneously shine for the traveler in the sea of ​​life, but also appear sequentially, one after another, captivating his enchanted eyes. And in this heaven there is breadth, depth and freedom, which one must be worthy of, accepting them not as slavish obedience, but as the highest gift worthy of the sons of God. The problem of freedom and authority in the Church cannot be resolved by the concepts and constructs of human logic. And we should not be afraid to repeat after the greatest Russian historian of the Church, Bolotov, that in these questions about the recognition and authority of the Ecumenical Councils, formally, although not in essence, we are moving in a vicious circle. However, it is precisely the vicious circle that is the only viable, correct and reliable answer to the question about the unthinkable and incomprehensible to the human mind inner life of the Church in the human spirit. And therefore, we should not be afraid and should not run away from these inevitable vicious circles, not break them, like Catholic rationalism, in an effort to get rid of them, but look for that inner point, standing on which we could survey the entire circle and understand both its inevitable rational depravity and its vital spiritual truth. In this case, such a point is the true internal ecclesiasticalization of the human spirit, that is, its state when it ceases to be itself and becomes one with the Church. 10. Church and “heterodox” The Church is life of grace in the Holy Spirit, and life of grace is salvation. Therefore, there is and cannot be any division or opposition between the Church and salvation: outside the Church there is no salvation, for life in the Church is salvation. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus (there is no salvation outside the Church (lat.) – Ed.). This is a self-evident truth, flowing from the very essence of the Church. And just as there is one Holy Spirit and one grace-filled life, so the Church is one, which is why, of course, it is a misunderstanding to talk about the division or union of “churches.” The one Church can neither divide nor unite, for outside itself it knows nothing. And the Lord always spoke about the creation of the Church ἡ ἐκκλησία (Matthew 16:18). The unity of the Church is clearly evident from all the teaching about it as the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, the new grace-filled life, and this consciousness is fully clearly expressed in church tradition (St. Ignatius the God-Bearer, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Blessed Augustine, Blessed Theodoret, Blessed Jerome, etc.) 17 To what extent the Church is opposed by a non-Church, an alien pagan world, in general “this world”, the question does not present any difficulties, the boundaries are sharply drawn, there is no communication between Christ and the Belial. However, even in paganism it is necessary to distinguish between those who have given themselves over to all lewdness (Rom. 1:22–32) from those who do good (Rom. 2:10). (Cf. Acts 10:34–35). This distinction is evidenced by the Church, which places images of the ancient righteous sages in the vestibule of the church, thereby testifying that they are, according to the words of St. Justin the Philosopher and Clement of Alexandria, “Christians before Christ.” In general, the fate of the entire extra-Christian world is an undiscovered mystery, which is revealed in the teaching of the Church about the preaching of Christ in hell (1 Pet. 3:19-20). The question of the unity of the Church appears much more difficult and confusing when it is transferred within Christianity itself. The fact is that there seems to have never been a time when internal disorders did not exist in the Church, leading to the formation of heresies and schisms, starting from apostolic times (Simon the Magus, Nicolaitans). The Church denied and cast them out of itself, according to the commandment of the Lord: “If the Church also disobeys, let you be like (ὥσπερ) a pagan and a publican” (Matthew 18:17). However, as a pagan, although he expresses a practical attitude towards those who persist in their error, he does not identify them with the pagans, from whom they in any case differ both for the better, as illuminated by the light of Christ, and for the worse, as having fallen away from the unity of faith, which cannot, of course, be said about the pagans. False church teachings, heresies and schisms differ from direct apostasy from Christ or fight against God, since they are fueled by zeal for church truth, but unbeknownst to them, lies, self-will, and self-thinking are attached to it. There is a legitimate, healthy, irreducible degree of self-thinking in Christianity, which is spoken of by the Apostle: it is fitting for heresies - differences of opinion, self-conceptions - “to be among you, so that those who are most skillful may be revealed among you” (1 Cor. 11:19). This is a manifestation of the Christian freedom of the sons of God, for Christians are “not slaves, but sons” (Gal. 4:6–7). And at all times in the history of the Church there have been such divisions, theological schools, differences of opinion that turned out to be beneficial for the life of the Church, and their authoritarian suppression - before, as now - would mean non-Christian enslavement. Here the commandment of Christian freedom, spoken by the apostle of tongues, always calls us warningly: “Stand fast therefore in the freedom which Christ has given us, and do not be subjected again to the yoke of slavery... you, brothers, have been called to freedom” (Gal. 5:1, 5:13). Only after direct condemnation by the competent church authority do those who are heretical fall away from church unity; a division occurs between them and the Church - αἵρεσις, and then loyalty to the Church requires maintaining established boundaries and not putting up with those who in any sense are alienated from church unity and enemies of the Church. There is love and jealousy, there is no love that is not jealous. Therefore, dogmatic strife has always shaken church life to its depths. In this sense, one must understand numerous canonical definitions in relation to heretics, which retain the force of church law to this day. Not everyone knows these canons and is aware of the degree of church zeal that is manifested in them. The general task of these church decrees is to protect the church flock from heretics and schismatics. Already the so-called apostolic rules define the general principles of relations towards those who have fallen away from church communion. Rule 10: If anyone prays with someone who has been excommunicated from church communion, even if it was in the house (that is, not only in the Church), he will be excommunicated. Rule 11: If anyone who belongs to the clergy prays with someone who has been cast out from the clergy, let him also be cast out. Rule 4: A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who prays with heretics only shall be excommunicated. If he allows them to act like ministers of the church, he will be cast out. Rule 6 of the Council of Laodicea: do not allow heretics who are entrenched in heresy to enter the house of God. Rule 33: It is not proper to pray with a heretic or renegade. Rule 9 of Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria. Question. Should a clergyman pray in the presence of Arians or other heretics, or will it be in no way detrimental to him when he performs his prayer or sacred rite in front of them? Answer: In the Divine Liturgy, the deacon, before the time of kissing, proclaims: those who are not acceptable to fellowship, leave. Therefore, such people should not be present unless they promise to repent and abandon heresy. Rule 72 of the VI Ecumenical Council also prohibits mixed marriages with heretics: it is not worthy for an Orthodox husband to marry a heretic wife, nor for an Orthodox wife to marry a heretic husband. If something like this is seen to have been done by someone: the marriage will not be considered firm, and the illegal cohabitation will be dissolved. For it is not proper to confuse the unmixed, nor to mate with the sheep of the wolf, nor with the portion of Christ’s lot of sinners. If anyone transgresses what we have decreed, let him be excommunicated (cf. 14 rights. IV Ecumenical law, Laodice. law 10, Carthage law 2). So, the Church forbids prayerful communication between Orthodox and non-Orthodox and leaves no room for indifference here, considering that “indifference is the cause of evil” (Rights of St. Nicephorus the Confessor, question 10). This definition, which to outsiders may seem narrow and fanatical, is self-evident to those living the church life with all its specificity and completeness. Communication in prayer is impossible without communication in faith, and in this sense, arbitrary “Interkommunion” (joint celebration of the sacraments by representatives of different faiths (German) - Ed.) of any kind is either frivolity and amateurism, or self-deception, or even just deception: a person is not given the opportunity to walk two paths at the same time, there is only one, and even the very need for another already indicates the beginning of vacillation. In this sense, the example of Vl. Solovyov in our days acquires a cautionary significance: he tried with personal boldness to cross the barrier between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in order to live the fullness of church life in both. According to a newspaper report that appeared after his death, he secretly joined Catholicism, apparently remaining in Orthodoxy. Before his death, he was given farewell by an Orthodox priest and was buried in the Orthodox Church by an Orthodox priest. This grave bewilderment still remains completely unexplained. Communion in prayers and the Sacraments is a consequence and expression of church unity. Soloviev simply stepped over the canonical prohibitions, which, by the way, have equal force for both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. As a result, Catholics consider him simply a Catholic; for Orthodox, he remains Orthodox, since he himself did not renounce Orthodoxy, although he caused serious misunderstandings. Vl. Soloviev, apparently, wanted to carry out an ecclesiastical experiment in personal union. What Vl. Soloviev wanted to unite in his person remained ununited as before. He took both “religions” not only in that in which they do not differ from each other, but also in that in which they are mutually opposed 18, and declared himself above and beyond these divisions. If Vl. Solovyov simply fell away from Orthodoxy and converted to Catholicism, as Catholics understand and interpret this, then this case loses its fundamental urgency and becomes ordinary. So, the Church generally forbids ecclesiastical communication with heretics. However, the practice of church life also raised other, more specific questions about heretical baptism and heretical hierarchy. Should the baptism of heretics be recognized as valid, or should they be considered as non-Christians and added to the Church through a new baptism? Should the heretical priesthood be recognized as valid and, during reunification, should bishops and clergy be considered as simple laymen or as consecrated persons? The Church answered these questions differently in relation to various heretics. Even in relation to the same heresy, different answers were given at different times and in different places. Thus, for the Church, being in heresy or schism in itself did not provide an exhaustive solution to the issue, but this general characteristic was supplemented by further definitions, by the force of which different degrees of distance from the Church were established. Let us confirm what has been said with examples. The general principle of the rejection of heretical baptism and the Eucharist is expressed in the 46th canon of the apostolic decrees: “We command that a bishop or presbyter who has accepted the baptism or sacrifice of heretics be cast out. What agreement does Christ have with Belial, or what part does the faithful have with the unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:15)?” Also, rule 47: “A bishop or presbyter, if he truly has been Baptized, will baptize again, or if he does not baptize the defiled by the wicked: let him be cast out as one who scoffs at the Cross of the Lord and does not distinguish between priests and false priests” (Rules 49 and 50 define the conditions for the validity of Baptism, namely it is performed in the name of the Holy Trinity and in three immersions; therefore, baptism that does not satisfy these requirements is invalid). This is also generally confirmed by canon 68 (end): “It is not possible to be baptized or ordained by heretics, either faithful or ministers of the Church.” It is known that the question of the validity of baptism among heretics was the subject of church strife between East and West, and the Roman Church showed great leniency, recognizing the baptism of heretics, while the African and Asia Minor churches held the opposite view. This discord intensified in connection with the issue of the baptism of the Donatists, and a more moderate point of view triumphed at the Council of Carthage, confirmed in the 7th canon of the 2nd Ecumenical Council (cf. also the 7th and 8th canons of the Laodicean Council and the 95th canon of the Trullo Council). Two groups of heretics were distinguished, and the first (Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians and Navatians, calling themselves pure and best, Tetradites and Apollinarians) were allowed to be received through Confirmation; to join the Eunomians, Montanists and Sabellians as pagans. It is worthy of attention that a number of heretics, whose baptism is recognized here as valid, are among the most serious false teachers anathematized by the Church by the 1st canon of the same Second Ecumenical Council: “Let every heresy be anathematized, namely: the heresy of the Eunomians, Anomeans, Arians, or Eudoxians, Semi-Arians or Doukhobors, Sabellians, Marcellian, Photinian and Apollinarian." Thus, heresies, equally anathematized, are treated differently in the question of the validity of baptism. Especially regarding the Novatians, Rule 8 of the First Ecumenical Council decrees that their clergy and bishops returning to Orthodoxy, after renouncing their previous opinions, upon the laying on of hands on them, are accepted in their existing rank, therefore, the heretical priesthood is recognized as valid. Canon 68 of the Council of Carthage says the same about the peacocks - see canon 19 (Ecumenical Council). At the same time, Saint Basil the Great in the 47th canonical rule testifies that “we rebaptize such people. And although this custom of rebaptism is not accepted among you, like the Romans, due to some discretion, let our winemaking be valid.” See also in rule 1: “Concerning the question of the Kafars, it is appropriate to follow the custom of each country, for their baptism was thought differently by those who judged this subject in their time.” In a similar way, Canon 2 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (Trullo), confirming all the canonical rules, among others, confirms the strict practice of rebaptism for the African churches, but only for them, why in other places completely different canons, already given, were in force: “Also, Cyprian, the archbishop of African countries and a martyr and the Council under him, laid down the rule, which in the places of the aforementioned primates and only with them, according to the custom taught to them, was it preserved.” It is remarkable that the rule issued in 256 in the African Church under Cyprian about the rebaptism of all heretics or schismatics who turn to the Orthodox Church from heretics or schismatics is left here as a local norm, although it directly contradicts the 7th rule of the Second Ecumenical Council. Thus, the 47th canonical rule of Basil the Great here differs in the direction of greater severity both from the 8th rule of the First Ecumenical Council in relation to the “pure”, Kafars, (Novacians) and from the 7th rule of the Second Ecumenical Council regarding a number of other heresies. We are not interested in particulars here; it is important for us to establish that the practice of the Church at different times and in different places was fluctuating and by no means uniform, and the principles established in relation to the baptism of heretics had the meaning not of a rigid legal norm, not a dura lex (Severe Law (lat.) - Ed.), but a general basis, a regulating principle. 19 In general, on the basis of canon 95 of the Council of Trulla, in the practice of the Church there are three rites of reunification to Orthodoxy: through Baptism, Confirmation (Protestants) and simple renunciation of false teachings (Roman Catholics and some others). A similar distinction is established regarding the priesthood, and those passing into Orthodoxy from confessions that have preserved apostolic succession (Catholicism, Nestorianism, etc.), are accepted in their existing rank, while the rest (Protestant sects) are accepted as laity. Thus, the practice of the Church in relation to “heterodocy” was different. This difference is determined by the degree of falling away or removal of a given confession from the Church. So there can be different degrees here. What is the reason for this difference? In the 1st canonical canon of St. Basil the Great, this distinction is outlined as follows. The ancients “called some things heresy, others schism, others self-inflicted assemblies. They called heretics those who were completely rejected and alienated from the faith itself; schismatics - divided in opinions about certain church issues and about issues that allow healing, and unauthorized gatherings of meetings, composed of rebellious presbyters or bishops and unstudied people.” The Holy Father further gives a number of examples of heresies that differ in faith in God himself, in essence, standing even outside of Christianity, such as Manichaeism, Valentinianism, and Marconianism. Here he also includes Pepusianism-Montanism. However, this distinction only outlines the general idea, but in its practical application it turns out to be shaky and imprecise. Rule 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council directly merges heretics and schismatics under the general concept of heresy, 21 and indeed, a self-affirming schism already contains heresy, for, in the words of Chrysostom, “to tear apart the Church is no less evil than to fall into heresy” (Creations, vol. 2. p. 104 - ed.) The practical attitude of the Church towards one and the same false teaching, as we have seen, changed depending on the general ratio, and practically even Arianism and Macedonianism, anathematized as heresy, were considered as a schism, since Arian baptism also began to be recognized. A similar distinction is observed in modern times in the practice of Local Orthodox Churches regarding Catholicism (we are talking here about general principles of principle, leaving aside whether what was done correctly or incorrectly in this or that particular case). While the Greek Church joins Catholics through rebaptism and, therefore, treats them as heretics, like the Manichaeans, Gnostics, Montanists, the Russian Orthodox Church accepts them through simple renunciation of errors, and also accepts their clergy in their existing rank, that is, practically treats them as schismatics. This difference can be put in parallel with the difference in attitude towards the Donatists and Novatians, which existed in the practice of local churches and was explained by the peculiarities of local life. All these differences and shades in the attitude of the Church to extra-church Christianity (so to speak) are extremely important, because they outline the general view of the Church and sweep away simplified schemes in advance. Among such simplified schemes is in our eyes that scheme, seductive in its geometric simplicity, according to which everything that is outside direct communication with the one Church turns out to be completely alienated from church life, deprived of the grace of God, there is no priesthood and no Sacraments, while clergy and clergy are simple laymen. Consistently developed, this point of view should lead to the conclusion that there is no difference between non-Christian religions and extra-church Christianity, between the baptized and the unbaptized. But such an opinion clearly contradicts church practice and canonical definitions, which have always distinguished the degree of distance from the Church and, by the very fact of such a distinction, overthrown this canonical geometry. The Church recognizes the difference between Christianity and non-Christianity and, in a sense, considers as its own everything that is on the verge of baptism, even if this confession is in rupture or separation from it: the very concepts of heresy and schism are possible only in the Church and in relation to the church, they are church qualifications; no one calls Mohammedanism or Buddhism a heresy or schism. Consequently, there is a certain external zone of the Church, already located outside its fence, there is an ecclesiastical connection that does not coincide with the unity of the church organization: The body of the church does not completely coincide with its external outlines, but also has its own periphery, the visible Church also includes the invisible Church not only outside this world, but also in this world, and with this hidden, potential ecclesiasticality it is always in one way or another correlated. The conclusion is that there is ecclesia extra ecclesiam, more precisely, extra muros (the Church outside the Church, more precisely, outside the walls (lat.) - Ed.). It is necessary to dogmatically comprehend this indisputable canonical fact. But for this, first of all, you need to free yourself from formalistic jurisprudence, so unusual for Orthodoxy. There is no need to turn the canons, which express the guiding thoughts of the Church, into legal norms that require purely formal understanding and implementation. 22 However, every lawyer knows that the application of the law, even a very perfect one, always requires its creative interpretation. It becomes all the more inevitable when applied to norms that arose more than 1000 years ago in a situation that was significantly different from modern times. In the teaching about the unity of the Church, we are entering a path that is little explored and difficult, where the greatest caution is required. First of all, the unity of the Church and its uniqueness is an ecclesiastical axiom. There should be no place for the idea that there are two or three “churches” or “branches” of them, and none of them is the true or the only one. There is Orthodoxy, and living members of the Church need to know and feel the fullness, uniqueness and unconditionality of life in Orthodoxy, which is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church. And only from Orthodoxy and through Orthodoxy one must see and comprehend everything that is not Orthodoxy, but that, insofar as it is generally ecclesiastical, there is Orthodoxy, albeit damaged and weakened. What should be the church’s attitude towards non-Orthodoxy, which at the same time is not completely non-Orthodoxy, but to some extent is also Orthodoxy? Such an attitude should, first of all, be far from indifference to that in which non-Orthodoxy departs from Orthodoxy or, even more so, is at enmity with it. Love covers everything, but endures everything except error, except lies. Love is also zeal for the truth, and it is this zeal, not indifference, that the Church wants from us. However, only church zeal is salutary - zeal given to error is more fatal than its absence: sectarianism and even Bolshevism, which cannot be denied fanatical zeal, can serve as an example. And the meaning of the canons, which prohibit not only prayerful, but, in essence, life communication with heretics, 23 is connected precisely with this jealousy: it is impossible to have church communication with a heretic or schismatic, to the extent that he affirms his opposition to the Church, this is an internal contradiction, it is self-betrayal or betrayal. How can an Orthodox pray together with the Stundists, whose spiritual energy is born of their fanatical hatred of the Church, or with the Tolstoyans, whose pathos is a perversion of the Gospel with a denial of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? And yet, there may be a state of affairs in which the straightforward application of the canons prohibiting prayerful communication with heretics and renegades would be a violation of their meaning: summa lex summa iniuria (the highest law is the highest crime (lat.) - Ed.). This is in those cases when the heretic and renegades turn to the Church not by those sides of their being in which they sin against church unity, but by those by the power of which they, despite separation, remain in church communion, when they go - consciously or unconsciously - not against the Church, but towards the Church and with the Church. When Protestants and non-Orthodox people in general now come to our services, is it in accordance with the spirit of the canons to remove them from it on the basis of the prohibition of joint prayer with heretics? Was it a violation of the canons that our hierarchs were present in the summer of 1925 at the Anglican divine service in London, passively - with this solemn presence - even participating in it? Is it, further, a violation of the canons when we, in solemnizing mixed marriages that are now allowed (however, at one time completely prohibited by the canons), thereby allow non-Orthodox people into church prayer and even into sacramental activities, of course, in accordance with their good wishes, or in general when we pray - whether in personal (which is also church) or in public prayer for non-Orthodox people? In general, what is non-Orthodoxy, non-church in relation to Orthodoxy? Sometimes this is understood legalistically, legally: if the law is broken in the slightest, then the one who breaks it becomes a crime against the whole law, and not the whole truth is a lie. However, such straightforwardness has never been applied by the Church, which has always distinguished, as we have seen, the degrees of falling away from the Church. And current church practice distinguishes in heterodoxy, outside the Church, the canonical continuity of the priesthood or its absence, in the first case reuniting in the existing rank, in the second without doing this. There may be controversy or ambiguity surrounding this issue regarding the existence of such continuity of the priesthood or its absence; This is the case so far with the Old Believer hierarchy (the Austrian Belokrinitsa priesthood) and with the Anglican hierarchy. The absence of this continuity in Protestantism cannot be compensated for by anything upon joining, and a Protestant pastor is always a layman for Orthodoxy if he joins it. On the contrary, the Catholic hierarch, if he joins Orthodoxy, is accepted in his existing rank (according to the meaning of the Apostolic Rules 47–68, explained through comparison with the First Ecumenical 8, Carth. 6, 8, Vas. V.I, and on the other hand, Art. I Ecumenical 19, Laod. 8.). However, this forces us to pose the most controversial question: does hierarchy exist at all - outside the Church, at least outside the church organization, that is, in schisms and heretical communities? This question is inevitably raised by the very fact of accepting non-Orthodox people into their existing rank (as the Orthodox Church does with respect to Catholics). In the face of this fact, it is incomprehensible to directly deny the priesthood outside the Church as a hierarchical organization. However, its unconditional recognition is equally impossible, because the latter would mean precisely that Interkommunion, that communion of prayer and the Sacraments with the renegades, which is directly prohibited by the above canons, according to canon 32 of the Council of Laodicea: “It is not proper to receive blessings from heretics, 24 which are nonsense rather than blessings” (cf. canon 37). In practice, for church people, heterodox clergy are no different from the laity, for they are not in hierarchical communion with them. But strictly speaking, they are not laymen - laid - in the precise sense of the word, just as heterodox laity are also not church laity in the precise sense of the word, for the rank of laity is a certain position in the Church, in church communion, outside of which the heterodox remain, both those in the clergy and those outside it. Therefore, the direct denial of the heterodox priesthood in the sense of equating it with the laity is, in a sense, adding up arshins and spools and is generally devoid of church meaning: the Church judges only within itself, but not without, and the distinction between clergy and laity takes place only within the Church. However, as we have just said, the Church also judges the external ones, insofar as they come into contact with her, during reunification, and then she distinguishes the church state before it and recognizes it is possible, on her part, to validate the priesthood without repeating it, without performing a new ordination, and also recognizes the power of the Sacraments performed by this priesthood, that is, not only Baptism (which can be performed by the laity if necessary), but also Confirmation (which by the laity it cannot be accomplished, why Protestants, as not having the priesthood, are received through Confirmation). Consequently, the Church at all times, just as now, recognizes at least a potential priesthood in schism, which receives its full legal force and jurisdiction upon reunification with Orthodoxy. In the work of the Monk Theodore the Studite we find the following judgment: “...those who are now ordained (by a bishop) who turned out to be a heretic, although he says that the Council was bad and we perished, are excommunicated from the priesthood. For why does he, recognizing this, not flee from destruction, turning away from heresy in order to be a bishop of God? Then his ordinations will be immediately accepted.” (Creations of St. Theodore the Studite, vol. II, p. 288. Published by St. Petersburg. Spiritual Ak.) However, ex nihilo nil fit (from nothing nothing comes (lat.) - Ed.), . how this clearly follows from the attitude of the Church towards confessions that have lost the continuity of the priesthood. The Church recognizes the priesthood as being preserved even if communication with it is disrupted, although it prohibits any prayerful communication with this priesthood and practically, as it were, ignores it, for the priesthood is effective and valid only under the condition of canonical communication and subordination, which is precisely what is missing here; but once it is restored, the power of the priesthood is restored. It can be said that, without denying the Sacrament in its sacramental moment, the Church considers it ineffective in relation to jurisdiction. According to canon 10 of the IV Ecumenical Council, ordination is performed only with the appointment of the person being ordained to a specific church, otherwise the ordination is invalid, therefore, in the eyes of the Church, all decisions in the schism are invalid, but not insignificant, since they receive force upon reunification and upon entering into correct relations of jurisdiction and subordination. The second, new, ordination of those already in place is strictly prohibited by church canons (Apostolic Canon 68); the latter, on this basis, also prohibit the re-ordination of those who were once expelled from the clergy, who therefore remain forever relegated to the category of laity (cf. Carth. sob. rights. 27). Thus, the church understanding of the Sacrament of the Priesthood comes down to the fact that it cannot be repeated, just like Baptism and Confirmation; on this basis, the once ejected 25 from him cannot be restored to his rank (cf. Basil the Great, rule 3), just as someone placed elsewhere, outside of church communion, cannot be reinstated. 26 But how can this conditional recognition of the priesthood extra ecclesiam (outside the Church (lat.) - Ed.) be reconciled with the direct definition of the First Rule of St. Basil the Great? The latter says the following: first, the Holy Father raises the general question of Baptism outside the Church, and in this regard he distinguishes heretics, whose baptism is not valid, from schismatics and self-initiated gatherings, and the baptism of “schismatics, as if not yet alien to the Church, is accepted... Thus, even those in church degrees, having apostatized together with the disobedient, when they repent, are often accepted in the same rite.” Thus, the Holy Father allows the priesthood in the schism and rejects it only for heresy, in which Baptism itself is denied, “for here there is a clear difference in the very faith in God.” From these general provisions, turning to particulars, he dwells on the Kafars, who were actually schismatics, but in their bitterness they were close to heretics, which is why “the ancients wanted” to equate them with them. “For (explains the Holy Father), although the beginning of the apostasy occurred through a schism, those who apostatized from the Church no longer have the grace of the Holy Spirit on them. For the teaching of grace has become impoverished, which is why the legal succession has been cut short. For those who first apostatized received initiation from the fathers, and through the laying on of their hands they had spiritual gifts. But those rejected, having become laity, had no power to baptize or ordain, and could not impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, from which they themselves had fallen. Why were those who came from them to the Church, supposedly baptized by the laity, ordered to be cleansed again by true church baptism.” Thus, the thought of the holy father is not that any state of schism with the Church entails the loss of legal continuity, but only leads to “apostasy from the Church,” that is, heresy, which does not have true baptism (as can be seen from this rule, Saint Basil the Great does not allow Baptism through the laity at all, which is known by the current church practice of joining not according to the first, but according to the second order, that is, without rebaptism). However, the Holy Father does not insist on the strict application of this rule to the Kafars, because here he adds: “But since some in Asia decidedly wanted, for the edification of many, to accept their baptism: then let it be acceptable.” (And therefore, in the reverse course of the Holy Father’s conclusions, their priesthood will also be acceptable, for one is connected with the other for him). Thus, the non-recognition of the priesthood outside the Church by Saint Basil the Great is by no means unconditional, but conditional; it is associated with one or another assessment of a given schism, bringing it closer either to heresy or to an unauthorized gathering, and the assessment itself changes depending on the circumstances of place and time, as the example of the Kafars shows (as well as with the Encratites, as is clear from the same 1st rule of Basil the Great). The judgment is pronounced by the Church, which determines how in this case one should treat the fallen church society. 27 Likewise, in relation to the Kafars, the First Ecumenical Council directly decreed (canon 8) that those who join the Church should remain in the clergy, bishops as bishops, and presbyters as presbyters. For this reason alone, the expression of St. Basil the Great that they “became laity” obviously refers to jurisdiction, to the invalidity of their appointment, but not to the inactivity of the priesthood itself, which receives power upon joining the Church. The same is decreed regarding the Donatists by Canon 68 (79 – Ed.) of the Council of Carthage, which states that “those ordained by the Donatists, once they have corrected themselves, will desire to begin the Catholic faith, so that they will not be deprived of acceptance in their degrees.” (Of course, this rule would also be inconsistent with the definition of the 1st rule of Basil the Great if it were understood literally and unconditionally). On the contrary, this is completely excluded I Omni. 19, Laod. 8 regarding the Paulians and Phrygs, “even if they were in their supposed clergy.” All this raises a general dogmatic question about the nature of the priesthood and its power. It is obvious that of the two elements of the effectiveness of the priesthood, the first - namely jurisdiction, legal authority - constitutes the general condition for the validity of the second, sacramental element, and with the elimination of the first, the latter also loses its validity. This means “relegation to the number of laity” of a former cleric. But this does not yet resolve the question of the most gracious gift of the Priesthood. Does it retain some kind of reality, albeit potential, even in those defrocked, like Holy Baptism and Confirmation, the imprint of which is indelible even in those who have fallen away? The latter follows from the uniqueness of both Sacraments, but the same applies, as we have seen, to the Priesthood, 28 and this is also clear from the fact that the vows of the Priesthood are not limited to any period, but are given, just like monastic vows, for life, which is why I am right. 7th of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and forbids those once appointed to the clergy and monks not to enter into “either military service or secular rank” 29 under threat of anathema. All this testifies to the fact that, according to the Orthodox view, the adoption of holy orders is characterized by a certain indelibility, which, indeed, allows it in this sense to be compared with Baptism. Those who left the priesthood and entered the rank of laity cannot be considered as all laity or as they themselves were before taking orders. Defrocking is inevitably accompanied by a spiritual change, which can be compensated for by Christian virtues and deeds, but in any case in itself represents a breakdown. You cannot leave the altar with impunity and painlessly, you cannot simply forget it or turn away from it. The Catholic Church, with its usual dogmatic straightforwardness, since the time of the Council of Trent, expresses this as character indelebilis 30 (indestructible property (lat) - Ed.), and it is also connected with the fact that the sacred rites of prohibited priests, ordinations performed by deposed bishops, have the force of ex orete operato (due to the fact that the action was performed (lat) - Ed.). This view is distinguished by its mechanicalness, which is generally characteristic of the doctrine of ex orete operato. From the correct observation that the communication of grace in the Church is associated with the presence of certain God-established conditions that have an essentially irreducible character, Catholic doctrine also draws the opposite conclusion that the communication of grace is inseparable from these conditions themselves (this is precisely what ex orete operato means) and that, therefore, grace can never and under no circumstances be separated from these actions 31 . Such a conclusion, indeed, introduces the features of magic into the understanding of church sacraments, and at the same time is unnecessary for resolving the issue. Not every priesthood that has continuity in its appointment is truly, and therefore, a priesthood: otherwise it would be impossible and incomprehensible to depose oneself, which among Catholics is accompanied by a very expressive ritual of unmasking what is expelled from sacred vestments (and even scraping out sacred oil from anointed places). It turns out that the Church here remains powerless, and defrocking is ineffective, if even after it the effective power of the Priesthood 32 remains undiminished due to its character indelebilis. The possibility of defrocking clearly shows that the correctness of the appointment in the sense of the continuity of apostolic succession, no matter how important it is, is not yet of decisive importance. Otherwise, the current Living Church decrees will have to be recognized as valid, while the invalidity of the Living Church decrees must be established by the Church firmly and decisively (characteristically, the Living Church members themselves, in turn, declare the church priesthood, at least abroad, invalid). And in this very sense, a militant heresy or schism, even an unauthorized gathering, insofar as it, for whatever reasons - dogmatic, hierarchical or political - goes against the Church and legitimate church authority, it, breaking away from the Church, is blocked from the source of grace and therefore becomes graceless. Thus, it turns out that a graceless priesthood is possible, which thereby is no longer a priesthood. Character indelebilis is permissible here not in the sense of the effectiveness of the priesthood on the outside, but its destructive effect in the falsely appointed itself: in a similar way, an anathematized member of the Church is in a worse position than a mere pagan, and precisely by virtue of his Baptism. Thus, there is no priesthood outside the Church, in heresy, in schism or self-rule, since the very origin of this false hierarchy is associated with rebellion against the Church, disobedience and self-rule, rejection of the true priesthood and the installation of one’s own false hierarchy in its place and against it. Here the reason or reason that caused the separation from the Church is not even significant: it could be serious dogmatic disagreements, but it could also be simply treacherous deals with the Antichrist authorities, like those of the Living Church. Such a false hierarchy is invalid, no matter how indisputable its apostolic succession may be; in the same way, former members of the Orthodox hierarchy lose their grace once they betray the Church and join the ranks of the false hierarchy. Any prayerful communication with them, and even more so concelebration prohibited by the sacred canons, is unacceptable for a believing soul. Distance from the Church is measured by the strength of opposition to it, and the Living Church members, despite their apparent closeness to the Church, are further for us than Catholics, Protestants, and generally different historical confessions. So, the mere continuity of apostolic succession during consecration does not yet give rise to canonical ordination. However, it is also indisputable that the absence of such succession in any case excludes it. For the Church, a non-canonical position is by no means binding, but in the absence of it, the Church cannot in any case, under any circumstances, recognize the priesthood with all the consequences that follow from this: neither the current Ukrainian self-saints, nor all kinds of sectarian presbyters or Protestant pastors can ever and under no circumstances be recognized as priests, for church authority has its own natural limits and cannot make the non-existent exist. In this sense, there is a huge difference in the objective position of all self-saints and the successively established but invalid false hierarchy, because this latter, in the presence of certain conditions, can become valid without repositioning: here there is an objective possibility for this. In this possibility, however, there is no compulsion: the Church may not recognize the false hierarchy, despite the indisputability of apostolic succession, just as it did not recognize the hierarchy of various heretical and schismatic communities (see above). But the Church can, after reunification, recognize them in their existing rank, which it cannot do with the uninitiated. Recognition or non-recognition of the false hierarchy in its existing rank during reunification lies in the power of the Church, which is guided here by considerations of the so-called ecclesiastical economy, that is, practical wisdom and the good of the Church. By being accepted into the present rank, the Church replenishes what is lacking, gives strength to what is invalid, and gives grace to what has been deprived of grace. In particular, in relation to the living church arbitrariness, the future will show how the Church will react to the living church false hierarchs who repent and return to the depths of its living church false hierarchs (in Bose, the deceased Patriarch Tikhon showed great leniency in some cases), but before this repentance, the entire living church hierarchy of both church and extra-church resolutions is invalid as it arose from church rebellion and disobedience, therefore, the sacraments they perform are acts of blasphemy and invalid, since they require the grace of the Priesthood. 34 However, all this is simple and clear when applied to cases of active split and arbitrariness. But there may be completely different cases, namely when an entire part of church society, which has its own canonically correct hierarchy and hitherto not challenged by the Church, is separated from the Church. There have been many similar cases in the history of the Church: Nestorianism, Armenian Monophysites, Roman Catholics, Anglicans (not to mention more dubious cases); or, on the other hand, Bulgarian autocephaly in relation to the Greek Church, Georgian and Ukrainian autocephaly, separated from the Russian Patriarchate, or - in our days - Polish, Finnish autocephaly in relation to the law-abiding Russian Church. Divisions arose and arise here, in any case, not on the basis of direct church rebellion, but partly on the basis of dogmatic, national-cultural or ritual differences, and partly as a result of disputes about jurisdiction. The division that took place, however, made church unity with those who had fallen away impossible, and, consequently, the fallen part of the priesthood was abolished for the faithful sons of the Church. However, this abolition or, more accurately, the paralysis of the schismatic priesthood, making it invalid for the Church, at the same time does not annul it. Obviously, first of all, it is completely wrong and even impossible to equate such a priesthood both with those defrocked on trial for a crime, and with those under prohibition or non-canonically appointed: while remaining in its place, in its church body, it shares its common fate. The verdict of the Church over the separated part, as we already know, can be different, the Church is not bound by the fact of the priesthood ex ore to operate, and it can reject not only the reality (jurisdiction), but also the effectiveness (sacramental power) of this priesthood, but it can act otherwise, with greater leniency. This, for example, is what the Russian Church does (in contrast to the Greek Church) regarding the Roman Catholic (and Nestorian) priesthood, accepting it with its existing rank. In other words, expressed in the terms of St. Basil the Great, it practically interprets Catholicism not as a “heresy”, but as a “schism” that damages, but does not weaken the continuity of the priesthood. However, the reality of the priesthood outside the church fence is recognized by the Church even outside of reunification and in addition to this replenishment. This is clear from the fact that the Sacraments performed by this priesthood are recognized as having power, therefore, we have to conclude from here, the grace of this priesthood is also considered effective. Of course, this can only be revealed in relation to such Sacraments, through which “heterodox” can actually come into contact with the Church. The one who is reunited with her receives what he lacks, but he should not receive what he already has. Therefore, if he is not truly baptized, then he receives Baptism. If he has only one Baptism, then he receives Confirmation. If he has Confirmation, no longer needing it, he is admitted directly to the full communion of the Sacraments, that is, to Repentance and Communion. From the fact that Roman Catholics are not anointed by the Russian Church, one must conclude that in its eyes they already have this Sacrament. But such recognition is implicite (in a hidden form (lat.) - Approx. ed.) necessarily implies the reality of the priesthood, why otherwise it could not teach the grace of Confirmation. It would be inconsistent to limit and exhaust the effectiveness of the schismatic priesthood with only these two Sacraments: firstly, such a separation of them alone from the general effectiveness of the priesthood is hardly conceivable; secondly, the reality of these and only these Sacraments is revealed precisely because in them a real meeting of the Church with “heterodox” can take place on the basis of sacramental action. True, the Church also recognizes the power of the Sacrament of Marriage, performed outside the church fence, for such marriages are not remarried; However, regarding this, it can be pointed out that, however, also not an indisputable consideration, that by Baptism or Confirmation Marriage is also validated, which in itself is insufficient or even directly invalid as a Sacrament: not only Catholic, but also Protestant marriages performed without a priest, that is, by a pastor, are not re-wedded. From the recognition of the effectiveness of these Sacraments follows the effectiveness of the Sacrament of Priesthood itself, on which they are based. The question remains about those Sacraments in which the Church and “heterodox” cannot meet and come into contact, because this contact would already mean the restoration of full church communion and the overcoming of the schism, namely the Sacraments of Repentance and Communion. In essence, the Church does not have the opportunity to directly speak out about these Sacraments; here only theological speculations and conclusions are possible, both more and less favorable for heterodoxy. One of these most unfavorable possibilities is expressed in the widespread application to this case of the words of the Apostle Paul about eating food sacrificed to idols and the meal of demons (1 Cor. 10: 20-21), and a similar expression of St. Theodore the Studite is applied to the heretics of his time (military iconoclasts). Here is an example: “The Holy Patriarch was taken, expelled, imprisoned in a hidden place; on his throne is a fighter against Christ; the council of the wicked; the curse of the Holy Council of Nicaea; renewal of the struggle against Christ; exile of holy bishops and abbots, monks and nuns; shedding of blood, untimely death, imprisonment, starvation, plunder; and what is even more terrible to see and hear is the insult and trampling of the venerable icon of Christ, the Mother of God, all the saints, the destruction of churches and altars, the desecration and burning of shrines. Under such circumstances, everyone who partakes or partakes of poisonous bread is not an apostate from Christ, an outcast, an ungodly person, unless he turns back through repentance” (Creations, Vol. 2, p. 532). The same is sometimes applied with obvious inconsistency, and, moreover, double, to Catholics. On the one hand, if the Catholic priesthood is invalid, then it must be concluded that the Sacraments performed by it are simply invalid, representing a rite of remembrance, similar to what constitutes Protestant communion. On the other hand, if there is a demonic meal, then it is necessary to recognize both anointing and baptism as demonic actions, that is, those Sacraments whose validity is not questioned in the Russian Church. Remaining consistent, supporters of the view of “demon food” should regard the Bible, which is in the hands of heretics and schismatics, and generally non-Orthodox, as the same in the spiritual sense. Indeed, it is impossible to dispute that studying the Bible among fanatical sectarians does not always lead to their enlightenment, due to their general anti-churchism and prejudice; It is also indisputable that the understanding of the Bible is given only to the Church and is established by patristic leadership. And yet the Bible itself is the Bible, it remains a certain sacrament of the transubstantiated Word, it is the word of man, which at the same time is the Word of God. Only the Church is given the opportunity to taste its full power, but will anyone dare to assert that for outsiders this Word becomes spiritual poison? However, the magic of the extremes of the ex ore operato theory is not applicable in relation to the Sacrament. One cannot think that the Sacraments are preserved by heretics and even schismatics in all the power and effectiveness that they have in the Church, if we take into account the general damage to spiritual life here. After all, the Sacrament of Communion can be accepted not only for salvation, but also for judgment and condemnation, and the difference, of course, is associated not with the weakening of the Sacrament, but with the manner of its acceptance. In this difference, we think, we need to look for the key to understanding the mysterious action of God’s grace in extra-church society. For the heresiarchs themselves, who maliciously fill their hearts with opposition to the Church, it is, of course, possible that what befell Judas after accepting bread from the hands of the Savior - “the stench of Satan is below” (John 13:27). This does not mean, of course, that Judas tasted demonic food, as zealots should have concluded for the sake of consistency, but that his darkened soul, after accepting bread from the hands of the Savior, was finally taken possession of by Satan and, therefore, Judas himself made it a demonic meal for himself. Of course, it is not given to man to discern the secrets of the human heart, but it is not given to man to pronounce judgment on his neighbor. And it would be sinful madness if someone dared to say about his brother that he took communion in judgment and condemnation (he cannot even know this about himself), but isn’t this sentence also strange over entire church societies, over brothers in Christ, although rejected. To say that they partake of the demonic meal means to doom them to the fate of Judas and pronounce a terrible judgment on their souls, that is, on countless millions of souls - not only heresiarchs, but also those who followed them and never saw the true Church. The point here, of course, is not a matter of human pity or “vagueness,” which is directly inappropriate in matters of faith; here we are talking about the direct commands of the Church itself, which has never said that the Bible in the hands of those who have been separated from the Church is a non-Bible and the Sacraments are not sacraments or, what is even worse, counter-sacraments, black sacraments. The Church has established a completely opposite relationship through the recognition of these Sacraments as valid upon reunification with the Church, but is such recognition possible regarding demonic actions? We must look for a common point of view that would make understandable the practice of the Church in its relation to “heterodocy.” Of course, the Church is one, for there is one Christ, one Holy Spirit living in the Church, one grace-filled church life, and there are no two ways of salvation. And therefore it is impossible to look for many ways of salvation in different “branches of the Church” or different “churches”: the “church”, of course, does not bow - neither in the dual nor in the plural, but has only the singular. The plural can only refer to different Local Churches, which, given the unity of church life, can have different spiritual gifts, as is shown in the Revelation of John regarding the seven Churches of Asia Minor. In this sense, the expression “union of churches” is incorrect, or rather inaccurate, unless by “churches” we mean divided church societies, which, however, cannot be considered as equal or equal in rights. Orthodoxy alone is the true, intact Church of Christ. However, this does not mean that all church societies formed outside of Orthodoxy as a hierarchical organization would be completely and completely non-Orthodox, that is, they would not have any church life in themselves, would be an empty place, or worse, an anti-church, the “harlot of Babylon.” Such a view could be based on a legalistic understanding of church life, in which there are only two possibilities: fulfillment of the law and its violation, truth and sin, black and white. For such a legalistic view, the actual attitude of the Church towards “heterodox” is only inconsistency and compromise. But Old Testament jurisprudence is inapplicable and insufficient here. Life of grace and its truth can have degrees, completeness and incompleteness. Between black and white there is a whole range of halftones. The Church is the pillar and affirmation of truth, truth is one, but truth, life in truth has degrees, just as there are degrees of approach and union with Him Who Himself is the Way, Truth and Life. And the grace of the Holy Spirit is one, however, the gifts are different, and the ministry is different, but the same Spirit who breathes where he wants. The Old Testament Church was gracious, but in a different way and to a different degree than the New Testament Church. And those who live in the Church partake of its fullness to the extent of their gift and deed, and the measure of this vital churching varies, from St. Seraphim to the ordinary layman. The life of grace in the Church is multi-layered and endless in its intensity. Therefore, the Church so jealously and severely protects its purity and with reprimands admonishes those who deviate from it, from the affirmation of the Truth and the direct Path to truth, falling into heterodoxy, into the area of ​​distortion and inferiority. Falling away from the Church, moving away from the light, let’s say, not towards darkness, but towards half-light, is a kind of spiritual catastrophe. In caring for the welfare of her flock, the Church can punish the guilty according to their maturity and position, up to and including anathema, as was the case back in the era of the Ecumenical Assemblies. However, the attitude of the Church to heterodoxy would only be determined by this if it were entirely exhausted by a movement from the Church against the Church. But in it, in its thickness and depth, there is the co-existence of the Church, nourishment from the wealth taken from the Father’s house, and there is a movement towards the Church - not only centrifugal, but also centripetal forces act. There is completeness and incompleteness, health and illness, strength and weakness, purity and impurity. In relation to Orthodoxy, its boundless purity and truth, all heterodoxy is untrue, damaged, charming, and, however, it is not alienated from the truth, from the love of Christ, from the love of the Mother of God and the saints, and therefore is not deprived of the grace of the Holy Spirit and the possibility of salvation. Not all Orthodox are truly Orthodox, indeed, are saved by Orthodoxy, but not all non-Orthodox are and in fact are completely and definitively non-Orthodox. If, according to the word of the Lord, there will be those who prophesied in His name and performed miracles, and yet He will say to them: “I never knew you” (Matthew 7:22–23), then there was such a person who cast out demons in His name and did not follow Christ, and the Lord did not allow the disciples to forbid him, saying that “if anyone is not against you, he is for you” (Luke 9:49–50). The confession of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church does not at all exclude the possibility that its light extends beyond the boundaries of its earthly organization. The Lord, in His inscrutable ways, makes many millions of Christians and beyond these borders participate in it. In other words, there may be Orthodoxy outside the Orthodox Church as an organization, ecclesia extra esclesiam. This does not mean that there are several churches, but a single churchism operates in breadth and depth. This is also in no way a religious indifference, “interconfessionalism,” but this provides an ecclesiastical justification for the uncontrollable craving of the entire Christian world for the “unification of all,” which is increasingly felt in the world. Love for Christ, deeds of love, and feat of faith establish a certain living unity of the Church of Christ among all the truly faithful. It has its focus in the Church, but outwardly it may not coincide with the church organization. There is the Christian world, which forms, as it were, an atmospheric environment, a comet’s tail around that nucleus, which is Orthodoxy. And this environment is internally one with him, having him as its center, since the power of Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit operate in it. And it is not given to a person to declare them excommunicated from both. This outlines the answer to a more general question: are people saved, can they be saved (or what is the same: is there grace and holiness) outside the Church? Or, on the contrary, do they inevitably die there, doomed to “hell,” as fanatics from different sides say? There is no and cannot be salvation outside the Church, for the Church is salvation, Noah’s Ark. Consequently, if we assume that they are saved in heterodoxy, this means that they somehow belong to the Church, without outwardly belonging to it, and, consequently, the mystical Body of the Church does not coincide with its canonical outlines. The Church itself testifies to this, recognizing the Sacraments and external initiations. Grace has and can have different degrees, and complete and unalloyed grace is given only in the Orthodox Church, One, True, Apostolic, Universal. But if completeness surpasses, it does not destroy incompleteness, partiality, and inferiority. Do those who broke away from the Church, but preserved the Holy Bible and in it and through it sought Christ and loved Him, all Protestants, have nothing in their love for the Word of God, or is it worse than nothing - only temptation and deception? Are those who have broken away from the Church, but retained the apostolic succession of the priesthood and the Sacraments and sacred rites performed by them, and they have nothing, or, again, worse than nothing, are black false sacraments? Are those who pray with us in the Holy Trinity to the existing God, Jesus Christ, the Mother of God and the saints, although they are (not due to personal, but due to historical fault) in a schism with the Church, remain rejected in their prayer, or even more than rejected, bring upon themselves only condemnation by their prayerful invocations? After all, these very questions are monstrous: it is enough to pose them clearly in order to then throw them far away. If it is said even about the pagans that “in every nation he who fears God and does what is right is acceptable to Him” (Acts 10:35), then does this not have force about Christians, baptized and even anointed? If there are those who are being saved throughout the Christian world, even extra ecclesiam, this means that holiness is also accumulating here, for Christian life is the accumulation of holiness. This does not mean, again, that one could take the liberty of praying to non-Orthodox saints and not posit in this regard a distinction between church saints and extra-church holiness. After all, the Church knows not only saints revered everywhere, but also local ones. However, the very possibility of pleasing God must in principle be recognized in heterodoxy. But this means that to a certain extent, precisely to the extent of its Christian life, heterodoxy belongs to Orthodoxy, everything truly valuable and holy in it is Orthodox, in spite of its heterodoxy or in spite of it. At present, the Christian world presents a sad picture of division into several religious societies, which has been going on for centuries. This, of course, is not a “separation of churches,” for the Church is one and cannot be divided, there can only be separations from it, but the separations that took place split the church society, which constituted the One Church from its very foundation and in the flourishing time of its universal self-awareness, in the era of the Ecumenical Councils. Although the quantitative scale is not the decisive criterion of truth and must remain at least in an insignificant minority, but with the truth, according to the word of the Lord: “Fear not, little flock, for the Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom” (Luke 12:32), however, it cannot be indifferent to the fullness of the life of the universal Church, the separation from it of the whole half, which then began to be divided further and further. And this separation of the Local Churches remains an unhealed wound on the living Church Body, which always hurts, or at least should hurt, and in the face of this fact there is no place for either self-praise or complacency, with which jealousy and hardness are sometimes mixed. For these church societies, heresy or schism, which separates them from the Church, is no longer their personal sin, as it is for the apostles and heresiarchs themselves, but fate and the destiny of the church. They are born, live and are saved in the conditions of the established church structure, often without encountering Orthodoxy at all in life (just as, for example, Protestantism did not encounter it during its schism with Rome). In the border regions, friction continues all the time and battles continue, while in the depths of church society traditional piety is preserved. There is a united Christian world, which is increasingly aware of its unity in faith in the Lord. Not only centrifugal energies accumulate, but also centripetal ones. And these forces attract all Christians to return to the Church, to a new Orthodoxy, conscious or unconscious. And the Mother Church, waiting with hope and patience for this desired return, external or, for now, at least only internal, with love sees and blesses every step towards the “unification of all,” and for it she continually prays according to the commandment of Her Supreme Bishop, who prayed in His high priestly prayer, calling all the faithful in the same prayer.” that they may all be one” (John 17:21). The attitude of the Church to heterodoxy in that in which it is one with it is determined not by compromises and adaptations, not by politics and tactics, but by church love. Yes, love is not as a “mood”, but as the essence of life, love is not emotional or psychological, but precisely ecclesiastical. The Church grieves over errors, but loves unanimity. The apostle spoke about this love in the hymn of love: love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor. 3:6). Let this word be the norm of our church love for separated brothers. And the apostle continues: love “covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). This is her strength. “Thus says the Lord: maintain judgment and do righteousness, for My salvation and the revelation of My righteousness are near... Let not the son of a foreigner, who has joined himself to the Lord, say: “The Lord has completely separated me from His people,” and let not the eunuch say: “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For the Lord says this about the eunuch: Those who keep My Sabbaths and choose what pleases Me and hold fast to My covenant, to them will I give in My house and within My walls a place and a better name than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be destroyed. And the sons of foreigners who have joined the Lord to serve Him and love the name of the Lord, to be His servants, all who keep the Sabbath from desecrating it and hold fast My covenant, I will bring to My holy mountain and make them glad in My house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices (shall be) acceptable on my altar; For my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isa. 56:1-7). Printed by "The Path". Organ of Russian religious thought. Paris: Publication of the Religious and Philosophical Academy. Nos. 1, 2, 4. 1925–1926. – Approx. ed. Confessio Augustana (1530), art.7. Est autem Ecclesia congregatio sanctorum, in qua evangelium recte docetur et recte administratur sacramentis. Art. 8. Quamquam Ecclesia proprie sit congregatio sanctorum et vere credentium, tamen cum in hac vita multi hypocritae et mali admixti sint, licet uti sacramentis, qui per malos administrantur (Art. 7. The Church is an assembly of saints, in which the Gospel is correctly explained and the sacraments are correctly performed. Art. 8. Although the Church is actually a assembly of saints and true believers, but since in this life there are often hypocrites and bad people, it is allowed to use the sacraments that are performed through the bad (lat.) - Ed.); Luther in the Large Catechism: Credo in terris esse quandam sanctorum congregationculam et communionem ex mere sanctis hominibus coactam, sub uno capite Christo. Catechism of the Church of Geneva. (Calvini 1545): Quid est Ecclesia? Corpus ac societas fidelium quos Deus ad vitam aetemam praedestinavit. (What is the Church? The body and community of the faithful whom God has predestined to eternal life, (lat.) - Ed.) Scotorum confession: Naes Ecclesia invisibilis est, uni Deo cognita, qui solus novit quos elegerit. (Scottish Confession: This Church is invisible, known to God alone, who alone knows whom he has chosen (lat.) - Ed.) (M. D'Herbigny Theol. de eccl. I, 85–86). K.Hase. Handbuch der protestantischen Polemik gegen die römisch-katolishe Kirche. Leipzig 1871, S.3. The reformers turned to Heaven for the eternal right of the idea - nach dem ewigen Rechte der Idee: “We are not the true Church, as Christ wanted it, nor you, but this Kingdom of God, striving to embrace all humanity with its perfect divine truth and perfect moral piety, ist eine Idee, which is only gradually and in images realized in world history.” Luther says: “We believe in the Holy Church, for she is invisible, living in the spirit in a place where no one can come. A member of the faith says: I believe in the Holy Church - but does not say: I see the Holy Church. If you judge by outward appearance, you will see that it is sinful and criminal, for in itself it has no justification except in Christ, who is its head, in this faith I see its holiness (hence, a reality that does not correspond to the idea). I believe that the Holy Church is on earth, and there is one not only under the pope, but throughout the whole world, among the Turks, among the Persians, among the Tatars, and also physically scattered throughout all of Christianity, but spiritually gathered under one head, which is Jesus Christ" (ibid.) Even Möhler (Symbolik) says: “Catholics teach: first is the visible Church, and then comes the invisible, only the first forms the second. Lutherans say the opposite: from the invisible comes the visible, and the former is the foundation of the latter. This apparently minor (?) contradiction makes a huge difference.” This idea in church writing is expressed with particular clarity in the Shepherd of Erma (140/55) view 2, chapter 4, 1: it was revealed to him that the venerable old woman who appeared to him and gave him the book was the Church. “Why is she an old woman (πρεσβύτερα)? Because she was created first of all, that is why she is an old woman, and for her sake the world was created (καὶ διά ταύτην ό κόσμος κατεκτίσθη). Also, in St. Clement, Pope of Rome, in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 150) we read: “I think that you know that the living church is the Church. And the books of the prophets and apostles testify that the Church is not only now, but is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22–23). For the scripture says: God created man... husband and wife (Gen. 1:27). The husband is Christ, the wife is the Church. And the books of the prophets and apostles testify that the Church is not only now, but from above πνευματική), she was Spiritual, just as our Jesus appeared in the last days to save us” (14:2). Wed. minutes of the seminary of St. Archpriest S. Bulgakov: “New Testament teaching about the Kingdom of God” (Spirit. World of students. No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Prague, 1923–1924–1925). In the necessary there is unity, in the doubtful there is freedom, in everything there is love (lat.) - Approx. ed. Metropolitan Anthony recently expressed the opinion in the press that the Pope, if he had renounced his dogmatic errors, would have had the primacy of honor, and for practical reasons could have received significant power, even more extensive than that which was characteristic of him before the church division (The Christian East. February, 1924). For a detailed exegetical analysis of Matthew 16:18 and other texts, see the special essay “Peter and John, the two chief apostles” (ready, for publication). For a general description of Roman Catholicism, see the essay “Vatican Dogma” (ready for publication; see below chapter “Essays on the Doctrine of the Church IV. On the Vatican Dogma.” - Ed.). We will touch upon the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility in the next essay. Only recently there has been a new exchange of mutual objections on the issue of papal power between prof. Glubokovsky and Bishop. Gore, on the one hand, and Battifol, on the other (The Christian East. Novem. 1923, Febr., June, Sept., Dec. 1924), and once again one can verify how little polemics yield here, although this does not mean that it is always necessary and possible to avoid it. But the words of Bishop Gore remain true: “The old points of controversy cannot be got out of the way” (June 1924; p. 65). This essay represents an excerpt from a course of lectures, based on the notes of L. A. Zander. “Our Guardian of Piety is the Body of the Church itself, i.e. the very people who always want to keep their faith unchanged.” The incoming pope does not confirm the decisions of his predecessors, which have the force of ipso jure (in his own right (lat.) - Ed.). The words “it pleased the Holy Spirit and us” did not express a proud claim, but a humble hope, which was subsequently rejected by the consent or disagreement of the entire church people or the entire body of Christ, as the Eastern patriarchs put it” (Khomyakov, pp. 71–72). “The Church entrusted the right to formulate its faith to its elders of the episcopal rank, retaining, however, the right to check the formula that they assimilate” (Khomyakov, p. 137). Wed. Macarius. Orthodox worship, II. pp.208–211. Upon joining Catholicism, Vl. Solovyov read (according to the testimony of the Catholic priest Tolstoy) the professio fidei Tridentina (Tridentine Confession of Faith (Latin) - Ed.), which ends with the anathematization of everything condemned and rejected by the Roman Church, i.e., in particular, Orthodoxy, since the latter rejects at least, for example, the Vatican dogma: Simulque contraria omnia atque haereses quoscunque ab ecclesia damnatas et rejectas et anathematizatas ego pariter damno, rejicio et anathematizo (And at the same time, everything opposite and any heresies condemned, rejected and anathematized by the church, I also condemn, reject and anathematize (lat.) - Ed.). In turn, Orthodoxy demands from those who come to its fold from the Catholic Church the rejection of Catholic false teachings, in particular, papism (Compare the rite of reunification). An example of the flexibility of church practice in the application of canons can be read in the following passage from the message of Fyodor the Studite: “Question II: about those who want to be baptized when there is no Orthodox or irreproachable priest: can they be baptized by priests who have fellowship with heretics, or those about whom there was no notification, especially when death is threatened? Answer. Here the following rule was uttered by confessors, hierarchs and abbots: presbyters removed from the priesthood for communicating with heretics, when there is no priest who has not seduced themselves, are allowed to baptize and teach the Holy Spirit. secrets previously consecrated by an innocent priest. Also communicate the monastic image, perform prayers at burial, read the Gospel at Matins and bless the Epiphany water.” Ep. Nikodim Milash believes that in relation to the Roman Catholic clergy, the Orthodox Church is guided by the First Rule of the Council of Constantinople in 879. Ep. Nicodemus. Rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations, Russian. lane vol.I, p.147. St. Petersburg. 1911. Wed. Rule 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council: “We call heretics both those who have long been declared alien to the church, and those who have since been anathematized by us; Besides this, there are also those who, although they pretend that they profess our faith soundly, but who have separated and are gathering assemblies against our properly appointed bishops.” According to Prof. Berdnikov, who also refers to the 2nd canon of the Trullo Council in the interpretation of Bishop John of Smolensk, “it is impossible to understand the binding nature of the canons in the sense of the unconditional immutability and irrevocability of the rules of the Ancient Ecumenical Church for subsequent times. The character of immutability belongs only to such definitions of the Councils as relate to the dogmas of faith.” (Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, vol. 8. Prof. I. Berdnikov. The practical significance of the canons of the Universal Church, p. 383). Compare, for example, the Rules of St. Nicephorus the Confessor, question 9, about eating food with heretics. “Blessing” - εὐλογίας - refers to the blessed bread or pieces of prosphora that the Churches exchanged as a sign of communion. According to Canon 21 of the Council of Trull, the most that can be granted to him is only to cut his hair in the image of the clergy. Interesting are the motives for accepting those returning to the Church in their existing rank, expressed in the 68th canon of the Council of Carthage: “Censure of previous error should not be an obstacle to their acceptance into the rank of clergy, when they, having come to faith, recognized the true Church as their own and, having believed in Christ in it, accepted the Sacraments of the Trinity... For this reason, after anathematizing the name of error, let them be accepted by the laying on of hands into one Church... in which all the eternal and life-giving Sacraments are salvific received, however, those who are in heresy are subjected to great condemnation and execution. What in the truth would brighterly lead them to eternal life, in error becomes more darkening and condemning for them... Such, when the confirmation of their good life is added, without a doubt, can correctly be established in the clergy to serve the Holy Mysteries.” Wed. Council of Carthage, Rule 57 (on the admission of Donatist clergy into the clergy of the Catholic Church). We have already mentioned that on the basis of this, the different attitude towards Catholicism on the part of the Greek and Russian Church receives its fundamental explanation, with the former considering it as a heresy (on the basis of the resolution of the Council of 1756 under Patriarch Cyril V) and considering Latin baptism as a simple bathing ράντισμα μόνον ψιΛόν (Pidalion), The Russian Church, according to the terminology of St. Basil the Great, practically views it as a schism, although associated with heretical teachings. The famous Orthodox canonist Bishop. Nikodim Milash notes: “The indelible character according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church only means that this Sacrament cannot be repeated at the same level over the same person.” (Law of the Orthodox Church, vol. II, p. 66). In this regard, the question arises as to whether it is canonical to allow defrocking, as is customary in the Russian Church, according to Article 86 of the Charter of Spiritual Consistories. Ep. Nikodim Milash finds this practice decidedly uncanonical and all references in its favor to various canonical rules are unconvincing (see cit. T.I, pp. 501–504). Without going into consideration here on the merits of the disputed issue, we will limit ourselves to the general remark that the practice of the Russian Church, which allows the resignation of priests not as a form of punishment, but upon request, can in no way mean that the priesthood was considered only as a temporary position. Church authority in this case creates only a special condition for the invalidity of the priesthood. The difficulty of this case lies in the fact that defrocking here leads to the automatic removal of the canonical prohibitions of second marriage for clergy, therefore, as if it really returns to the original state. However, such an understanding of the matter would mean the destruction of the dignity and its vows. (“Take this pledge and keep... You will be tormented about him at the Second Terrible Coming of Christ,” says the bishop to the ordained priest, handing him a particle of the Holy Gifts). Allowing a second marriage to someone who has been ordained does not mean its annulment, but the suspension of the strict canons prohibiting a second marriage for the sake of leniency towards human weakness. There is an analogy here with the attitude of the Church towards second and third marriage and especially towards divorce, which is allowed out of mercy, but is by no means approved in essence. The Church has a vital, that is, free and creative attitude even towards the canons, which, despite all their sacredness, do not represent ius strictum, “law”, but reulative norms (which is indirectly confirmed by the fact that in the history of canon legislation there have been cases when later canons abolished or changed the previous ones). One can argue whether the Local Church alone has the authority to make such a change in church discipline, but in principle such a possibility can hardly be rejected. At the 7th meeting of the Council of Trent it was decided: si quis dixerit, in tribus sacramentis, baptismo scilicet, confirmatione et ordine non imprimi characterem in anima, hoc est, signum quoddam spirituale et indelebile, unde ea iterari non possunt: anathema sit (Sess.VII, de sacramentis in genere can.9), and further: si quis dixerit per sacram ordinationem non dari Spiritum Sanctum, ac proinde frustra episcopos dicere: Accipe spm S-m aut per earn non imprimi characterem; vel eum qui sacerdos semel fuit laicum rursus fieri posse anathema sit (Sess.XXIII de sacr. ord. can.9) (if anyone says that in the three sacraments, namely baptism, confirmation and ordination, a property is not imprinted in the soul, that is, a certain spiritual and indestructible sign, because of which they cannot be repeated, let him be anathema... if whoever says that through sacred ordination the Holy Spirit is not given and that therefore the bishops say in vain: “Receive the Holy Spirit,” or that through it the quality is not imprinted, or that one who was once a priest can again become a layman, let him be anathema - Ed.) This is how a modern Catholic theologian looks at this question: Que penser des sacrements administrés par un évêque schismatique ou hérétique?... Aujourd'hui tout catholique sait que pour pouvoir faire réellement des prêtres chrétiens, en observant le rite convenable, il suffit de posséder réellelement la plénitude de sacerdoce, autrement dit, d'être évêque. L'exercice du pouvoir d'ordre dans la collection du sacerdoce comme dans tout autre acte sacramental, pourra être illicite, si l'évêque va contre une prohibition de l'Église: il ne sera pas pour cela invalide (?), et ainsi le sacerdoce chrétien pourra exister et se perpétuer, le Christ l'ayant voulu, hors des prises de l'Église, même dans le schisme et même dans l'hérésie. C'est là une verité, non précisément de foi défini, mais cependant définissable; les théologiens disent: proxima fide (What to think about the sacraments performed by a schismatic or heretic bishop?... Today every Catholic knows: in order to truly ordain Christian priests, observing the proper rite, it is enough to possess the real fullness of the priesthood, in other words, to be a bishop. The exercise of the episcopal power to convene clergy, as well as any other sacred act, may turn out to be illegal if the bishop goes against the prohibition, imposed by the Church - however, in this case it will not be invalid (?), and thus the Christian priesthood can exist and not be interrupted, since Christ so desired, outside of ties with the Church, even in schism and even in heresy. This contains its own truth, if not yet a definite dogma, then, nevertheless, definable; as theologians say, proxima fide (almost Faith (i.e., not yet approved dogma) - lat.) (French) - Approx. ed.) (A. d’Alès. Ordination, Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, fasc. XIII. Paris 1919). F. Kober. Die Deposition und Degradation. Tubingen. 1867, C.94–95 establishes that although the deposed cleric is legally a layman, “die Befähigung die mit ihrer Wurde verbundenen Funktionen auszuüben ihnen ungeschmälert verblieb” (?!) (the ability to perform the functions associated with their rank remains with them to the fullest extent (German) – Ed.). Therefore, the Deposition itself is understood as deprivation of the rights of the priesthood, “ohne jedoch den durch die Ordination geistlichen Character völlig zu verlieren” (but without the complete loss of the spiritual properties received at ordination (German) - Ed.) (110). It turns out that effective defrocking is impossible for the Church. In connection with this understanding is the Catholic practice of restoring those expelled from it, of course, by the power of the pope (E.Vagandard. Déposition et dégradation des clercs, Diet, de theol. cathol. t.IV p.472). It is strange that d'Herbigny (in "Orient. Christ.") sees "Donatism" in such an attitude towards the living church hierarchy. From the above canons it is clear that the Church in many cases refused to recognize the heretical and even schismatic priesthood outside of any Donatism. We outline only a general framework, but with the practical resolution of specific issues, great diversity is possible here. Church “oikonomia” must be flexible and lenient.