К вопросу о Лозаннской конференции 50 (Лозаннская конференция и энциклика папы Пия XI Mortalium animes)

I am free, barefoot, from all those who have enslaved me, so that I may gain many more. I was a Jew like a Jew... I was weak like I was weak... I was everything to everyone, so I will save everyone. Love is long-suffering, merciful... does not boast... does not He cherishes his si... he does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in the truth, he embraces everything, he has faith in everything, he trusts everything, he endures everything. In the summer of 1927, a conference on faith and order took place in Lausanne. It is so far the most vivid and powerful expression of the irrepressible desire of the entire Christian world for unity, which has been revealed in recent years, with particular force after the war. 51 It was a solemn manifestation - of course, not yet of unity, but, in any case, of the desire for it that exists throughout Christianity. Its direct dogmatic achievements - in the sense of eliminating disagreements - were not significant: disagreements were only stated without an attempt at reconciliation. But the positive religious achievement was significant: here it was felt in a new way and with new strength that the entire Christian world believes and loves the Lord Jesus Christ, spiritually feeds on the Holy Gospel and the Word of God with the Holy Spirit living in it, Who breathes where He wants, and no one knows when He comes and where He goes. This is the true and good “panchristism” of the conference, in the harsh words of the papal encyclical “Mortalium animos”, which warns Catholics against participating in this movement. For for all Christians 52 truly Christ is one and the same, Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, and the basic significance of this fact cannot be obscured by any division (nor by Catholic “pan-papism”, which in the encyclical is obviously opposed to “pan-Christism”). Although, of course, in the church consciousness there is no place for a distinction between the truths of faith fundamentalia and non fundamentalia (fundamental and non-fundamental (lat.) - Ed.), for they are all equally true and essential, however, there remains a difference in the degree of their manifestation (dogmata explicita and implicit (formulated and implied dogmas (lat.) - Ed.), as well as in their relationship in justification. The seed from which all Christian dogma grows - historically, not without hesitation and deviations, slowly and gradually - is, of course, the confession of the Apostle Peter on the way to Caesarea Philippi: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), and this faith is the foundation stone of the Church, and it was precisely what was preached by the apostles. Without this faith there is no Christianity, and it already contains the possibility of accepting all dogmas. The latter, once discovered, are equally significant, but before time they could have been absent from consciousness, just as they are now absent - due to error or narrow-mindedness - in many Protestant communities. That simplicity of early Christianity, which pious Protestants are looking for, is precisely this initial state of dogmatic faith, which, of course, is wrong to detain in this initial stage, but, however, one cannot detract from its fundamental nature. And in Lausanne there was something of this early Christian light in the vital feeling that all Christians believe, and love, and worship the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Heaven and earth, and that they all contain the one Gospel of the Kingdom. (Formally, this was expressed in the unanimous and unanimous acceptance of the first report on the mission of the Church in the world - the Gospel). In religious life, a revelation can sometimes be the experience of not only new, but also already known truths, but practically forgotten and therefore vitally lost. Such a revelation of the Lausanne Conference was the conciliar experience of faith in Christ and the grace-filled illumination from His approach: “Isn’t my heart filled with grief when I say that we are on the way?” (Luke 24:32) Strangers and distant people, people of different tribes and different languages, became close to each other in this: something happened, and its participants keep a responsible memory of this spiritual event. One should also not underestimate the religious and psychological significance of personal meetings and personal connections that have arisen between representatives of different confessions, who have hitherto been accustomed to denouncing and anathematizing rather than mutually listening and understanding each other. Cardinal Mercier wrote about this to his clergy regarding the meeting of Catholics with Anglicans in Malin. Les hommes sont faits pour s'aimer les uns les autres; il n'est pas rare que des cœurs mutuellement étrangers qui auraient pu, à distance, se croire ennemis, goûtent à se comprendre, un charme pénétrant qúils n'auraient pas soupçonné. C'est peut être la première fois, depuis quatre cents ans, disait l'un d'eux, que des hommes d'études, protestants et catholiques, aient pu s'entretenir avec une franchise entière pendant des heures et des heures, sur les sujets les plus graves qui intellectuellement les divisent, sans qúun instant la cordialité de leur rapports en ait été troublée ni leur confiance dans l'avenir déconcerté. Assurément, le rapprochement des cœurs n'est pas l'unité dans la Foi, mais il y est disposé. 53 “Pourquoi ces conversations? - Cardinal Mercier poses the question and gives the following answer to it: “Tout d'abord, parce que je n'ai pas le droit de me dérober à une occasion qui vient à moi de faire un acte de charité fraternelle et d'hospitalité chrétienne.” 54 It is enough to compare with this statement the present prohibition of Catholics from participating in conventions with non-Catholics in the encyclical 55 to measure the distance between these two dates. The current statement of the apostolicae sedis (the apostolic see, i.e. the Vatican (lat.) - Ed.) is especially unexpected from the lips of the pope, who declared the unity of the Christian world (at least in the Roman sense) to be the task of his pontificate. According to the meaning of the encyclical, Catholics are prohibited from any dogmatic meetings with all non-Catholics, unless the latter, having repented of their errors, enter the Catholic Church, in particular, do not recognize the Vatican dogma and do not submit to the pope. 56 The Encyclical is distinguished in this by its extreme exclusivity, and not in relation to the possibility of connection, which is not yet discussed, but even of extra-church or par-church communication, which in our days is acquiring such vital significance. Malinsky’s interviews with “Protestants” that took place not long ago now seem to be excluded within the meaning of the latest encyclical. I'm not even talking about the various forms of communication with the Orthodox, which were so recently allowed by Rome: the officially encouraged Velegrad congresses, as well as private meetings of Orthodox and Catholic theologians, which gave great spiritual satisfaction, apparently to both sides, and are undoubtedly desirable and fruitful. (Even invitations were sent to non-Catholics to participate in the Vatican Council, namely to the heads of the Orthodox Churches). Of course, such exclusivity falls heavily, first of all, on the Catholics themselves, who are placed in a position of unnecessary and harmful isolation for the Christian cause. Let us hope that here it will be corrected by life, but in relation to the matter of the Lausanne Conference, the matter is obviously decided irrevocably. Meanwhile, the Lausanne Conference itself was filled with the desire to have in its midst representatives of the Catholic world, of course, not at all as a negotiating party, but as representatives of the most powerful branch of Western Christianity, to express their own teachings and for personal spiritual rapprochement, in a word, for the very purposes for which Cardinal Mercier blessed the Malin conversations. It is indisputable, as has been repeatedly expressed in speeches and in the press, 57 that the ongoing rapprochement of the Christian world remains one-sided and incomplete as long as Catholics shun it. And whatever the intransigence of the Vatican, everything possible must continue to be done on the other side to attract the Catholic world to participate in the emerging world movement. Unfortunately, we have to once again state from this example how much the Western church world has not yet overcome its schism and is spiritually sick from it. The strength of the encyclical “Mortalium animos” is that it raises the question of the very possibility of such an undertaking as the Lausanne Conference, its dogmatic meaning and prerequisites. Its analysis in this regard is all the more interesting for the Orthodox because similar exclusivity is also characteristic of Orthodox circles (of the Catholic direction), although in essence the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in this example appears with particular clarity. What is the real basis of the Lausanne Conference and the interfaith unification movement, its dogmatic premise? How is this possible in the presence of deep dogmatic differences? Of course, here we can least of all talk about any dogmatic amalgam, or a new confession that would arise on the basis of agreement by bracketing out the confession common to all and discarding everything else. The papal encyclical depicts this task in precisely this way. 58 However, such relativism is hardly capable of satisfying anyone, except, perhaps, small Protestant sects, which easily arise through fragmentation and just as easily disappear through mergers. Of course, their unification in itself is a certain benefit and constitutes some achievement. However, such relativism, alien to most confessions, is completely incompatible with Orthodoxy, which recognizes itself as the One True Apostolic Church, possessing the completeness and integrity of tradition and the apostolic succession of the hierarchy. The absolutism of Orthodoxy in this sense is no less than that of the Roman Church, although their paths are different, and, of course, for Orthodoxy there can be no other task for the unification movement than to unite everyone in the bosom of Orthodoxy, “that there may be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16 - Ed.). Or, in the words of the encyclical, christianorum enim coniunctionem haud aliter foveri licet, quam fovendo dissidentium ad unam veram Christi Ecclesiam reditu (the unity of Christians can only be maintained by supporting the return of those who disagree to the one true Church of Christ (lat.) - Ed.). The participation of representatives of the Orthodox Churches, of course, is possible only on the condition of maintaining the fullness and purity of Orthodoxy, as was solemnly attested in a special declaration signed by all, without exception, representatives of the Orthodox Churches who were present at the conference. And yet this dogmatic maximalism, completely natural and irremovable for the Church, does not force the Orthodox to draw the same conclusion that, based on the same dogmatic maximalism, the Roman Church draws. 59 Of course, the most straightforward conclusion is not to communicate with heretics at all, which is also indicated by the canons. This conclusion, which is not alien to Orthodox circles, is hardly consistent with the example of the Apostle Paul, who wanted to be everything to everyone, so that he might save someone (1 Cor. 9:22 - Ed.). Indeed, the canons prohibit praying and communicating with heretics, but the meaning and force of this prohibition is to prevent dogmatic indifference or even the will to heresy from manifesting itself. 60 When this will does not exist - and, on the contrary, there is a desire for unity in Christ, the straightforward application of these canons would be the Pharisaic straining out a mosquito and devouring a camel. Therefore, the letter of these canons is rightly left the same by Orthodox bishops when, for example, they enter into communication, even prayerful, with Anglicans and Catholics, when they gather for Malinsky or Velehrad conversations, of course, also blessing them with prayer. Prayerful unity is even the special strength of such meetings. Of course, it has its limits, and quite narrow ones at that. For Orthodox Christians, the possibility of communicating the Sacraments and the Lord's Table with non-Orthodox people, which is comparatively so easy for Protestants, is excluded. (At the Lausanne Conference, surrendering to the desire for unity, representatives of Protestant communities, hitherto divided among themselves, entered into Eucharistic communion.) Communion in the Sacraments, presupposing the unity of the hierarchy of apostolic succession, remains, of course, a matter of the distant future (it does not yet exist, due to dogmatic differences, even between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, despite the mutual recognition of both the powers of the Sacraments and the priesthood). Militant heresy and schism, splitting the Church, of course, provoke rebuke from it and the necessary self-defense. (This still happens in relation to militant sectarianism). But societies that have outlived or are outliving their will to divide and have felt, on the contrary, a desire for reunification despite the division that has already taken place and become hereditary, do they deserve only severe rejection with a straightforward demand - to repent and submit earlier than it is realized why it is necessary to repent and submit? Perhaps this is sometimes applicable in cases of individual conversions, but it is unlikely that there is always good apostolic pedagogy in this - “to be everything to everyone, but there is no one to save.” Communication is necessary and possible between Christians who not only live in the Church, but who have also broken away from it and who do not even yet notice, are not aware of the separation that has taken place. The Church is conciliar not only in the sense of catholicity, which is opposed to any spiritual provincialism, but also in the sense of gathering hearts - in love and like-mindedness. And conciliarity is realized in unction, which can be many hours and varied. At the first Ecumenical Council, even pagan philosophers were allowed to participate in the discussions, and in this we see an expressive image of the first ecumenical unction. Unction between different Christian confessions, once it has become spiritually possible and even necessary, opens up wide and unlimited possibilities for rapprochement and dogmatic understanding of each other, which until now was accomplished only through the medium of the dead printed word, without personal mutual understanding in love. Therefore, real disagreements are also exaggerated by mutual misunderstanding. How many historical wounds and dogmatic misunderstandings, due to the one-sidedness of expression and the inaccuracy of human words, can be smoothed out, and perhaps eliminated, and thereby the understanding of the one church truth, which wins with its irresistibility, is brought closer. Of course, we must first abandon the idea of ​​uniformity and leveling of all psychologies and local traditions, which is not at all required by the unity of the Church. The Conference is not a Church Council in the strict sense of the word, because it can only include members of the Church, but it is not an extra-Church, purely secular meeting or congress. This is, after all, a parish church, and to that extent also a church unction. After all, even the catechumens, but not yet baptized, have access to the Liturgy of the catechumens and, therefore, are not alien to the Church. But those Christians who are baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity, which always remains valid, and who, therefore, are already born for the Church, how do they find themselves outside it? And even more so must this be said about those who, while maintaining the legal priesthood, have through it all the other Sacraments, although they remain in separation. 61 Obviously, the usual canonical and dogmatic distinctions, which know only two states: belonging or not belonging to the Church, are insufficient for the current state of affairs; they must be refined and complicated. Baptism, living faith in the Lord and love for Him, the Holy Gospel do not remain powerless and ineffective. 62 This is the real mystical soil for the beginning of unity, which can increase. The unification of the Christian world is not achieved by “pact”, human agreement and fabrication. It can only be accomplished through the inspiration of love for Christ and the action of the Holy Spirit. It is a miracle that exceeds human strength, but Christians must pray for a miracle and believe in a miracle. One cannot put up with the divided state of the Christian world; one must always feel the wound in the heart from this division. And Orthodox unction with love opens the heart to heterodoxy for the sake of that genuine and sincere love for the Lord, which the latter has, despite the many things it does not have, often due to the fault not of contemporaries, but of history. Orthodoxy is not only static, an achieved state of completeness, a treasure of true faith preserved unchanged until the end of centuries, but also a dynamic operating in the Christian world, its leaven, so to speak, the internal logic of Christianity. Just as “the soul is Christian by nature” (Tertullian), so churchliness by the power of things leads to Orthodoxy to the extent of its growth and deepening. And for Orthodoxy to withdraw from this great and holy work taking place in the world would be a sin of unlove and negligence. Of course, this places an unbearable burden on us, the weak and infirm, but the power of God is made perfect even in weakness. Based on what has been said, Orthodoxy, remaining itself in all its immutability and by no means becoming in the position of one of the contracting parties, has the full opportunity to share unction with heterodox Christians, helping them in their search for the one true churchliness. This is required from the Church by maternal care and love for the scattered children of God, so that they may be one in the Lord and in His Church. But why couldn’t these considerations have the same force for Catholicism? Is it really only an apparent external humiliation to enter the conference as one of many “churches”, and not the only one? But such sensitivity would be contrary to the spirit of pastoral love, the readiness to be everything to everyone: is it really possible to demand from the Protestant confessions that, while remaining in their present state, they could define their relationship differently, and was not the Roman high priest once called servus servorum Def (servant of the servants of God (lat.) - Ed.)? It seems that the real, deeper and more general reason for the removal of Rome is that the Roman Church is, first of all, an ecclesiastical legal organization of hierarchical power, having its focus in the pope, and only secondarily unity in love. It is not for nothing that the encyclical says so much about the Vatican dogma, along with the main Christian dogmas, and in general about the power of the Roman high priest. Recognition of this power and submission to it is the prius (precondition (lat.) - Ed.) of unction with the Roman Church. The Vatican dogma came before the Nicaean dogma; papal infallibility overshadowed the Gospel. Such an obstacle is completely absent in Orthodoxy, for which canonical communion is not a condition, but a consequence, the implementation of achieved church unity, and love is above the law. Therefore, it is free in the ways of unction, which for Catholicism are blocked by Vatican dogma. This is the main conclusion that can be drawn on the basis of the encyclical of Pope Pius XI, who began precisely with a call for unity and unction on the basis of mutual “irinical” rapprochement and acquaintance. These ironic aspirations are now being overcome by the Vatican. One can only hope that even this encyclical will not close the possibilities and ways of Christian communication with representatives of Catholic theological thought. I know that against everything that has been said, the real spiritual danger of interconfessionalism can be pointed out. However, the times have already passed when it was generally possible to isolate oneself and isolate oneself from the world, as if in a monastery enclosure. The church is now surrounded by raging elements, constantly throwing up their waves into her boat. And in the face of a hostile anti-Christian movement, the disparate forces of the Christian army must gather together and seek and desire mutual understanding. “Seek and you will find.” But, of course, for this you need to maintain a living and strong connection with the Church, to know your spiritual strength, where you can go from and where you can return to be strengthened. This fortress is our Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Orthodox Church. The work of the Lausanne Conference must continue in the world. But in what ways? It is obvious that direct repetition of it, so difficult to implement, is undesirable and even impossible: non bis in idem (do not (repeat) the same thing twice (Latin) – Ed.), and after the first step further steps must follow. In Lausanne, a general confession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, took place, and His Church must be established on this rock. In Lausanne the faith in the Holy Gospel as the book of the Eternal Life was confessed, and now this common faith must be brought to light. The Nicene and Apostolic Confession of Faith was proclaimed in Lausanne, and now it is necessary to expand its entire content. In Lausanne, the main task was to establish the necessary unity of faith and initial unanimity, and elements of disagreement were consciously avoided and even set aside; now is the time to fearlessly begin to discuss precisely the issues of disagreement, in the spirit of edification, patience, love, with the desire, first of all, to understand each other, to comprehend the meaning and strength of disagreement. The general flow must be divided into separate channels, the “ecumenical” impulse must be carried out in detailed work. An ecumenical “symbolism”, a comparative doctrine of Christianity, must be created, not, however, of the nature of an “accusatory theology” aimed at attack and defense, but an ironic discussion of issues that have become controversial and divisive. Such a loving and peaceful attitude towards a dogmatic enemy does not at all mean dogmatic indifference with which the encyclical scares us, for firmness and fidelity to the truth does not at all mean hostile intolerance. Misconceptions are often half-truths and one-sidedness of thought or even just its verbal expression, “abstract principles,” as Vl puts it. Solovyov, who can find their appropriate place in the light of truth. 63 Thus, we should not be afraid of contradictions, but even go for them - this path is being shown to us now, and the success or failure of this matter will show, at the same time, the degree of maturity of the undertaking itself, which still cannot linger in the stage of uncertainty and reticence. However, along with this negative method, contraversion must also follow the positive method of mutual acquaintance with what constitutes the true treasure of spiritual life, its special spiritual gifts. It follows that the work of dogmatic study and comparative acquaintance with the religious life of Christian communities for a long and indefinite period should be the main task of the unification movement. A long preliminary unction must begin, preparing the Council of Ecumenical Christianity. Appropriate institutions must be identified and created for this work. So, first of all, together with prof. I do not support the idea of ​​​​creating a permanent institution - an “ecumenical institute of research” or academy, in which learned theologians of different movements in Christianity would take part (See the cited article), and, of course, an attempt should again be made to attract Catholic theologians. This institution could organize theological congresses and prepare material for a future, albeit in the distant future, conference. The second task of this institution is to create ecumenical literature of a discussion nature: a magazine, collections, books on the main issues dividing different confessions, with the goal of causing not so much “conviction” as a dogmatic conversation or even a dispute that would help to understand each other. The absence of this kind of literature constitutes a significant obstacle to further rapprochement. “Love believes all things and hopes all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). And if usually in dogmatic disagreements heretical stubbornness and evil will are naturally assumed, then here one can hope to actually find a way to the mind and heart of the enemy. The Stockholm Conference has already embarked on the path of creating an appropriate (social) international institution with a periodical publication, and it is naturally indicated for the Lausanne Conference as well. What are the primary issues that are subject to ecumenical discussion or ecumenical unction? These are, first of all, ecclesiological questions: about the nature of the Church and the priesthood; about the Sacraments and especially about the Eucharist. The question of atonement must be added here. But first of all, the question that directly follows from the acceptance of the Nicene Symbol must be raised - about the meaning and power of veneration of the Mother of God (as I also pointed out at the conference). This question most of all divides the Christian world, and the attitude towards it must be brought to full clarity. All this presupposes a long and difficult path of study, discussion, and debate. However, those arguing are no longer enemies, but friends seeking to understand each other, and moreover, brothers in the Lord, although hitherto fratres separati (divided brothers (lat.) - Ed.). Of course, what has been said does not exclude the possibility and even the desirability of general and private congresses to revive fraternal feelings, for personal meetings and, finally, for the discussion of individual issues that are ripe and prepared, although the center of gravity should not lie in them now. As a wish, I can express the idea that the first such general congress should be Mariological. Published by “The Path”... No. 13. October 1928. pp. 71–82 – Note. edit Faith in Christ as the Son of God is the dogmatic basis of the conference, which was officially confirmed in the adoption of the report on the general confession of faith - nemine contradicente, as it is proclaimed in the Holy Scriptures and is testified and confirmed in the universal confession, called the Nicene Creed (Nicaeum), also in the apostolic (Apostolicum). Thus, the entire Lausanne Conference accepts the Orthodox Creed (as well as the “apostolic” Creed adopted primarily in the Catholic Church). Therefore, the currents of so-called liberal Protestantism (“Jesuanism”), which deny the Divinity of Christ, were not represented at the conference or, in any case, did not reveal themselves. Unfortunately, this did not prevent the fact that in the introductory part of the encyclical, the Lausanne undertaking, driven by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and love for Him, was given the following description: “They know that it is difficult to find a person devoid of any religious feeling; Apparently they also hope to easily achieve that the peoples, although they hold different opinions on religious questions, will fraternally agree in the profession of certain doctrines, as well as in some general basis of spiritual life. For this reason, they are in the habit of holding congresses, meetings, conferences with a considerable number of listeners and invite to their discussions indifferently both pagans of all kinds (ethnici omne genus) and believers in Christ (Christi fideles); both those who had the misfortune to fall away from Christ, and those who persistently and stubbornly deny the Divinity of His nature and mission.” True, this is not said directly about the Lausanne Conference, but it is precisely about it. SR. Dean Bell. Documents on Christian unity. 1920–1924. Oxford. London, 1924. People are created to love each other; Often mutually alien hearts, which could at a distance consider themselves enemies, try to understand each other, imbued with a charm that they could not even suspect. “Perhaps for the first time in four hundred years,” said one of them, “educated Protestants and Catholics were able to communicate with complete frankness for long hours, discussing the grave issues that divide them intellectually—without for a moment the warmth of their intercourse or their faith in the future being shaken. Of course, the bringing together of hearts does not mean unity in the Faith, but it predisposes us to it (French) - Approx. ed. ) Bell, 1. pp. 354–5. Further, C. Mercier refers as an example to the encyclical of Pope Pius XI Ecclesiam Dei, in which he calls on Latins and Easterners to mutual understanding and the elimination of prejudices Why these interviews?... First of all, because I have no right to shy away from the opportunity given to me to perform an act of fraternal mercy and Christian charity (French) - Approx. ed). L.S. 357. Mercier further refers to the message of Pope Leo XIII “Amantissimae voluntatis (ad Anglos)”, April 14, 1895, which says: “In rebus enim magnis atque in arduis si modo sint sincere et bono animo susceptae, adest homini Deus” (After all, in matters great and difficult, if only they are undertaken with pure and good spirit, the Lord helps man (lat.) - Ed.). pes eorum conventus Apostolicam Sedem ullo pacto participare posse pes ullo pacto catholicis licere talibus inceptis vel suffragiri vel operam dare suam... (and the Apostolic See cannot in any way participate in their meetings and in no way allow Catholics to vote or work in such endeavors... (lat.) - Ed.) They are trying (and on the Catholic side) to turn the spearhead of this encyclical exclusively against Protestants, but not against the Orthodox. However, its text does not allow such an interpretation at all, why in it the Vatican dogma, rejected by the Orthodox, is placed on a par with the dogmas of the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, the immaculate conception of the Mother of God, and in another place it says that there is no one in the Church who does not submit to the power and authority of the successor of Peter, and therefore, qui Photii novatorumque errorlbus Impllcantur (those who share the errors Photius and the Renovationists (lat.) - Ed.). See very interesting article by Prof.Heiler. – Ergebnisse und Forderungen der Lausanner Weltkonferenz (Intern. Klrchl. Zeitsch. H.1. 1928). “...eandem (unitatem) optari quidem posse et fortasse per communem voluntatum inclinationem aliquando effici, sed commenticium quiddam interea habendum esse. Addunt, Ecclesiam per se, seu natura sua, in partes esse divisam, idest ex plurimis ecclesiis seu communitatibus peculiaribus constare, quae, disiunctae adhuc, etsi nonnulla capita habent communia, tamen in reliquis discrepant; iisdem sane iuribus frui singulas... Oportere igitur aiunt controversiis vel vetustissimis sententiarumque varietatibus, quae christianum nomen ad hune diem distinent, praetermissis ac sepositis, de ceteris doctrinis communem aliquam credendi legem effici ac proponi, cuius quidem in professione fidei omnes non tam nolint quam se fratres esse..." (...that it (unity) can be strived for and, probably, one day achieved by the common inclination of the wills, but in the meantime some kind of innovation should be arranged. They add that the Church in itself or by its nature is divided into parts, that is, consists of many churches or separate communities, which are still divided, although they have many common grounds, differ in other respects; that, of course, each of them uses the same rights... So, they say, it is necessary, omitting or putting aside the disputes and ancient disagreements that divide the name of Christians to this day, about the remaining teachings to create and propose a certain general law of faith, professing loyalty to which everyone would at least not so much deny as (call) themselves brothers (ed.) - Ed. Et quo pacto, rogamus, unum idemque fidelium foedus participent homines qui contrarias in sententias abeunt. (And thus we ask that the same union of faith be concluded by people who differ in opposite opinions (lat.) - Ed.) The following are a number of examples of dogmatic differences, the neglect of which leads either to dogmatic indifferentism or modernism-relativism. I discussed this issue in more detail in the essay “The Church and Heterodox” on the pages of “The Way.” (See section 10 of the first chapter in this edition - Ed.) According to the understanding of the Roman Church, every baptized soul, whether she knows it or not, is subject to the pope by virtue of belonging to the Church. Wed. at d'Herbigny. Theologica de Ecclesia, II, §326 sqq., thesis XXVII, which lists what the coetus acatholici (non-Catholic congregations (lat.) - Ed.) have and do not have. Are some of the contradictions between Catholicism and Protestantism also “abstract principles” in this sense? And isn’t Orthodoxy, alien to the Reformation, called upon to pronounce its reconciling judgment in such cases?