Hieromartyr Hilarion (Trinity) about the properties of the Church and its borders

In our time, when more and more attention is being paid to the issue of the boundaries of the Church, familiarity with the works of Hieromartyr Hilarion (Trinity), Archbishop of Vereya, can contribute to the disclosure of this topic, since it is the doctrine of the Church that occupies a central place in the theology of Archbishop Hilarion, and the question of the boundaries of the Church is one of the components of his ecclesiology. According to the ecclesiological views of Hieromartyr Hilarion, the essential properties of the Church are an expression of various aspects of the one church life, the life of the body of Christ, growing in perfection through the action of the Holy Spirit, and are as united as church life. Each of the essential properties of the Church is expressed in some way in all others and all in each. This unity is derived from the teaching of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church. “The Church is a people united by a priest” 1. “The Apostles handed over only one Church to the bishops” (p. 376), and this “one, catholic Church is united and sealed by the bond of priests” (p. 392), and the focus of episcopate is “the conciliar unity and like-mindedness of the bishops” (St. Cyprian) (p. 407). “The Apostles founded Churches in all corners of the earth, and all these Churches constitute one Universal Church... Unity with all the Churches is a sign of belonging to the true Universal Church. Therefore, every Local Church is catholic” (Blessed Augustine) (p. 500). In the Catholic Church, “people are united in the unity of faith,” handed down by the apostles (Clement of Alexandria) (p. 248:249). “The bishop is not only the guardian of the doctrine, but also the guardian of the holiness of the Church” (Callistus, Pope) (p. 322). “Apostolic teaching... lay at the basis of church concepts about the holiness of the Church” (p. 360). “The Church is one and its holiness is in the sacraments” (p. 493) and is “the holiness of the entire totality of the sanctifying means of the Church” (p. 543). With these and similar expressions, Bishop Hilarion shows the interconnectedness of the essential properties of the Church, exploring, of course, each of them separately. First encountered in Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer by the term “Catholic Church” (Epistle to the Smyrna 8:2), “one must think,” the future martyr wrote in his master’s thesis, “denotes precisely the entire totality of the Christian Church, as opposed to a separate self-closed community” (p. 233). But subsequently the terms “catholicity” and “conciliarity” began to be understood in the Church not only as ubiquity, universality in the sense of distribution throughout the world, but also to denote the completeness of teaching and sacraments (p. 498). The apostolate of the Church means the successive hierarchy received by the Church from God through the apostles, which has the right to “bind and decide,” and with it the holy sacraments, as well as the teaching of faith and life. Apostolate is connected with the unity of the Church: “obedience to the bishop is the basis of the unity of the Church!” (p. 371). Bishops, as successors of the apostles, have strict rights and responsibilities in observing the doctrine and structure of the Church, based on the apostolic tradition. Exploring patristic thoughts about the holiness of the Church, Archbishop Hilarion comes to the conclusion that there are two meanings of this term, which defines one of the properties of the two-natural, divine-human church organism. In an unconditional sense, the holiness of the Church is the holiness of Divine grace acting in the Church and especially in its sacraments, through which the members of the body of the Church are sanctified: “The Church is holy in its sacraments” (p. 527), and in this sense “the holiness of the Church does not depend on the holiness of its members” (p. 493). But through the sanctifying means of the Church, its members also join in holiness: “The members of the Church themselves receive holiness from the Church” (ibid.), and this holiness is already relative. It lies in the striving for unconditional holiness, in following the path of improvement, in the repentant rejection of one’s sinfulness. So, for example, Saint “Clement quotes the words of the Apostle Paul to Philippians 3:12–14, and reasons: he considers himself perfect because he renounced a sinful life and began to strive for a better one, not as perfect in gnosis, but as striving for perfection. It is clear that by perfection he meant renunciation of sins and rebirth in faith in the One Perfect One with complete oblivion of previous sins” (pp. 339–340). The holiness of the members is a particular aspect of the growth in perfection of the entire body of the Church: “The apostolic teaching about the growing body of the Church has been at the basis of church concepts about the holiness of the Church from the very beginning of the existence of the Church” (p. 360). Perfection, the immutability of holiness of the members of the Church is the work of the future century (p. 344). In this sense, “The Holy Church is the Church of the future century” (Blessed Augustine) (p. 514), and for now the Church is “not a society of saints, but a physician established by Christ for humanity sick with sin” (according to Origen) (p. 351). Only those sinners who persist in their sin are completely separated from the Church, but they too only until they repent (St. Cyprian) (p. 424). Until this world comes to an end, both the righteous and those who sin but resort to the medicine of repentance belong to the Church. Although both of them resort to repentance. Moreover, the righteous are precisely those who resort to the medicine of repentance with greater force, and there are no people completely free from sin even in the Church, but the holiness of a person in the Church is determined both by the desire not to sin and by the depth of repentance. Archbishop Hilarion cites images used by church writers in which the doctrine of the holiness of members of the Church is revealed. This is an ark containing clean and unclean animals, having different levels of housing, a field with growing wheat and tares, a net with various fish caught, a threshing floor filled with grain and chaff, Jerusalem with the Jebusites left in it (pp. 323–324, 343–344). Since the holiness of the members of the Church is always relative, then the holiness of the Church in the absolute sense is said not only that “the Church is holy in its sacraments” (p. 527), but also that “the holiness of the sacrament does not depend on the holiness of its performer” (p. 525). Otherwise, we take the position of Montanism and Donatism. Archbishop Hilarion pays more attention to the concept of the perfect holiness of the Church in the sacraments, since this issue was of decisive importance in the polemics with the schismatics of the 2nd–5th centuries, and the topic of his master’s thesis is limited precisely to this time frame. The question of the personal holiness of members of the Church, the way of participation in church unity of those who sin, especially unrepentant sinners, but not excommunicated by the church court, is not revealed to them in sufficient detail. Therefore, in the author’s statements it is necessary to clearly distinguish what kind of holiness is actually being discussed. It is necessary to point out some inaccuracies that Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin allows in the presentation of Archbishop Hilarion’s thoughts on the holiness of the Church: “And the incomparably more profound theologian Vladimir Troitsky, later Bishop Hilarion, tracing the path along which patristic thought moved in understanding the dogma of the holiness of the Church, comes to the same conclusions: the holiness of the Church does not at all presuppose the holiness of its members (my point. - Prot. V.Ts.)..." 2. The fact is that Father Vladislav here owns not only the discharge, but also the entire phrase, which V. Troitsky simply does not have. There are similar passages where the position of Blessed Augustine is set out in connection with the teaching of the Donatists and it is recognized, as already quoted above, that “the holiness of the sacrament does not depend on the holiness of its performer” (p. 525). Nevertheless, summarizing the patristic teaching on the holiness of the Church, V. Troitsky wrote: “The holiness of the Church was understood as the holiness of the entire set of sanctifying means that contribute to the achievement of personal holiness by each individual member of the Church” (p. 543). Unity, in the teaching of the Church of Archbishop Hilarion, is an essential property of the Church, the universal character of which is most noticeable. The unity of the body of the Church in the one Spirit - the one source of many spiritual gifts that serve the growth of the one body of Christ in love; unity of holiness as the unity of indivisible Divine grace, cleansing, sanctifying and perfecting church members; the unity of the successive hierarchy, faith and life received from the apostles, equality, homogeneity, equal salvation of all parts of the one universal Church spread throughout the world - these are the main aspects of the unity of the Church, according to Archbishop Hilarion, which can be defined as the unity of humanity in God. Noteworthy is the fact that Archbishop Hilarion does not talk too much about faith as the principle of the unity of the Church, but this does not mean that he does not attach importance to it. This is due only to the direction of his polemic against the abstract understanding of Christianity. For Hieromartyr Hilarion, the Christian faith is the faith of the Church, faith in the Church and faith not only in Christ, but also in the Church. The concepts of “Christianity” and “Church” are identical for him: “Christianity necessarily completely coincides with the Church” (“Christianity or Church?”) 3. The main delusion of his contemporaries, which he denounced, was the replacement of the Church with Christianity, and Christianity with the sum of “certain theoretical and moral principles” (“Holy Scripture and the Church”) 4. Meanwhile, Christianity is not a school or a teaching, Christ is not just “a Teacher, but rather the Savior of mankind” (ibid.) 5, and salvation is possible only in the Church. Among the contemporaries of Archbishop Hilarion, the Protestant “doctrine of justification (or salvation) by faith alone (sola fide)” 6 became increasingly widespread. On the other hand, seeing that Roman Catholicism agrees with Orthodoxy on the main points of doctrine, many believed that the division between Rome and Orthodoxy is only formal, not affecting the essence of spiritual life (that this did not correspond to reality, Bishop Hilarion shows, for example, in his work “Repentance in the Church and Repentance in Catholicism”, etc.). The unity of faith was understood by many only as intellectual unity. Therefore, Bishop Hilarion, recognizing the necessity and existence of such unity in the Church (pp. 139, 143, 383–385, 394, etc.), shifts the emphasis to natural, or, as he also calls it, organic unity. This unity is also expressed in the faith of the Church, which, along with other virtues, is also the gift of the Holy Spirit. The source of faith, as well as “the source of church doctrine, is one - the Holy Spirit living in the Church, about whom Christ promised that He would lead (see: Jn. 16:13) Church to all truth” (“Holy Scripture and the Church”) 7. Therefore, in matters of faith, “we can reduce everything to faith in the Church” 8. But still, recognition of the truths of faith is not enough: “Demons also believe in the Divinity of Christ (see: James 2:19); they confessed Christ like the Apostle Peter (see: Matt. 8:29; Mark 1:24), but they are outside the Church” (“Cornerstone of the Church”) 9. Therefore, Archbishop Hilarion bases his teaching on the organic unity of the Church on the concept of love, which, according to the Apostle, “is the totality (connection, union) of perfection” (Col. 3:14): “In his farewell conversation, Christ said to the disciples: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, so should you love one another; by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:34–35). It is this new beginning of church unity that creates not a mechanical unification of internally divided individuals, but an organic unity” (“Christianity or the Church?”) 10. To explain this unity, the bishop uses various images taken from the Holy Scriptures and from the holy fathers. This is one flock, led by one shepherd, water and wine in the cup of the Lord, many grains ground and kneaded, forming one bread (p. 377), a marriage union (p. 36:377), a building, the church of God (p. 226), a choir (p. 226), an ark, a closed garden and a sealed spring, the vineyard of the Lord of hosts (p. 226). 379), the tunic of the Lord, a single source of many streams (p. 380), Adam and Eve as “real types of Christ and the Church” (p. 474), the sun and rays (p. 380) 11. But the most frequently used images are trees and bodies (p. 19, 226:380) 12. Of these images, the last one - the image of the body - occupies a special place, since it is not just an image, a likeness, not an allegory, but an essential image, which has its beginning not only in the Holy Scriptures, but also in the central sacrament of the Church - the Eucharist: “True life is possible only with close natural or, as they now say, real unity with Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, but this unity with Christ also creates the unity of people with each other. friend, that is, creates a single body of the Church" (“There is no Christianity without the Church”) 13. This unity of the Church in the Eucharist is directly related to the Incarnation and is its direct consequence: “But this is the power and significance of the work of Christ, that it is not limited to teaching alone. Man has been given new strength, and therefore a new church unity becomes possible for him. These powers are given, first of all, by the fact that in the incarnation of the Son of God, humanity was most closely united with God. In the Church, the unity of man with Christ always and unchangeably continues. This unity is the source of spiritual life, and without unity with Christ there is spiritual death. What is this unity? Christ said: "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world... Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day... Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day... My flesh and he who drinks my blood abides in me” (John 6:51, 53–54:56). The sacrament of communion is where unity with Christ is and, therefore, the source of spiritual life. The sacrament of communion unites people with God and thereby unites them with each other” (“There is no Christianity without the Church”) 14. Another principle of the unity of Christian life, that is, the life of the Church, is the Holy Spirit. Its action in the church body is likened to the action of the spirit in the human body: “Just as in the body the spirit is the beginning that connects and unites everything, although the members are different, so in believers there is the Holy Spirit, which unites everyone” 15 (Blessed Theophylact). Members of the Church have the opportunity to join the unity of human nature, reborn in the Incarnation, through the action of Divine grace given to them in the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, who, since the day of Pentecost, unites people in the Church, making them “partakers of the Divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4): “In the Church, the unity of humanity is achieved, which people dream of outside the Church, but which they cannot achieve without the Church, because only in the Church, “the lower power of the Divine Spirit united into one agreement the divided language of people in ancient times who agreed to evil, admonishing the faithful with the knowledge of the Trinity” (“The Trinity of the Divinity and the Unity of Humanity”) 16. Thus, the multitude of human hypostases in the Church are naturally united in Christ and in the Holy Spirit in the likeness of the unity of the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity: “In these words of the canon of Pentecost the truth is expressed that the Church is the unity of humanity, similar to the trinity of the Divine” 17. The understanding of the Church as a single spiritualized organism determines the position of Archbishop Hilarion on the issue of the boundaries of the Church. Being in the body of the Church is not a guarantee of salvation, but only the possibility of salvation. While in the Church, you can both perish and perish. “Separation from the Church leads to inevitable destruction” (p. 544). The reason for this is that the Church is a divine-human organism, intended for the salvation, perfection and deification of man, and “for this she alone possesses the necessary grace-filled means” (p. 473). She is one and only, and there is no other like her or like her. One Christ created one Church, quickened by one Spirit. Outside of communion with her is outside of communion with God, outside of grace, outside of salvation. “Those outside the Church could be saved only if one of those outside Noah’s ark were saved” (St. Cyprian) (p. 428). The unity of the Church is two-unity. This is the unity of human nature in Christ and the unity of divine nature in the Holy Spirit, uniting hearts with love. This unity in the human aspect of existence is not a perfect, unchanging unity, but a growing, improving one, as is characteristic of a living organism. Hence the natural conclusion is that he who falls away from this natural, organic unity loses all the benefits available to him in the Church. And as long as he remains outside the Church, he loses the possibility of deification, perfection and salvation. He loses Christ, he loses the Holy Spirit. He is separated from the one human nature and from Divine grace. While in the Church, “he who overcomes inherits all things” (Rev. 21:7), just as he who leaves her loses all things. Staying in the Church or separating from it is vitally important. The reasons for the dropout are secondary. He who separates himself from the unity of the Church is separated from the Divine love that dwells in the Church, and thereby separates himself from life, remaining in a state of death. Death is death, regardless of the reasons that caused it. No matter how the hand is separated from the body, it loses its vitality. “Christ himself compared the unity of his disciples with the organic unity of a tree and branches. Two adjacent “bodies” or two trees cannot be in organic connection with each other. As the soul is in the body, the Holy Spirit is in the Church; the Church is not only one body, but also one Spirit. The soul does not revive a member cut off from the body, just as the vital juices of a tree do not transfer to a severed branch. These comparisons must be used as a guide when discussing the unity of the Church. If these comparisons, these images of the tree and the body are applied to the Church, then any separation from the Church, any cessation of unity with the Church will turn out to be incompatible with belonging to the Church. It does not matter how great the dogmatic difference of opinion of the one who has separated; The very fact of separation, the very cessation of unity with the Church, is important and has full significance. Let there be separation only on the basis of church rebellion and disciplinary disobedience without any dogmatic disagreement - separation from the Church will have all the sad consequences for the one who separated. Not only heretics, but also schismatics are separated from the Church. The essence of separation remains the same” (“Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christianity”) 18. Conclusion: in heretical, schismatic and arbitrary communities that have separated from the Church there is neither a spiritual life of grace nor grace-filled sacraments. On the issue of the lack of spiritual life and the possibility of salvation outside the Church, Archbishop Hilarion finds the agreement of almost all the Fathers of the Church. The main difficulty was in reconciling and reconciling the idea of ​​the organic unity of the Church and the lack of grace of the communities separated from it with the church canonical rules, according to which those who came to the Church from heresy and schism joined in various ways - through baptism, confirmation or repentance. If this fact is given dogmatic significance, the views on the boundaries of the Church described above turn out to be erroneous. Analyzing the church canonical rules that determine the methods of admitting into the Church those coming from heretical and schismatic societies, Archbishop Hilarion concludes that these rules do not have a dogmatic basis and are not a recognition of the grace of extra-church communities and their sacraments. He gives the following arguments in defense of this opinion. 1. Nowhere in the church rules is there a definition of the relationship between the degree of corruption or truth of religious teaching and the degree of grace or gracelessness of the separated society and the sacraments performed by it. “If church practice were inextricably linked with dogmatic provisions, if the acceptance of a heretic or schismatic without baptism meant his belonging to the Church and the validity of the sacraments performed outside the Church, if the validity of the sacraments depended on the faith and dogmatic teaching of the heretic, then the Church would have to absolutely precisely determine what kind of error makes a heretic, separates him from the Church and invalidates the sacraments. There is no such definition...” (“Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christianity”) 19. 2. The procedure for admission into the Church does not correspond to the degree of damage to the dogmatic teaching of the separated communities, “and no general guiding thought” of a dogmatic nature can be deduced from church practice 20 . Thus, the VI Ecumenical Council, by its 95th canon, prescribes that Arians, Macedonians, Novatians, Tetradites and Appolinarians should be accepted through confirmation, and Nestorians through repentance. “Is it possible to explain this definition of the Ecumenical Council from a dogmatic point of view? – Archimandrite Hilarion reasons. - Impossible. Novatians are schismatics; The Nestorians are undoubted heretics, condemned by the Ecumenical Council. And suddenly the canon of the VI Ecumenical Council is more strict and demanding towards schismatics than towards heretics!” 21. 3. Canonical rules allow for the application of different practices in relation to the same heretics or schismatics. The 79th canon of the Council of Carthage allows for the acceptance of Donatist clergy “in their degrees of priesthood,” although the “Council beyond the Sea” decided to accept them as laity 22 . Saint Basil the Great in the 1st and 47th rules says that Kafars and Enkratites should be baptized, but it is also possible to accept them through anointing. Dogmatic truths are constant and cannot change under any circumstances. 4. The canons themselves indicate the reason for the change in the practice of receiving heretics. The Council of Carthage defined these reasons as follows: “in favor of those wishing to thus pass over to the Catholic Church”; “for the benefit of the brethren” 23. Saint Basil speaks in the same spirit: “for the benefit of many,” “for some reason.” In both cases, Saint Basil uses the term “oikonomia,” from which Archbishop Hilarion’s explanation of the rules for accepting into the Church those coming from heretical and schismatic communities received the name “oikonomiya theory.” As we see, the explanation of these rules for economic reasons is taken directly from the canons themselves. 5. In the canons themselves, again, there are quite definite statements that say that heretics, schismatics and arbitrators are alien to the Church and are deprived of its saving grace. Archbishop Hilarion explains the Slavic and Russian translations of St. Basil’s words about the reasons for accepting the baptism of schismatics as a misunderstanding: ““The baptism of schismatics, wV eti ek thV ekklhViαV ontwν, to accept,” writes St. Basil. The given Greek words are often translated as follows: “as not yet alien to the Church” (Slavic translation in the “Book of Rules”), “as still belonging to the Church” (Russian translation in the works of the Holy Father) ... But these are not translations, but interpretations that cannot be considered successful. Literally it should be translated: “as those still existing from the Church.” The idea here is not that the schismatics still belong to the Church, but that they have recently left the Church. This is confirmed by the words of Saint Basil himself about the saboteurs, that they “retreated... leaving the Catholic Church.” How can one remain in the Church, leaving the Universal Church? It would be some kind of incomprehensible self-contradiction: to say that schismatics are still in the Church, and to assert that unauthorized gatherings have retreated from the Universal Church, left it” (“Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christianity”) 24. Also, citing in the 1st canon the teaching of Saint Cyprian and Firmilian about the lack of grace of the sacraments of the schismatics, “with not a single word does Saint Basil refute or challenge these dogmatic arguments about the unity of grace-filled life in the Church. And he had to do this, since immediately after the above words he begins to talk about the possibility of practice, apparently not in agreement with this dogmatic theory” 25. And in other cases, the canons speak quite clearly about schismatics as “wishing... to go over to the Catholic Church” (79th canon of the Council of Carthage), and about schismatics and heretics alike, that they “join part of those being saved.” “Previously, therefore, they were not among those being saved, that is, in the Church,” comments Archimandrite Hilarion 26 . Thus, according to Hilarion, the division by Saint Basil the Great of those who apostatized from the Holy Church (rule 1) even if it has a dogmatic meaning, it is only in terms of assessing the damage to the doctrine of those who apostatized. The greater or lesser difficulty of returning such people to the bosom of the Mother Church, from which they all equally fell away, although for different reasons, depends on this. In addition, Bishop Hilarion cites historical facts confirming his view of the mentioned canonical rules. Considering the practice of accepting non-Orthodox people in the Greek and Russian Local Churches in the period from the 11th to the 17th centuries, Archbishop Hilarion shows that this practice was different in different centuries. Moreover, it often varied to the extreme. And when the Russians baptized the Latins, the Greeks accepted the latter mainly through chrismation, and when in Russia they began to accept Roman Catholics through chrismation and even through repentance, the Greeks began to baptize them, although in some cases (when the Catholic was an Arab or Syrian) they allowed another practice of acceptance into the Church. The same inconsistency is observed in the practice of receiving Protestants. 7. In support of his views, Archbishop Hilarion cites the words of the holy fathers: about the gracelessness of the sacraments of all apostates - quotes from Saints Cyprian of Carthage and John Chrysostom 27, about the “emptiness” of the baptism of heretics even if the correct baptismal formula is observed - the opinions of Saints Athanasius the Great 28 and Ambrose of Milan 29, about the same destructiveness of all heresies - the statement of St. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople 30. Nevertheless, the question remains: how do apostates join the Church without undergoing confirmation and baptism, if the sacraments of the communities they left are without grace? Archimandrite Hilarion offers the following explanation: “I believe that it is possible to explain the views of Stephen’s opponents on the admissibility of various practices in relation to the reception of heretics and schismatics only on the assumption that for the sake of the peace and benefit of the Church they considered it possible sometimes not to require a second correct rite of baptism, believing in the mysteriously grace-filled meaning of unity with the Church itself. Previously, a ritual performed outside the Church was only an external form, which in the Church is filled with grace-filled content. After all, the same Saint Cyprian speaks especially a lot about “baptism by blood,” which is performed, of course, without any ritual and without any form.” And it is precisely this view, according to Archimandrite Hilarion, that is reflected in the church canons: “Only for the sake of the benefit of the church, for the sake of facilitating joining the Church, it is possible not to repeat the rite of baptism on converts, if it is correctly performed outside the Church. Not because this rite was already a sacrament of grace, but in the hope that the gift of grace would be received in very unity with the body of the Church. If baptism outside the Church, even in appearance, was performed incorrectly, as, for example, among the Montanists, then there is no reason, no sense... to give them such leniency.” Vladyka Hilarion finds this explanation to be completely consistent with the doctrine of the Church as a divine-human organism, in which human efforts, weak in themselves, are improved by the omnipotent action of Divine grace: “This explanation can easily be accepted, if only one does not look at Christianity only as a sum of dogmatic positions, but sees the essence of Christianity in church life. Here, under the action of the grace of the Holy Spirit, all human shortcomings are filled, and the external rite of baptism performed outside the Church can turn into a grace-filled sacrament. Only with such a view of the dogmatic meaning of church practice is the truth of the unity of the Church preserved, and this truth is persistently demanded by the purity and integrity of the Bride of Christ. With a different view, the truth of the unity of the Church is darkened, and then the Church appears to be a sum of Local Churches that are alien to each other, mutually hostile, and anathematizing each other. The church consciousness cannot accept such a strange idea of ​​the unity of the Church!” (“Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christianity”) 31. Now we should examine the controversial point in Archbishop Hilarion’s explanation: is it possible to separate the external form of the sacrament and its grace-filled internal content? In answering this question, the following consideration may be fruitful. The salvation of man, his deification, his spiritual rebirth, which begins in baptism, is not the fruit of human efforts alone or the action of divine power alone, but is a synergy, assistance, and collaboration between man and God. Patriarch Sergius (Stragorodsky), in his master’s thesis “Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation,” written by him while still an archimandrite, pays great attention to the need for human efforts in the matter of salvation, in particular faith and good will, without which divine help remains ineffective. “Mysterious rebirth in baptism,” wrote a candidate for a master’s degree, “is no exception: and it is possible only in the form of an arbitrary decision, which is only strengthened and brought to completion by grace” 32. Faith and repentance are two necessary conditions for performing the sacrament of baptism, which are required of those approaching the sacrament. The inner disposition of a person is sanctified and perfected in baptism by Divine grace, the consequence of which is the cleansing of the sins of the baptized. We can find confirmation of this view of the action and meaning of baptism in the Holy Scriptures: “So now baptism similar to this image, not the washing away of fleshly uncleanness, but the promise to God of a good conscience, saves us through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). The same attitude towards the sacrament of baptism can be found in the works of church writers, holy fathers and teachers of the Church. Thus, discussing repentance, Tertullian wrote: “I do not deny that divine grace, that is, the destruction of sins, is saving for those who enter the water of baptism, but one must work to achieve this... This washing is the seal of faith, and faith begins and is evidenced by faith in repentance” 33. St. Gregory the Theologian speaks in a similar way about the meaning of baptism. Saint Gregory defines baptism as “renunciation of atheism and confession of the Divine” (Homily 42) 34, and “by the power of baptism we must understand a covenant with God about entering into another life and maintaining greater purity” (Homily 40, for holy baptism) 35. Saint Theophan the Recluse reveals this topic in more detail: “But we must keep in mind that in this mortification of sin through baptism nothing happens mechanically, but everything is accomplished with the participation of the morally free decisions of the person himself. The essence of mortification to sin is always the same - it is aversion from sin, a mortal hatred of it. Where is it in baptism? Right there, in the spirit of the person being baptized. For what does one who is baptized do before immersing himself in the font? Satan and all his works and all his ministry are denied; and this is the same thing that turns away from sin and hates it. When then, in this spirit of disgust and hatred of sin, he plunges into the font, then the grace of God, descending inside, strengthens these dispositions and decisions of the will and gives them living and active power. To a baptized person, all past sins are forgiven, and this power that descended into him in baptism will protect him from future ones... Just as it is true that, plunging into the death of Christ in baptism, we die to sin, so it is immutable that this mortification to sin is a hatred of sin, which we must kindle in ourselves willingly, with all the power of the grace of Christ that envelops us” (Commentary on Romans 6:3) 36. Here we should dwell on the following question: how to perceive baptism in the case when a person accepts this sacrament hypocritically, or mechanically, indifferently, in a state of “petrified insensibility,” or for some random reason, for example, to get rid of insomnia or a headache? That is, how to perceive baptism without faith and repentance? Saint Gregory of Nyssa says the following about such cases: “If the bath has served the body, but the soul has not cast off passionate impurities... then although it would be bold to say, I will nevertheless say and will not deny that for such the water will remain water” 37 . In the same sense, when discussing the performance of the sacrament of baptism, St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks out: “If you remain in your evil will, then the one preaching to you will not be to blame, and you do not hope to receive grace. The water will accept you, but the Spirit will not accept you." 38 In the 8th rule of the VII Ecumenical Council we find instructions: those Jews who are baptized without faith, “pretending to become Christians,” should be numbered “according to their religion” 39 . The Synod of Constantinople in the 12th century decided not to recognize the baptism of Mohammedan infants brought by their parents to get rid of an unpleasant odor, although their baptism was performed in the Church in a completely legal manner 40 . The authoritative Byzantine canonist Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch, mentions similar cases in his interpretations of the 18th canon of the Sardician Council in connection with discussions about lay baptism: “So the one who is said to be baptized by an uninitiated should not be considered baptized; why such a one should be awarded true baptism without prejudice. For if we do not say this, we will not only come into conflict with the sacred and divine rules, but we will also be forced, out of respect for the holy world, to call as faithful those Hagarians who, due to a long-standing custom, are baptized so that there is no smell from them... which, in my opinion, at least, should not be allowed” 41. Thus, we see that there are cases when the Church does not recognize baptism performed by an Orthodox priest in a legal manner, if on the human side the faith and repentance necessary for baptism are completely absent. As for the case of the baptism of Muslim infants, the following question requires resolution. If one of these babies, upon reaching conscious age, sincerely believes in Christ and turns to the Church, should the sacrament of baptism be performed on him? On the one hand, of course it follows, since the completed baptism was declared invalid. But on the other hand, if the church hierarchy, knowing that baptism was performed on this person at one time, decides to accept him into the Church through confirmation or through repentance (if confirmation was performed along with baptism), does it mean that this person joins the Church without baptism? Of course not, since the baptism was still performed. Likewise, the 8th rule of the VII Ecumenical Council, speaking about cases of falsely baptized Jews joining the Church when they sincerely believe, does not require their acceptance through baptism, but through repentance and public rejection of abandoned errors 42. The same can be said about any person when he begins the sacrament of baptism, forced to do so by some superstition or for other reasons not related to the Christian faith. If we consider baptism as a covenant between a person and God, then the human side is essentially absent here. The sacrament is completed, grace is given, but it is not received. Synergy is impossible when there is no effort on one side. Although the sacrament in such cases can be considered imperfect, when a person, having acquired true faith and coming into repentant contrition, resorts to the help of the Church, then what was potentially given to him in baptism is actualized, and the grace that he previously neglected begins to act by faith. Of course, these are extreme cases, but they help to understand the principles according to which the sacrament of baptism is performed. Nevertheless, one must think that the lack of faith and repentance is made up for through the rite of the sacrament by the faith of the Church, since usually one who approaches the sacrament of baptism has at least trust in the Church and agrees to renounce “Satan and all his works.” However, as can be seen from the above, an extreme degree is also possible when baptism is not performed due to the lack of even the rudiments of faith in the person being baptized or his recipients. Otherwise, we would have to recognize both the baptism of those baptized by force, and those baptized by a method similar to that used by the Latin missionaries, who, secretly pronouncing the baptismal formula, splashed water three times on the Hindus bathing in the Ganges, considering such actions to be the sacrament of baptism. A good illustration of the need for human goodwill to perform the sacrament of baptism is the case cited by Archpriest Vladimir Vorobyov. One Christian woman for many years unsuccessfully persuaded her sister to be baptized, who refused all persuasion until her death. Nevertheless, when the unbelieving sister fell into a state of unconsciousness before her death, this Christian woman performed the rite of baptism on her. Father Vladimir commented on the described event: “With all due respect to this already deceased Christian woman, I, of course, told her that such a method of action was completely unauthorized. We cannot commit such violence against a person’s conscience, over his will. All such cases are, of course, invalid. I would not dare to recognize such a person as baptized. If we recognized him as baptized, it would mean that we recognize some kind of Orthodox magic. This means that we do not understand what an Orthodox sacrament is” 43. The oblivion of the noted principles in modern church life results in the infatuation of a significant part of Christians with the adoption of views that lead them into schism. On the one hand, the magical perception of the sacrament of baptism forces many people to resort to it for reasons that are random. On the other hand, in the Church itself, an exaggerated fear of the seal of the Antichrist is spreading, which, according to some, can be accepted completely unconsciously (even in a dream), without a clear renunciation of Christ and worship of the Antichrist. The development of this idea ends with the elevation of any state document containing any number to the status of the Antichrist seal, and as a consequence - the rejection of the state, perceived as the kingdom of the Antichrist, and the rejection of the Church that maintains ties with this state. Thus, a distorted (magical or Latinized) perception of baptism leads to serious distortions in the consciousness and spiritual life of a Christian, ultimately leading to schism. As for baptism in heretical or schismatic societies, the principle of its implementation can be presented as follows. Those who approach baptism in a society that has apostatized from the Church have faith (albeit imperfect) in our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and in the Holy Trinity; in the main points there is the correct ritual form of the sacrament, but there is no assistance from God, no grace, since the sacrament is performed outside the Church. And in this case, the sacrament is not performed due to the fact that the divine side is no longer involved in the covenant. If a person baptized in this way wishes to join the Church, then his acceptance will be legal both through baptism and without it, since in the latter case God fills in what was lacking in the sacrament performed outside the Church. Thus, both hypocritical or accidental baptism in the Church and sincere baptism outside the Church are made up for what they lack. In the first case - by human action, in the second - by God's action. And although human efforts are incommensurate with the power of God, God, appreciating the freedom He has given to man, places Himself with man on equal terms with respect to human salvation. And the point here is not in the level of strength, but in the degree of dedication. God gives Himself to man entirely, in the fullness of grace, “for God does not give the Spirit by measure” (John 3:34). But in order to partake of this fullness, a person must also completely trust God. This growth in mutual communication between man and God begins in baptism and continues in the remaining sacraments and throughout the life of a Christian, “until we all come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the full stature of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). We can already see from the texts of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament that the grace of the sacrament may not act simultaneously with the accepted ritual and even without it. So, nowhere do we find evidence of the baptism of the apostles. They received the Body and Blood of Christ even before receiving the Holy Spirit. But it is clear that they were cleansed and received the grace of baptism in another way. “You have already been cleansed through the word that I preached to you,” the Lord said to the apostles (John 15:3). Tertullian reasoned about it this way: “But let the apostles be baptized in some way or remain unbaptized... It would be quite presumptuous to judge the salvation of the apostles, because for them the advantage of first election and then inseparable intimacy may be a substitute for baptism” 44 . Likewise, the sending of the Holy Spirit on the apostles was an act of God, accomplished without any ritual. The Holy Spirit descended on the household of the centurion Cornelius before baptism (see: Acts 10:44–48). We know about baptism in blood, about baptism in the absence of water, for example about baptism with sand 45 . Aerial baptism is also known, which is widespread among the Orthodox Greeks of Northern Epirus 46 . The fact that grace given in the sacraments can be received from God in another way and even without external actions is confirmed by the holy fathers. Thus, the Monk Simeon the New Theologian notes: “It happened that some were visited by the grace of God even without the laying on of hands by a priest, but those were exceptional cases; not common to everyone" 47 . Saint Nicholas Cabasilas speaks about this even more definitely: “It happened that many in this clique who had not yet been washed received perfection, whom, when they had not yet been baptized with water, were baptized by the Bridegroom of the Church Himself. To many He sent a cloud from heaven and water from the earth beyond their expectation and thus baptized them, and recreated most of them in secret. For just as the deprivation of Christ is filled by members of the Church, Paul or someone else like him, so there is nothing strange if the deprivation of the Church is filled by the Head of the Church. Or, if there is something in which the members seem to help the head, how much more fair is it for the head herself to supply what the members lack? This is how it happens” (Seven words about life in Christ) 48. From what has been said, we can conclude that the views of Archbishop Hilarion (Troitsky) on the various rites of joining the Church of non-Orthodox people fit perfectly into the mainstream of Church teaching on the sacraments. The thoughts of the holy martyr about the replenishment of human actions in the Church by our Lord Jesus Christ are also fully consistent with the church, patristic tradition, adopted by many modern Orthodox theologians. So, for example, the Greek elder and theologian Archimandrite Epiphanius (Theodoropoulos) writes: “You are talking about the “reordination” of Old Calendar clergy by the Greek Church. But, my dear, opening any book on Orthodox dogma or canon law, you will see that the Church, in principle, does not recognize as valid everything that is done outside its borders, in other words, by heretics, schismatics and in illegal church formations. Based on this, it is possible, in the event of someone returning to the bosom of the Church, to act either according to oikonomia and recognize what was done outside its (the Church’s) borders (for example, consecration), thus giving the sacrament the missing power, or according to acrivia - not to recognize what was done and demand its repetition” 49 . From the above it is clear that the views of Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) on the boundaries of the Church are fully consistent with the Holy Tradition of the Church. Hilarion (Troitsky), archbishop. Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church / Intro. Art. A.K. Svetozarsky and A.I. Sidorova. M., 1997. P. 369. – Further, in addition to the specified cases, the works of the Hieromartyr Hilarion are quoted from this edition with pages indicated in brackets. Tsypin Vladislav, priest. On the question of the boundaries of the Church // Theological works: Anniversary collection of the MDA: 300 years (1685–1985). M., 1986. P. 194. Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei, martyr. Without the Church there is no salvation / Intro. Art. nuns Sophia. M.; St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 81. Nikolai Kavasila. Theological works. M., 2002. P. 130. Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei, martyr. Without the Church there is no salvation. pp. 19–20. See also: Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. There is no Christianity without the Church. M., 1992. P. 25. See also: Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei, martyr. Without the Church there is no salvation. pp. 60, 40, 408, etc.; Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. There is no Christianity without the Church. P. 25. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. There is no Christianity without the Church. P. 21. Hilarion (Troitsky), martyr. Creations: In 3 volumes. T. 2: Theological works. M., 2004. pp. 204–205. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. There is no Christianity without the Church. M., 1992. P. 22. Hilarion, Archbishop of Verei, martyr. Without the Church there is no salvation. P. 431. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. There is no Christianity without the Church. M., 1992. pp. 59–60. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. There is no Christianity without the Church. M., 1992. pp. 83–84. Right there. pp. 77, 83, 88–89. Sergius (Stragorodsky), archimandrite. Orthodox teaching on salvation. M., 1991. P. 176. Tertullian. About repentance // http://www.krotov.info/library/19_t/ter/tullian_pokayan.htm Gregory the Theologian, saint. Collection of works: In 2 volumes. Publication of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1994. Vol. 1. P. 595. Theophan the Recluse, saint. Interpretation of the Epistle of the Holy Apostle Paul to the Romans // http:// ni-ka.com.ua/index.php?Lev=rimletb Gregory of Nyssa, Saint. A big announcement. Kiev, 2003. P. 298. Kirill, Archbishop of Jerusalem. Catechetical and secret teachings. M., 1991. P. 4. Book of rules. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 126. Afanasiev Nikolai, protopresbyter. Joining the Church. M., 1993. P. 127. Rules of the Holy Local Councils with interpretations: In 2 parts. Tutaev, 2001. Part 2. pp. 355–356. Vorobyov Vladimir, archpriest. Repentance, confession, spiritual guidance // Spring of repentance: Conversations before confession. M., 2006. pp. 112–113. Tertullian. About baptism // http://mystudies.narod.ru/library/t/tertull/baptis.htm John Mosch. Spiritual meadow. Publishing house of the Vladimir diocese, 2002. pp. 207–208. Paisiy Svyatogorets. Words. T. 4: Family life. M., 2004. P. 134. Simeon the New Theologian, Rev. Creations: In 3 volumes. Published by the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1993. Vol. 1: Words 1–52. P. 204. Nikolai Kavasila. Theological works. M., 2002. pp. 36–37. Epiphanius (Theodoropoulos), archimandrite. Two extremes: Ecumenism and Zealotism. Articles and letters. M., 2006. P. 215.