Saint Demetrius of Rostov and Eucharistic disputes in Russia at the end of the 17th century

The end of the 17th century was marked by a rapid awakening of Russian theological thought, expressed in disputes about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. During the polemic, which actually became the first full-fledged theological discussion in Russia, the most educated people of the era exchanged opinions. Among them was St. Dimitry Savich, future Metropolitan of Rostov. Not being one of the main characters in the Eucharistic disputes and not taking direct part in the debates, St. Demetrius nevertheless closely followed the development of the controversy and expressed his views in a number of essays. Considering these writings in the context of the events of the late 17th century, we can understand how the views of the Rostov saint developed and see how his formation as a theologian proceeded. The debates around the sacrament of the Eucharist that broke out in Moscow in the 1680s were not at all accidental or unexpected: large-scale anti-Protestant polemics shook universal Orthodoxy throughout the 17th century. and the question of the sacrament of Communion was one of the central ones in it 1 . Meanwhile, the beginning of disputes surrounding the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts in Russia was associated with a purely internal issue - with the Schism. We have only fragmentary evidence about how the clergy of the Great Russian Church judged the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts until the middle of the 17th century. Their heterogeneity suggests the coexistence of very different views - both “Latin” and “Eastern”. The absence in the Russian Church of a clearly expressed dogmatic teaching on the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Mysteries became a source of disagreement when dogmatics and liturgics became the focus of close attention of opposition theologians who were looking for traces of Patriarch Nikon’s retreats into “Latinism.” A number of influential Old Believer leaders, most notably Nikita Dobrynin and Geronty Solovetsky, in the 1660s. charged the Nikonians with blasphemy against the Holy Gifts, which is expressed in the fact that the New Believers do not bow to the ground during the Great Entrance 3. The reason for this accusation was the conviction of the Old Believer leaders that the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ occurs at the very beginning of the liturgy, at the proskomedia 4. At the same time, Nikita Dobrynin condemned the “Tablet” 5 for its “Latinism,” which set forth the traditional Eastern teaching that transubstantiation occurs during the epiclesis. Nikita’s position was also supported by authoritative Pustozersk prisoners – Avvakum Petrov and Lazar. At the same time, the radical doctrine of transubstantiation at proskomedia was not common to the early Old Believers. Thus, Deacon Fedor, who stood out among the Old Believer leaders for his scholarship, rejected such views and supported the “Latin” point of view on transubstantiation with “establishing words.” There were no supporters of the “eastern” doctrine of transubstantiation during the epiclesis among the ideologists of the early Old Believers 6 . In the first large-scale anti-Old Believer work, “The Rod of Government,” 7 the polemic with the Old Believer concept of transubstantiation was given quite a lot of space. Refuting Nikita Dobrynin’s argumentation in favor of the presentation of the Holy Gifts at the proskomedia, Simeon of Polotsk, in turn, accused him of “worshipping the creature instead of the Creator” 8. Thus, the topic of “bread worship” first appeared on the pages of Russian theological treatises. No less significant for subsequent Eucharistic disputes was the way the author of the “Rod” presented the Orthodox position on the issue of the time of transubstantiation. If at the beginning of the treatise it is said that bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ “by the power of the Lord’s words” (“Latin” point of view), then later, analyzing the text of the “Tablet”, he writes that from the “Lord’s words” to the prayer of the epiclesis, bread and wine remain themselves (“Eastern” point of view) 9. The reason for this duality may be hidden in the fact that significant corrections were made to the author’s text of the “Rod” at the insistence of certain Russian participants in the 1667 council. In a letter to Lazar Baranovich, Simeon of Polotsk noted that he did not want to indicate his authorship on the title of “The Rod,” since significant changes were made to the original text under pressure from some “stubborn” people. The “wise” Kiev reader will notice the controversial passages in the text, although “the Eastern Church treats the issue itself with condescension” 10 . We can assume that we are talking, among other things, about the time of transubstantiation. Indeed, at the end of the 1660s. in Eastern Europe, the “Latin” view was quite rooted (as clearly evidenced by its perception by the Old Believers). The debate over the truth or falsity of this view did not seem topical or paramount. Attention was drawn to views that obviously contradicted Church Tradition - Protestant teachings in the East and the Old Believer concepts of “pro-Skomedia transubstantiation.” In the 1660s - early 1680s. The “Latin” point of view on the time of transubstantiation becomes widespread. This was facilitated, in particular, by the publication in 1667 in Russian of Theodosius Safonovich’s work “Exposition on the Holy Church...” 11, which contained a presentation of the “Latin” doctrine of the time of transubstantiation with detailed argumentation. Safonovich's work, written to introduce a wide audience to the Orthodox teaching on the sacraments, gave a simple explanation of at what point in the liturgy the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. In 1675–1677, Evfimy Chudovsky, a student of Epiphany Slavinetsky, at the direction of Patriarch Joachim, compiled the “Inspiration to the Priests” 12, which clearly sets out the “Latin” doctrine of the time of transubstantiation 13. The same Euthymius in 1677, when preparing the “Officer of the Bishop’s Ministry” for publication, made corrections therein ordering the bishop to remove the miter and put on an omophorion before pronouncing the “institutional words,” thereby especially emphasizing their meaning 14 . Finally, the work of Sylvester Medvedev, “Animal Bread,” 15, which expounded the doctrine of the Eucharist and touched upon the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, 16 most likely dates back to the early 1680s. Thus, by the beginning of the 1680s. in the Great Russian Church the “Latin” view of the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts was fully established. In March 1685, brothers Ioannikiy and Sophrony Likhud arrived in Moscow. These were Greeks, doctors of theology from the University of Padua, who received letters of recommendation from the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus, famous for his zeal in the struggle for the purity of the Orthodox faith. All foreigners applying for service under the great sovereigns had to pass an official examination. For the Likhuds, such an exam was a dispute with another person who claimed the title of Doctor of Theology, who was in Moscow at that time - with Yan (Andrei Khristoforovich) Belobotsky 17. The Likhuds easily defeated Belobotsky (the latter's knowledge was limited mainly to the esoteric teachings of Raymond Lully 18) and forced him to admit that he did not have doctoral degrees in either theology or philosophy 19. Moreover, the first question that the Greek brothers asked their opponent was the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Belobotsky responded to him with a presentation of the “Latin” point of view, to which the Likhuds responded with a detailed refutation and presentation of the “Eastern” teaching. The exact motivation of the “self-conversion” that prompted them to raise the topic of the time of transubstantiation remains unknown: whether it was somehow connected with the dispute with the Jesuit Rutka 20 that took place when the Likhuds were passing through the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, whether bowing at the liturgy in Moscow churches attracted the attention of the Greeks, or whether the reason was different. In any case, the very fact of the existence of two different views on an important theological question was bound to come to light sooner or later. However, in the specific conditions of the Moscow intellectual elite of the late 17th century. this purely theological question became the reason for a life-and-death struggle and marked the beginning of the Eucharistic disputes that shook the Russian Church in the late 1680s and early 1690s. The process of confessionalization gave narrow internal church debates national significance. During the discussions, the Russian intellectual elite was divided into two parties, depending on the professed view of the time of transubstantiation - “Latin” or “Eastern”. In historiography, the former were called “Latinists”, the latter – “Grecophiles”. The Latinizing party, paradoxically, represented a kind of traditionalists who defended the beliefs that they had learned from their youth, mainly from books. Its most active representative in Moscow was Sylvester Medvedev, who resorted to the defense of Mogila intellectuals with whom he corresponded. The party of “Grecophiles” was more heterogeneous: it included “traveling foreigners”, the Likhud brothers, and the director of the printing house, a student of Epiphanius Slavinetsky, Evfimy Chudovsky, and the Kholmogory Archbishop Afanasy, who came from the Old Believers; finally, it was patronized by Patriarch Joachim himself. Unfolded in 1687–1689. The controversy received fairly detailed coverage in historiography. Here we will limit ourselves only to its general characteristics. The first stage of the controversy was the writing by Evfimy Chudovsky in 1687 of two works directed against Sylvester Medvedev’s “Bread of the Animal” 21 . If the first “Testimony on the subject of Latin wisdom” 22 was completely devoid of argumentation and simply ordered “to believe as the Greeks,” then the second “Refutation of the Latin doctrine of transubstantiation” 23 was more thorough. The Likhuds probably also made a contribution here. It was in the “Refutation” that it was first stated that the treatise presented the “teachings of Epiphanius Slavinetsky”: here and further, Euthymius will strive to present the disputes as a kind of correspondence debate between the late Epiphanius and Simeon 24 . The second stage of the controversy in 1688–1689 ended with the writing of detailed works: Sylvester Medvedev, in collaboration with the Little Russian polemicist Innokenty Monastyrsky, wrote a voluminous work “Manna of the Living Bread” 25, it was no longer Epiphanius who responded to them, but the Likhuda brothers personally, creating “Akos” 26. In all likelihood, both works were created at the same time and were published in the form of “notebooks” in parts 27. Both of these works combine theological argumentation with the caustic polemical swearing common to the era. The position of the “Grecophiles” was this: transubstantiation occurs through the power of the epiclesis prayer, therefore, before it, only consecrated bread and wine are found in the altar, but not the Body and Blood of Christ. Those who bow to the “institutional words” worship the creature instead of the Creator and commit a mortal sin. The opinion about transubstantiation with “establishing words” is a Latin fabrication introduced into the Russian Church by Simeon of Polotsk. The “Latinizers” objected, declaring that the doctrine of transubstantiation “by the words of God” is an ancient teaching of the Orthodox Church. The latter's position was much more vulnerable; the lack of actual theological argumentation had to be compensated for by polemical attacks and philological calculations, designed to interpret in one’s favor numerous patristic quotations confirming the significance of the epiclesis. The controversy also affected the Kyiv Metropolis. The Little Russian clergy fully supported the Moscow “Latinists,” especially since the well-known Innocent of Monastyrsky was on Medvedev’s side. However, in 1688, the Kyiv Metropolis had to feel for itself that since 1685 it had been under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarch, and the patriarch obviously supported the “Grecophiles.” In the spring of 1688, letters from Patriarch Joachim were sent to Kyiv and Chernigov, Metropolitan Gideon Chetvertinsky and Archbishop Lazar Baranovich, in which the latter was interested in the attitude of the Ukrainian bishops to the Council of Florence. St. Demetrius wrote the conclusion for the Kyiv Metropolitan, Lazar Baranovich himself was responsible: in both cases, the Little Russians wrote about their decisive rejection of the Florence Council and the Union. In September 1688 Joachim sends a new letter to the Ukrainian bishops, now directly asking how they teach about the time of transubstantiation and how they relate to Theodosius Safonovich’s book “Exposition,” which Joachim called a “Jesuitic” provocation, published only under the name of the Kyiv elders. The answer this time took a long time to prepare, and Patriarch Joachim even sent letters reproaching him for his slowness in the winter of 1689. Lazar Baranovich was the first to respond: in his letter dated February 1689, he wrote that the Little Russian Church has always professed the doctrine of transubstantiation “by the words of the Lord,” having received it from the fathers; The “exposition” is the work of a worthy author, renowned for his learning and strength in the Orthodox faith. The official response of the Metropolitan of Kyiv was delayed. It was compiled only during Lent in 1689 and was a presentation of “Latin” teaching, supported mainly by references to the theological works of the Mogilyan tradition. Apparently, by this time the actual Kyiv polemical works against the Likhuds, authored by Innokenty Monastyrsky, “The Book of the Divine Liturgy” and “The Book of Transubstantiation” 28, were also written. However, the stock of actual theological argumentation in favor of the “Latin” teaching had long been exhausted by this time, so the novelty of Monastyrsky’s books consisted mainly in his polemical moves. The letter was signed by the metropolitan and all the higher clergy of Kyiv. Soon Patr. Joseph responded to this dispatch and wrote a response to Lazar Baranovich and the people of Kiev, blaming their stubbornness. In a letter to Metropolitan. To Gideon, the Moscow Patriarch gave a detailed argument in favor of the Eastern teaching about the time of transubstantiation and demanded to answer whether the people of Kiev agreed to recognize the “teaching of the Eastern Church.” In addition, Patr. Joachim insisted that representatives of the Kyiv Metropolis come to Moscow in order to finally resolve the dispute 29 . In August 1689, in the retinue of Hetman I. Mazepa, two representatives of the Kyiv Metropolitan arrived in Moscow: Innocent of Monastyrsky and St. Dimitry (Savich). The arrival of the Kyiv mission coincided with a sudden outbreak of disputes. Theological disputes were interrupted by a coup that put an end to the regency of Princess Sophia. The Patriarch supported the Naryshkins. The closeness of the leaders of the Moscow “Latinists” to the princess became fatal for them. Sylvester Medvedev was arrested on charges of treason. In this situation, there could no longer be any question of continuing the debate. The victory remained with the “Grecophiles”. The subsequent story had the character of a protracted epilogue. Meanwhile, the patriarch nevertheless met with the Kyiv envoys. Unfortunately, we have only fragmentary information about the content of their conversations. Apparently, most of the delegates, including St. Demetrius, recognized the truth of the Eastern teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. The previous point of view was stubbornly defended only by foreigners. Innocent of Monastyrsky, who dared to enter into a sharp discussion and object to Patr. Joachim, for which he was expelled from Moscow before the end of the embassy 30. Thus, Kyiv recognized that Moscow was right on the issue of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. The last to recognize the Eastern teaching about the time of transubstantiation was Lazar Baranovich: the elderly archpastor submitted to the will of the hierarchy only in November 1689. In January 1690 Patr. Joachim convened representatives of the Moscow clergy to the chamber of the cross. The results of the Eucharistic disputes were announced before him. The Patriarch read out a letter in which it was attested that Sylvester Medvedev and several of his like-minded people had renounced their views on the time of transubstantiation 31. The “bread-worshipping heresy” was anathematized, books of the Mohyla tradition were banned, in which hidden borrowings from Catholic works were discovered, including “Euchologion” 32 and “Peace with God to Man” 33. For the council, Euthymius Chudovsky prepared a collection of materials “Austen” 34, which included written renunciations of their views by Sylvester Medvedev and Simeon the Long (who had already defrocked Senka and Savva) and a message from Patriarch Joachim (written by Euthymius), setting out the history of the controversy from the point of view of the “Grecophiles.” Evfimy Chudovsky also wrote a voluminous polemical work, “The Shield of Faith,” as if summing up the debate. However, after the death of Patriarch Joachim it never saw the light of day in printed form 35 . The end of the Eucharistic debate in Russia coincided with the end of the debate in the East about the views of Cyril Lucaris. The last influential supporter of his ideas, the great logothete of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, John Caryophyllus, was condemned for denying the doctrine of transubstantiation in 1691 at the Council of Constantinople, at which everyone who in one way or another shared Lucaris’ views on the Eucharist and rejected the reality of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts was anathematized. Immediately after the meeting of the council, Patriarch Dosifei sent acts of sin to Moscow, coupled with works that refuted the teachings of Lucaris and his followers. The tomos of the cathedral of 1691 was translated by Euthymius Chudovsky, part of this text was included in the “Statement” of the patriarch. Adriana. The “Proclamation” was the dogmatic message that opened the collection “Shields of Faith” 36. Thus, Russian Eucharistic disputes seemed to have closed in on the Greek-Eastern ones. This ended the Eucharistic disputes in the Russian Church. Here it is quite possible to conclude that these disputes were an episode of a single process of creating a rational system of doctrinal knowledge of Orthodox Christians, characteristic of the era. Obviously, for the Russian Church, which did not have developed dogmatic theology, this process was more complicated than for the local churches of the East. However, with a closer look at the Eucharistic debates of the late 1680s, it becomes clear that even in a purely theological sense, the controversy was not at all reduced to a confrontation between two positions: orthodox and heterodox. Two circumstances attract interest. First: if the topic of the debate was based on disagreements about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, then why did the question of the place of bowing in the liturgy acquire such great importance that it was even referred to as the “bread-worshipping heresy” that Sylvester and his comrades were accused of? Second: why did the disputes begin so unexpectedly, were extremely heated, and ended just as suddenly? To understand these issues, we will have to turn to the environment in which the controversy took place, namely the Moscow intellectual elite of the 1680s. As already mentioned, the last years of his life Simeon of Polotsk worked on the project of establishing a higher educational institution in Moscow. However, Polotsky never managed to found an academy. After his death, all sketches and notes concerning the plan for creating a higher educational institution were sent, along with Simeon’s archive, to his favorite student, Sylvester Medvedev. Sylvester planned to personally implement the ideas of his teacher and wrote in 1681, based on his rough notes, a “Privilege for the Academy,” intended to be submitted to Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich 37 . According to Medvedev’s plan, the Academy was supposed to become not just an institution of higher education, but an autonomous rigid structure that controlled church and intellectual life in the country, severely punished heresies and dissent, and at the same time independent of the patriarch. Not everyone could become a teacher at such an academy either: according to the strict criteria of the Privilege, even the late Simeon of Polotsk would have turned out to be “unreliable.” Sylvester Medvedev himself was to become the head of this institute. “Ambitious plans, jealousy and hatred of possible opponents of his plans - that’s what guided Medvedev’s pen in those months when he composed “Privilege for the Academy” 38. Sylvester was determined to fight his competitors mercilessly. When in February 1681, Jan Belobotsky, a Polish nobleman who declared himself a doctor of theology and philosophy and wanted to become a teacher at the new academy, arrived in Moscow, Sylvester Medvedev and his supporter Pavel Negrebetsky, accusing Belobotsky of heresy (quite justifiably, it must be said), persistently sought his immediate execution. The nobleman was saved only by royal patronage 39 . However, the “Privilege” was never awarded to Fyodor Alekseevich, and with the death of Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich, the talk about the academy itself died down for almost three years, until the moment the “Privilege” was presented to Sofya Alekseevna on January 24, 1685. However, the very fact of Sophia’s acquaintance with the “Privilege” did not bring significant fruit. On March 6, the Likhud brothers, doctors of theology, arrived in Moscow with a letter of recommendation from the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dosifei. From July 1, they begin teaching to the best students of the Typographic School. Thus, Sylvester Medvedev’s long attempts to open an academy ended in failure: now highly learned Greeks, under the patronage of Patriarch Joachim, have begun to create a higher school in Russia. Sylvester was not one of those people who could easily come to terms with the loss of the goal of his whole life; a life-and-death conflict between him and the Likhuds was inevitable. Evfimy Chudovsky became the Moscow leader of the “Grecophiles”, a loyal ally of the Likhuds. And it was not only the characteristic sympathy for the Greek culture that was characteristic of the Chudov monk, which was brought up in him by Epiphanius Slavinetsky. All the works of this intellectual, who worked at the Moscow printing house from the middle of the 17th century, were in one way or another connected with the defense of Orthodoxy and the denunciation of infidels, with the idea of ​​​​confronting the “dark” West with the Orthodox East. The focus of Western “malice” in Euthymius’s view was Rome and the Roman Church, seeking to seduce Russia by infusing it with “Western papal new-minded teachings” 40. “Dominicans” and “Jesusites,” in his opinion, are more dangerous than “Calvins” and “Luthors” because they act cautiously and secretly. The works of Simeon of Polotsk had long confused Euthymius. The Chudov monk recognized hidden “Latinism” in them. Euthymy tried to denounce the “Latinism” of Polotsk during the latter’s lifetime, pointing out the non-Orthodox opinions contained in his writings of the 1670s. However, the opponent was too tough for the Chudov monk. The only thing Euthymius achieved was an epigram in which Simeon hinted at a certain “Zoilus,” that is, an envious slanderer who wanted to discredit a more talented fellow writer 41 . The efforts of Sylvester Medvedev to create the academy did not leave Evfimy indifferent. He and his supporters, among whom was the young Bishop Athanasius of Kholmogory, in 1684–1685. consist of two treatises, “The Argument in Brief” 42 and “Is It More Useful for Us to Study...” 43, in which purely Latin education is condemned and an educational model in which the study of the Greek language dominates is defended. The content of the treatises was largely due to the fears of the authors, generated by their ignorance of the actual content of the project of the Medvedev Academy, which included the teaching of Slavic and Greek languages ​​44. The appearance of the “self-brothers” of the Likhuds in the Russian capital provided Euthymius and his followers with a fundamental advantage over their enemies in the Moscow intellectual elite. And the deviation from the orthodoxy of Russian “school” theologians, revealed during the debate with Belobotsky, gave good chances to use these advantages to their advantage. The Likhud brothers were no less interested in the destruction of Medvedev and his comrades: the conflict between them flared up by leaps and bounds. If the brothers constantly accused Sylvester Medvedev of ignorance, then the student of Simeon of Polotsk, not being able to answer the same coin to certified doctors, resorted to other methods. Among them were reproaches of the Likhuds for not knowing the Slavic language, and references to traditional Moscow stereotypes about the “crafty Greeks”, and, finally, reproaches quite similar to the Old Believers in the fact that the Likhuds boldly call ancient Slavic books wrong and “blaspheme” Russian antiquity. The “Grecophiles” did not remain in debt - thus, abuse and accusations of apostasy flew from all sides. In the second half of 1687, the “Latinists” resorted to completely unseemly methods of combating “self-brotherhood”: accusations of seizing land from the Zaikonospassky Monastery, where Sylvester was abbot, fabrication of incriminating evidence with the help of Greek adventurers, and threats of physical violence were used. The Likhuds responded only with complaints to the royal name and requests to release them to their homeland, which, apparently, led to the cessation of such excesses in the next year, 1688. 45 The very fact that St. Demetrius of Rostov was chosen to participate in the embassy from the Kyiv Metropolis to Moscow in 1689, testifying to the important role he played in the Eucharistic disputes of the 1680–1690s. Patriarch Joachim, demanding that the Kiev Metropolitan send his representatives to Moscow, wanted to see “a man of humble wisdom, a sincere son of the Eastern Church, who knows the writings of the holy fathers of the ancient teachers of the holy Eastern Church of Christ, and not merely practicing syllogisms and arguments, so that through him you will know all of ours, and we are yours, and so on disagreement will rage" 46. Innokenty of Monastyrsky, although he was known in Kyiv as an expert in patristic teaching on the question of the time of transubstantiation, did not meet the requirements of the patriarch at all: he was a man of a stormy temperament, prone to controversy, caustic irony, but not to conducting deep conversations. He was even less inclined to make concessions or compromises. In Kyiv they knew about this very well. Thus, the difficult task of the diplomatic and theological mission to resolve the conflict with Moscow was entrusted by the Kyiv clergy to St. Demetrius. What were the views of St. Demetrius himself on the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts and how did they change over time? The saint did not participate in the official controversy. The only exception is a letter to Hetman I. Mazepa, written by St. Demetrius on behalf of Archimandrite. Varlaam, who was suffering at that time from an eye disease. This letter sets out the position of the Little Russian Church on the issues raised in the letter of Patr. Joachim: do Little Russians revere the Council of Florence and how do they understand transubstantiation 47. However, here St. Dmitry acted only as the secretary of Varlaam Yasinsky, who could not write a letter himself due to health reasons. Moreover, the letter itself was supposed to express the general position of the Little Russian clergy, and not the personal views of St. Dimitri. In order to try to reconstruct the views of St. Demetrius and their evolution, you will have to turn to his handwritten notes, which were not intended for an outside reader. Most often in these records there are all kinds of notes and extracts that St. Dimitri considered them useful for himself. Collected together in the 1700s. in Rostov, they are a collection of notes relating to different years of the life of St. Dimitri. The first, chronologically, of the notes that interest us are the synopses of Moscow polemical works contained in one of them: a short synopsis of the Likhud brothers’ work “Akos” 48 and a lengthy synopsis of “Manna” by Sylvester Medvedev 49 . The records apparently date back to the beginning of 1688, when “Manna” was sent to Hetman I. Mazepa and the Kyiv authorities along with “Akos” (or its parts) 50 . In subsequent years, St. Demetrius was deeply interested in the question of the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Mysteries. We also find traces of this in his papers. In all likelihood, by the time of 1688–1689. refers to writing an essay on St. Demetrius “On the consecration of the Holy Most Pure Mysteries”, known in several lists. It is not a finished work, but rather a rough draft. It contains a selection of quotes from St. fathers (their set as a whole is typical for “Latinizing” treatises) 51, a discussion on how to understand the expression of St. John Chrysostom, that transubstantiation is carried out “inexpressible words” 52, some polemical turns. The fact that this text was compiled before the Kiev Metropolis officially recognized the rightness of the patriarch on the issue of the time of transubstantiation is eloquently indicated by the harsh expressions found in it, for example: “Such art. Ambrose's testimony is not the clearest of the Sun. If no one listens to him, he is anathema. Behold the Lenten Triodion and the Orthodox Sunday of the Curse” 53. It is obvious that after the Moscow Council of 1690 St. Demetrius would not write that his opponents in the Eucharistic disputes, i.e. the patriarch and the entire hierarchy must be anathematized. In the papers of St. Demetrius contains a number of extracts devoted to Eucharistic disputes. In the "Notataper Alphabetum", containing notes and extracts on various topics, under the title there are a number of quotations from St. John Chrysostom, one way or another confirming the meaning of the Lord's words for the sacrament of the Eucharist 54. In the literature, these extracts, together with other materials described above, are traditionally interpreted as “confirmation of the Latin teaching” of St. Demetrius on the time of transubstantiation 55. However, such a conclusion is quite hasty: there is not a single direct evidence of St. Demetrius’s confession of the opinion of transubstantiation by Christ’s words alone after August 1689. In “Brief Questions about Faith” 56 and “Mirror of the Orthodox Confession” 57 St. Demetrius writes about the celebration of the Eucharist only after the epiclesis. Is it possible that St. Demetrius, while expressing the official church position in his teaching writings, kept his “Latinizing” views secret, trusting them only to his cell drafts? It is known that Demetrius distinguished between works intended for wide acquaintance and thoughts that he considered possible to discuss only in a narrow circle. These included, first of all, those theological problems that seemed to St. Dimitri is unclear. The following phrase from his letter to Hierom is typical. To the theologist: “I’m afraid to write much about the Roman purity and the ordeals, since ours do not tell the fire to be in holding souls, but they themselves disgustingly printed in the Prologues the souls seen in the fire. Otherwise, there are few written messages and ambassadors of Your Honesty, but I won’t put this in my little book” 58. The reason for this was the fears of St. Demetrius, that in the realities of the Great Russian Church at the beginning of the 18th century. public discussion of controversial theological issues, and especially criticism of the Great Russian church tradition, could provoke accusations of apostasy from Orthodoxy and malicious Latinism. The saint wrote: “I pray to my Chronicler, let not too many people read it, so that it does not spill like oil on water, as if not everyone knew about it, so that unnecessary words do not multiply; The essence of the morals of mankind is different: one seeks benefit, and another seeks grasp” 59. Thus, the judgments of St. Demetrius on some theological issues, which he did not consider possible to discuss publicly, have come to us either in his correspondence or in papers intended for personal use. However, before concluding that St. Demetrius secretly adhered to the “Latin” view of the time of transubstantiation; we must turn to some other evidence. The largest theological work in the library of St. Demetrius was the work of the Jesuit theologian from Belgium Martin Bekan (van der Beek) “Theologiarum Scholasticarum” 60. This book was purchased on November 8, 1690 from the Glukhov priest 61. Bekan's work, apparently, became for St. Demetrius a manual on scholastic theology. The book contains many notes and underlinings by St. Demetrius, indicating the saint’s interest in a number of issues addressed by Bekan. Among them: do all saints see God to varying degrees, why those baptized by heretics should not be rebaptized, and others. Bekan's careful reading was reflected in such works by St. Demetrius as “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith” 62 and “Cell Chronicler” 63, where, when considering certain issues, the saint uses information gleaned from Bekan 64. One of the most important questions that interested St. Demetrius when reading “Theologiarum Scholasticaram” was the sacrament of the Eucharist. In general, the saint was interested in two aspects: first, the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, the “institutional words” of Christ and the epiclesis; the second is the real presence of Christ in the Holy Gifts. The attention to the first question is not accidental: the book was acquired by the saint shortly after his return from Moscow and in the year when the Moscow Council took place, denouncing the “bread-worshipping heresy” and condemning a number of Little Russian books as containing “Latin teachings.” It is not surprising that St. At that time, Demetrius thought intensely about the question of time and the “form” of transubstantiation. In the chapter “Theologiarum Scholasticaram” under the title “On the Form of Transubstantiation” St. Demetrius emphasized “the third opinion, which belongs to some Greeks. especially Nicholas Cabasile and St. Mark of Ephesus. Those who believe that the form of the Eucharist is determined both by the words of Christ: “This is my body,” and especially in some sermon delivered after Christ, with these words: we ask you, Holy Father, that you send your Spirit on us and on these offered gifts; and make this bread the precious Body of Your Son, and that which is in this cup. - the precious Blood of Thy Christ" 65. Another fragment is noted nearby: “In the liturgy of Sts. James, Basil and Chrysostom, after the above words, follows a prayer in which they ask God for the bread to become the body of Christ. Consequently, he does not become It [the Body of Christ] only through the words spoken above [more prayer is needed] 6. <...> When the priest pronounces these words: “This is my body,” he pronounces them publicly or within himself. <...> I answer that he pronounces them in both ways, both out loud and to himself. Out loud, that is, in one’s own person, and silently – in the face of Christ” 66. Thus, St. Demetrius, reading Bekan, became familiar with the teachings of St. Nicholas Cabasilas and Mark of Ephesus. Their teaching did not oppose the Lord's words and epiclesis, but recognized the importance of both for the performance of the sacrament. This teaching, which was subsequently confirmed as the most accurate expression of the view of the Orthodox Church on this issue, 67 did not correspond to any of the points of view expressed during the Eucharistic debate. Of particular interest here is certainly the position of the “Grecophiles”. The opinion of St. Nicholas Cabasilas and Mark of Ephesus, no doubt, were familiar to both Likhudami and Euthymius (the latter translated the works of these fathers into Slavic, which set out their teaching on the Eucharist 68), moreover, in their polemical works they quoted fragments from the works of these Byzantine theologians - however, only selectively, never setting out their entire position. Such silence of the “Grecophiles” about the “compromise option”, which did not deny either the need for epiclesis or the significance of the Lord’s words, could only be deliberate and suggests that in their polemics Euthymius and Likhuds did not at all strive for an impartial and accurate presentation of the Orthodox doctrine 69 . This becomes especially clear if we trace the changes in the position of the Likhuds, expressed in various works. In “Akos” (remember that this work was published gradually, as individual notebooks were written), the emphasis is first placed on the fact that the “words of the Lord” pronounced by the priest “only narratively and historically” 70 do not have a direct relationship to transubstantiation, and therefore the one who bows to them sins. However, later, when refuting Sylvester Medvedev’s interpretation of one of the quotes of St. John Chrysostom, the authors are forced to make a reservation that not a single “establishment words” without an epiclesis, just as one epiclesis without “establishment words”, does not commit transubstantiation. It is not difficult to see that the latter judgment contradicts the first and undermines the entire argument against bowing to the “Lord’s words.” An entire section of “Akos” was devoted to exposing the sinfulness of these bows. In two Likhudov’s works that followed “Akos” and were written by Sophronius alone (Ioannikiy left for Venice), a different point of view is preserved. In “Demonstration of the Truth” of 1689, the author, explaining one of the quotes from St. John Chrysostom, writes that “the words of the Lord are the beginning or foundation of the Sacrament” 71 . This is an exact statement of the corresponding point of the “Confession” of Dositheus in 1672. This view of transubstantiation is expressed even more clearly by Sophronius in the “Spiritual Mechts” of 1691, an anti-Latin treatise, formalized as a statement of the dispute with the Jesuit I. Rutka, which occurred in 1685. Thus, the position of the Likhuds in the debate about the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts is different duality: on the one hand, they teach that the “words of the Lord” do not refer to transubstantiation, which occurs by epiclesis alone, and on the basis of this they accuse those who perform prostrations of mortal sin, on the other hand, they admit that without “institutional words” transubstantiation is impossible. The second opinion is in complete agreement with Greek theology of the second half of the 17th century, the first is original and has no precedents. The same duality is also characteristic of the documents of the Moscow Council of 1690, included in the Ostn: if the text of Sylvester Medvedev’s repentance speaks of the words of Christ as the “foundation and beginning of the Sacrament” (“Eastern” teaching), then in the “Instructive Epistle of Patriarch Joachim,” the author of which was Evfimy Chudovsky, it is argued that the “establishing words” do not apply to transubstantiation. Moreover, it is here, in the “Instructive Epistle” “Ostna”, that the Chudov monk, based on the doctrine of transubstantiation by epiclesis alone, sets out a holistic view of the disputes that occurred as the struggle of the Orthodox against the “bread-worshipping heresy.” This presentation allows us to assume what was the reason that prompted Euthymius in Ostna and Likhudov in the first notebooks of Akos to reject the meaning of the “establishing words”: most likely, it was the desire to accuse the “Latinizing” opponents of heresy. Only the “eastern” teaching about the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, as presented by Likhudov, “radicalized” in this way, made it possible to address to Sylvester Medvedev (and through him the late Simeon of Polotsk) the accusations of “worshipping the creature instead of the Creator”, thrown 20 years earlier to Nikita Pustosvyat: it is no coincidence that the question of bowing is put at the center of the controversy. Thus, the “Latinists” were convicted of confessing open heresy. Successful proof of this was guaranteed to deprive Sylvester and other students of Simeon of Polotsk of any authoritative position in the intellectual elite of Moscow. Let us remember that earlier Medvedev himself and his comrades acted in exactly the same way, when in 1681 they wanted to eliminate Ya. Belobotsky. Now the theological “weapon” was turned against the most ambitious monk, who not so long ago aspired to take the helm of the academy, an institution that combined the functions of a university and an inquisitorial tribunal. The idea of ​​such a demarche could only have belonged to Evfimy, who knew well the realities of Moscow life. This largely explains his stubborn adherence to the idea of ​​the Latin “bread-worshipping heresy.” The Likhuds, drawn against their will into the struggle of Moscow intellectuals, were not so consistent in the course of the polemics and often moved on to expounding pure “Eastern” teaching. Of course, this reconstruction is largely speculative. However, it is indisputable that the “Grecophiles” in their disputes with the “Latinists” did not take a purely “Eastern” position, but for polemical purposes put forward the opinion that transubstantiation occurs through one epiclesis. Accordingly, the Moscow Council of 1690 did not at all become the apotheosis of the “eastern” teaching about the Eucharist in the Russian Church: the condemnation of the “bread-worshipping heresy” proclaimed there was not based on the “eastern” teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, but on its radical variation, the main ideologist of which was Euthymius Chudovsky. Probably, St. Demetrius was not satisfied with this conclusion of the Eucharistic disputes and continued theological research on the topic. The information I read about the teachings of St. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas, gleaned from Bekan, came in handy. It can be assumed that the result of the saint’s research was the treatise “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist” 72. This work, preserved in several copies, does not have a direct indication of authorship. A number of researchers have attributed this text in different ways, leaning towards the authorship of St. Demetrius, then Stefan Yavorsky. There is no direct evidence that would make it possible to unambiguously name one or another person as the author of the treatise in either case 73 . In our opinion, all indirect signs indicate that the treatise belongs to St. Demetrius and was compiled by him in the 1690s. This is confirmed by the fact that in the collection of words of St. Demetrius, dating from the beginning of the 18th century, contains a list of “Discourses” without a final fragment, accompanied by another work dedicated to the Eucharist - “On the threefold most pure blood of Christ Communion” 74, already indisputably belonging to the Rostov ruler 75; Moreover, both texts were rewritten by the hand of the scribe of the Rostov cryptorion of the time of St. Dimitri. The treatise begins with an account of how “Various and varied fortune-telling is done about this [the Transubstantiation].” First, the opinion about transubstantiation “in words alone” is briefly stated and refuted by a quotation from chapter 27 of the sixth book on the Holy Spirit by St. Basil the Great: “...I am pleased with the words of the Apostle and the Gospel remembered (in consecration), not only with the pre-verb, but also with the above-verb and other words, as having great power in the mystery” 76. Then the opinion about transubstantiation only by epiclesis is also stated, which is also refuted by the same passage from St. Basil the Great, in which the ancient saint, according to the author of the treatise, in no way denies the Words of the Lord the importance and necessity for the sacrament. According to the author, “Even if they themselves (according to the Greek Church’s confession) do not transubstantiate the holy gifts into the body of Christ, they effectively arrange for the transubstantiation to be accomplished by the Holy Spirit” 77 . The author of the treatise “does not add up” to both opinions and adheres to the third: “... both of them, the words of Christ and the words of the priest, are accepted together in transubstantiation, saying, as the words of Christ begin, and transubstantiation ends with prayer, and the essence of the words of Christ is the basis for transubstantiation, prayer is the completion, and cannot be one without the other; neither do the words of Christ themselves, without the Holy Spirit, invoked by the priestly prayer, act transubstantiation, nor does the Holy Spirit, without the preverbal words of Christ, accomplish this; both require transubstantiation” 78 . This view is substantiated by references to the Teaching of Patriarch Joachim of January 1690, chapter 14 of the fourth book of the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. John of Damascus and the 150th word of the book of St. Ephraim the Syrian. The first opinion belongs to the “Latinists”, the second – the “radical” version of the “eastern” teaching – was expressed in their works by Evfimy Chudovsky and partly Likhudy. Enough has been said about them above. The third opinion, the author’s, is much more interesting. At first glance, this is a classic “Eastern” teaching, similar to that expressed by the Likhuds in their later works. However, the “eastern” view necessarily emphasizes the meaning of the epiclesis as the “form” of the sacrament (cf. in the “Confession” of Patriarch Dositheus: the “institutional words” only “lay the beginning”, and the epiclesis “sanctifies” the Holy Gifts), while the author of the treatise speaks in the sense that the “form” is the entire anaphora, which corresponds to the teaching of St. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas. However, the discussion about the time of transubstantiation is only the introductory part of the treatise. Its main content is devoted to the issue of bowing during the “Lord's Words.” The author provides quotes from two “notebooks” of certain “Creators... in high spiritual rank (I do not reveal their names, they are led by the leaders)” 79, containing a condemnation of bows from the position of the “radical” “eastern” teaching of the Grecophiles. These “notebooks” are “Austen” by Evfimy Chudovsky and “Akos” by Likhudov 80 . He then sets out to refute the argumentation of these quotations and prove that bowing while pronouncing “institutional words” is not heresy. Thus, the treatise defends the significance of all anaphora prayers for transubstantiation and challenges the radical position of the Moscow “Grecophiles”, who argued that only the epiclesis prayer has secret-fulfilling power, and the “Lord’s words” have only historical significance. In this context, the abundance of extracts in the papers of St. Demetrius, confirming the meaning of the “institutional words” for the transfusion of the Holy Mysteries, becomes understandable: after 1690, these extracts served as an argument not in favor of the “Latin” teaching, but in favor of the teaching of St. Nicholas Cabasilas and Mark of Ephesus about the sacramental meaning of the entire anaphora, which includes both the “Lord’s words” and epiclesian prayers. “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Most Holy Eucharist” stands out sharply among contemporary works not only for its conciliatory tone and new formulation of the problem, but also for its new attitude to the “fatal question” of Russian church life in the 17th century. – the relationship between dogma and ritual. Actually, the main part of the treatise is entitled “On the Worship of the Holy Gifts” and is devoted not to the question of the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Mysteries, but to bowing to the “Lord’s words.” During the Moscow Eucharistic disputes, these two issues were not separated, and “bread worship” was closely connected with the accusation of professing the incorrect doctrine of transubstantiation. St. Demetrius poses the question in a new way: is it a sin to bow to the “Lord’s words” if we adhere to the Orthodox teaching about the time of transubstantiation? Is it possible to call bowing, even in an “inappropriate” place of service, a heresy? Is the very existence of the “bread-worshipping heresy” possible in principle? It is noteworthy how the question is posed at the beginning of the main part of the treatise: “Which of their teachings is right, the search should be made by these examinations.” 81 This phrase alone instantly brings to mind the title of another work of the saint: “Search about the schismatic Bryn faith, about their teaching, their deeds, and the declaration that their faith is wrong, their teaching is harmful to the soul, and their deeds are not God-pleasing." The coincidence is not accidental: both treatises have a similar syllogism structure: at the beginning of the work, a list of questions is formulated, to which the answer is subsequently sought. Moreover, both works are imbued with the same thought: ritual does not have independent value and meaning, separate from faith, therefore there cannot be a “ritual” heresy, for heresy is a distortion of faith. If the “Grecophiles,” defending the Eastern teaching about the time of transubstantiation, sought to use the difference in rituals (bows at the liturgy) as a reason to accuse their rivals of heresy, then the author of the “Discourse” thinks completely differently, for him the ritual is only an external expression of faith: “by faith, bowing is judged by God, lower by the very head of worship” 82. While preserving the right faith, any forms of its expression that are not prohibited by the canons are permissible, including bowing in special places of worship. Over the course of seven “examinations” of St. Demetrius convincingly proves the inconsistency of the theological argumentation of those who oppose bowing 83. In this case, the position of the latter was indeed extremely weak. Let us remember that in his discussions about the “grain-growing” of the Latinists, Euthymius was guided by the anti-Old Believer polemics of the times of the “Rod”. However, the views of the early Old Believers were completely different: Nikita Dobrynin insisted on the obligatory bows to the consecrated bread and wine at the Great Entrance as to Christ himself. Those same Orthodox Christians who bowed to the “Lord’s Words” did not at all put any special theological meaning into their actions. Exactly the same conviction - differences in ritual mean nothing as long as the right faith is united - we see in another document belonging to St. Dimitri. This is a note “On the threefold communion of the most pure blood of Christ.” It is dedicated to differences in liturgical practice: Little Russian priests received communion at the altar once, while Great Russian priests received communion three times. The note itself is a refutation of a certain opinion that triple Communion in the name of the Holy Trinity is unacceptable, since, firstly, it goes back to the heresy of the “god-passionate”, who believed that the whole Trinity suffered on the cross, and not just its hypostasis - God the Son, and secondly, it is a Latin custom condemned by St. Nikita Stifat in the text included in the Helmsman. St. Demetrius refutes both statements: the Great Russian custom has nothing to do with the heresy of the “god-passionate”, since it does not symbolize the suffering of the Trinity on the cross, but the statement of St. Nikita Stifat was devoted to a completely different issue. The saint concludes that both Little Russian and Great Russian priests “do good,” concluding: “We praise both, the customs of the country in which we live, and adhere without a doubt” 84 . This note is notable for the fact that it contains St. Dmitry refutes the accusations of heresy directed against the Great Russians. Most likely, the reason for its appearance was the reasoning of one of the Kyiv friends of St. Demetrius, who sought to “give a symmetrical answer” to accusations of heresy and Latinism among the Little Russian clergy during the period of Eucharistic disputes. Again we see the same train of thought: since ritual is an expression of faith, then while maintaining true faith, differences in rituals are completely acceptable. These views of the saint will be fully revealed in the “Search for the schismatic Bryn faith,” the work of St. Demetrius, dedicated to polemics with the Old Believers. The only question that remains is why the work of St. Did Dimitri remain virtually unknown? The answer to this is worth looking for in the fact that the “Discourse” was written against the fighters against the “bread-worshipping heresy.” The “heresy” itself was too “topical” and closely connected with the struggle in Moscow church circles in the late 1680s. and the ambitions of specific people. In the first half of the 1690s, when, in all likelihood, the treatise was created, great changes took place in Moscow. Patr. Joachim died shortly after the Moscow Council, in February 1690; Evfimy Chudovsky, already in the summer of the same year, was, by royal decree, removed from work at the Moscow Printing Yard and was forced to leave for Pereyaslavl-Ryazan 85. The Likhud brothers even in their later writings of the 1680s. began to expound the classical “Eastern” teaching, and in the 1690s. they were more concerned with personal problems and teaching. Such heated debates around “bread worship”, very few years after their completion, were consigned to oblivion: even Euthymius himself, in 1698. wrote about Simeon of Polotsk without hostility, respectfully pointing out some of the errors of the venerable monk 86. Another reason why the research of St. Demetrius was not in demand was that the Eucharistic disputes of the 1680s. were disputes among Western-style theologians. In historiography, a contrast is often made between the “scholastic” thinking of the “Latinists” and the “Oriental” thinking of the “Grecophiles” 87. The very way in which the main question about the time of transubstantiation was posed betrayed the general manner of thought of both parties: they were looking for the exact moment, the secretly fulfilling words, that is, the form of the sacrament. Meanwhile, such an approach is completely unusual for traditional Eastern sacramentology, but it is typical for the so-called second scholasticism, in which all the main participants in the Eucharistic disputes were raised in one way or another. And from this point of view, the Paduan doctors Likhud were much more adherents of the scholastic way of thinking than the Moscow “Latinists” or Mogilans. In the XVI–XVII centuries. The University of Padua was one of the main centers of the second scholasticism; students from all over Europe came to it. Padua, which was in the possession of Venice, was the undisputed authority in matters of philosophy and theology for the Greeks from the 15th century; the best intellectuals of the Orthodox East sought to receive an education here. Therefore, it is not surprising that Greek theology of the second half of the 17th century, whose representatives were the Likhud brothers, received the second scholasticism no less than the theology of the Mohyla tradition 88 . Sylvester Medvedev directly wrote in his “Manna” that it is in no way possible for transubstantiation to be accomplished simultaneously by both “establishing words” and epiclesis, because then the sacrament will have two forms, and this is absurd 89 . The Likhuds avoided the categorical expression “form of the sacrament,” but they reasoned entirely in the same way as their opponent: since epiclesis is necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist, then transubstantiation occurs precisely at the moment of its pronouncement; a sacrament has one verbal form, which performs the sacrament 90. In this context, it becomes clear why the teaching of St. Mark of Ephesus, who formulated the Eastern understanding of the Eucharist at the Council of Florence, turned out to be unclaimed among theologians of the late 17th century: the idea that the “form” of the sacrament may not be reduced to a specific prayer sounded extremely unusual to the ear of a person brought up in the tradition of the second scholasticism. Meanwhile, St. Demetrius of Rostov was able to rise above the school and above the era, seeing in the “atypical” teaching of the Greek fathers of the 14th–15th centuries. a response to the contradiction that tormented him. Finally, there was one more circumstance directly related to confessionalization: attitude towards Catholicism. One of the reasons that prompted Euthymius Chudovsky to support the doctrine of transubstantiation only by epiclesis was, obviously, his hostility to “Latinism,” which initiated the desire to distance himself as much as possible from the Latin teaching only “by the Lord’s words.” In the Orthodox East, Greek theologians did not reach such radicalism, but their emphasis on the exclusive significance of the epiclesis for transubstantiation seems to have been caused by a desire to emphasize the difference between Orthodox and Catholic dogma. The Mohyla theological tradition was initially characterized by a search for common ground between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in the field of dogma, which also left an imprint on the perception of the Latin doctrine by Kyiv theologians. On the one hand, this in a number of cases led to the reception of specifically Catholic doctrines, such as, for example, the “Latin” teaching about the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, but on the other hand, it expanded the theological horizons of the graves. This breadth of outlook, in our opinion, became for St. Demetrius is one of the arguments in favor of the doctrine of the Eucharist of Sts. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas, since it made it possible to recognize the existence of the Eucharist in the Catholic Church. One of the arguments in favor of the sacramental power of the “institutional words” present in “On the Consecration of the Holy Most Pure Mysteries” by St. Demetrius is a reference to the message of Archbishop Dimitri Khomatin of Bulgaria to Constantine Kavasila, Archbishop of Dyrrhachi, which testifies that Catholics also celebrate the sacrament of the Eucharist 91 . Since there is no epiclesis in the Catholic Mass, the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist during a Catholic Mass in which there is no epiclesis indicated that it is impossible to acquire the meaning of the “form” of the sacrament solely through prayer to the Holy Spirit. At the same time, the teaching of the Eucharist by St. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas made it possible to assert that Catholics have a “form” of the sacrament, albeit in a “truncated” form. Eucharistic disputes 1680 - early 1690s. became an important stage in the history of Russian intellectual thought. The importance of their significance lay primarily in the fact that they revealed those contradictions within the intellectual elite of Russia that had remained hidden for a long time. This concerned both theological issues and the relationship between church intellectuals in Moscow and Kyiv. It was during the Eucharistic disputes that St. Dimitri declared himself as a church figure on an all-Russian scale. At this time, he became an outstanding theologian. Without taking personal part in the heated controversy, the saint seeks the “royal path” in resolving the problem of the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, avoiding polemical extremes. The result of his searches and reflections is the treatise “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist,” which was a balanced response to the mixture of violent journalism and shallow theology that accompanied the fight against the “bread-worshipping heresy” in the late 1680s – 1690s. In this treatise, St. Demetrius divides the position of the "Grecophiles" into two parts - a radical denial of the significance of the "Lord's words", with which the saint does not agree, and the "Eastern" teaching, which St. Demetrius understands both the teaching of St. Mark of Ephesus and Nicholas Cabasilas about the significance of the entire anaphora for the transubstantiation. The latter explains the abundance in the records of St. Demetrius's notes on the importance of “establishing words” for transubstantiation, which were previously interpreted by researchers of his work as evidence of his secret adherence to the “Latin” view of the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Also in the Discourse, St. Demetrius examined the problem of bowing at the liturgy from the point of view of the relationship between ritual and faith. In this work, the saint for the first time formulates his position as follows: ritual is only an external expression of faith, and therefore a formal change in something in the essence of the ritual cannot in any way be called heresy as long as unity in the true faith is preserved. Later, at the Rostov See, St. Demetrius will be guided by this approach when resolving many problems of church life. The main reason that the treatise of St. Demetrius was not published, most likely due to his excessive “topicality”. By the time the “Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist” was written, a new intellectual elite was already emerging in Moscow, oriented not toward confrontation, but toward cooperation with the Little Russian one. See: Runciman S. The Great Church in Captivity: The History of the Greek Church of the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to 1821. St. Petersburg, 2006. pp. 252–292. See: Prozorovsky A. Sylvester Medvedev (his life and work). M., 1896. pp. 222–223. See: Bubnov N.Yu. Monuments of Old Believer writing: Works of Gerontius Solovetsky. The story of Patriarch Nikon. Russian Symphony, 2006. pp. 348–435. The Old Believers were not the first to draw conclusions about the early time of transubstantiation based on the bows at the Great Entrance. Thus, such a teaching was already refuted by St. Nicholas Kavasila (see: Taft R. F. The Great Entrance: A History of the Transfer of Gifts and Other Preanaphoral Rites of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. R., 1978. P.213–214). Tablet. M.: Printing House, X. 1656. See: Belyankin Yu.S. Church and state in polemics with Old Believers in the second half of the 18th century. (using the example of the activities of the Moscow Printing House). dis. Ph.D. ist. Sci. M., 2012. pp. 198–199, 202–203. [Simeon of Polotsk] Rod of government. M.: Printing House, 1667. See: Belyankin. Decree. Op. pp. 199–200. Rolland P.A. Simeon of Polotsk on the border of two worlds // Comparative history: Methods, tasks, prospects. M., 2003. pp. 164–165. Feodosius (Safonovich), ig. A report on the Holy Church and on church speeches, on the service of God and on the vespers of St. Simeon, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, chosen from among other church teachers by the hierodeacon, and for all the Orthodox before reading. K.: Lavra Printing House, July 18, 1667. Euthymius. Inspiration by the priest. B.m., end of the 17th century. (manuscript) (OR RSL. F. 722. No. 747). See: Prozorovsky. Decree. Op. pp.229–230. See: Zheltov M., diac. A new source on the history of Russian worship: Quoted copy of “The Official of the Bishop’s Service” of 1677 // Bulletin of Church History. 2006. No. 2. P.235–239. Sylvester (Medvedev). The book, which is called the living bread, is briefly explained by Christians for the sake of general belief for the benefit of the soul, and against tempting and doubtful thoughts, for the common salvation of all Christianity: about the most holy mystery, more faithful and confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ himself. About the Eucharist or, more specifically, about the most pure mysteries of the body and blood of the Lord. In it, various interviews are invented with respect, to the greatest assurance, with questions and answers of the student with the dear teacher, from the Holy Gospel, and the epistles of the apostles, and the God-bearing writings of the father, - for his strong admonition (manuscript) (OR EIM Syn. 440/299. L. 125–135 vol., etc. Text published: Prozorovsky A.A. Sylvester Medvedev. P.450–452). See: Khondzinsky P., prot. “Nowadays we are all sick of theology”: Essays on the history of theology of the pre-synodal era. M., 2013. P.80–81. See: Ramazanova D.N. The Likhud brothers and the initial stage of the history of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (1685–1694). Author's abstract. ...cand. ist. Sci. M., 2009. pp. 13–14. See: Raymond Lully. Great and wonderful science / Transl. A.X. Belobotsky. B.m., end of the 17th century. (manuscript) (OR RSL. F. 247. No. 267). Kulmatov V.A. On the issue of the dispute A.X. Belobotsky and the Likhud brothers in 1685 // Likhudov Readings 1998. 2001. P.53–60. See: Ioannikis and Sophronius (Likhuds). The spiritual sword, or Conversation with the Jesuit Rutka in the Polish land of the most verbal and wise hieromonks and teachers Ioannikis and Sophronius Likhudiev from the praiseworthy island of Kevalonia. B.m., end of the 17th century. (manuscript) (OR RSL. F. 256. No. 243). See: Kurukina I.L. Theological polemics of the late 17th century. as a reflection of the complex processes of secular life // Hermeneutics of Old Russian literature. M., 1995. Coll. 8. pp. 169–174. See No. 1012. Evfimy Chudovsky. The testimony on subjected to Latin wisdom was cast under the holy Eastern Orthodox Church (BAN. 16.3.13. L.1–2). Published text: Prozorovsky. Sylvester Medvedev. pp.430–434. Evfimy Chudovsky. Refutation of the Latin opinion on transubstantiation. Published text: Prozorovsky. Sylvester Medvedev. pp.434–450. Khondzinsky P., prot. “Nowadays we are all sick of theology.” P.81. Sylvester (Medvedev). The book about the manna of animal bread (manuscript). (OR State Historical Museum Syn. No. VII/995). Text published. fragmentary: Prozorovsky A.A. Sylvester Medvedev. pp.452–538. The book of Akos, this is a healing against poisonous things, suggested by the remorse of the serpent Ioannikis and Sophronius Likhudov. Translated from Hellenic into the Slavic dialect by Nikolai Simeonov, Alexy Kirillov and Feodor Polikarpov, students of the above-mentioned teachers (manuscript) (OR RSL. F. 173. No. 480). See: Shlyapkin I.A. St. Demetrius of Rostov and his time (1651–1709). St. Petersburg, 1891. P.150–151. A book about the transubstantiation of the words of Christ with the action of St. of the spirit taking place, Innocent of the Monastery. Hegumen of Kirill of Kiev, against the Likudievs, who create idle words of Christ. Written in the summer of the incarnation of God of the word 1689. in Lent (RNB. Collection. M.P. Pogodin. No. 668. I. L.21 et seq.; GIM. Sin. No. 294 et seq.; RSL. Collection. V.M. Undolsky. No. 481). See: Shlyapkin I.A. Decree. Op. pp. 181–201. See: Shlyapkin I.A. Decree. Op. pp.206–207. However, Sylvester's signature is missing. Euchologion. Kiev: Lavra Printing House, 1646. Innocent (Gisel). Peace with God to man, or Holy Repentance, reconciling God and man, with teachings from the holy scriptures and from church teachers collected. Kiev: Lavra Printing House, 1669. Evfimy Chudovsky. Osten: Monument of Russian spiritual writing of the 17th century: With a portrait of the All-Russian Patriarch Joachim. Kazan: University Printing House, 1865. See: Panich T.V. The book “Shield of Faith” in the historical and literary context of the late 17th century. Novosibirsk, 2004. P.58–60. See: Bernatsky M.M. The Council of Constantinople of 1691 and its reception in the Russian Orthodox Church (on the question of the canonical status of the term “transubstantiation”) // Theological works. 2007. Sat.41. pp.133–145; Shield of Faith (manuscript): In 3 volumes. B.m., end of the 19th century. (OR RSL. F. 173. 3 No. 60. 1–3). See: Fonkich B.L. “Privilege for the Academy” by Simeon of Polotsk - Sylvester Medvedev // Moscow. Essays on feudal Russia. 2000. Issue 4. P.268. Fonkich B.L. Greco-Slavic schools in Moscow in the 17th century. M., 2009. P.215. Kulmatov V.A. On the issue of the dispute A.X. Belobotsky and the Likhud brothers in 1685 // Likhudov readings. Vel. Novgorod, 1998. P.53–54. Sazonova L.I. Literary culture of Russia. Early Modern Time. M., 2006. P.207–208. The argument in brief. As the teachings and language of Hellenic are more necessary than the Latin language and teachings, and how they benefit the Slovenian people // Kapterev N.F. About Greco-Latin schools in Moscow in the 17th century before the opening of the Slavic-Greco-Latin Academy. pp. 672–679. (city, year?) Should we learn more usefully grammar, philosophy and feology and poetic art and from there learn the divine scriptures, or, without learning these tricks, please God in simplicity? // Smentsovsky M. Likhud Brothers. Applications. C.VI–XXVI. Fonkich. Greco-Slavic schools... P.232–237. See: Yalamas D.A. Clashes between representatives of Greek and Latin cultures in Moscow in the second half of the 17th century (some episodes from the life of the Likhud brothers): Scientific reports of the Faculty of Philology of Moscow State University. Issue 2. M., 1998. pp. 120–123. Shlyapkin. Decree. Op. P.184. OR GIM. Syn.146. L.193–194. Right there. L.194. about. – 204. Shlyapkin. Decree. Op. pp. 151, 177–178. OR GIM. Syn.811. L.48–52 vol. OR GIM. Syn.811. L.53–54 vol. Right there. Syn.146. L.21–22. See, for example: Shlyapkin. Decree. Op. pp.224–225. St. Dimitry Rostovsky. Essays. T.I. M., 1839. P.106. Right there. T.V. M., 1835. P.12. Fedotova M.A. Epistolary heritage of Demetrius of Rostov: Research and texts. M., 2005. P.119. Fedotova M.A. Op. op. P.92. Martini Vesapi R.P. Societatis IESV Doctiris Theologici et In Academiis, Imperial! Viennensi, Archiepiscopali Mogvntina, Episcopali Wircebvrgensi SS. Theologiae Professoris, OPERA OMNIA. Aliquot tractatibvs posthvmis avcta: et Duobus Tomis Comprehensa. Tomusprior. Moguntiae, Cura [et] impensis Antonii Stroheckeri, Anno M.DC. XXX. [1630]. Cvm gratia et privilegio sacrae Caes. Maiest. Et. Permissu superiorum. There is an owner's note on the title page: Yankovskaya L.A. The literary and theological heritage of St. Demetrius of Rostov: perception of Jesuit science in the 16th–17th centuries: Manuscript of a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philology (M., 1994, pp. 264–265). From previous ownership records it is also clear that Bekan’s volume successively belonged to John Kononovich, the alumnus of the Krakow Academy, the library of the Kiev Mohyla College and a certain Jacob Guglin, probably the same Glukhov priest from whom St. Demetrius acquired the book. Demetrius (Tuptalo), St. A search for the schismatic Bryn faith, about their teaching, about their deeds, and a declaration that their faith is wrong, their teaching is harmful to the soul, and their deeds are not pleasing to God. M.: Synodal Printing House, 1824. Demetrius (Tuptalo), St. Cell chronicler: St. Demetrius of Rostov with the addition of his life, miracles, selected works and the Kyiv Synopsis of Archimandrite Innocent Gisel. M.: Pilgrim, 2000. For example, about the denial of the sacrament of Confirmation by the Protestant Bullinger, about the rebellion of Satan due to pride and envy of man, etc., see: Yankovskaya. Decree. Op. pp.275–278. Quote by: Yankovskaya. Decree. Op. pp.269–270. Here and below the underlinings correspond to the cinnabar underlinings of St. Demetrius in Bekan's text. Quote by: Yankovskaya. Decree. Op. P.270. See: Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Decree. Op. pp.260–261. See: Khondzinsky P., prot. Decree. Op. P.91. Mirkovt G.G. About the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. The dispute that took place in Moscow in the second half of the 17th century. Vilna, 1886. pp. 115–118. Mirkovich G.G. Decree. Op. P. 140. RNB. OSRC, El.181. Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Most Holy Eucharist. Text published: Mirkovich G. About the time of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts. Vilna, 1886. Appendix. C.I–XVI.; Khondzinsky P., prot. Decree. Op. pp. 298–325. Shlyapkin. Op. op. pp.225–226. OR GIM. Usp.88. L.70–99 vol. See: Yankovskaya L.A. The Life of St. Sergius of Radonezh in the processing of St. Demetrius of Rostov // History and culture of the Rostov land: Conference materials. 1992. Rostov, 1993. P.22–24. [St. Demetrius of Rostov] Discourse on the Transubstantiation of the Holy Eucharist // Khondzinsky P., prot. Decree. Op. P.297. [St. Dimitri Rostovsky] Discourse on transubstantiation... P. 298. See: Bednarsky D. West and East in the theology of Dmitry Tuptalo // Comparative history: methods, tasks, prospects. M., 2003. P. 100. [St. Dimitri Rostovsky] Discourse on transubstantiation... P. 300. [St. Dimitri Rostovsky] Discourse on transubstantiation... P. 302. OR GIM. Usp.88. L.98 rev. I express my sincere gratitude to M.A. Fedotova, who kindly pointed the author to this text. See: Evfimy Chudovsky // Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Issue 3. XVII century Part 1. M., 1992. P.288. Panich T.V. “Answer” of Evfimy Chudovsky to the “lying scripture” of Pyotr Artemyev // Social consciousness and literature of the 16th–20th centuries. Novosibirsk, 2001. P. 230. See: Belokurov S.A. Sylvester Medvedev's true news to the Orthodox // CHOIDR. 1885. Book. 4. C. XVI. See: Arzhanukhin V.V. Philosophy at the University of Padua in the mid-17th century. // Likhudov readings. pp. 209–210. Prozorovsky. Decree. Op. P. 459. See: Bednarsky. Decree. Op. pp. 104–107. OR GIM. Syn.811. L.51 vol.