Soteriology of St. Theodore the Studite

Dissertation for the academic degree of candidate of theology / Moscow Orthodox Theological Academy, Department of Theology (as a manuscript) / Sergiev Posad, 2016 Personality of St. Theodora is especially notable for the fact that the beginning of the saint’s ascetic labors occurred during a difficult period in the life of the Byzantine Church. During the period when, after the reign of iconoclastic emperors, the spiritual life of monasticism fell into decline, as a result of persecution the continuity in the experience of spiritual activity was disrupted; worldliness and moral corruption deeply affected church life 1 . And yet, despite these difficulties, St. Theodore succeeds in creating a large monastic community of high spiritual life, which shone with confessional feat in the second period of iconoclasm. What guided the monk in creating such a community? Venerable himself Theodore says to the brethren: “...I have no other business than the care and concern of your precious souls...so that you all may be saved, since I alone am worthy of destruction” 2. That is, for the monk, the determining factor was concern for the salvation of the souls of his flock, and the main thing was the implementation of his soteriological views. The latter are of practical interest to us, because... The revival of the Russian Orthodox Church, after a period of dominance of atheistic ideology, often takes place in conditions of disrupted continuity in the experience of spiritual work and with a significant lack of coherent monastic communities 3. We believe that studying the soteriological views of the Abbot of Studium and his experience in creating a community of those being saved could help the cause of the revival of the Church. Moreover, the monk himself wrote: “Brothers and fathers. The time of every thing, as it is written (Eccl. 3:1). It’s time to work out our salvation always and everywhere” 4. The relevance of the study of the soteriological views of St. Theodore for church science is determined by the fact that this topic has not been sufficiently studied in modern historiography. The fact is that, despite a considerable amount of good research devoted to the life and written heritage of the Abbot of Studium, his theological views, the soteriology of the monk does not find any comprehensive coverage anywhere, but only a fragmentary mention 5 . This is understandable; Saint Theodore, like most fathers, was not a taxonomist in theology, did not write special works on this topic, but at the same time, it is the salvation of the right faith, the salvation of the soul that is the main idea of ​​his life feat and written works 6. It seems that there is no need to talk in detail about the meaning of soteriology in Orthodox doctrine. In this regard, we will cite the succinct words of the Honored Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy K.E. Skurata: “The doctrine of salvation is an expression of the very essence of the Christian faith and is organically connected with the foundations of the spiritual life of both each individual Christian and the entire Church as a whole” 7. However, it is worth noting that in modern Russian theological science there is no significant general work devoted to the formation and development of patristic soteriology. We believe that this urgent problem requires the closest attention and presupposes in its initial decision a series of studies aimed at revealing this teaching in relation to each holy father, 8 taking into account the internal logic of the era under study and the logic of thinking of the fathers under study (and, probably, not so much the logic of the latter as their prayer experience). Our study represents one such step towards solving this problem. Object and subject of research Based on the statement of the problem, we can conclude that the object of this study is such an aspect of patristic theology as soteriology, and the subject is the doctrine of salvation of St. Theodora Studite. The purpose of this work is that, based on the works of St. Theodore determine the teaching of this saint about salvation. Here, under salvation (σωτηρία), we will consider the concept 9, which includes both the objective side (what was done for the sake of our salvation by God and is a gift: incarnation, suffering on the cross, death and resurrection, the ascension of the Savior, the foundation of the Church), and the subjective side (those efforts that must be made in order to assimilate the above-mentioned gift) in the matter of human salvation 10. The disclosure of this goal is served by solving the following tasks: 1) to identify the reasons that influenced the formation of the soteriological views of St. Theodora; 2) identify the main provisions of the soteriology of St. Theodora Studite; 3) determine the influence of the soteriology of St. Theodore the Studite on solving a number of practical problems of Church life of that era. Since patristic soteriology seems to us to be an immense area of ​​theological knowledge, we believe it is correct not to pose here the task of a deep comparative analysis of the soteriology of St. Theodore and other holy fathers, since such an analysis will disproportionately expand the scope of the research undertaken. However, as far as possible, in the text of the work we will note common and different elements in the teaching of salvation in St. Theodore and some other holy fathers. To solve these problems, we consider it convenient to use both a historical-systemic method (which involves considering the views of the Studian abbot, taking into account the complex circumstances of the church-political life of Byzantium at the beginning of the 9th century), and a historical-genetic one (which will reveal the development of the soteriology of the Studian abbot, determine the sources that influenced the formation of his soteriology, the place of the soteriological views of the monk in the church tradition). Also during the study, methods of interpretation and understanding, analogies and comparisons, quantitative procedures, and literature analysis were used. The main source for such research is, first of all, the works of St. Theodore himself. Let's look at them. Messages 11. This extensive correspondence (the text of 557 letters has been preserved, and only inscriptions from 4) 12 is concentrated around two main topics. The first is the “Michian” schism, the second is the defense of Orthodoxy and opposition to the iconoclasm of Emperor Leo V. Written mostly in exile and usually sent with those who visited Theodore, they were the main means of fighting for upholding their views. Not a single source gives us as much information about the soteriological views of the ascetic, in relation to his vision of the pressing problems of the Church and society, as is revealed in these messages. This source is especially valuable because it lends itself to chronological systematization and in this regard has been thoroughly studied 13 . This is the only source where the views of the holy father, due to a lively dialogue, are the most accurate reflection of the realities of the iconoclastic era. Announcements 14. There are 389 of them in total. All these teachings were delivered by the author or read in his absence by monks 15. After the death of St. Theodore compiled a selection of 134 teachings, which formed the “Small Catechism”; the remaining 257 received the name “Large Catechism” 16. These announcements are an indispensable source for the study of the soteriological views of St. Theodore, using the example of the internal life of the community of the Studite monastery. After all, the abbot of Studium considered it precisely the guidance to the salvation of the community as the goal of his announcements 17 . Charter 18. Here, first of all, it is worth mentioning “Ὑποτύπωσις καταστάσεως τῆς μονῆς τῶν Στουδίου” 19 . The authorship of this work, although it does not directly belong to St. Theodore, nevertheless, the ancient tradition of the Studite community is reflected here, going back to the unwritten or unpreserved charter of St. himself. Theodora Studite 20. The following creations of St. St. are associated with the Charter of the Studite Abbot. Theodora, as: “Testament” 21, “General Penances” 22 and maybe “Daily Penances” 23. The authorship of the last monument is questioned 24 . Of the works that have reached us, there is not a single one in which the entire system of monastic structure formed by St. Theodore (they represent a partial regulation of certain aspects of monastic life) 25. Despite this, the above-mentioned works remain a useful source for studying the ascetic views of St. Theodore regarding the subjective aspect of his soteriology. Words 26. Words for church holidays 27 provide material for the analysis of the exegetical tradition in which the saint lived, and hagiographical works 28 are valuable in that they highlight the attitude of St. Theodore to the life feat of the saints, in addition, describes the vicissitudes of church schisms from the words of a direct participant in the events. In the latter case, the “Funeral oration in honor of Plato” 29, as well as the “Catechetical funeral oration in honor of the mother” 30, are of particular interest for their informative content. These two works are also important because they provide an opportunity to better examine the relatives of the saint. Theodore of people who influenced his spiritual development. Refutations 31. These are three works of the apologetic genre, they are built in the form of an Antirretic: questions from a heretic and answers from an Orthodox. The source is valuable in that it allows us to better understand the soteriological nuances of the theological dispute about icon veneration and to identify groups in the heterogeneous iconoclastic movement (according to theological views on the subject of the dispute). “The denunciation and refutation of the wicked poems of John, Ignatius, Sergius and Stephen, the new opponents of Christ, presented first in verses of the same size as their verses and of a different size, and then in prose, with the addition of a refutation of the wicked subscription” 32. Although in theological terms this source, relative to the above, is of little information, its very presence speaks of the nature of the uncompromising struggle that St. Theodore with the iconoclastic heresy, where each polemical approach of the heretics was given a corresponding Orthodox answer. “Some questions proposed to iconoclasts who do not want to depict our Lord Jesus Christ by bodily appearance” 33. In this essay, in 15 questions repeating the reasoning of the third refutation, St. Theodore refutes the epistemological arguments of the iconoclasts about the fundamental indescribability of the God-man. The presence of this work indicates the particular popularity of such argumentation in the iconoclastic dispute. "Seven Chapters Against the Iconoclasts" 34. In theological terms, this source is not very informative, but it shows well the prevalence of iconoclastic ideas in an environment other than palace intellectuals (the absence of a direct reference to icon veneration in the Gospel or the presence of the constellation of the cross as a sign of preference in worshiping it is cited as arguments) 35 . Hymns of the Lenten Triodion 36. Precisely for St. Theodore and his brother Joseph, tradition established the name: “Compilers of the Triodion” 37 . To the works of St. Theodore in the Lenten Triodion includes the following canons: on the Meat Saturday; cheese Saturday; on Meat Week; on the third Sunday of Great Lent, to the Cross of Christ. Also 30 three-songs, four four-songs (for Saturdays 2, 3, 4, 5 of the weeks of Lent), 30 similar stichera and 30 sedals, the stichera of Cheese Saturday “Hedgehog in the image” and the self-accord of Good Friday “Kijzhdo ud sholy thy flesh” 38 . The general character of the saint’s liturgical works is ascetic instructions, but it was here that the Studian abbot also expounded theology, in the proper sense (the doxology of the Holy Trinity) - the Trinity troparia. This aspect of the theological vision of the monk is the least studied, which in our opinion is unfair, in view of the special reverent attitude with which the liturgical works of the venerable one were endowed. Theodora his disciples 39. Although it is obvious that the source is very complex and has developed over the centuries, and the critical edition of the hymnographic works of St. Theodore is not present at the moment, however, we consider it advisable to include him in the study, limiting ourselves to studying the works of the Studio abbot in the printed publications of the Lenten Triodion 40. There is reason to believe that not all of St. Theodora reached us 41. In addition, this study did not include a number of works attributed to St. Theodore, the content of which does not provide new information about the soteriological views of the Abbot of Studium 42. Therefore, for a more complete consideration of the theological views of the Studite abbot, taking into account the historical context of the era, we believe it is necessary to consider the following series of sources. Life of St. Theodora 43. There are four known such lives, and researchers conventionally designate them with the letters: A, B, C and D 44 . The closest to the lost original, according to scientists, is Life B, written by Michael the Monk 45; It is to this hagiographical monument (Life B) that other versions of the Lives go back 46. The emergence of the version of Life B, which we have 47, dates back to the second half of the 9th century. 48, and, consequently, the author of the life could still find the disciples of St. Theodore and take advantage of their stories, he could also have at hand the original creations of Theodore, including those that have not survived to us. At the same time, it is obvious that here, as in any work of the hagiographic genre, what comes to the fore is not historicity (although it plays an important role), but the spiritual and edifying nature of the work. Hence, the reliability of the described events in life requires confirmation from other sources. Chronicles. Here, according to the time of origin and significance for our research, first of all it is worth mentioning “The Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophan from Diocletian to the kings Michael and his son Theophylact” 49. The writing of Theophanes' work dates back to the years 810/811–814/815. Fulfilling the request of his friend, George Sinkel, Theophanes began the narrative from the time of Diocletian and outlined the events before 813 (the fall of Michael I Rangave, the rise to power of Leo V the Armenian) 50. The construction was based on a chronological principle, which made it possible to distribute all historical material by date. What is important for us is that Rev. Theophan is a contemporary of the Studite abbot and at the same time diverges from St. Theodore in his assessment of some church and political events 51. Naturally, one must take into account that St. Theophan is not impartial in his assessment of the iconoclasts; as an icon-worshipper, he suffered from them (in 815, after interrogation in Constantinople and a short imprisonment, St. Theophan the Confessor was exiled to the island of Samothrace, where he soon died) 52 . The remaining chronicles, which cover this era, are of later origin. Among such works, the chronicle of the Continuer Theophan: “Biographies of the Byzantine Kings” 53 is of particular interest for our research; it covers the period from 811 to 961. The time of writing is the second half of the 10th century. This work, compared to its predecessors, is distinguished by a different level of historicism; elements of historical criticism take place here: contradictory versions of the same event are given, different assessments of the behavior of this or that hero 54. Thus, the chronicler tries to comprehend the causes of the iconoclastic unrest at the beginning of the 9th century and cites different opinions (of course, icon-worshipers). At the same time, despite the fact that much of the information is clearly legendary, the compiler of the chronicle reports a lot of interesting details. Thus, general information from chronicles, messages and lives allows us to form a more holistic picture of the era under study. Acts of the VII Ecumenical Council 55. The most valuable source (perhaps the only one), which allows us to sufficiently restore the iconoclastic argumentation of the council of 754, thanks to the well-preserved detailed record of all speeches at the council. From here we learn about Orthodox theology of that period and church politics. All this allows us to better understand, through comparison and analysis, processes such as the restoration of iconoclastic doctrine in the religious reform of Leo V, the development of iconoclastic and Orthodox theology of the image. Which, in turn, will provide an opportunity to better study the soteriological aspects of Orthodox icon veneration. Consideration of the above sources allows us to draw a conclusion: to outline the soteriology of St. Theodore, its influence on the practical aspects of Church life (due to the incompleteness of surviving works, as well as their polemical bias in assessing the historical context) will only allow a comprehensive study, involving all available data. Of the available studies on the above topic, the works of the beginning of the last century by N. Grossu 56 and A.P. continue to be relevant. Dobroklonsky 57. Despite the fundamental nature of these studies, attention is mainly paid to the social, monastic and church-political activities of the saint, and the area of ​​his soteriological views received occasional and incomplete sanctification. Grossu's monograph “Reverend Theodore the Studite: His Time, Life and Creations” has the advantage of having an analysis of the dogmatic and polemical works of St. Theodore 58, where an attempt is made to determine the contribution of the Studian abbot to the Orthodox understanding of the theology of the image. Similar studies by A.P. Dobroklonsky’s works were never published, although his very detailed monograph “Reverend Theodore, Confessor and Abbot of Studio” suggested such a presentation in the second edition of the second part 59 . Also, in the second part of the work under consideration, the psychological side of the asceticism of St. Theodore 60, however, due to the lack of such, the internal basis of the views of the Studian abbot on ideal monasticism remained unclear. Nevertheless, it is worth noting the unconditional usefulness of the second part of A.P.’s monograph. Dobroklonsky (1st issue) 61, which gives the dating of the messages of St. Theodore, which makes the work easier, in combination with the research of G. Fatouros, with such a valuable source as the correspondence of the Abbot of Studium. In addition to well-founded criticism of N. Grossu's monograph 62, it is worth noting this author's superficial consideration of the theological views of St. Theodore (the study is practically limited to a retelling of theological provisions on the content of the works of the Studite abbot, while the soteriological aspect of his theology does not find proper coverage, in addition, the theology of the triadological troparions of the saint is completely lost sight of), which, in our opinion, is a significant omission. Some interest in understanding the soteriological foundations of the theological views of St. Theodore regarding icons is presented in an article by Prof. B.M. Melioransky “The Philosophical Side of Iconoclasm” 63, where the scientist convincingly reveals the epistemological aspect of the iconoclastic dispute. However, we believe that to reduce the essence of the controversy around icons only to the question of the antinomy of “Christ of Chalcedon” (in the concept of the Council of Chalcedon) and “Christ of the Evangelical” (as a historical phenomenon) 64 means to look simplistically at such a heterogeneous phenomenon as the iconoclastic movement (see below note No. 487). Regarding the above-mentioned works, it is worth noting that over the course of a century, the views of historical science on the iconoclastic reform and church leaders contemporary to it have undergone changes 65. Particularly worth noting is the work of I. Karabinov “Lenten Triodion. Historical overview of its plan, composition, editions and Slavic translations” 66, where (among other authors of liturgical texts) St. Theodore is given close attention as one of the main compilers of the Lenten Triodion 67. This detailed historical study, which has not lost its significance, contains information about the hymnographic works of the saint and their distribution in the liturgical life of the Church. Which, in turn, allows us to consider this work from the standpoint of liturgical theology, as an additional source for determining the soteriological views of St. Theodora. Among modern studies in this area, we note the work of the nun Ignatius “Church Song Makers” 69, devoted to the consideration of the liturgical theology of Byzantine hymnographers. Although her work is based on the analysis of the works of saints found only in printed editions of liturgical books, and the range of research literature, with rare exceptions, is limited to pre-revolutionary works (which is quite understandable, given the state of church historical science in Soviet times), the work of the nun Ignatius is useful in that it was written by a person of high spiritual life 70 for whom liturgical theology is not abstract knowledge, but the experience of prayer. This is the only work known to us that paid attention to the theology of the Trinity of St. Theodora 71. Since the soteriological views of St. Theodore were directly reflected in his ascetic works; we consider it necessary for our research to turn to the monumental work on asceticism by S.M. Zarina – S.M. Zarin, “Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching” 72. This work provides an opportunity to compare the soteriological views of the Studite abbot and similar views of various saints in ascetic writing. Likewise, contemporary works devoted to ancient Christian asceticism and monastic writing are of particular interest. Thus, an appeal to the works of prof. A.I. Sidorova - A.I. Sidorov, “Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism” 73 and his “At the origins of the culture of holiness” 74 allows us to look at the theology of St. Theodore in the context of the previous patristic tradition and identify the influence of the latter on the teaching of the saint. Ascetic views of St. Theodore received coverage in the study of J. Leroy - Leroy J. “La reforme studite” 75. Let us note that this contains interesting data about the dependence of the ascetic ideals of St. Theodore, in his teaching about salvation, from the written works of other, earlier ascetics 76; Moreover, if A.P. Dobroklonsky's priority in such influence refers to the works attributed to St. Basil the Great 77, then J. Leroy, based on terminological analysis, is inclined to doubt such a priority 78. It is worth noting that the opposition to St. Theodore's ideals of cinnamon and the ideals of anchorage, presented in the work of Leroy 79, are seen as untenable (as discussed below in our study). In general, in terms of the completeness of its coverage of the studio reform, this work is noticeably inferior to a similar presentation in the above-mentioned monograph by A.P. Dobroklonsky. The research undertaken by Peter Hutley 80 is interesting; it is close to the topic of this work and reveals the ideals of martyrdom in the doctrine of salvation of St. Theodora; reveals the connection of this feat with asceticism 81 - bloodless martyrdom. In this regard, the calls of the Studite abbot to the monastics, during the period of persecution, not to weaken in confession become understandable. True, some data contained in the correspondence of the monk fell out of the field of view of the researcher; So, here, no attention is paid to the relationship of St. Theodore to the Orthodox laity in the service of the heretic emperor. Hence, the condescending practice of the Studite Abbot’s communication with such laity, against the backdrop of his own calls for self-isolation of Orthodox communities, remained unclear. Of particular interest is the work of Thomas Pratch, dedicated to the life and work of the Abbot of Studios 82. A thorough study of the relatives of the saint deserves special attention here. Theodora, their family and political connections 83. This information allows us to better study the social atmosphere in which the views of St. Petersburg were formed. Theodora. An interesting reconstruction of the historical background of the church-political struggle of St. Theodora and her internal motives are suggested by the study of D.E. Afinogenov 84, aimed at covering the church policy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (784–847). Here it is worth noting the researcher’s deep study of long-known sources, which allows him to give them an unexpected interpretation. At the same time, if the reconstruction of the relationship between the Byzantine Church and the state in this work seems quite justified, then the motives that guided individual historical figures are presented quite controversially. For example, it is difficult to agree with the researcher’s opinion about the differences at the level of ecclesiology 85 between Patriarch Nicephorus and St. Theodore (see paragraph 3.2). Quite significant for our research is the work of Roman Cholia 86, dedicated to Theodore’s views in sacramentology. Thus, from the presented material one can glean some information from the early period of the saint’s life. Theodore, in particular about his father Photin (which is discussed below in the main study). Views of Rev. Theodore's views on the sacraments are presented here in detail and deserve close attention. The disadvantages of this work include the occurrence of paraphrases to similar passages from the monograph by A.P. Dobroklonsky, without the necessary references to it 87. Which, however, does not devalue the independent studies of Roman Cholia. In our opinion, a good study is offered by Hieromonk Patapius 88, analyzing the views of St. Theodore regarding tolerance towards heretics. This work allows us to see in the Studian abbot not only an ardent fighter for the purity of Orthodoxy, but also a meek preacher of the love of Christ, a preacher of evangelical ideals. This view of Patapius, in comparison with the above literature (maybe only with the exception of Peter Hutley), reveals the personality of the monk in a new way: we are not just talking about the views of the saint. Theodore, but about the value priorities of the holy father. And the latter, of course, is important when determining the place of soteriology in the theology of the Studian abbot. Among the shortcomings, we note the not fully substantiated opinion about the connection of the iconoclastic movement of the second period with the Paulicians 89. Against the background of the repressive policy of Leo V towards the Paulicians, this opinion looks more than doubtful. To identify the soteriological aspect in the teaching on icon veneration, St. It makes sense for Theodora to turn to scientific works devoted to the theology of the image. Among the detailed studies in this area, we note the work of the Catholic Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, “The Icon of Christ” 90. Here we present the development of the doctrine of the Face - the Face of Christ on a historical and theological plane. The development of iconoclastic polemics is well shown. St. Theodore assimilates the most balanced and satisfactory interpretation of the most intractable question of the dispute about images - is it possible to depict the Face of the Eternal Son on an icon 91 . It is difficult to disagree with the detailed argumentation of K. Schönborn, but nevertheless, some of his provisions seem artificially strained. Thus, the researcher contrasts the teaching of St. Theodore to the teachings of St. John of Damascus (where the latter’s icon is a bearer of grace in its materiality), such a contrast is completely in the spirit of the Council of Trent, but hardly corresponds to the truth 92. There is an indication of a speculative perception of the icon of St. Theodore 93, but there is no clearly defined connection between his vision and the spiritual experience of the ascetic. Researcher J. Dagron, in his work “Le second iconoclasme et l’établissement de l’orthodoxie (787–847)” 94 also did not escape the influence of the theology of K. Schönborn 95 . At the same time, Dagron believes that in the iconoclastic movement, the decisive importance was not so much theology and philosophy as the religious ideas of the Byzantines: the victories of the iconoclast emperors, serving as a sign of Divine favor 96, iconolatry 97, the tradition of ugly prayer practice 98. And such religious thinkers as St. Theodore and the patriarch-confessor Nikephoros argue only with the theology of Emperor Constantine V, which was irrelevant for the second iconoclastic period 99. The latest conclusions, in my opinion, are not entirely justified. The fact that St. Nicephorus, etc. Theodore's justification from accusations of idolatry can be explained both by the heterogeneity of the iconoclastic movement and by the inconsistency of iconoclastic theology (the council of 815 no longer called icons idols, but proclaimed continuity with the council of 754 100). Work by J. Dagron is interesting because it shows various aspects of religiosity in Byzantium that influenced the theological controversy around icons. It is worth noting that the theological studies of K. Schönborn became decisive for such a researcher as A. Besançon, “The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm” 101, and found a place in the work of L. A. Uspensky “The Theology of the Icon” (however, here the author distanced himself from the Catholic understanding of the image). These two works are similar in structure, they try to trace the development and formation of icon painting in Christian culture from an art historical position, and, although from a historical and theological perspective they are compilative in nature, they allow us to take a deeper look at the relationship between the image and the religious ideas of the Byzantines, which in turn makes it possible to better understand the soteriological views of St. Theodore in his teaching about the icon (the value of this approach is that the subject of research by art historians is primarily not the written type of sources, but material ones). In the theological relation to the period under consideration, the study of V. M. Lurie is very interesting: “Le second iconoclasmen recherche de la vraie doctrine” 102, where the scientist puts forward a bold and well-founded assumption that the origins of the iconoclastic doctrine of the second period are in the updating by John the Grammar 103 [one of the main ideologists of the iconoclastic movement - K.V.] of the teachings of Eutyches, Patriarch of Constantinople (552–565; 577–582). This topic was developed in another work by V. M. Lurie, “History of Byzantine Philosophy. Formative period" 104. And although here about the theological views of St. Theodore says little, but in the context of the development of Byzantine theological thought. Such a view allows us to more accurately determine the contribution of the prp. Theodore in the development of the theology of the image. Of course, the reconstruction of iconoclastic dogma proposed by Lurie deserves close attention. True, some provisions regarding Orthodox polemics, it seems to us, require slight correction (see note No. 503 below). The reasoning regarding the second iconoclastic period (as a development of the views of the previous work) seems definitely convincing, which cannot be said about the attempt to find the same trends in the first period of religious reform (since the dissertation of V.A. Baranov, to which Lurie refers, with a more detailed argumentation of the last position, continues to remain inaccessible, and the facts presented in the books can be given a different interpretation) 105. Also, the reduction of iconoclastic polemics to philosophy seems to be a somewhat one-sided sanctification of the theological dispute, where what was significant was not only and not so much a competition in philosophy, but an appeal to Tradition 106. Since Lurie’s work does not properly criticize other points of view, his own assumption remains only one of the interpretations of the sources considered. A common drawback of the works presented above is their lack of attention to the study of the theological views of St. Theodore, the soteriological foundations of the latter. The connection between theology and the prayer experience of the Studian abbot is not considered. Due to insufficiently deep attention to the theology of the saint, church-political events are deprived of a consistent completeness of description. From here we can declare the need for a more in-depth study of the soteriological aspects of the theology of St. Theodore, their origins and specifics. The novelty of the work lies in the fact that we are the first to attempt a systematic presentation of such a little-studied aspect in the theology of St. Theodore as his teaching on salvation. The compositional structure of this work includes the following main elements: title page, table of contents, introduction (where the relevance is stated, the object and subject, goals and objectives of the study are formulated; the methods used are described, a historiographical essay and characteristics of the main sources are also placed here, the scientific novelty, structure and chronological framework of the work are also indicated), the main part of the dissertation work (with a description of the research process in three chapters), conclusion (where conclusions are formulated), a list of sources and literature used in the work. The first chapter of this work examines the genesis of the soteriological views of St. Theodora. In the second chapter, from the works of the monk, his soteriology is explicated. The third chapter establishes the influence of the soteriology of St. Theodore on the practical aspects of church life. When conducting the study, the soteriology of St. Petersburg was first determined. Theodore, and then the origins of this teaching were revealed. Thus, the material presented in the first and second chapters of the dissertation represents a reverse perspective on the research undertaken. We believe that such placement of material in the dissertation will make it possible to more organically reveal the topic of research. The chronological framework of our study corresponds to the years of life of St. Theodora. This is 759–826. St. Theodore was born in 759 in Constantinople. At the age of twenty-two, he left worldly life (781), together with his father, uncle and two brothers, he retired to the family estate of Voskition, adjacent to the area of ​​​​Sakkudion, where a monastery called Sakkudion was built. Uncle Theodore, St. Plato, who by that time was already a skilled monk, became the abbot of this monastery. Under the spiritual guidance of St. Plato Theodore successfully grew in the feats of monastic work. Out of obedience to his confessor, at the age of twenty-five he accepted the rank of presbyter (784), and ten years later, at the insistence of St. Plato and the choice of all the brethren, he accepted the abbess at the Sakkudion monastery. During his abbotship, Rev. Theodore was distinguished by his zeal and firmness in faith and piety, for which he was repeatedly persecuted. The first time he was exiled to Thessalonica for denouncing the illegal marriage of Emperor Constantine VI with Theodota (797) 107 . With the coming to power of Empress Irina (797), the monk returned to his monastery. Due to the danger of invasion by the Arabs, St. Theodore and his community moved for safety to Constantinople, to the Studite monastery provided by the empress. Here the number of his disciples multiplied (the Life calls the figure 1000 people). For the second time, Rev. Theodore was exiled to prison near Constantinople (809) for opposing the intention of Emperor Nicephorus to introduce into church communion the priest Joseph, who had been excommunicated for performing the sacrament of marriage over Constantine VI and Theodota. After the death of the king (811), the monk again returned to the Studite monastery. For the third time, Rev. Theodore was exiled by the iconoclast emperor Leo V the Armenian for his firm confession of icon veneration. First, the saint was imprisoned in the fortress of Metope (815) 108 , then transferred to the fortress of Vonita (816) 109 , then to Smyrna (819). In this exile for the dogma of icon veneration, St. Theodore endured numerous sufferings from cruel torture, cold and heat, hunger and thirst; At the same time, he always firmly professed the Orthodox faith. In difficult circumstances, the Abbot of Studium did not cease to encourage his spiritual children scattered in different places with his example and messages, instructing them to courageously endure suffering for the Truth. After the assassination of Emperor Leo V (820), St. Theodore was released from prison. The monk did not want to stay in Constantinople; the Studite monastery was in the power of the iconoclasts, and the new emperor Michael Travl patronized them. St. Theodore first settled in the so-called Criscentia area, and then on the peninsula of St. Tryphon near Cape Akrit (823), where, surrounded by spiritual children and devoted disciples, he peacefully departed to the Lord in 826. 110 The personality of this saint has always attracted attention, because St. Theodore showed with his very life what every Orthodox Christian should strive for. The present study is the result of such attention to the spiritual experience of the ascetic. 1. The origins of the soteriological views of St. Theodora Studita We believe that it will be natural to begin studying the formation of the soteriological views of St. Theodore with clarification of the role of his parents in this process. The fact that this role is not unimportant is evidenced by the words of the monk himself, in which he mentions how from an early age he was taught to serve God (Θεῷ λατρεύειν) 111 . Rev. was born. Theodore in Constantinople, in the family of the state treasurer (ταμιείας τῶν βασιλικῶν φόρων) 112. Father Fotin was a wealthy 113 and pious man. So the author of Life B notes that the father of St. Theodora was distinguished by his love of Philokalia 114, and in the Life of A it is mentioned that Photin “enlightened many to the Divine” 115. However, A.P. Dobroklonsky is not inclined to trust the testimony of lives and gives his assessment of Photin’s piety: “... semi-indifferent in religion and moral behavior...” 116. In this case, the scientist’s arguments are as follows: 1) “...he [Fotin - K.V.] brought his wife a lot of grief and tears...” 117 ; 2) “...she [Theoktista, mother of St. Theodora - K.V.] avoided reading the Psalter in front of his [Photinus - K.V.] eyes" 118 ; 3) prp. Theodore, in the Catechetical Funeral Oration in honor of his mother, while speaking enthusiastically about the latter, leaves his father completely in the shadows 119. Upon closer examination, taking into account the context, these scientist’s arguments do not look so clear. All the above arguments are taken from what was written by St. Theodore of the Catechetical Funeral Homily in honor of his mother, where in the first case, after describing the confessional feat of Theoktista (during the “Michian” schism), the Studian abbot adds: “Oh, streams of tears that constantly flowed from her eyes for the sake of her husband and the most unstable of the children (Euphemia), for the sake of the flock and all those who are mistaken (λισθαινοντας) and for any other reason!” 120. From the context it is clear that we are not talking about family life, but about tears of pity for those who are mistaken (who do not share the rigorism of the “Michian” schism). Probably, Photinus belonged to the latter (including Patriarch Tarasius and the majority of the clergy), and therefore, answering the third point, it is clear that St. Theodore finds it appropriate to remain silent about his father in this Word glorifying the Zealots. Regarding the second argument, it can be noted that we are talking about the internal life of the family of a high-ranking official during the reign of the iconoclast emperors (for example, St. Theodore was born in 759, and the reign of Constantine V was from 741 to 775). g.), when the discovery of monastic piety (Theoktista did not just read, but learned by heart (ἀποστηθίζω) Psalm 121) was regarded as disloyalty to the emperor and was severely punished 122. Hence the desire of Fotin to hinder the pious zeal of Theoktista - nothing more than concern for the safety of the family, in conditions of general denunciation; in addition, he does not forbid her to read in private time “while the lamp is flickering” 123. From what has been presented, we can conclude that Photinus was not a zealous confessor, but it would be unfair to call him indifferent to religion (as he agreed with his wife’s desire to take monastic vows for the whole family 124), and it is even more wrong to doubt his morality (before taking monastic vows, Photinus, sharing the ascetic zeal of Theoktista, lived with his wife in sexual abstinence for five years 125). Moreover, if Romanus Cholii’s guess is correct, then Photinus was interested in the interpretation of Holy Scripture and perhaps he himself was an exegete 126. True, it is difficult to agree with the assumption of Thomas Pratch that Photinus was ordained a deacon and accompanied Theodore to Thessalonica, based on the words “...ὁ κύριος διάκονος καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν...” 127 . Such words indicate respect for St. Theodora to this person, but no more than 128. The fact that practically no information has been preserved about my father, I think, may be due to both a probable difference of opinion with my father regarding the “Michian” schism, and the ascetic renunciation of the saint. Theodora from the world and everything connected with it. The latter, the degree of renunciation of the monk, is eloquently evidenced by the fact that even to the deathbed of his dearly beloved mother (the Funeral Sermon in honor of her does not allow one to doubt the sincerity of filial love) Theodore does not come himself, but sends a presbyter 129. Thus, despite the scant information about Photinus, the father of St. Theodora, as a caring family man and pious Christian, could hardly have left no trace in the formation of the religious worldview of his eldest son. After all, if you consider that St. Theodore was the son of an official in the service of Emperor Constantine V, then the very tolerant attitude of the Studian abbot towards secret icon worshipers in the service of the iconoclast emperor will become clear. So in a letter to Leo, patrician and sacellarius, the monk writes: “For you [i.e. e. Leo - K. V.] - a man of God (ἄνθρωπος γάρ εἶ θεού), distinguished by a sacred mind, a Christ-loving soul (ψυχήν χριστοφιλῆ), divine knowledge, sound reason, a pure way of thinking; and therefore you tremble, not being able to help the cause, according to custom, and seeing the Church in such danger...Pray, then, as a God-loving one (προσεύχου ὠς θεοφιλής), for the end of disasters..., and we pray (ἡμεῖς αἰτούμεθα)" 130 . It is noteworthy that, turning to the royal treasurer, the abbot of Studia not only praises his piety (“Christ-loving soul”), but also asks for prayers. The latter can serve as an indication of the prayerful communication of St. Theodore with an official of the iconoclast emperor (compare with the strict rules of isolation prescribed by St. Theodore for the Orthodox 131). Also, if we take into account the influence of the social environment of the Fotin family on St. Theodore, it will become clear that the ascetic has certain judgments and assessments devoted to the current political situation 132, which is not entirely consistent with the monastic ideal of renunciation of the world. Further, we note that Photinus deserves credit for receiving St. Theodore of education, which was fully consistent with the position of the son of the state treasurer and consisted, apparently, in the study of the trivium and quadrivium 133. The Studite abbot willingly uses his knowledge in dogmatic polemics 134 and encourages others to use it 135 . But still, for him, the real source of knowledge is the Holy Scripture and the works of the holy fathers. So, in one of the messages, the Abbot of Studium writes: “... you [Severian, the spiritual son of St. Theodore - K.V.] there is no such knowledge of dogmatic science as to be able to speak with precision, like one who has not studied either grammar or philosophy, while those knowledgeable in this do not teach about God any of their own teachings, but following the God-bearing (θεοφόροις) (fathers)" 136 - hence it is clear that the designated sciences, for the monk, are no more than an auxiliary tool in the study of the patristic heritage (the place of the latter in the system of soteriological views of St. Theodore will be discussed below). However, in this one can feel the influence of another person close to Theodore - his mother, Theoktista. Thus, from the above, we can conclude that Fotin (probably not so much personally as due to the social status of the family) influenced the formation of certain soteriological aspects in the views of St. Theodora. Here it is worth noting the attitude of the monk towards secret Orthodox Christians in the service of the heretic emperor, where the lenient practice of the Studian abbot towards such (prayerful communication) reflects the abbot’s concern for the salvation of those who are not able to bear the cross of open confession. So, through the economy of St. Theodore tries to convert the faint-hearted and erring to the truth. Also worthy of attention are the statements of St. Theodore in support of the political interests of the state, despite the latter's non-Orthodox religious policy. Such sympathy for state interests on the part of the “disgraced” abbot reflects the vision of St. Theodore, the nature of the struggle of the Orthodox community - the struggle is not against a person (society, state), but against the causes of sinful damage in a person 137. In conclusion, we note that the influence of Photinus on St. Theodora rather has the character of secularism (education, politics, connections at court) and is not decisive in the teachings of the Studian abbot. Theoktista, wife of Photinus and mother of St. Theodora came from a noble family (about her parents Sergius and Euphemia, who died during the plague of 747/748. 139 St. Theodore writes in the Funeral Sermon in honor of Plato, brother of Theoktista) 140. She was a deeply religious woman with a strong-willed character 141. Having been orphaned early and having received an elementary education since childhood, she continues to study science while married and quickly learns Psalm 142 by heart. She is not afraid to be different from other women, rejecting superstitions 143 and abstaining from amusements 144 . Practices night prayers, in addition to daily hourly prayers 145. It also provides active charitable assistance 146 . Moreover, according to the testimony of St. Theodora: “...she [i.e. e. Theoktista - K.V.], imbued with love for the ascetic life (εἰς πόθον ἐλθοῦσα τῆς ἀσκητικῆς ζωῆς),), convinces (πείθει) her husband, disposes (συμπείθει) to her and her children with many concerns, instructions and promises, and then her husband’s brothers. She leaves the house, presenting to God the whole society: her four children, her husband’s three brothers and, at the head of all, herself” 147. From the above words it is clear that the initiator and inspirer of this act was a woman (rare cases in the history of Byzantium), which speaks of the high spiritual life of Theoktista. It was she who was involved in the religious education of children in the family. St. Theodore recalls: “... when she raised us from sleep, she encouraged us to pray, so that not only she, but also the children would learn to serve God” 148. This ascetic experience, received from his mother, is especially dear to the saint. Theodora and encourages her to be called a “spiritual” mother 149. Hence it is not surprising that in the religious values ​​of Theoktista one can find everything that is dear to St. Theodora. Let us compare their renunciation of the world: Theoktista’s determination in dedicating the young Euthymius to God; the Abbot of Studia testifies to this as follows: “Having suppressed the strong and heartfelt emotion in her mother’s heart, she said: “If you, child, do not go voluntarily, then I will personally take you to the church.” So, the son gave in...” 150, - it is obvious that in the contradiction of feelings of maternal love and religious impulse, here family feelings are sacrificed; also: failure to visit the sick mother of St. Theodore, he writes: “...this [the election of Theodore as abbot - K.V.] bound me. If I were bound with iron chains, I would break them and appear before your face; and now, in my place, I am sending a presbyter to you for a little consolation...” 151, - from here it is clear that for St. For Theodora, the monastic vow of obedience is immeasurably more important than the bonds of filial love. Thus, for both the son and the mother, the ideal of monastic renunciation stands above worldly, family attachment. Let’s compare their love for virginity: the spouses’ five-year sexual abstinence, which the monk mentions with admiration: “She [Theoktista – K.V.] reminded her husband, along with other things, of the death outcome, advised him and invited him to abstain from each other and, of course, convinced him, so that after that they did not know each other for five whole years, although they reclined on the same bed, which is very surprising and rare (τό παραδοξότατόν τε καἱ δυσεύρητον)" 152 . The last words of the monk about this episode from the family life of his parents (he finds it “amazing and rare”) testify not just to the virtue of virginity in Theoktista, but to a special kind of active love for virginity, exercise in it (“they reclined on the same bed”). Let us also note the repeated praise of the virginity of St. Theodore, for example: “...if you have chosen virginity (παρθενίαν), if you have become ignorant (ἐνυμφεύθητε) of Christ, if you have loved the Kingdom of Heaven... I speak not in relation to human goods - they are a shadow and a dream and will perish with the present age - but in relation to spiritual ones; since virginity and non-covetousness are the most excellent of the greatest gifts (τῶν μεγίστων δωρεῶν)” 153 and in another place: “Truly, what is better than virginity? His concern is how to please the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32), how to obtain future benefits, how to escape from the various snares of the devil...” 154 - from these examples it is clear that for Theodore, virginity is one of the greatest and enduring values, serving to fulfill the will of God. Thus, both Theoktista and Theodore have an obvious love for virginity, which is associated with the eternal religious value of this virtue. Let us compare the conviction of mother and son in the inviolability of church institutions. For example, Theoktista’s fidelity to her husband, which Theodore speaks of as follows: “...she was chaste like no other woman, knew only one husband, and after marriage she was so pure in soul that she was free from subordination to thoughts” 155 - hence it is clear that for Theoktista marriage was experienced not so much as a marital relationship, but as a church establishment of the unity of purity of flesh and soul (chastity). We will also consider the statements of St. Theodora on the sanctity of marriage: “...the first marriage, as actually legal, is justly crowned by the priests, as undefiled, as pure, as free from fornication, and therefore crowned as a conqueror over sin; from this, there is also communion of the shrine with him (ἡ τῶν ἁγιασμάτων μετάληψις)..." 156 - from the above words we can conclude that for Theodore, a married marriage is a victory over the sin of the flesh as a testimony before God ("communion of the shrine" - i.e. Eucharist); in another place he denounces violators of the sanctity of marriage: “...and even greater than this is the gravest lawlessness, that is, the marriage of adulterers [meaning the illegal marriage of Emperor Constantine VI - K.V.], since during this sacred rite false witness was pronounced (ψευδομαρτυρῆσαι) against God..." 157, - from here it is clear that for St. Theodora, violation of the purity of marriage is a violation of church testimony before God. The Abbot of Studium also writes: “... I am afraid that He [Christ – K.V.], having looked at the confessional marriage taking place (τῷ τελουμένῳ ὁμολογητικῷ γάμῳ) [meaning resistance to the iconoclastic heresy - K.V.] will see me not dressed in wedding clothes (ἔνδυμα γάμου), that is, clothes of purity...” 158, - here is an allusion to the parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:11-13), and this is a gospel comparison of the Kingdom of God and marriage, in relation to the confessional feat and marriage, reveal the understanding of St. Theodore of marriage as a triumph of the purity of the soul witnessed before God (from fornication and heresy). Thus, the views of Theoktista and her son on the inviolability of church institutions, using the example of understanding the sanctity of marriage, completely coincide. Let's compare their active love for their neighbors: active help to those in need from Theoktista, about which St. Theodore writes: “After all, she measured mercy, especially for those most in need. Witnesses of the truth are certainly many and, moreover, many times, orphans and widows, the sick and the elderly, healed by the hand of this nourisher of the poor” 159 - thus the mother of St. Theodora fully followed the Gospel commandment to love one's neighbors 160; We also note the active charitable activities of the Studio abbot: for example, participation in the society of serving the dead without charity, about which St. Theodore writes in his letter: “... we, humble and most insignificant, reverently turning our gaze to the Divine and nourishing a feeling of love for our fellow tribesmen, join this pious society, as it was established to care for the receptacles of souls left without care, i.e. about the dead who, due to poverty or because of wandering, are left without removal and burial in this reigning city" 161 - here, too, one can see the Gospel principle of serving God (“turning one's eyes to the Divine”) and people (“nurturing a feeling of love for fellow tribesmen”) 162. It is obvious that in active love for others, St. Theodore fully shares the evangelical ideals of his mother. It is also worth noting the correspondence of Rev. Theodora, where quite a few of the recipients are women 163. Perhaps such attention is dictated by the memorable example of his mother (the wife of an official in the service of the iconoclast emperor). Thus, we can conclude that Theoktista’s influence on the formation of the soteriological views of St. Theodore was the most direct: it was expressed in the saint’s ardent desire to fulfill the gospel ideals. Which, in turn, became an important value guideline in the ascetic life of the monk. From all of the above, we believe it is permissible to draw the following conclusions: the family influenced the soteriological views of St. Theodore had the most direct influence, while his parents contributed to the formation of several different pictures of the world, where these views could be embodied. If from Photin this world is the Byzantine Empire with its institutions (family, court), where religion is important, but correlated with worldly interests, then from Theoktista this world is vanity, and the true one is only the world of ascetic feat, where everything is subordinated to a single goal - the salvation of the soul. And the last point of view of St. Theodora found the warmest sympathy, experience 164. However, for the monk, finding true peace does not involve escaping from the external, but working to transform it. Hence the radical break with the world of Photinus in St. There is no Theodore (rather, a harmonious coexistence), where value priorities are completely subordinated to soteriology. 1.2 Relationship with confessor At the decision of the family of St. Theodore's dedication to God by taking monastic vows was strongly influenced by brother Theoktista 165 - St. Plato. So Rev. Theodore writes: “For our lover of holiness [i.e. e. prp. Plato - K.V.] was the first and almost the only one who inspired (the thought of monasticism) both our relatives and strangers” 166 - which is why it is clear that Theodore’s first aspirations for salvation through an ascetic, monastic life were formed under the influence of St. Plato 167. This largely predetermined the close connection between their spiritual lives and their views on salvation. 1.2.1 Common views on the purpose of monastic life Plato begins his ascetic life by renouncing the world: he sells the estate inherited from his father and distributes it to the poor 168. Family of St. Theodora does the same. In the Funeral Sermon dedicated to his mother, St. Theodore, recalls: “... one left the house, and the other waited a little and then went to the place of asceticism, and she gave away her own house and divided it among those in need” 169 - from here it is clear that the virtue of renunciation of the world was sanctified (from Plato, through his influence on the Theoktista family), for St. Theodora, the authority of those closest to him. In addition, this virtue, for the Studian abbot, is associated with the renunciation of one’s will and is nothing more than the actualization of Holy Scripture. In the Funeral Sermon in honor of Plato, St. Theodore writes: “...he [St. Plato - K.V.] offered obedience, judging in the best way, not as many do now, hypocritically, or, better said, without completely renouncing the world, but as required by the true Word. For those, I don’t know why, forget about what the Lord says: Therefore, anyone from you who does not renounce all that he has cannot be My disciple (Luke 14:33) ... sell everything you have and give it to the poor, and come after Me (Luke 18:22)” 170 - thus renunciation of the world for St. Plato's was obedience to the Word of God. The significance of the last prp. Theodore emphasizes by denouncing the state of contemporary monasticism (“as many do now”) 171. The fact that the degree of renunciation of the world by St. Plato evokes enthusiastic surprise in the Abbot of Studium; he speaks not only of the desire to emphasize the holiness of his spiritual father (he makes a comparison with St. Anthony 172), but also of the important importance that this virtue occupies in him, St. Theodore, soteriology. So in a letter addressed to someone wishing to take monastic vows, St. Theodore writes: “But, firstly, you need to know what a monastic vow is and how high this life is... Renunciation (of the world) is nothing more than a vow to the cross and death. What does it mean? According to the word of the Lord, whoever desires this must renounce all his property and, taking up the cross, follow Him (Luke 9:23)” 173 - from these words it is clear that the monastic vow, in the eyes of St. Theodora, first of all, is associated with renunciation of the world, which, in turn, is the consistent fulfillment of the Gospel commandment. This view of the abbot on the height of the monastic vow was reflected in the order of the Studite Monastery, where communication with the world is strictly regulated 174. So Rev. Theodore prescribes: “If anyone leaves the monastery without the permission of the abbot, he must remain without Communion for one week, making forty bows a day” 175 - that is, here it is not so much the fact of leaving the monastery that is subject to censure, but self-will, which in turn emphasizes the purpose of renunciation of the world - renunciation of one’s will. Moreover, if disobedience in the community, like the misconduct of the first people, entails excommunication from the Tree of Life, then crucifixion obedience, on the contrary, means communion with Christ. Thus, from this we can conclude that Plato’s ascetic feat (his evangelical maximalism in renunciation of the world) for St. Theodore became one of the most important moments in the teaching of salvation - obedient following of Christ. It is worth noting that Rev. Plato began his monastic path in the Monastery of Symbols, in obedience to Elder Theoktistus 176. The abbot of Studio writes about it this way: “Plato, after he made a vow of renunciation, showed sincere obedience, and the second was preceded by the first, like lightning to thunder, like dawn to the sun, for whoever renounced in the best way, of course, shows obedience in the best way; and whoever is imperfect in one respect will, of course, be lame in another” 177 - here the dependence is visible, for St. Theodora, success in ascetic deeds depends on their consistency and degree of perfection. The importance of such a path (renunciation of the world, then renunciation of one’s will) is again emphasized by the abbot of Studia by denouncing the spiritual disorder of contemporary monasticism 178 . So he writes: “...then, having taken a vow, they rule here and rule over their own, acquiring slaves and all kinds of property for themselves. Yesterday those who only took a vow now act like experienced abbots; yesterday, those who did not know how to manage themselves with reasoning, now recklessly begin to lead others...” 179 - this is a hostile attitude towards the “reckless” (who did not renounce property and had no experience of obedience) abbots, whom St. Theodore contrasted with the spiritual father, which is explained by the high content that the monk endowed to the abbot's service. About the latter, in one of his letters, Theodore writes the following: “And since every true abbot represents the face of Christ, then through him one must faithfully follow (άκολουθεῖν ἑστιν ἀψευδῶς) Christ” 180 - hence obedience for the monk is not just spiritual guidance, but fulfilling the will of God, which consists in an inextricable connection (“unfalse following”) with God, through cutting off one’s will. At the same time, the confessor really appears in the eyes of the monk as “a god after God.” On the place of obedience among other virtues, St. Theodore writes: “The feats of virtue are manifold... But of these, nothing is required from the novice to such an extent as the feat of confession and the work of obedience, through which the soul is illuminated, and the will is mortified, and the complete unity of the spiritually born (novice) with the one giving birth (elder) occurs.” 181 - from these words it is clear that no feat contributes to spiritual growth as much as cutting off one’s will (confession here is like cutting off self-will at the stage of thoughts 182). Also about comparison of feats, below St. Theodore writes: “Abstinence and vigil or any other of the listed feats... do not bring benefit and even serve as a cause of fall for someone who acts arbitrarily, if he is not governed by the reasoning and rule of the abbot; and vice versa, whoever practices the feats of confession and obedience, giving the rest second place, embraces everything with these two feats” 183 - the fact that Theodore is talking about two feats (confession and obedience) should not confuse, since these are different ways of acting one feat - cutting off one’s will. The fact that Theodore, like Plato, followed this path of obedience is indicated by his devotion to his spiritual father. Thus, the abbot of Studium often calls Plato “mentor and educator” (νουθετὴν καἰ παιδευτὴν) 184, whose word for St. Theodore was the law as the “god-written tablets” (θεογράφους πλάκας) 185 or as the “voice of the angel and the apostle” (ἀγγέλου φωνῆς ἢ ἀποστόλου) 186. At the same time, Theodore especially notes that he will obey not by carnal relationship, but by spiritual one: “Therefore you [i.e. e. prp. Plato - K.V.] you willingly and joyfully continue to teach and admonish not only us, whom others mistakenly consider to be your nephews, but also all your sons and children born of your spirit (πνεύματος ἤνεγκας) 187 - the last words (“birth of the spirit”) precisely indicate the close connection that existed between the spiritual father – Plato and his novice – Theodore. This connection allows in one of the announcements of St. Theodore says to the brethren: “The identity of my father [St. Plato - K. V.], and also mine, if you wish, you can (although I am unworthy of this) call one, as the father himself instructs you” 188 - these words indicate not only the spiritual closeness of St. Theodore and Plato (“you can call one”), but also to the obedient acceptance of Plato’s view of the relationship between a confessor and his child (“like a father instructs”). Such reverent attitude of St. Theodore's commitment to obedience was widely reflected in his catechumens and charter 189. In his will, the abbot of Studia, addressing the brethren, writes: “In the field of obedience, remain firm to the end, in order to receive an unfading crown of truth... prove to be deniers of your own will, conforming only to what is approved by your abbot” 190. From this it is clear that for St. For Theodore, the reward of eternal blessings directly depends on obedience to the spiritual leader. Thus, from the above it follows that the path of obedience that Plato and his spiritual son Theodore took, for the latter is the most necessary guide to salvation, through the renunciation of his will, in unity: novice - confessor (abbot) - Christ. Regarding the Studian abbot himself, this unity looks like Theodore - his spiritual father Plato - Christ. 1.2.2 Unanimity in strict adherence to patristic instructions So they begin to reform the monastic charter: “Having begun to study the rules of the great and God-bearing Basil, as if to a real paradise, and having found that human customs (monastic) contradict monastic life. he [i.e. e. Plato - K.V.] destroys lawless traditions, like evil heresies..." 191, - we note here that the initiative to begin the reform of St. Theodore assimilates Plato 192, although he himself takes a very active part in it (i.e., the reform). Below Theodore writes: “If he [i.e. e. Plato - K.V.] and had with him an associate and assistant in this matter - one who spoke and wrote about this, then nevertheless gratitude should be given to the father, for the son must be like his father in everything and devote himself entirely to his parent" 193 - from these words it is clear that Theodore actively put the idea of reform into practice ("spoke and wrote"), but the ideological inspirer of the monastic reforms was Plato, to whom the spiritual son only “became like” and “betrayed himself completely.” At the same time, the reform of the community by ascetics is understood as a struggle for the saving adherence to patristic tradition against “lawless traditions” and “evil heresies.” Unity in the views of St. We can also observe Theodore and Plato during the events of the “Michian” schism. For example, Theodore, in a letter to his spiritual father, writes: “It seems to me that I hear the words uttered in your distinct voice: “Humble Theodore, we truly endure little, while God gives us excellent hope” ... I dare to speak as one who has good hope, (albeit) unworthily, looking at the grief, strengthened by your intercession, not being proud of what I suffered, but reproaching myself for not enduring courageously and not as it should be, but small and insignificant in comparison with the life-giving sufferings of the saints" 194 . These words contain the view of St. Theodore on the persecution that befell them as a martyrdom correlative with the “life-giving suffering of the saints” and giving “good hope.” Moreover, such an understanding of St. Theodore also assimilates Plato, citing his encouraging words about the “beautiful hope,” which, we believe, may indicate the direct influence of the spiritual father in the formation of soteriological views on martyrdom in the spiritual son 195. So in one of the letters from the period under review, St. Theodore writes: “Indeed, what you wrote, O righteous father, is worthy of praise [St. Plato - K.V.], worthy of rewriting and serves as an expression of your complete devotion to God. So, Father, you have strengthened our minds, strengthened our hearts; your courage is higher than hope; your boldness is beyond expectation” 196 - definitely, here we are talking about Plato’s letter with the instruction to adhere to the accepted confession (“total devotion to God”), which the Venerable himself. Theodore evaluates it as “affirming” and “strengthening.” From this we can conclude that St. Plato had a direct influence on the formation of St. Theodore such views as the salvific value of strict adherence to the patristic instructions, the need to imitate the saving feat of the holy martyrs. Thus, St. Plato, etc. Theodore, there is continuity in the soteriological understanding of such fundamental principles of monastic asceticism as renunciation of the world and obedience, assigning them priority importance in spiritual life. The latter reveals the commonality of their soteriological views in understanding the goal of monastic feat - through the complete renunciation of one’s will to achieve unity with God. The unity of views of Plato and his spiritual son Theodore was also manifested in the understanding of the salvation of strict adherence to the instructions and examples of the holy fathers. 1.3 Perception of church tradition by St. Theodore St. Theodore testifies to the need to strictly adhere to Church Tradition: “... there are divine laws and rules that guide every pious person, in which nothing can be added or subtracted” 197. About himself, the abbot of Studii writes: “...we sinners do nothing without rules” 198 . From here it becomes clear that the soteriology of St. Theodora was formed under the influence of the apostolic, patristic teaching. Let's consider it. 1.3.1 Holy Scripture for St. Theodora in the context of the patristic tradition As for most Eastern fathers, Holy Scripture for St. Theodore occupied a central place in his ideological system. Thus, the Abbot of Studia, in confirmation of the inviolability of the Gospel commandments, refers to the authority of the Ecumenical Teacher: “I will not say how many other sayings there are that do not allow us even the slightest deviation from the commandment, especially when we have the command of St. Basil the Great, that “it is imperative to observe everything handed down by the Lord in the Gospel and through the Apostles” (PG 31, 724B)” 199. What is here, mentioning the need for strict observance of the Gospel commandments, St. Theodore considers his opinion insufficient, but cites excerpts from the fathers, I believe, indicating the fundamental importance of this position in the system of values ​​of the Studite abbot. Hence his radical position on the “Michian” schism, where the Gospel example of John the Baptist was for St. Theodora's guide to action. For example, in one of his letters, explaining his position, the saint writes: “Why was I, the humble one, insulted there and showered with words from all sides: you yourself don’t know what you are saying, what you are babbling? While I cried out: the Forerunner is perishing, the Gospel is being violated, this is not oikonomia, they repeated many times that it is oikonomia...” 200 . For Rev. Theodora here is not simply an imitation of the martyrdom of the Forerunner 201, but an actualization of the Gospel, a protest against the relativistic understanding of Holy Tradition (and Holy Scripture as an essential part of it). The latter, I believe, was a natural consequence of the theological discussion of the previous iconoclastic period, which largely boiled down to manipulation of excerpts from Scripture and patristic works 202. For Theodore, it was the Word of God that was the fundamental soteriological criterion against which certain events in church, political and social life were assessed, and doctrinal provisions were accepted or rejected. Thus, in one of the letters, the abbot of Studium writes: “There shall be one law (εἴς γάρ νόμος ἔσται), says Scripture (Ex. 12:49), and one Gospel (καἴ ἔν εὐαγγέλιον) we have accepted; and whoever would change anything in this Gospel, even if he were an angel from heaven [allusion to (Gal. 1:8) - K.V.], you have a fairly solid position. Is the emperor greater than an angel? 203. Here the opposition is obvious between such value guidelines of Byzantine society as the law of God and the law of the emperor, where the latter, according to Theodore, has the right to exist only within the framework of the law of God 204. Works of Rev. Theodora is very rich in quotations from Holy Scripture and allusions to it. According to Faturus' calculations, there are 2082,205 of them in the saint's letters alone. Of these, the most direct and indirect references to the New Testament are 1506. Hence: Gospel of Matthew – 263 quotes 206. Ev. from John – 110 209. On the messages of Ap. Paul 881 reference 210. The Old Testament is cited less frequently - 576,211 references. Of these, most of all, there are 183,212 references to the Psalter, and 132,213 references to the Great Prophets. The predominance of quotations from the Gospel and the Epistles of St. Paul can serve as an indication of the commitment of St. Theodore to traditional Christocentrism 214. At the same time, apparently, Christocentrism for the abbot is expressed in such a deep perception of the words of Holy Scripture, in which it is no longer the letter that serves as a guide to salvation, but the Incarnate Word Himself. Thus, revealing the spiritual reason for his opposition during the first exile, the monk testifies: “...and I know that every sane person will say that Christ lives and reigns in us (ζὴ Χριστὸς ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ βασιλεύει), and we obey Him more than people, whom He created not to be despised, but to be glorified by them” 215. From these words it is clear that Christocentrism, in the views of St. Theodore, is not so much a speculative concept as a personal experience of participation in Christ. From here the special emphasis in the soteriology of the monk on the organization of the monastery in the image of the Body of Christ becomes clear (see paragraph 2.2.4). The abundance of references to the Old Testament prophets testifies to the experience of St. Theodore of the surrounding reality in the perspective of the biblical history of the chosen people, where compliance with the will of the Lord leads people to salvation, and deviation from the commandments of God leads to death. Thus, the ongoing persecution of the Orthodox Church is not accidental for Theodore, and he names the reasons for the misfortune that befell Byzantium (the iconoclastic heresy): “We were consumed by the flames of adultery (ἡ φλόξ τῆς μοιχείας) [talking about the “Michian” schism - K.V.]... not without reason I added would be the previous case of the Simonians (τῶν Σιμωνιανῶν)... In addition, (I want to say) about the case of the Paulicians (τοὺς Παυλικιάνους) and their persecution: after all, church law (ὁ νόμος ὁ ἐκκλησιαστικὸς) does not threaten anyone with a knife, a sword, or a whip. For, says Scripture, all who receive the knife will perish by the knife (Matthew 26:52). But in view of the fact that all this was applied, a pillar of evil flared up, as if from the bowels of hell (ἐκ μυχῶν τοῦ ᾄδου), - this Christian heresy (χριστομάχος αἴ ρεσις), destroying everyone" 216. From here it is clear that for St. Theodora saw the main cause of the disasters as a violation of the Church Tradition rooted in Holy Scripture (the imperial authorities trampled upon the moral norms of Christianity, the violation of the canons, the conformity of the hierarchy). Such a perception of the surrounding reality by St. Theodore, reflects the sincerity of his experience of the Word of God, faith in His immutable effectiveness. Many quotations from the Psalter are quite traditional, because the psalms were widely used in worship, and every monk knew them practically by heart 217 . From the entire epistolary heritage of St. Theodore, the most common quotes are the following: (2 Tim. 2:3) - “So endure suffering as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” - 23 times 218; (Matthew 5:10) – “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” – 20 times 219; and 17 times each: ( Heb. 11:38 ) - “...those of whom the whole world was not worthy wandered in deserts and mountains, in caves and caves of the earth” 220 and ( 1 Tim. 3:15 ) - “... so that if I tarry, you may know how you ought to act in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” 221 . The first three phrases reflect the venerable desire of the monk for the kingdom of the Sun of Truth, through the fulfillment of the Word of God (“truth”), through renunciation of the world (“wandering”) and suffering, imitation and service (in collaboration - “soldier of Christ”) to Christ. This indicates that in defending his convictions the monk proceeded from the Gospel call to perfect Love (Matthew 19:21; John 17:23). The fourth phrase 222 serves as an indication of the monk’s close attention to the Eucharistic meeting as a source of experimental knowledge of the Truth. Based on the above examples, we can conclude that the holy abbot has deep empathy for Divine Revelation. At the same time, Rev. Theodore obviously strictly adheres to the framework of the patristic tradition. Of the holy fathers, most often St. Theodore quotes: Basil the Great - 123 references 223. Gregory the Theologian - 40 references 224. Deonysius the Areopagite – 34 references 225. John Chrysostom – 14 references 226. The frequent mention of these particular fathers indicates the need to root one's theological position in that part of the patristic Tradition that was more authoritative and which was more contested (iconoclasts from the same fathers offered similar quotations and their comments on them) 227 . When it came to interpreting the sayings of the holy fathers, St. Theodore suggested always taking into account the historical and theological context. For example, examining a controversial passage from the works of Chrysostom, the Abbot of Studium writes: “The saying of Chrysostom... must be accepted not simply, but after knowing with whom he said it while talking; for in conversations one must pay attention to the time, and to the face, and to the manner of speech: time (χρόνον), because not the same thing was commanded both to the ancients and to those under grace; face (πρόσωπον), because one thing is characteristic of a heretic, and another is characteristic of an Orthodox one; image of speech (τρόπον), because it is not the same thing to speak dogmatically (δογματικῶς διαλέγεσθαι) and to offer the simplest speech (ἁπλοἵκώτερον τὸν λόγον)" 228, - from these words it is clear that the patristic heritage was not for St. Theodora is simply a set of static rules and quotations; there is an attempt to critically analyze a passage from the works of the holy father, which in turn characterizes the Abbot of Studium as a judicious and consistent polemicist. It should be noted that despite the probable convenience of the argument 229, neither the prp. Maximus the Confessor, nor on St. The abbot practically does not refer to John of Damascus 230. The theology of Maximus the Confessor, apparently, was not yet fully accepted by the contemporaries of St. Theodore 231, and the theology of the icon, characteristic of John of Damascus, could be used by the Studian abbot as mediated by the authority of the VII Ecumenical Council 232. A similar approach by Rev. Theodora to the patristic heritage probably indicates such a trend in the theological thought of Byzantium in the 7th–9th centuries as the systematization and authority of the works of the ancient Fathers of the Church and inattention and distrust of the works of later theologians 233 . Moreover, it is all the more interesting that the Abbot of Studium also contains his own examples of exegesis of Holy Scripture. The Monk Theodore was not an exegete in the sense in which we use this concept when speaking of Gregory of Nyssa, Ephraim the Syrian or John Chrysostom. As far as one can judge, he did not explain the biblical texts verse by verse: there are only two texts where one can speak of a consistent interpretation. Among them - for the Nativity of John the Baptist - Luke 1:11-22 234 and for the beheading of his [the Baptist's] honorable head - Matthew 14:3-12 235. In addition to traditional interpretations, here St. Theodore also offers his own: justifying Zechariah from accusations of unbelief, the abbot writes: “... for it is implausible that he [Zechariah - K.V.], being a prophet and knowing the Divine, at the same time did not know that God can renew nature. Zechariah received a sign consistent with the matter: namely, the silence of the voice as evidence of the living and personal voice that was to be born to him” 236 - such a difference from the traditional interpretation 237 may indicate that for St. Theodore St. Tradition was not something frozen, but a deep existential experience of the experience of the Church. Here, for the Studio abbot, the holiness of John the Baptist is so high (the silence of Zechariah is its sign) that even a hint of the human weakness of the parents of the Forerunner cannot be in the miraculous circumstances of the birth of John. Quite remarkable is the parallelism drawn here between the birth of Christ and John the Baptist, the death of the Savior and the beheading of the Forerunner 238. I think that the convergence of these models of holiness (I note that John the Baptist has always been perceived in the Orthodox tradition as the patron saint of monastics) can be determined both by the soteriological views of the Studite abbot on monasticism (he was tonsured as one of the sacraments of the Church) 239 and by the increased authority of monasticism in Byzantine society as a whole 240 . Such close attention to St. John the Baptist on the part of St. Theodore can also be explained by the fact that the studio monastery was dedicated to the Forerunner from the day of its foundation 241. In addition, as already mentioned, the example of John the Baptist serves as a guide for Theodore to act in the “Michian” schisms. Also characteristic of the exegesis of St. Theodora elements of polemics, so the abbot uses the plot of the appearance of the angel Gabriel to Zechariah to prove the imageability of ethereal forces 242. This, in turn, indicates the understanding of the Studite abbot of Divine Revelation as the basis for the existence of icons. However, it is also worth noting that the elements of the exegesis of St. Fyodor is often found on the pages of the epistolary heritage of this saint. They serve both for the actual theological interpretation of certain passages of Holy Scripture (here the Abbot of Studia more often refers to his weakness and refers to the patristic tradition) 243 and for the description of the surrounding reality. For example, in one of the letters to St. Theodore writes: “...for, as you know, (now) a difficult night and deep darkness (σκότος βαθύ), much more destructive than the ninth plague of Egypt (πολὺ τῆς κατ Αἵγυπτον ἑνάτης πληγῆς ὁλεθριώτερον), (darkness), which leads to collision and disorder and darkens (ζοφοῦσα) not only the body, but, what is even more sad, the soul" 244 - here defined an allusion to (Exodus 10:21–23), while darkness obviously refers to the iconoclastic heresy. In another letter to Rev. Theodore compares deviation into heresy with an attack by a predatory beast (Gen.37:33) 245, and return from heresy with the resurrection of the four-day-old Lazarus (John 11:39–44) 246. I believe that such allusions are nothing more than a soteriological experience of the events of Holy Scripture in the context of what is happening. Thus, the analysis allows us to conclude that the Holy Scripture, in its Christocentric-soteriological content, occupied a central place in the doctrine of salvation of St. Theodore and was considered by the Studian abbot (in the context of the patristic tradition) as a guide to practical activity. In theological and personal understanding, for St. Theodore, Holy Tradition (and Holy Scripture as part of it), being a fixation of Divine Revelation, is experienced outside the temporal aspect and in relation to the surrounding reality. 1.3.2 Soteriological views of the previous ascetic tradition The monk often emphasizes his commitment to tradition, 247 and, therefore, it is natural to note the continuity in the soteriological views of the abbot from the holy fathers. Let us note that the most complete list of the holy fathers whose works guided St. Theodore in the reform of monasticism, cited by A.P. Dobroklonsky 248; at the same time, the scientist, based both on the words of the Abbot of Studium himself and on the frequency of references in his works, has a predominant influence on St. Theodora assimilates St. Basil the Great 249. N. Grossu thinks the same 250. However, J. Leroy, referring to the results of terminological analysis, argues that the actual influence of the works attributed to St. Basil the Great on Theodore's transformations is less significant than the works of Abba Dorotheus and St. Barsanuphius and John 251. Roman Choliy 252 adheres to the same opinion, following Leroy. We are inclined, following A.P. Dobroklonsky and N. Gross, trust more the testimony of the Venerable himself. Theodora 253. However, such conclusions of scientists suggest that St. Theodore, in the matter of transforming monasticism, did not have a specific set of rules and regulations for leadership. And while proclaiming the continuity of tradition, the Studian abbot approached its reproduction creatively and selectively. Hence, we believe that in order to clarify the reception of St. Theodore of the soteriological views of the patristic Tradition, it makes sense to turn to the origins of the monastic teaching about salvation, to the early ascetic tradition. According to the apt remark of Prof. MDA A.I. Sidorov: “The content of ancient monastic writing was determined mainly by the answers to the main question of Christian life: “How to be saved?” Anthropological, moral-ascetic and eschatological problems were concentrated around this central soteriological axis, the range of which was very wide, and the registers of sound were striking in their richness of shades” 254. Indeed, in the teachings of the ascetics of ancient monasticism we find an ardent desire to follow Christ the Savior, Who is “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:16). Yes, Rev. Anthony, having heard the Gospel call to follow Christ (Matthew 19:21; 6:34), hastens to fulfill the word of the Lord 255. By leaving the world and preferring the eternal to the transitory, 256 the monk thereby expressed his perfect love 257 for God the Word. “Whoever loves Me keeps My word” 258. In perfect love, St. Anthony to the Lord, his experience of knowing God and uniting with him is revealed 259. The monk instructs those who come to him to take the path of virtue 260, to be sober and to pray 261, for the sake of restoring the soul to its original state 262. St. Anthony, with his zeal for God, showed believers a “simple” example of following the path of salvation - complete determination in fulfilling the words of the Savior. Thus, the Word of God becomes the center of the spiritual life of the desert ascetics 263. The example of the monk is followed by many people seeking a saving path, saving truth and life in Christ 264. However, the life of St. Anthony not only provides an example of complete renunciation of the world, but also talks about such an important component of the monastic path to salvation as spiritual guidance 265. The latter, in turn, presupposes the existence of a special relationship between the teacher (elder) and the student - the monk’s complete obedience to his spiritual leader. This feat became dominant in communal monasteries, the founder of which was a contemporary of St. Anthony - St. Pachomius the Great. The latter, according to legend, when he was praying, wanting to be taught “the perfect will of God” (Rom. 12:2), there was a revelation from an angel: “The will of God is to serve the human race, in order to reconcile (people) with Him” 266. Thus, knowledge of the will of God revealed St. Pachomius the perfect path to salvation, namely: imitation of Christ. According to the word of the Gospel: “Whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave; for the Son of Man did not come [to] be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:27-28). Tradition has preserved the rules of the Pachomius monasteries, which regulate the order of monastic life in Cenobia. According to these rules, those who wish to join the brethren must show firmness in renouncing the world, begin to memorize the Holy Scriptures, learn the rules of the monastery and become accustomed to obedience 267 . In these conditions, for those wishing to enter the monastery, it is seen as a unity of views of St. Anthony and etc. Pachomius on the path of following Christ - renunciation of the world, knowledge of the Word of God, spiritual guidance, and the difference - in St. Pachomius emphasized obedience and service to others 268. Such unity and diversity in the teachings of the holy ascetics can probably be explained by the special action of the Holy Spirit. “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are diversities of services, but the same Lord” (1 Cor. 12:4–5). Abundantly grace-filled gifts also manifested themselves on the Keliot ascetics. Here it is worth mentioning such profound theologians as St. Macarius of Egypt, etc. Arseny the Great. Their personal example and works 269 had a significant influence on the development of monastic teaching about salvation. In the works of Rev. Macarius, as researchers note, received a profound exposition of the following soteriological ideas of monastic asceticism: deification 270, the action of grace, the “synergy” of God and man in the matter of spiritual success 271, restoration of the “pure nature of man,” virtue as a source of “insatiable” knowledge of God, the fight against passions and silence 272. The idea of ​​the need for the ascetic to keep “hesychia” is emphasized in the letter of St. Arseny the Great 273. It is worth noting that monasticism was not a foreign phenomenon for the Church, 274 it was a natural manifestation of the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit, which was reflected in the calling of the faithful to a special way of life - the fulfillment of the Gospel ideal (“whoever can accommodate, let him accommodate”). The basis for this way of life is rooted in St. Scripture (renunciation of the world (1 John 2:15–16), following Christ (Matthew 16:24), striving for Christian perfection, “likeness” (Matthew 5:48; 1 John 1:7), virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 19:12) 275, as well as in the Holy Tradition (martyrdom as evidence of Christian love and faith, evidence of the truth of the Gospel of one’s own life as bloodless martyrdom) 276. However, specific representatives of the monastic way of life did not always consider it necessary to regulate their lives in accordance with Church requirements 277. And in this regard, it is worth noting the significant influence that St. Basil the Great had on monasticism. So honored prof. MDA K.E. Skurat notes: “The merit of the Cappadocians was the sanctification of monasticism. St. Basil the Great, by developing rules and rules of life, was able to include the monastic movement into the general mainstream of church life, without taking away, and even consolidating, the special, ascetic vocation of individual members of the Holy Church” 278. Let us note the following soteriological ideas in the asceticism of the Great Cappadocian: the testimony of faith 279, the crusading life of monks 280, the imitation of angelic perfection 281, the need for the “royal path,” i.e., proportionality in monastic feat 282, the basis of community life in the Eucharistic connection of members and their subordination to the Head 283. From the latter follows the need for monks to participate in the Sacrament of the Eucharist 284 and, accordingly, in church life. However, if Basil the Great only strives to introduce monasticism into the mainstream of church life, then with the spread of the Areopagite Corpus, tonsure is already perceived as a sacrament (μυστήριον μοναχικῆς τελειώσεως) 285, along with baptism and communion. The author of the Areopagitik calls the monastic order “God-loving perfection” (φιλόθεον τελείωσιν), in which there is special care, concern for God and an indivisible, integral life 286. Ascetic monastic work, as a necessary guide to salvation, finds a fairly complete exposition in the works of St. Dorotheus of Gaza and St. John of Sinai 287. These fathers, having absorbed the experience of the previous monastic tradition, set out the order and rules of the struggle with passions, growth in virtue, as the path to Christian perfection; Moreover, their manuals are equally acceptable among especial monasticism and among cenobial monasticism. Thus, by the time of St. Theodore, in the patristic tradition, developed a view of monasticism as a special path to salvation, the path of perfect knowledge of God, unity with Him. At the same time, tradition conveyed the difference in forms of asceticism (anchorite, celiot, community life), and the difference in rules (statutes, traditions), and many authoritative guidelines for monastic life. St. Theodore absorbs this patristic experience of “monastic soteriology” and, refracting it through his own view of the doctrine of salvation, assimilates it to the Studite community. From the above we can conclude that soteriological ideas in church tradition, St. Theodore understood them as timeless values; values ​​are eternal, but not frozen, but dynamic, revealing themselves in the experience of their embodiment. Hence, the Abbot of Studium, on the one hand, demands the exact fulfillment of commandments and rules, and on the other, an emphasis on individual soteriological ideas of monastic feat. Summarizing the material presented, we note that the soteriological views of St. Theodore was formed under the influence of people close to him. From his mother Theoktista, the monk receives an ardent zeal for the fulfillment of evangelical ideals, from his father Photin - concern for the “external world” and the desire for its transformation, from his uncle and confessor Plato - a thirst for communion with God. St. Theodore deeply absorbs the soteriological ideas of the apostolic, patristic tradition and, refracting through his own experience, forms his teaching about salvation. 2. Soteriological views of St. Theodora Studita 2.1 The objective side of the doctrine of salvation by St. Theodora In his word on Easter, St. Theodore, talking about the Hero of the occasion and His Economy of our salvation, notes: “But so that it does not seem that, by saying a lot, we are lengthening the word, let’s move on to the most important thing. So, finally, the King of Glory was led to the Cross and death (ἐπί τὸν σταυρὸν καὶ θάνατον ὁ τῆς δὁξης βασιλεὺς) Glorified (ἁνυμνούμενος) by the Cherubim and Seraphim, and Worshiped (προσκυνούμενος) by all the Powers and Angels” 288. From here, it is clear that the main event in the Economy of our salvation, for the Abbot of Studium, is the death on the cross of the Son of God. Below prp. Theodore instructs the brethren: “So, if any of the infidels tells you: why was Christ crucified (Διά τί ἑσταυρώθη), tell him...” 289. Obviously, it was important for the Abbot of Studium that every monk clearly understand the meaning of the Savior’s death on the cross. Let us try to consider the answer to this question in the theology of the Abbot of Studium. 2.1.1 The need for human salvation According to the word of St. Theodora, the Lord at the beginning brought us from non-existence to being (ἑκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἱς τὸ εἶναι παρήγαγεν) 290, we are the work of His hands, creatures in the image and likeness of the Creator 291. Moreover, the image (εἱκών) and likeness (ὁμοίωμα) for St. Theodore, apparently, is a phenomenon of the same order; Thus speaking about the image of Christ, he cites the verse (Gen. 1:26) and writes that the expression (ὁμοίωμα) is interchangeable, although imprecise in meaning, with the word (εἱκών) 292. For Rev. Theodora, the “immortal soul” 293 is the bearer of the divine image and likeness in man. About this, in one of his teachings, the abbot of Studium writes the following: “Who is worthy to enter into this joy [the state of the future century - K.V.]? Who else if not the one who has a pure and immaculate life? For God, being pure, it is better to say, being the Highest Light, will accept the pure to Himself, and putting a pure soul in us, and will demand it from us pure. For if she was created in the image and likeness of God, then it is clear that, being a reflection of Divine beauty, she herself participates in this beauty” 294. From this we can conclude that for St. Theodore, the “image and likeness” in the human soul is both a gift from God (purity, the ability to participate in divine beauty 295) and a task (due to the Fall) - a deposit that will need to be returned through diligence 296. Explaining the purpose of the creation of man, the monk says: “For the purpose of serving, like the Angels, for the glory of His power by observing His commandments in everything, for we, as it is said again, are only a little lower than the Angels (Ps. 8:6), and when over time, having thrown off corruption, we move into incorruption, we will not be diminished in anything.” 297 From this it is clear that for St. Theodore, the most essential thing in man’s destiny is to imitate the angelic life, for more perfect service, “pleasing” 298 God. That is, a more perfect manifestation of one’s love for the Creator 299. God placed the forefather Adam in paradise, where he gave him the commandment about not eating the forbidden fruit, thanks to the fulfillment of which, the first man enjoyed heavenly contemplations, incorruptible food 300, was endowed with incorruptibility 301 and immortality (by grace) 302, rejoiced and had fun, filled with divine instructions and insights 303, was a beloved creature 304, the fragrance of God 305. It is obvious that for St. Theodora, when describing the blessed life of the progenitor, the essential thing is the value of man in the eyes of the Creator, who endows Adam and Eve with various gifts, being in communication with them, and the latter serves the first people as a source of joy and joy. However, Adam, through the deception of the devil 306, departed from the commandment and was expelled from Paradise for disobedience 307. At the same time, according to the word of St. Theodore, the consequence of the fall of our ancestors was: 1) enmity with the Father and God, which was established thanks to the sins and recklessness of the forefather 308. Holy Scripture also defines the state of man after the Fall as a state of enmity against God (Rom. 5:10), and God towards man as anger (Eph. 2:3). However, under the enmity of St. Theodore understands not the mutual hostility of God and man, but the change in man’s attitude towards God, the change in the vector of love. So he writes: “... let us not love the present age, so as not to enter into enmity with God. For it is written: “Whoever desires to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God (James 4:4)” 309. Such a reading - understanding enmity as betrayal in love, shows that the relationship between God and man, for St. Theodora, there is a relationship of connection between two loving persons 310, and enmity is the destruction of this connection. However, at the same time, when describing the change in the relationship between God and man, the saint often uses legal terminology: “God condemned our nature to decay and sorrow” 311, “we were justly betrayed to this long-suffering and changeable life” 312, “at the place of exile, in the darkest dwelling for insulting the good Lord” 313. This may be a consequence of both the traditional borrowing of legal images from Holy Scripture 314 and a rhetorical device used to enhance the effect of the inevitability of the Last Judgment 315. 2) slavery – to the devil 316, sin 317, corruption 318. So the monk says to the brethren: “Through the crime of Adam we were enslaved to the devil; death reigned over us, sold to sin, made guilty of corruption and captive by it” 319. From this it is clear that people, through the crime of Adam, fell under the power of certain forces, while in a state of slavery or complete subordination, man found himself with the devil, sin (sold to him) and corruption (state of captivity). Since slavery is a state of oppressed will, and will is an attribute of nature, here we are talking about violence against human nature, a distorted image of its existence. St. Theodore, describing the state of human nature, says: “...our nature is damaged by sin.” 320. That is, there is a state of some kind of damage. In another announcement, the abbot explains what this corruption consists of: “... due to the crime (committed) in Adam, our nature became very sick with the love of pleasure” 321. From this it is clear that corruption has the character of a painful state and is expressed in a craving for pleasure. What this craving for pleasure consists of becomes clear from the following words: “.He [i.e. e. The Lord - K.V.] saw the tendency towards sin of our nature, which does not have stability even for one day...” 322 Thus, the craving for pleasure is nothing more than a tendency to sin. About this, in another announcement, the monk says: “Our nature is negligent and prone to fall...” 323 Characterizing such inconstancy, St. Theodore admits: “...we are changeable by nature itself...” 324 From here we can conclude that the distortion of human nature lies in its inconstancy in good 325 (to which it must strive according to its destiny from creation), variability, inability to resist falling, in the habit of sin. Apparently, it is precisely this variability, on which human nature is constantly dependent, St. Theodore calls corruption: “By the crime of Adam... those who became guilty of corruption and captured by it” 326. At the same time, through the fall of man, all creation fell under the power of corruption, as destructive variability. So Rev. Theodore, calling on the brethren to reflect on the coming Last Judgment, quotes the words of the apostle: “... for the creation itself will be freed from the work of corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21). Do you see that, according to the promise, everything will be changed into incorruption and the creation will be translated from slavery into freedom?” 327. From these words it is clear that for the monk the state of slavery to corruption has a universal character and the salvation of creation from this state directly depends on the salvation of man. Hence, decay, as a destructive change, has two plans of action: the first is human nature and the second (derived from the first) is creation as a whole. Thus, we can conclude that slavery, as a consequence of the Fall, is characterized by a deep defeat of human nature (painful corruption). This damage, disease, in turn, is a closed process with positive feedback: sinful damage (from Adam’s crime) – disease of the will (negligence, instability in goodness) – sinful damage (crimes of Adam’s descendants). In this process, the devil, sin, and corruption are consistent causes that shape it and do not allow it to stop. 3) death 328. This is another terrible consequence of the Fall, which through man spread (reigned) 329 in the universe. St. Theodore asks the brethren about this: “Or do you not know what sin has done? Didn't he introduce death into the world? Was it not he who corrupted the earth? Was it not he who filled the universe with cemeteries and tombs from centuries to the present? For man was incorruptible to the point of crime...” 330. From these words of the monk, the fatal essence of this phenomenon is clear: totality (the universe) and inevitability (from the century to the present). At the same time, the last words (“For man was incorruptible before his crime…”), I think, reflect the correlation between the concepts of death and corruption. Apparently, here we are talking about a double understanding of such a phenomenon as death; here, for a person, death is not only a “sacrament” 331 of separation of the soul from the body, but also a state of the soul, which the monk characterizes as a disease and calls sinful death 332. Here the correlation is expressed in the fact that decay is a process of destruction, and death is a certain stage of this process. 4) expulsion from Paradise. So Rev. Theodore laments: “Where are we now? In the place of exile, in the darkest dwelling, and this is due to the recklessness, disobedience and voluptuousness of our ancestor...” 333. Let us note that for the Abbot of Studium, the life of people, after the Fall, away from God, is life in darkness. In another announcement, the monk defines this life as a place of special punishment: “Here we are as if in exile...” 334. However, apparently, for St. Theodora's punishment is not intended to be torture. So he says: “...God who created us. placed us in this life, as it were, in a school, so that we could learn the Gospel...” 335. From these words of the monk it follows that the purpose of the exile, darkened by the sin of the ancestor, was to guide man on the path of knowing God. Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that due to the fall of the ancestors, their falling away from God, the creation began to need salvation - restoration to its original state 336, the state of mutual love of God and man; in the return of human nature to a holistic state: free from slavery (to the devil, sin, corruption) and inevitable death; in returning to the Paradise state of direct knowledge of God. 2.1.2 The Coming of the Savior However, God did not leave his creation in such a deplorable state and revealed, according to the word of Holy Scripture, the economy of the mystery hidden from eternity in God (Eph. 3:9). St. Theodore, empathizing with the Gospel, more than once dwells in his teachings on the moment of the appearance of the Savior in the world, so in one place the abbot says: “... without despising His perishing creation, He determined, according to His rich and infinite goodness, to come and save us in the form of extreme and inexpressible humility.” 337 Here it is clear that the monk, in the appearance of the Savior, especially highlights two aspects: 1) the reason for the Incarnation - the Creator’s love for man, elevating man before God (“without despising the perishing creature”, “according to his rich and infinite goodness”); 2) the method of the Incarnation – the humility of the Creator before creation, bringing God down before man (“in the form of extreme and inexpressible humility”). Paying attention to the first aspect, Rev. Theodore writes: “Since we neglected the holy commandment given to us in paradise, we were rightly betrayed to this long-suffering and changeable life. For her sake, the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ took place, returning us to our original state...” 338. Let us note here that, apparently, for St. Theodora, it was the Fall of man, as a distortion of the Divine plan (hence the “return of us to our original state”), that became the basis for the Incarnation. And this view of the cause of the Incarnation is generally characteristic of the patristic tradition 339 . However, for the Studio abbot, the main thing in the act of Incarnation is not the coming of Christ as the Restorer of the Divine law violated by man, but the personal relationship of the Creator to His creation revealed by the Lord. St. Theodore writes: “He [i.e. e. Lord - K. V.] loves us sinners so much that he came from the bosom of his father, bowed to the heavens, humbly descended to us and became a man... he deigned to become a baby, enriching everything - born from an ignorant mother...” 340. From this it is clear that it is the love (“he loves us so much that...”) of God and His humility (“deigned to become a baby,” “born of an ignorant mother”), in terms of Housekeeping, especially amazes the Abbot of Studium. However, here, not only the Creator reveals Himself as Love, but also the value of man is shown, for the sake of whose salvation God is belittled: “...He became poor for our sake...” 341. Kenosis and the love of the Lord, uplifting creation, evoke the deepest heartfelt response in the monk. So, filled with gratitude, St. Theodore appeals to the brethren: “... let us love Him because for our sake He became a man, became the same as us, except for sin... having saved His beloved creation” 342. Here, the call to “love the Beloved” reveals in the abbot not only the presence of feelings of amazement (“he became servile to us”) and gratitude (“for the fact that He is for us”), but also the desire to imitate in love. St. Petersburg pays no less attention. Theodore and the way in which the Savior came into the world, finding in it much worthy of admiration and teaching. Thus, considering virtue, the monk proclaims: “...virginity produced the Life of all. Virginity is the bride and mistress of Christ" 343. Here, Rev. Theodore, praising the virtue of virginity, shows its closest relationship with God; speaks of virtue as the cause of the Incarnation. We believe that such praise was intended to indicate to the brethren the possibility, through virtue, of receiving a Divine visitation. In another catechumen, the monk says: “Virginity was honored to be the mother of Christ” 344. Thus, praising virginity, the abbot exalts the Mother of God as the fullness of this virtue. Hence, often, St. Theodore, narrating the birth of the Savior, simply calls His mother “Virgin”. So, for example, the abbot tells the brethren: “... through the birth of the Virgin [the Son of God - K.V.] descends, personally (προσώπῳ) appearing to us” 345. I believe that the last words (“appearing to us in person”) indicate that for St. For Theodore, it is important to note the appearance of the second hypostasis in the birth of the Savior from the Virgin. The Son of the Virgin is the Son of God. Thus, in another catechumen, the abbot says: “... the Son of God becomes the son of man, having chosen the Holy Virgin, dwelling in Her, building a church for Himself from Her and becoming fully human” 346. The fact that the monk puts emphasis on the incarnation of the Son of God (“becoming the son of man,” “having become fully human”), I think, indicates the abbot’s attention to the fullness of God’s perception of human nature. Addressing the brethren, Rev. Theodore notes: “The All-Good One came to us through a virgin birth, enslaved to the corresponding laws of nature...” 347. Or in another teaching: “...He [Christ – K.V.] put on our nature, damaged by sin, accepted our illnesses, and bore our illnesses (Matthew 8:17) ..." 348. Here, the abbot of Studio characterizes the corruption of human nature perceived by Christ as a painful condition that the Savior is called to heal; This is indicated by a reminiscence from the Gospel. At the same time, for Rev. Theodora, the fullness of the perception of human nature by the Son of God reveals the depth of the Creator’s humility (giving Himself into slavery to the laws of nature) and His love (clothing itself in our illnesses). This humility of the Savior, for the abbot, is an example of the glory and omnipotence of God. Thus, the monk reasons: “What is the divine and true glory? Only in dishonor before men for the sake of God...for my Savior and God chose the humble and humiliated to put to shame the glorious and rich among men. Therefore, He was born in a den, was laid in a manger, was called the son of a carpenter, was called a Nazarene...” 349. Thus, the Lord, through “the humble and the humble,” re-evaluates human life goals. In addition, Rev. Theodore finds a deep instructive meaning in this: “... from what height of Divinity and to what degree of humility He brought Himself down! For, being God and Lord of all, He took on the form of a servant (Phil. 2:7); having been born from the Most Holy Theotokos, he was swaddled like a child, he was breastfed like a baby, and all this in a wretched and meager environment... All this... was for our sake, so that we would imitate Him as much as possible. So, just as He, incorporeal, born of the Father before the ages, was finally born in the flesh from the Holy Virgin, so we also need to be born first bodily, and then spiritually...” 350. We believe here, speaking about the imitation of Christ, the abbot points the brethren to the path of deification opposite to the Incarnation, namely: just as the Savior “before the age” had a spiritual birth from God, and then in time from man, so those who listen, having a human birth in time, must, as far as possible, be born according to God (i.e. spiritually) into eternity, and be made worthy of sonship with God. The fact that there is a spiritual birth can be understood from the following words of the abbot: “Therefore, children, we must be infants and imitate the simple-heartedness of children, so that if, when we are angry, offended, insulted, we do not immediately become fierce... for this would mean that we have not yet been born according to Christ...” 351. That is, to be born according to Christ means to be born to dispassion. And spiritual birth itself is not a one-time act, but a state of continuous exercise in humility and love. Thus, from the teachings of St. Theodore on the Incarnation, we believe, we can conclude about the main soteriological significance of this event for the Studite abbot: the humility and love of the Savior, which brings God down to man, through the imitation of Christ in humility and love, raises man to God. 2.1.3 The mystery of Christ's suffering The most detailed information about the meaning of the suffering of Christ is St. Theodore stops in his “Word for Easter”, where, following the cited Word of St. John Chrysostom (which primarily glorifies the significance of the fact of the resurrection of Christ), dwells in detail on the image of the humble life and death of the Savior. At the same time, Rev. Theodore singles out the Savior's suffering on the cross. So the saint writes: “But so that it does not seem that by saying a lot we are lengthening the word, let us move on to the most important thing. So, finally, the King of Glory was led to the Cross and death, and was nailed to the Tree, Glorified by both Cherubim and Seraphim...” 352. Here the contrasts immediately catch the eye: the shameful death of the “King of Glory”, the nailing to the tree of the One Glorified by the Ethereal. Apparently, if the Easter eulogy of St. John as an introduction had the goal of revealing the glory of the revealed triumph from the triumphs, then it is important for Theodore to show this glory even in the hidden, in the dishonor of the Cross. Moreover, the fact that the abbot first describes the image of the Savior’s humble life, and then only says: “let’s move on to the most important thing,” I think may reflect the understanding of the saint. Theodore throughout the life of the Savior, as the path to Golgotha. We believe that this compositional structure of the “Word for Easter” shows that for Theodore, all the events of the life of Christ have a single timeless and saving meaning, but their main meaning is revealed on Calvary. It is here that the restoration of the relationship between God and man, destroyed by the Fall, takes place. The destruction of God's "enmity" towards man. St. Theodore says: “... one sacrifice of Christ, made by Him on the Tree of the Cross, tames the wrath of God against the universe; for here He truly became like the great Phinehas (zealot) [here is a reminiscence from the book of Numbers: Num. 25:6-13 - K.V.] 353, and he propitiated (God) for us, and through this the disaster ceased” 354. Here, the comparison of Christ and Phinehas may indicate the essence of the propitiatory sacrifice - the strongest love for God (zeal for God). One who is overwhelmed by this feeling strives to restore the broken relationship of mutual love (man and God) and destroy the reasons for the rupture of such relationships. For both Adam and the people of Israel, during the time of Phinehas, the reason for moving away from God was disobedience. The latter was corrected by Christ by His obedience, as the abbot of Studium proclaims to his brethren: “The Only Begotten Son of God Himself completed the Economy of the salvation of the world, being obedient even to the point of death, death on the cross” (Phil. 2:8)” 355. By this the Lord, according to the word of St. Theodora, accomplished the work of obedience to the Father: “... he completed the work that you gave to me, that I might do it (John 17:4), that is, reconciling the heavenly and earthly, making us ourselves sons of peace (εἰρήνης) and love (ἀγάπης)” 356. About how Christ transformed us into “sons of peace and love,” the abbot in another catechumen says the following: “...we will no longer be under a curse: Christ washed us in His blood with the bath of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5) ... He, perhaps, will tell us the following: I have made you fellow bodies (συσσώμους) and conformed (συμμόρφους) to myself... washed you from your sins... abundantly filled you with intelligent light through the Holy Spirit... made you joint heirs of eternal blessings..." 357. Having made a propitiatory sacrifice on the cross, Christ made us “common and like Himself” through the fact that He washed us in His blood (and thereby shared His blood), thereby cleansing us from our sins. Hence, I believe that the purpose of the Lord’s propitiatory sacrifice for St. Theodore, is the salvation of people through the participation of man (“cocorporation”, “conformity”, “co-inheritance”) to the humanity of God; which, in turn, reflects the continuity of the traditional patristic understanding of the meaning of Christ’s sacrifice 358. About the consequences of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, the monk says the following: “Therefore, since the Only Begotten Son of God was sent by the Father into the world as a propitiatory sacrifice (ἰλασμὸς), then we, the blind, will again receive sight, the captives will be liberated, the contrite will receive joy. But who is blind? Who is blinded by addiction. Who is the prisoner? One who is led astray by evil thoughts. Who is broken? One who is burdened with sins. The Lord heals such people. For He is a physician (ἰατρός) not only of bodies, but also of souls..." 359. From this it is clear that the most important consequence of the restored relationship between man and God (due to the Savior’s propitiatory sacrifice) for people was the possibility of deliverance (healing) from their sins and sinful inclinations. St. Theodore, speaking about what Christ delivered people from on the cross, uses such expressions as: liberation, ransom, healing. We believe that here we are talking specifically about getting rid of the state of slavery. Thus, the monk more than once mentions deliverance from the violent power of the devil: “He [i.e. e. The Lord - K.V.] and now saved us who were lost, revived the dead and delivered us from the tyranny (τυραννίδος) of the devil” 360. From this it is clear that the power of the devil is absolute over those “dead” by sin. About how Christ destroyed the power of demons, the abbot announces to the brethren the following: “So, firstly, Christ accepted the crucifixion and elevation into the air in order to put the air demons to flight...” 361. Here the monk, following the patristic tradition, points to airspace as the habitat of demons. Most likely, we are talking about the space above the earth itself, that is, the world of people 362. More Rev. Theodore instructs the brethren: “So, if any of the infidels tells you: why was Christ crucified, tell him: to crucify the devil. If an infidel asks you why (Christ) drank bile and vinegar, then answer him: so that we spew out the deadly poison of the dragon, for that bile became my sweetness (γλύκασμα), and that vinegar became my sweetness and medicine (ἵαμα)” 363. We believe that this says that Christ, by His crucifixion and suffering, delivered us from the cause of the disease of sin - the devil and his poison in human nature. The crucifixion of the devil, as the cause of human suffering and death, correlates with the perception of St. Theodore patristic interpretation of the place from Holy Scripture, where Moses lifts up the serpent in the desert 364. Let us also note that it is through the suffering of the Savior (bile, vinegar - sweetness, medicine) that a person receives healing from wounds inflicted by the power of the devil. St. Theodore also mentions that Christ delivered us on the cross from the slavery of sin: “He [i.e. e. The Lord - K.V.] made us free, slaves of sin...” 365. Explaining the words of the apostle, the monk tells the brethren how this happened: “For he who knew no sin, made sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). Why and how? It is not about condemned sin [i.e. e. Apostle - K.V.] says, let it not be! For He [i.e. e. Lord - K.V.] commit no sin, lest flattery be found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22). But the fact that He took on our nature, damaged by sin (ἁμαρτίας φθαρεῖσαν), accepted our ailments, and bore our illnesses (Matthew 8:17), that He was crucified for us and suffered the most shameful death. This means: commit sin for us. For what? May we be God's righteousness in Him (2 Cor. 5:21). How? Freed from the sin of the condemned (διαβεβλημένης ἁμαρτίας), and living and moving in Him” 366. From these words it follows that the Lord, having no personal sins (the sin of the condemned), accepts our nature damaged by sin and is crucified for us; Thus, by healing our nature, Christ gives us the opportunity to free ourselves from personal sins, through the communion of life in Christ. About the healing of nature damaged by sin on the cross, St. Theodore also mentions the following: “...was hanged on a tree in order to heal sin (ἁμαρτίαν ἰάσηται), which in ancient times arose in people through the tree; was pierced and with a spear in the rib, for the sake of Adam’s wife taken from the rib. and the sacrament of Baptism was announced, and future grace shone forth. Blood and water flowed from the side of Christ in order to destroy the handwriting of sin that was against us (Col. 2:14), and so that we would be cleansed by the blood of Him (the Lord) and receive paradise” 367. From this it is clear that on the cross the Lord, through His suffering (“hanged on a tree,” “pierced and with a spear in the side”), healed original sin (“in ancient times arose in people through the tree”) 368. And with His flowing blood and water He introduced us to this healing (cleansing). An example of the latter was given right there at the cross: “The thief repented; water was needed for baptism... Since the thief could not enter heaven without baptism, the Savior issued blood and water from His pierced rib in order to free the thief himself from the evils that threatened him and to make His blood a ransom for those who put their hope in Him (the Savior)” 369. The last words are noteworthy here (“to make His blood a ransom for those who put their hope in Him”), from which it follows that the suffering of Christ is a deliverance (“ransom”) only for those who recognize the Crucified Savior (“put their hope in Him”). That is, we are talking not only about the free acceptance by people of the fruits of the redemptive feat of Christ, but also about a certain condition necessary for a person to do this - the confession of Christ crucified by God as the One who saves. Having destroyed the power of sin on the cross, the Lord also defeated its offspring - death. So Rev. Theodore says: “All these reproaches and torments He [i.e. e. Christ - K.V.] endured not because He himself needed them - He, like man, was sinless - but in order to deliver us from the dominion of sin, through which death entered the world...” 370. From these words it is clear that Christ voluntarily, out of love for people, endures torment, destroying not only the violence of sin in human nature, but also its creation - death. To destroy the latter, the Son of God dies (“...he dies – immortal” 371) on the cross from suffering. St. Theodore, amazed at the incomprehensibility of this sacrament, speaks of this: “For this, the Author of life suffered in the flesh, for this, the Source of incorruptibility was buried, in order to give eternal life to mortals” 372. Here it is worth paying attention to the fact that through the death of the Son of God (“Author of life”, “Source of incorruption”) both death is destroyed (life is given to “mortals”), and corruption itself, as a process of disastrous variability (they gain “eternal life”). In addition, on the Cross, the Lord not only heals human nature in Himself, but also elevates it to a higher rank. “And then came the Only Begotten Son of God, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, who not only snatched us from the power of death, but also, having washed us from our sins with His blood, made us kings and priests to His God and Father (Rev. 1:5-6) as it is written” 373. That is, Christ, through cleansing by His blood, elevates a person to royal and priestly dignity, which He Himself possesses “according to the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 5:5–6). In another announcement by St. Theodore, explaining this sacrament of God's Economy, says to the brethren: “... The Son of God becomes the son of man... For what? Let him redeem those under the law, as it is written, so that we may receive sonship (Gal. 4:5), so that we may no longer be slaves, but free, no longer passionate, but dispassionate, no longer love the world, but love God, walk no longer in the flesh, but in the Spirit.”374 From this it is clear that the Son of God took on human nature in order to save people from a disastrous state and bestow a new way of being. Having granted freedom to the human race, Christ opened the opportunity for it to live with God, to live in dispassion, to live according to the spirit, to abide in love for the Creator. Thus, from the above we can conclude that according to the teachings of St. Theodora, Christ on the cross revealed the mystery of our salvation, namely: the Son of God, by His obedience, restored man’s broken relationship with God, by His suffering healed human nature from slavery to the devil, sin, and corruption, and by His death destroyed the universal law of death and corruption. Christ went to death on the cross voluntarily, out of love for people. Through the feat of the Son of God, man received freedom, a new way of being. 2.1.4. The saving significance of the resurrection of Christ Revealing the hidden meaning of the humiliation, suffering on the cross and death of Christ, the Monk Theodore does not forget about the day of glory of the Son of God, which crowns the feat of the Savior. Thus, the abbot of Studium, explaining the meaning of the Resurrection of Christ, says to the brethren: “After all, on this day our Lord Jesus Christ raised us up, defeated by sin; On this day He brought us to life, dead through sins and the uncircumcision of our flesh; on this day He again opened the doors of paradise for us to partake of the tree of life, which is His life-giving Body and Blood; on this day, as freed from death, we can say...From what and to what did He lead us? From death to life, from darkness to light, from slavery to freedom, from enmity to sincere fellowship, and so much so that he made us conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29)” 375. From this it is clear that for St. Theodora, Easter is inextricably linked with the suffering of Christ on the cross and is the revelation of all the meanings of the Savior’s humiliating death - God’s love for man. At the same time, Easter, as a triumph of joy and love, according to the word of St. Theodora, has a timeless dimension: “For although this Easter is important and sacred, it is, as our fathers teach, an image of that Easter. For this Passover occurs for one day and passes away; the same - continuous Easter... There is joy, joy and eternal triumph; there is the noise of those celebrating, the chorus of praise and the contemplation of eternal light, where the blissful food of Christ is, where there is a meal filled with eternal blessings, and new drink...” 376. From this it is clear that the true meaning of the joy and triumph of Easter of eternity (“where... where...”) is unity with God. Incorporation into such a celebration of Easter, for St. Theodora, is an image of the highest life. Thus, the abbot says: “But, having risen and raised up the whole world, He [i.e. e. Lord - K. V.] and lifts us up to a higher life and teaches us, through the enlightenment of the heart, to love His compassion” 377. We believe that here the monk points to the unity of Easter and the Cross (exaltation and compassion), joy and pain, glory and humiliation - where one is known in the other. At the same time, the abbot invites the brethren to join in the celebration of Easter, in its timeless aspect - the highest life, every day. This is evident from the following words of the monk: “...Easter, celebrated daily. Which one is it? Cleansing of sins, contrition of the heart, tears of compunction, purity of conscience, mortification of the evils of fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil lust and every other active vice that exists on earth” 378. I think that here, by Easter, celebrated daily, we mean the struggle for the transformation of man, man’s participation in the feat of Christ on the cross (“to love His compassion”). Thus, from the above we can conclude that for St. Theodora, the events of the Resurrection of Christ are inextricably linked with the suffering of the Savior on the cross and are a manifestation of God’s love for man. At the same time, Easter is a celebration that occurs both in time and outside of it: this is, in fact, the resurrection of Jesus (“on this day our Lord Jesus Christ united us”), and the remembrance of Easter according to the church calendar (“this Easter happens for one day and passes”), and the continuous Easter of the Eucharist (“where Christ is blessed”), this is the Easter of asceticism, performed daily by the ascetic. However, all these celebrations have a single saving meaning - communion with God. And this is an eternal triumph, a great gift from the Creator. So, according to the word of St. Theodora: “...Easter is the first and greatest gift of the Divine economy...” 379. That is, the Resurrection of Christ is the main act of God’s love for man in the matter of saving the world. 2.1.5. Ascension as the completion of the saving work of the God-man The Resurrection of Christ is the greatest gift of Divine economy and its concentration, the completion of the work of human salvation, according to the word of St. Theodore, there was the ascension of the Savior. Thus, the abbot of Studi, explaining the meaning of the holiday, says to the brethren: “Now is the Ascension, and this holiday is the completion of the House of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For having accomplished everything, He, according to the will of the Father, ascended in glory (1 Tim. 3:16) and raised us up and seated us in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6) through His holy flesh... Thinking about this... let us honor the greatness of the gift and let us live worthy of our Head, as members of Christ, as fellow members of the body (σύσσωμοι) and partners (συμμέτοχοι) and co-heirs (συγκληρονόμοι) His..." 380. Here the monk notes that the completion of the economy was the elevation of human nature to participation in the Divine Glory. At the same time, from the words of the Abbot of Studium one can understand how this happens - through human participation in the Body of Christ. This reveals the Eucharistic meaning of the Ascension of Christ. Hence it is not surprising that the exaltation of human nature by St. Theodore calls it a sacrament: “... the ascension of our Savior Jesus Christ is for us a holiday of holidays and a great and supernatural sacrament; for our nature rises beyond the bounds of heaven. So, do you see to what height of glory has human nature been raised? Is it not from earth to heaven? Is it not from corruption to incorruption... We... however, are not only reconciled with God and the Father through our Lord Jesus Christ, but also exalted to sonship (υἴότητα).). And now our nature is in heaven, worshiped by every visible and invisible creature” 381. From these words it is clear that the main consequence of the sacrament of the Ascension of Christ is the adoption of man by God, the state of deification (“our nature...worshipped from every visible and invisible creature”). Thus, with the ascension of the Son of God, according to the word of the abbot of Studium, the result of the completion of the economy of our Lord Jesus Christ was the deification of human nature, the adoption of man by God, participation in the Divine Glory. 2.1.6. Participation of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of man The Son of God ascends to heaven to send the Comforter. About this Rev. Theodore, admiring, says the following: “Oh, what a promise and honor this is! [The Lord – K.V.] promised to send not an Angel, not a man, but the co-natural Spirit Himself. So, the Only Begotten Son, having completed his father’s work, ascends to heaven; the Holy Spirit descends, let there not be another God! - but another Comforter (John 14:16), as it is written, and - oh, inexpressible love for mankind! “God Himself is our comforter, and He encourages the dejected and tormented soul not to lose heart in misfortunes... He calls the hating mind to live in peace and silence...” 382. From this it is clear that the consequence of the completion of the House of Our Lord Jesus Christ was the possibility of the closest communication of the human soul with the Holy Spirit (“peace and silence”). Man has already received in this life, in communion with God, the image of Paradise existence. St. Theodore, describing such a way of life, says, addressing the brethren: “Could anything be more blessed - not only in relation to the future age, but also to the present - than to be free from indecent lusts and to be governed not by the flesh, but to be led by the [Holy] Spirit? This is bliss; this is happiness; this is angelic citizenship (πολιτεία)" 383. From these words it is clear that “being led by the Spirit” is a state of angelic life, a state of the future age, accessible to mortals. Thus, by the appearance of the Comforter, people received a Guide to salvation; with Him, such a consequence of the Fall as expulsion from Paradise becomes irrelevant, since man has already acquired in this life the opportunity to remain in a state of heavenly communion with God. Entry into this state of communion with God is carried out through communion with the Body of Christ, which is the Church (Col. 1:24), through church sacraments. So Rev. Theodore writes: “...if I am not initiated into the sacraments, then it is impossible for me to receive salvation without being baptized” 384. What this church sacrament saves from is evident from the following words of the abbot: “...we renounced the first and bitter taste and disobedience, which made us exiles, we left the reasons for our wretched existence - first in the baptism of water and the Spirit, and then, according to God’s love for mankind, in the second baptism of repentance and renunciation, and your promise...” 385. From this it is clear that we are talking about deliverance from the action of original sin in human nature (“they left the reasons for our wretched existence”); deliverance that Christ accomplished through His suffering, death and resurrection, and which is perceived by man through the action of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of baptism. As for the second baptism, here we are most likely talking about monastic tonsure, which St. Theodore also perceived it as a sacrament, about which in more detail below. Reviving to new life in the sacrament of baptism, believers, from the Holy Spirit, receive the opportunity for the closest union with the Lord, which, in turn, is actualized in the sacrament of the Eucharist, where by the Holy Spirit bread and wine are added to the Body and Blood of the Son of God, and the gathering of believers represents the body of Christ. Thus, the abbot of Studia, addressing the brethren, says: “... you are the body of Christ and its members, who are consistent and united with each other by the communion of the Holy Spirit” 386 . From these words it is clear that it is the Holy Spirit who is the builder of the Body of Christ - the Church - the community of believers. About the latter we find the following words from the monk: “...we, children, believe that we are together and inseparable, for God is present with us everywhere, we are connected with each other in His Spirit and united in His peace” 387. From this we can conclude that the Holy Spirit not only harmonizes and unites believers, but also, through the connection of members into the single body of Christ, reveals the presence of God in the life of the community. Thus, the Holy Spirit in the work of the Economy of our salvation is the Guide to communion with God. He assimilates to the faithful the fruits of Christ’s redemptive feat through communion with the Church through the sacraments; the creation of the Body of Christ, reveals the presence of God in the life of the community. From the above we can conclude that the coverage of the events of the House of Our Salvation in the teaching of St. Theodora reveals the abbot's deep empathy for the mystery of Divine love. By revealing all the painfulness of the fallen state of human nature, the love and humility of the Creator, who became incarnate and suffered for us, is emphasized here. The kenosis of the Creator reveals the greatness of His love and the pricelessness of the godlike soul. The concentration of all Housebuilding for St. Theodora is the Savior's feat of the cross, where, by obediently enduring suffering, human nature receives healing and inherits the triumph of the Easter Resurrection. The high spiritual significance of this feat is revealed in the final event of the Economy of our salvation - the Ascension. From it it is clear that a person gains not only the restoration of a nature damaged by sin and the ability to lead an angelic way of life, but is awarded sonship with God. A person gains participation in the fruits of the Savior’s redemptive deed through the Holy Spirit in the Church - the Body of Christ. 2.2 The subjective side of the doctrine of salvation by St. Theodora St. Theodore, instructing for salvation, writes: “... our salvation (ἡ σωτηρία ἡμῶν), beloved children, consists in correctly believing (πιστεύειν όρθῶς) in the Holy Trinity and doing works (ἔργα ἔχειν), attested by the holy commandments of God. In Christ Jesus, as the Apostle says, neither circumcision is able, nor circumcision is not circumcision, but faith pursues love (Gal. 5:6). The concept of faith refers to the doctrine of Orthodoxy (τὸ τῆς ὀρθοδοξίας δόγμα), and the concept of love (τῆς ἀγάπης) - to the doctrine of good deeds (τὸ τῆς εὐπραξίας θεώρημα)" 388 . Thus, the saint identifies two necessary conditions for salvation: the Orthodox faith and deeds of love consistent with this faith. Let's look at them. 2.2.1. Orthodox faith as a condition of salvation Dogmatic exposition of St. Theodore's Orthodox doctrine is quite traditional, this is well reflected in his will, where the monk postulates the identity of his faith with the teachings of the seven Ecumenical Councils 389. Moreover, it is obvious (based on the liturgical tradition of the Church) that Orthodox dogmatics for St. Theodora was not just a set of doctrinal provisions for confessional self-identification, but an experience of living prayer. This is reflected in his trinity, which is the least studied layer in the theology of St. Theodore, and we believe there are several reasons for this: firstly, this teaching of the saint, reflected mainly in hymnography, is weakly connected with the ecclesiastical and political events of Byzantium at the beginning of the 9th century. and for a secular historian it is not very informative, secondly, the state of the sources leaves much to be desired 390, thirdly, interest in liturgical theology as a science began to develop only from the first half of the 20th century 391. Let's talk about the theology of St. Theodore and not to consider his trinity means to sacrifice the testimony of the monk himself. Because the Studian abbot himself, following tradition 392, understood theology as the doctrine of God in Himself 393 and how theology defined his trinitarians. So in one of them (used more than others) 394 the monk writes: “One Only Begotten, One Only Son, Father, and One One Light, Light radiance: and One One One God, Holy Soul, Lord Lord, truly this: O Holy Trinity Unity, save me theologizing Thee” 395 . From these words the soteriological meaning of Trinitarian theology is obvious: the latter, in the understanding of St. Theodore, is regarded as a condition of salvation. We believe that such a vision of theology was reflected in the prayer experience of the saint indicates the Trinity not as dogmatic excerpts from books, but as a recording of the saint’s personal experience. Let us note that the Church highly appreciated the prayer experience of St. Theodore, his trinities are found not only in the works of the Studian abbot - in all the songs of the Trepes people (inscribed with the name of Theodore) and in all his canons (for various weeks of Lent), but also in the works of other hymnographers 396. Triadology St. Theodora follows the patristic tradition; Thus, M. Ignatius, when studying the hymnographic creativity of the Abbot of Studium, notes the influence of the theological language of the Great Cappodocians 397. To express the mystery of unity and trinity in God, St. Theodore practically does not use apophatic expressions 398, on the contrary, in cataphatic expressions the antinomy is sharpened to the extreme: “...by division unity...” 399, “... the unswept is cut...” 400, “... one tri-radiant light...” 401 This shows both loyalty to tradition and an experienced sense of mystery. To the latter, it is worth giving the following example: in one of the Trinity, in the doxology, St. Theodore falls silent, calling God: “the light impregnable to all” 402 - which, obviously, represents the pinnacle of apophatic knowledge of God. Although, it can be noted that the saints are ternary. Theodores are very restrained and most of all, through the disclosure of dogma, they glorify God the Trinity, but there are also prayer petitions that especially clearly point to the mystical experience of the Studio abbot: “Three-lighted, Lord, Thy unity of command illuminates our minds with bright radiances, turning us from the manifold charm to unitive deification” 403 . Here, Rev. Theodore also acts as a theologian of the uncreated light (“Your unity of command with bright radiances”). Such experimental theology is also reflected in the position of the trinities in the three-canticle; they, as it were, crown the ascetic labors (which are set forth in the previous troparions) with the uncreated light of divine revelation 404. So Rev. Theodore writes: “... having purified ourselves, brethren, let us reach the mountain of prayers” 405, or – “The time of action, the hour of celebration; Who is wise then to gain all the eyelids in one day?” 406. Here the abbot of Studi is revealed as an ascetic who, through his ascetic feat, reached the heights of spiritual contemplation 407. The monk, the monk, strives to assimilate his spiritual experience of seeing God to the brethren through prayers. Based on the above, we can conclude that the triadology of St. Theodora, in terms of the content of the dogma, correlates with the theological tradition of the Great Cappadocians, and regarding the hymnographic presentation, it has the character of a deep inner experience, which even allows us to talk about St. Theodore as one of the hesychast ascetics. It is the soteriological nature of the saint’s contemplative theology, as the pinnacle of his ascetic work, that explains the saint’s desire to inculcate his own monastic ideals. Thus, through the prism of the experienced theology of the Abbot of Studium, his desire to assimilate the idea of ​​“trinity in unity” even to individual elements of worship 408 becomes understandable, for through the church service, as the central event of monastic life, the entire brotherhood became involved in the theological experience of St. Theodora. 2.2.2. Monasticism as service to God Since the Orthodox teaching of St. Theodore on the Economy of our salvation, perfected by the Lord, was discussed in the corresponding chapter of this study; let us move on to the analysis of the teachings of the Studian abbot “about good deeds” as the path to salvation. Yes, Rev. Theodore addresses the brethren: “By the grace of God, you are all among those being saved, you all came here in order to be saved, and all of you have no other task than to achieve salvation” 409. From these words it is clear that for the monk the main task of the community was achieving salvation. Hence, it is natural that the Abbot of Studio exhorts the brethren to make every effort to carry out this work: “Therefore, I ask you, brethren, each conscientiously fulfill the ministry entrusted to him and thereby glorify God and acquire your salvation” 410. It is obvious that according to the thought of St. Theodora, the path to salvation is active service to the brethren in the community, a work of love. Having become seriously ill and expecting death, Plato called the brethren of Sakkudion and invited them to elect an abbot. Theodore was chosen, and after much hesitation he agreed. When Plato recovered, he did not want to return to the power of the abbot and preferred to remain subordinate in the monastery, and after moving to the Studite monastery he began the life of a recluse 411. Theodore continued to transform the monastic community of Sakkudion, and later the Studite brotherhood, into a cinenial community of those who were being saved, guided by the writings of the holy fathers and his own views on monasticism. And here, first of all, of interest are those soteriological foundations that served as Theodore’s guide in the formation of the Studite tradition of communal monasticism. Let us note that some researchers tend to contrast the ideals of communal monasticism, which Theodore actively preached, with the monastic ideal of anchorage 412, which Plato shared in his desire for a solitary lifestyle. Thus, the researcher Leroy, in one of the places of his work devoted to the Studite reform, cites Theodore’s criticism of the silent people of his time 413, in another he denies the Studite abbot, as the founder of the cenobia, the understanding of contemplation as the goal of monastic life 414. We believe that these statements by the scientist are not entirely justified. Thus, Theodore criticizes not those who are generally silent, but those who begin this feat without the necessary spiritual experience. The abbot of Studium writes: “...Reverend Plato passed...to his [i.e. e. Theoctistus, the spiritual father of Plato - K.V.] way of life, having loved silence (τὴν ἡσυχίαν), legal and proper (ἐννόμως τε καί ἐνθέσμως), - not as many do now: they thoughtlessly resort to silence and, before they have learned to subordinate the flesh to the spirit, they decide to engage in single combat with the spirits of evil...” 415, - from these words it is clear that for the Studian abbot there is “legitimate and proper” silence. In addition, Theodore has a “Laudatory Word to Saint Arsenius the Anchorite,” which cannot be called anything other than a hymn to the silent. In this Word, St. Theodore quotes the following words of Arseny: “If someone truly remains in silence and hears the voice of a sparrow, then there is no peace in his heart.” 416, - i.e. The abbot of Studium still found it possible to admire such a desire for complete silence. Why such praise comes from an ardent supporter of cenobitic monasticism 417 becomes clear from other words of Arseny: “God sees that I love you, but I cannot live with God and people; The heights of the thousands of thousands and darkness have one will, but people have many wills. Therefore, I cannot leave God and live with people” 418. From the words of the anchorite quoted by the Studian abbot, it is clear that the content side of silence is the renunciation of the world, of human desires for the sake of the complete fulfillment of the will of God in imitation of the “highest” - the angelic powers. A similar understanding of silence as abstinence from any feeling that distracts from God is close to Theodore. So in one of the catechetical words, the abbot of Studia says: “Bind yourself with rules regarding both eyes and hearing, and... so that you are not drowned by the pressure of passions. After all, one should also know that one who sails on the sensory sea is involuntarily exposed to storms and disturbances, but one who passes on the mental sea (τὴν νοητὴν ὑγρὰν) is the master of storms and silence. For if someone courageously drives away inappropriate thoughts, he will be filled with silence, having the Holy Spirit as a companion, as it is told about Saint Arsenius” 419. There is silence here, for St. Theodora, there is, first of all, a state of soul (“mental sea”), necessary for the acquisition of the Holy Spirit by the inhabitants of Konovia. For the second controversial judgment of Leroy, in addition to the already mentioned theology of the trinities, there is a lot of other evidence in the work of the Abbot of Studium; So, we can cite the following words of St. Theodora about Plato: “Having lovingly submitted to [his father] [Theoctistus - K.V.] in mind and disposition, he prudently and safely ascended the mountain, purified his mind by approaching God and enjoyed the contemplation of Him, dwelling in the higher spheres with his mind; for there is nothing more pleasant than contemplating God, Who is sweetness and all desire for those who have tasted His infinite love (τῆς ἀκορέστου ἀγάπης) and through this completely forget about bodily food” 420. Here the explanation of the Abbot of Studium [emphasized - K.V.] on the spiritual state of Plato sounds like evidence from personal mystical experience. Let us note the characteristic metaphor of eating food (“those who have tasted infinite love” 421), which emphasizes the unity of the “forgotten about bodily food” contemplating and the contemplating “Who is sweetness and all desire,” and also points to a description of the state of deification (in the image of the Eucharist). From the above words (“every desire”, “there is nothing more pleasant”), the attitude of St. Theodore to contemplation as the highest value of monastic achievement. The words of the Studi abbot about the ascetic who, having purified himself, climbed the mountain of contemplation 422, find parallels in the liturgical work of St. Theodora 423. Moreover, Rev. Theodore directly defines a monk as a seer of God: “For a monk is one who looks at God alone, who desires God alone, who is devoted to God alone, who prefers to serve God, who has peace with God and is the cause of peace for others” 424. From this it is clear that for St. Theodora, the meaning of the monastic way of life is in unity with the Lord (“he has peace with God”), and in sharing in this experience of communion with God others. In one of the catechumens, the abbot of Studiya calls on the brethren: “... every day we will acquire eternal treasure - prayers, supplications, petitions, thanksgiving (1 Tim. 2:1), tears, contrition, enlightenment, good contemplation” 425. Here, when listing spiritual riches, “the good of contemplation” seems to crown this series, which indicates their special value for the ascetic. Of the above “treasures of eternity”: prayers, thanksgiving, tears, good contemplation - all are dialogical, demonstrating a personal connection with the Lord. And it, for the Studio abbot, is carried out truthfully and safely, through the cutting off of one’s will and spiritual guidance, in the cenobial community (this is the already mentioned connection: novice - confessor (abbot) - Christ). According to Rev. Theodore cenobitic monasticism is likened to the structure of angelic life 426, and accordingly, it better follows the purpose of human life. And what is characteristic of a person who leads a life corresponding to the purpose of his creation is evident from the following words of the monk: “He [i.e. e. a person, a venerable image of God - K.V.] is characterized by the work of Angels - to reflect on heavenly blessings, about the structure of the world, to strive for the love of great Love (πρὸς ἀγάπην τοῦ μεγάλου ἔρωτος) and the true Botha, rush towards demons, think humbly..." 427. From these words of St. Theodore, we can conclude that imitation of the angels, for a person, consists in the structure of the soul (“aiming at demons, thinking humbly”) for a contemplative life (“meditating on heavenly blessings, loving great Love”). Thus, from the above we can conclude that the soteriological basis that guided St. Theodore, when carrying out reforms, was: the creation of such a community where it is possible for its members to achieve salvation conveniently (spiritually and safely), through the implementation of the goal of creating man, through monastic perfection. 2.2.3. Entry into the monastic community as a sacrament of renewal of the image of God in man Entry into the community of those being saved is accomplished through the sacrament of baptism. In this sacrament, according to the word of St. Theodora, a person must be spiritually born into a son of Light (υἱός φωτός) 428. So the abbot says: “...in it [i.e. e. in the font - K.V.] the newly consecrated children of God are reborn (Θεοῦ παῖδες), leaving birth of flesh and blood, and coming into a perfect man (ἄνδρα τέλειον), so that by the worship of the Trinity they defeat the demonic forces...” 429 . Here the words “birth of flesh and blood” contain an allusion to John 1:12–13, which, we believe, indicates that in baptism a person is born from God 430. Hence St. Theodore, addressing the brethren, says: “Let us thank Him [i.e. e. Lord - K.V.] for the fact that He brought us for adoption (εἰς υἱοθεσίαν) through Holy Baptism" 431. Thus, through the sacrament of baptism, the closed process of the action of original sin in human nature is destroyed (about which see above paragraph. 2.1.1), the image of the latter’s existence changes: from “flesh and blood” to the perfect state of “sons of light”, which, in turn, is expressed in the fact that a person gets the opportunity, by serving the true God, to defeat demonic forces. Moreover, the new state is the state of kinship with God - sonship. Another sacrament by which the community of St. Theodore was the “sacrament of monastic perfection” (μυστήριόν ἐστι μοναχικῆς τελειώσεως) 432 - acceptance of the schema. At the same time, calling tonsure a sacrament, St. Theodore refers to the authority of the Areopagite Corpus 433. For the monk, the sacrament of tonsure was a sacrament of renewal, correlated with baptism. So the Abbot of Studia says to the brethren: “... so that... while contemplating the Creator of all that exists - God, we preserve our beauty intact. For God first adorned us in paradise, making us worthy of His image and likeness. Although by disobedience we darkened ourselves and upset ourselves, and very much, He again adorned us with grace, the washing of rebirth and renewal of the Holy Spirit... (Titus 3:5-6); but, however, even here we became unfit. For the third time He adorned us in the vow of virginity, forgiving us all our sins, destroying our handwriting (Col. 2:13-14)” 434. From this it is clear that for St. Theodore's baptism and tonsure are certain stages, according to the gift of the Creator (“he adorned us”), in the restoration of the lost pristine beauty of man - the image and likeness of God 435. It is worth noting that monasticism is a certain degree of god-like beauty, which must be preserved and supported by an ascetic lifestyle (“contemplation”). In another announcement by St. Theodore speaks of what lies at the basis of such a life: “Let us, brethren, walk in the renewal of life, as we promised at the time of [the adoption of] the schema; let us live in truth and honor, as befits the saints (Eph. 5:3), in peace and like-mindedness, in honesty and nobility, in holiness and dispassion, not being carried away by the former errors in our ignorance (1 Pet. 1:14), but avoiding passions like fire, being set on the rock (ἐν τῆ πέτρᾳ) of our faith. For this is renewal (καινότης)” 436. From this it is clear that at the basis of the renewal and ascetic lifestyle of the monastic community, St. Theodore's faith is in the Lord Jesus Christ; so, here - “established on the rock of faith” - a clear allusion to 1 Cor. 10:4 437. About faith, as a necessary condition for performing the sacraments and salvation, the monk says the following to the brethren: “And if we believe, the Lord will give us everything we need for salvation...” 438. From this it is clear that faith is an act of communion with God, in which the love of the Lord is revealed when a person freely turns to Him. At the same time, the love of the Lord then becomes saving for a person when the latter, driven by faith, becomes its guide to others. Thus, the abbot of Studia, revealing the content of saving faith, instructs in one of his teachings: “For faith, aided by love (Gal. 5:6), accomplishes our salvation...neither faith in itself, nor life in itself saves, but both save, together observed and united..." 439. From this it is clear that faith is saving when, when turning to God, it demonstrates the unity of the accepted teaching (“affirmation on the rock of faith”) and life in accordance with it in deeds of love. Probably, in response to the desire of St. Theodore's belief in the foundation of the path to salvation - faith, renewal of life (through the acceptance of vows) and the vision (contemplation) of God - was reflected in the desire of the abbot to put into practice the words of Holy Scripture: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved...” (Mark 16:16), “This is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40). Here St. Scripture points to the necessity of “seeing” the Savior and “believing” in Him in the matter of man’s salvation. Apparently, the experience of the Gospel words of Christ by St. Theodore affected his soteriology. Thus, we can conclude that entering the community of the Studite abbot, through the sacrament of baptism and tonsure, had the following soteriological meaning: the renewal of the image of God darkened by sin in man and the perception, through the assimilation of saving faith and life according to it, of adoption to God. 2.2.4. Following the evangelical ideals of the early Christian community Another sacrament by which the Studite community was primarily created and guided towards salvation was the sacrament of the Eucharist. Thus, it is in him, according to the saint’s words, that the fullness of God’s love for man is revealed: “He [i.e. e. The Lord - K.V.] not only died for us, but also offered Himself to us as food. What can show His strong 440 (κραταιάν) love [for us] even more clearly? And what is more salutary for the soul? 441. From this it is clear that the salvation for a person is communion with the love of God. Which, in turn, implies high responsibility for the acquired Gift. The Abbot of Studios, addressing the brethren, speaks about this: “But you, beloved, as disciples of the meek and peaceful Master, live meekly and peacefully, having peace and holiness with everyone, of whom no one else will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14), and especially honoring the Body and Blood of the Lady, with whom we have been honored to partake... The hand that preserves the Divine treasure, let him not touch what he should not. But all members, as members of Christ, must be kept and kept [pure]” 442. From these words it is clear that he who partakes of the love of God must live according to this Gift. So, according to the conviction of St. Theodore, a necessary condition for remaining in the community of the faithful is the desire for holiness and purity: “So, he who defiles the body is no longer a member of Christ; the vindictive is not a member of Christ; possessed by any other passion is not a member of Christ and therefore is not worthy to partake of the Holy Mysteries (συμμετέχειν τῶν ἁγιασμάτων) 443 ... Therefore let us sanctify and purify ourselves in order to worthily be called members of Christ and partake of the Holy Mysteries" 444. Hence, taking into account the statements of St. Theodore, encouraging the brethren to receive frequent communion 445, we can conclude that the Abbot of Studium sought to create a community that would represent the mystical Body of Christ and, therefore, the closest unity with God. This is what the monk calls for in his catechumens: “So let us abide, brothers 446, in our good Lord, as those planted by Him like a vineyard, and let us bring to Him clusters of virtues in order to receive a blessing from Him.”447 From these words it is clear that the community of the Studian abbot is called upon to be a conductor of God’s love, forming a closed process with positive feedback: planted by God - brought to God - received from God. The result of the process is an increase in love. Thus, the saint does not weaken in admonishing: “...my brothers, let us unite more and more into one body and one spirit, just as we were quickly called in the one hope of your calling (Eph. 4:4), loving each other, as we are members of each other, enduring each other, caring for each other, bearing each other’s burdens” 448. From this it is clear that the development of the above-mentioned process is best served by cenobitic monasticism, where the constant communication of monks with each other presupposes many reasons for exercising in the work of love. This is probably one of the main reasons for the exaltation of the cinematic way of life over other forms of monasticism in the works of St. Theodora. Thus, in one place he says: “...we live communally and follow the royal path, which the fathers put above any other path” 449. Here, Theodore, following the patristic tradition, emphasizes the spiritual height of community life with the expression “royal path” 450. Moreover, for the monk this expression not only indicates proportionality in the monastic feat, but also has a certain soteriological aspect. This can be seen from the following words of the abbot: “Of course, great are those who serve God in the mountains, in dens and in the abysses of the earth (Heb. 11:38), as well as pillars of every kind, hermits and other kinds of ascetics. But remember, my beloved and dear, that the Distributor of unspeakable blessings, our Lord Jesus Christ, having descended to earth, chose not the desert, not the pillars, or any other of the above-mentioned lives, but the law and commandment of obedience” 451, - here, walking the royal path for St. Theodora is, first of all, obedience to God; imitation of the life of the King and Lord Jesus Christ, who came in obedience to God the Father to serve people. At the same time, the early Christian community serves as an example of a communal structure for the Studite abbot. Yes, Rev. Theodore testifies to the brethren: “...among us reign harmony, unanimity, a single desire and, as it is told in the Acts (Acts 2:44), community of property... and then, we also notice what follows from this, namely: unhypocritical obedience, reaching, as past cases have shown, to the shedding of blood..." 452. From these words it is clear that following the ideals of the early Christian community is not only feasible in the monastery, but also brings an effective result - following Christ even to the point of blood, that is, sharing in the sufferings of the Savior (“before the shedding of blood, obedience”). By the way, this understanding of the ideals of communal monasticism also helps explain the openness of the Studite community in serving society 453 . Thus, the Studite kin is created and guided towards salvation through the embodiment of such evangelical ideals of the early Christian community as Eucharistic unity with Christ and service to others. Here the cinenial brotherhood represents the mystical Body of Christ, where everyone is united to God and to each other by the commandment of love and obedience. Hence, thanks to the closest unity with God, it is possible to collaborate with the Lord in the matter of increasing love and, thereby, resisting the process of increasing sin (see paragraph 2.1.1). This collaboration in obedience to God reveals the soteriological aspect of the “royal way” of serving the Studite community. 2.2.5. Revelation of thoughts The “royal way” of serving the Studite community, guiding it to salvation, presupposes from each of its members a personal desire to fulfill the goal of human life - participation in God and equal angelic service to Him. According to Theodore (see paragraph 2.1.1), God put into man a pure and beautiful soul, participating in God due to its godlikeness. Hence, every monk who wants to have participation in God must strive to restore the soul to its pristine purity and beauty. Yes, Rev. Theodore speaks of the high value of spiritual purity: “After all, where for the sake of spiritual purity the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have settled, there is so much that is good, wise, warming, useful, instructive, intelligent...” 454. From these words it is clear that spiritual purity is an indispensable condition for deification. From here Theodore warns the brethren: “If an unstable soul is defiled by disordered thoughts (ἐκτόποις διαλογισμοῖς) 455, which, admittedly, happens very often (for who can boast that he has an immaculate heart?), then it is necessary to cleanse it as soon as possible and bring back to the previous mood, so that by taking root in evil, it will not bring death” 456. These words show that the normal state for an ascetic of the Studio community is a constant struggle for the purity of the soul, the beauty of which is distorted by evil thoughts. Accordingly, an indispensable condition for the restoration of godlikeness and the salvation of the soul is the revelation of thoughts in confession. So the abbot reminds the brethren: “And I want you to remember that there is no other medicine that would work so quickly and successfully for salvation, as you yourself know, except the revelation of thoughts” 457. From these words it is clear that sinful inclinations manifest themselves as a disease and are cured through trusting one’s weakness to the confessor, and, consequently, to God, since in the cinenial Studite community there was a mystical unity: novice - confessor (abbot) - Christ. In addition, revelation of thoughts and obedience are a tool for further spiritual growth towards “sweet prayer” and deification, as the abbot of Studiya says: “That’s why I demand confession from you, so that I can know my children, and so that they, in turn, know me. This is true and spiritual birth, sincere submission; under this condition, a carefree march forward, sweet prayer, continuous prosperity, ascension and deification (θέωσις) are possible for the one who has acquired this gift [i.e. e. revelation of thoughts - K.V.]" 458. I think these words indicate the connection between the unity of the purity of the community (“I must know my children, and so that they, in turn, know me”) through confession, which, I believe, in turn, reflects the connection between the Eucharistic life of the community and communal obedience, where the renewal of a person takes place, the curbing of his will (“spiritual birth, sincere submission”) and further transformation (“ascension and deification”). In another place, the abbot testifies to the transformative effect of confession as follows: “The Lord promises not only to cleanse the repentant, but also to elevate him to the highest level of beauty” 459. Let us note here the last words that indicate the “stages of beauty”, the stages of spiritual perfection. Probably, we are talking about a ladder of virtues, as Theodore calls: “... there is nothing attractive, beautiful, except only one worthy of surprise (ἀξιάγαστος) virtue, to which we should strive most of all, brothers” 460. From this it is clear that the true beauty of the soul, which raises it through the steps to perfection, is virtue. From the above words we can conclude that the condition for ascending “through the steps of beauty” to spiritual perfection, for St. Theodore, is the acquisition of purity through the “medicine of salvation” - the revelation of thoughts. 2.2.6. Perfection in Virtue St. Theodore calls on the brethren: “Virtue alone is worthy of glorification, since it itself constitutes an immortal possession, and makes its participants blessed” 461. From this it is clear that for the Abbot of Studium, the acquisition of virtue is the path to bliss. The monk says the following about the essence of virtue: “Virtue by nature is something that is always moving, and never stops in [this] forward movement, but always leads those participating in it to the better... immobility in good becomes the beginning of evil” 462. From these words it can be understood that virtue for St. Theodora is not a simultaneous act of goodness or some one-time state, but a continuous process of improvement; which in turn indicates the saint’s vision of both the weakness of human nature, unstable in goodness, and the involvement of virtue in bliss, in continuous improvement. In another announcement, the abbot explains what the power of virtue is: “Let us rather love virtue, as it makes people into angels, even more into gods, according to [what was said]: Az rekh: you are gods by nature and sons of the Most High (Ps. 82:6). What is the power of virtue? Turning away from the world and uniting with God" 463. From these words it is clear that the saving power of virtue is in union with God, deification 464. And the monk, in one of his teachings, explains how this saving power works: “The time to work out our salvation is always and everywhere. For the apostle says: rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in everything (1 Thess. 5:16-18). Indeed, our salvation is determined by these three virtues: for everlasting joy is the property of righteousness; unceasing prayer gives no place for the devil in us, and constant thanksgiving is a clear proof of love for God” 465. At the same time, if the soteriological meaning of righteousness, as the already mentioned purity of the soul, and thanksgiving, as the Eucharistic image of the cenovic life of the community, has already been considered, then it is worth special mention about unceasing prayer. So, first of all, we note that all the teachings of St. Theodore to the brethren, are permeated with calls not to weaken in prayer 466. What prayer serves is clear from the following words of the abbot to the brethren: “Let us, I ask, stand courageously, daily sober, vigilant, directing our desire to God alone, contemplating Him, shedding tears and [imbued with] contrition, enlightened by prayers and supplications and thereby attracting the grace of the Holy Spirit” 467. That is, the prayer of an ascetic should be the fruit of daily sobriety and thirst for communion with God, an activity combined with contemplation and tears of contrition, aimed at enlightenment and acquisition of the Holy Spirit. To the last prp. Theodore treats with special attention: “But you, my beloved children, be satisfied with God, Divine and Heavenly, drink beyond satiety with the gifts of the Holy Spirit...” 468. From these words it is clear that for the abbot the gifts of the Holy Spirit are like food, with which one can and should be nourished, but with which, in inexhaustible greed, one cannot be satisfied. At the same time, Rev. Theodore warns against the mistake of mistaking the devil’s deception for a heavenly visit and suggests carefully observing the state of the soul: “The villain [i.e. e. the devil - K.V.] shows all things the other way around: he shows light, but in fact it is darkness... If you want life, then look for light, for God and His commandments are light. By the very state of your soul, try to determine who has come to you - a friend or an enemy. If it leaves your soul serene, does not soften it, but, on the contrary, makes it courageous, does not arouse in it indifference to heavenly contemplations, fear of the future, thirst for prepared blessings, then this is a good sign... But if it brings confusion into the soul, makes noise in it, makes you fix your eyes on flesh and blood... drive away the dragon" 469. It is interesting that here the heavenly Guest of Light leaves in the soul, along with peace (“serenity”), both fear of the future and thirst for the blessings in store. We believe that this is evidence of the manifestation in a state of deification of both divine greatness and perfection, which man cannot contain (the continuing craving for “heavenly contemplation” and “thirst for prepared blessings”), and the manifestation of man’s sincere love for God, from which comes “fear of the future,” the fear of losing the heavenly Guest. Apparently, it is this fear that prompts the ascetic to fight the devil; The monk speaks about it this way: “...strike the enemy with the arrow of the fear of God, directing holy prayer with a triple invocation, like a triple stone, against the spiritual Goliath... constantly being enlightened, constantly purifying, constantly acquiring heavenly properties.” 470. Probably, here we are talking about the trinity of the saint (see paragraph 2.2.1), which is somewhat unusual, compared with the traditional patristic invocation, for spiritual struggle and enlightenment, of the name of Jesus Christ 471. Thus, we can conclude that the beauty of the soul is revealed in its participation in God, through perfection in virtue, the saving action of the latter, in turn, is determined (in addition to spiritual purity and the Eucharistic service of the community) through prayer with the Trinitarian invocation. This prayer, according to the word of St. Theodore (and probably his experience) is an effective means of acquiring the Holy Spirit and a powerful weapon in the spiritual struggle of the ascetic. 2.2.7. Bloodless martyrdom as communion with the saving feat of Christ The dependence has already been discussed above, for St. Theodora, success in ascetic deeds depends on their consistency and degree of perfection. The fact that the Abbot of Studium calls for the imitation of saints representing different ascetic traditions 472 may indicate the absence of clear preferences in the choice of teaching about virtues 473 . However, I think there is every reason to believe that, if not preference, then the works of John Climacus enjoyed the widest popularity and authority, whose “Ladder” by St. Theodore calls it “sacred and ordained by God” 474. The high authority of the Sinai ascetic is also indicated by the fact that the Studite monks even dared to justify themselves to the abbot, referring to the works of John 475. In addition, Rev. Theodore referred to the “Ladder” in his will, indicating what kind of monastic life the brethren could adhere to 476. Probably, there is a commonality here in the ascetic experience of John of Sinai and St. Theodora. Since both of them are based on two feats (flight from the world and obedience), 477 which demonstrate true monastic activity - the renunciation of one’s will. The Monk Theodore writes: “There are many paths and at the same time one: one because virtue has one beginning (ἀρετὴ μονογενής), and many because it branches into many separate successes (εἰς πολλὰ κατορθώματα)...but...first of all, we must love, as an immaculate sacrifice, the cutting off of our own will (ἐκκοπὴν τοῦ θελὴματος)” 478. The last words here indicate that cutting off one’s own will, in turn, is nothing more than a sacrifice, martyrdom. The latter does not necessarily involve the literal shedding of blood: “For we, by loving and patiently walking the arduous path of life on the cross... testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; We testify that there is Judgment and retribution..." 479. From this it is clear that the confession of Christ lies in the very way of life of a monastic. At the same time, we are talking not only about external work (“we patiently walk the difficult path of crusader life”), but also about internal; so does St. Theodore we find the following words: “Whoever, constantly exposed to the blows of thoughts, does not succumb to them and does not bow the knee to Baal [“does not bow the knee to Baal” - obviously an allusion to Holy Scripture 480 - K.V.], but resists and overcomes passions - lust, rage, anger, envy, he undoubtedly endures torment every day ... "481. Here the allusion to (Rom. 11:2-5) indicates the gracious chosenness of the faithful to the Divine calling, and the daily torment and irreconcilable struggle of the ascetic for the purity of the soul, for the restoration of its divine imagery - everything expresses love for God and brings this work closer to the sufferings of the Savior on the cross, in which sin is defeated and the image of God is restored in man. Such co-crucifixion with Christ as an ascetic endows the latter with the hope of rising from the dead, like the Savior, into the joy of endless light. Thus, the abbot of Studian proclaims: “For us, for whom, due to true renunciation and submission, the world has been crucified and only one cross remains, the sacrament of death should not be sad, but joyful... after Christ - the Life of all - tasted death for all (Heb. 2:9) ... we ascend into endless light and into the safe life that God promised to those who love Him" ​​482. Thus, both renunciation and submission, crucifixion to the world - everything points to the martyrdom, in imitation of the feat of Christ, to the communion through suffering of Easter joy, the joy of the gospel faith, the joy of victory over death and meeting with God. This, according to the abbot’s words, is evidenced by the experience of the holy passion-bearers: “And it is good for him who is worthy in anything to be a sharer of the passions of Christ... Such was Saint Ignatius, who called himself the God-Bearer, because he bore the sufferings of Christ. Such was Saint Eustratius, who during the actual torment cried out and said: “Now I know that Christ lives in me.” O blessed words! 483. From these words we can conclude that martyrdom for St. Theodora, in line with the early Christian tradition, is compassion for Christ (“to be a sharer of the passions of Christ”), sacrificial communion with the Body of Christ (“Christ lives in me”), communion in the saving feat of the Son of God. Here we can see the correlation of martyrdom with the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, namely: the testimony of the passion-bearers, in the experience of love for God, through the confession of the Gospel Truth, about the saving effectiveness of these sacraments. For the Abbot of Studium, such evidence of love for God is the guarantee of salvation: “You know that those who testified for someone in life become partners in his joy and in the benefits for which they gave testimony. We can conclude from this that Christ’s witnesses...in the coming age will be declared joint heirs with Him” 484. From these words it is clear that for the monk, the ascetic feat of the brethren of the Studite community is aimed at becoming, through testimony (which is martyrdom), co-participants and co-heirs of the saving feat of Christ. Thus, in the community of St. Theodora, the very way of life of the monastics, through complete renunciation and obedience, was supposed to demonstrate the participation of the monks in the suffering of Christ, thereby reflecting their love and devotion to God. Following this way of life is evidence of the truth of the saving feat of Christ, communion with him. From the above, we can conclude that the central thing in the subjective side of the teachings of St. Theodora is the life of the cenobial community in the unity of the Orthodox faith and the service of love, in accordance with this faith. Here is the personal desire of each monk of the Studite community to fulfill the goal of human life - unity with God, according to the teachings of St. Theodora, suggests: through purification by repentance, the martyrdom of perfection, where virtues reveal the pristine beauty of man’s godlikeness; the path of witnessing the truth of the Gospel faith. In conclusion of this chapter, we can summarize the following: the soteriology of St. Theodora is defined by the unity of the Orthodox faith and the service of love, in accordance with faith. The key stages of the Economy of our salvation are projected by the monk onto the establishment of the way of life of cenobial monasticism, namely: Incarnation - baptism and tonsure (spiritual birth and virginity), Cross - renunciation and obedience (testimony of love), Ascension - ascent (through virtue) to contemplation and deification, Pentecost - knowledge of God (through the communion of the life of the Spirit in the Body of Christ). The abbot forms the community into a single organism that walks the “royal path” of the Gospel commandments. At the same time, each member of the community must strive, through purification and the martyrdom of perfection, to testify to the gospel faith. Hence the soteriological significance of the transformations of St. Theodore can be characterized as the path to deification: in the unity of those who work together with the Lord, the ascetic monk and his community. Moreover, in such a structure of the “community of those who are being saved,” St. Theodore relied both on the patristic tradition and on his soteriological experience of experiencing the Orthodox doctrine. 3. The influence of the soteriology of St. Theodore on the practical aspects of church life The doctrine of salvation by St. Theodore did not remain the property of only one Studite community; it bore abundant fruit. It should be noted that even during the life of the Abbot of Studium, his soteriological views played an important role in the defense of Orthodox doctrine and the formation of patristic theology. 3.1 Defense of icon veneration The theology of the icon is that part of the theological views of St. Theodore, which is the most studied 485 because it is directly related to the problems of the iconoclastic movement and sheds light on the formation of one of the most important dogmas of the Orthodox faith - icon veneration (this dogma still remains a stumbling block for many Christian communities and continues to cause debate) 486. At the same time, we believe that the soteriological basis of the theology of the icon of the Abbot of Studium has not been given due attention. The church policy of Leo V was not entirely consistent regarding doctrinal provisions 487 and this turned the Orthodox into the need to give a reasoned answer to the questions posed by the iconoclasts: 1) Is it possible to depict Christ through iconography? 2) is it permissible to worship the icon of Christ? To these questions Rev. Theodore provided a fully developed theology. Against the main position of 754, according to which to depict Christ on an icon means to separate two natures in Him and through this fall into ancient Christological heresies 488, St. Theodore, following the patristic tradition, responds with the doctrine of the one person of the God-man. “But since we, in accordance with church teaching, confess that the Hypostasis of the Word was the common Hypostasis of both natures, in which human nature received its hypostatic existence with properties (ἰδιωμάτων) separating it from other [creatures] of the same kind; then it is natural that we can call the same Hypostasis of the Word indescribable by the nature of the Divinity and describable in relation to the essence corresponding to us, having existence not in a separately existing and not in a specially described person, in addition to the Hypostasis of the Word, but in this very Hypostasis, so that [human] nature does not find itself outside the hypostasis; in it [i.e. e. in the Hypostasis of the Word], as in a separate Person, she is contemplated and described” 489. Here Theodore confesses that on the icon there is no other hypostasis other than the Divine Hypostasis of the Logos, which is confessed and contemplated in the Person of the Gospel Christ. The Son of God is the bearer of very specific human characteristics; in them He differs from us, just as we differ from each other; just as he is One of the Three in the Holy Trinity 490. The features through which we recognize Christ were adopted by the Logos in the Incarnation, hence the denial of the imageability of God the Word, for St. Theodore, is a denial of His consubstantiality with us and, therefore, the overthrow of the entire House of Our Salvation 491. The soteriological premise of this statement is obvious here: denial of the imageability of Christ - denial of His consubstantiality with us in humanity - denial of the possibility of deification. It naturally comes from the objective side of the teaching about the salvation of St. Theodore, where the denial of the “slave” - humble image of Christ is the denial of God as the source of Love. The studio abbot does not try to logically reconcile the unknowable in the two natures of Christ (the antinomic properties of the two natures of St. Theodore only strengthens) 492 and the knowability, depictability of Christ as a phenomenon (which is narrated in the Gospel and the daily experience of the Eucharist); St. Theodore, recognizing such an antinomy as an experience of faith 493, logically leads to the absurdity of the attempt of the iconoclasts to epistemologically substantiate the inconsistency of icon veneration 494. In support of the veneration of the icon of St. Theodore teaches about the involvement of the image of Divine grace 495 (through the character of the face of Christ and the inscription of the name), which raises us from the image to the Prototype, due to the presence of hypostatic identity in the latter 496. Hence the abbot indicates the correct inscription of the icon: not “the image of Christ,” but “Christ” 497. The monk not only actualizes the Orthodox doctrine of the image that was formed earlier, but also refracts it through his spiritual experience. So he compares the icon with the shadow cast by Christ, which, although of a different essence, is still the place of the presence of the Lord 498, or the moon reflecting the light of the sun 499. It is unlikely that such statements are just descriptive examples; they are probably an indication of the experience of St. Theodore of real communion with God: experiencing the presence of the Lord, seeing the reflected light of Divine grace. For the abbot of Studium, the opportunity, through the image of God, to become a partaker of Divine grace is obvious: “Above all, my children, strive for God, and your soul will live; try to always reflect His face in your pure heart” 500. From these words it is clear that the purified heart of a person is a place of spiritual contemplation (cf. Matt. 5:8). Such experimental theology finds its basis in the subjective side of the teaching about salvation of St. Theodore, where through purification from passions and improvement in virtue, the ascetic achieves unity with God 501. At the same time, according to the word of St. Theodora, the icon serves as an assistant in the practice of spiritual contemplation: “...we have a picturesque image, a sacred light, a saving memory, when we see Him born, baptized, performing miracles, crucified, buried, resurrected, ascending to heaven, in which we cannot be deceived as if this is not so, since vision coincides with the contemplation of the mind and through both we are confirmed in faith in the sacrament house building" 502. These words indicate the important soteriological significance of the image of God in the theology of St. Theodora is a “saving memory” that correlates the icon with such church shrines as Holy Scripture and the Eucharist (cf. Luke 22:19) and reveals it as one of the sources of knowledge of the mystery of God’s love for man, the source of Divine grace. Thus, for St. Theodora Christ is depicted through iconography not by nature, but by hypostasis (Person), which, in turn, is revealed through the χαρακτήρ of the Gospel Jesus and His holy name. The basis for such judgments is the conviction of St. Theodore, that the denial of the imageability of Christ leads to the denial of His consubstantiality with us in humanity. In addition, identity in hypostasis, in appearance, which has become inherent in the second Person of the Holy Trinity, also presupposes identity in worship; which is confirmed by Divine grace, connecting pure hearts contemplating the icon, through the image with An archetype. Thus, the final formulation of the theological 503 justification for the veneration of icons was reflected in the works of the Abbot of Studium and, based on the soteriological views of the ascetic, was determined both by the continuity of the patristic tradition (John of Damascus, VII Ecumenical Council - the icon is consecrated with the name), and by the personal spiritual experience of St. Theodora (the Hypostasis of the Word is contemplated in the icon through the Character, which is identical to the name, elevating from the image to the Prototype). The Orthodox Church highly appreciated the contribution of St. Theodore in defense of Orthodoxy, placing his name first among the saints, after the bishops, in the Synodikon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy 504. 3.2 Rigorism in church politics Studite Monastery since the time of St. Theodora actively participates in the church and political life of Byzantium 505. At the same time, certain views of the Studian abbot on problematic aspects of church policy caused condemnation of the Patriarch of Constantinople not only during the life of the ascetic, but also after his death 506. In view of the special importance attached to St. Theodore’s confession of the right faith for the salvation of the soul 507 and the ambiguity of assessments that researchers give to individual statements of the Studian abbot about the church dispensation 508, we believe it is important to consider the soteriological basis of the church-political struggle of St. Theodora. Decisive condemnation of St. Theodore of the canonical arbitrariness of the emperors by the very fact of schism, such harsh statements in the face of the emperor as quoting from (Eph. 4:11-12) and (1 Cor. 12:28) with the addition “but he did not say about the kings” 509, demonstrative acts of disobedience to the will of the king 510 - allow us to speak about the Studite abbot as a fighter for the independence of the Church from the imperial authorities 511. But closer attention to the statements of St. Theodora, in their historical context, allows us to strongly doubt this. Not every interference of the tsarist power in church affairs causes St. Theodore's persistent rejection: if the restoration, under the pressure of Emperor Nicephorus, of the deposed Joseph for the Studite abbot gave rise to a schism, then the king's arbitrariness in the installation and removal of bishops 512 was not even reflected in the polemical works of the saint. Moreover, the Abbot of Studium, at every opportunity, uses connections at court to influence the church policy of the emperor 513, gives advice on state affairs (if they are related to Christian morality) 514, and enthusiastically calls on the newly proclaimed emperor to intervene in religious politics 515. We believe that this fully characterizes St. Theodore as a supporter of the traditional doctrine - a symphony of powers. If he allows himself to make harsh statements about the emperor, then this most likely refers to the personal sins of the kings (adultery, propagation of heresy), which in turn rather indicates the high ideas of the saint. Theodora about the royal person (the latter should set an example in observing church tradition) 516. If the studio abbot fights with imperial power as an institution, it is not against it, but for a true symphony, for the organic place of the Church in the body of the state 517. D. E. Afinogenov’s assumption about the contradiction at the level of ecclesiology 518 between Patriarch Nicephorus and Abbot Theodore seems also unfounded. Because upon closer acquaintance with Theodore’s epistles, his view of the Church completely agrees with the patriarch’s. Nicephorus writes: “... even if very few remain in Orthodoxy and piety, they are the essence of the Church” 519. That is, for the Patriarch, the Church is a community of “faithful” undamaged by heresy. And Theodore has many places where he calls confessors the support of the Church, for example: “... oh your confession! You are Christ-bearing men... You are the fortress of the Church" 520, "... for everyone who opposes [the iconoclasts - K.V.] is a confessor" 521. Here is the obvious embodiment of the teachings of St. Theodore about the community being saved by imitation of Christ in the testimony of the Truth (“Christ-bearing men”). In another place, the abbot directly indicates his unanimity with the patriarch: “But she [Byzantium – K.V.] did not listen, did not accept this, and, breaking away from the five-headed body of the Church - for the sacred Nicephorus is still alive - rebels against the Almighty God ..." 522. Church is a word with many definitions. For Theodore, the Church - as the mystical body of Christ - has not fallen into sin; it remains one with Patriarch Nicephorus and with the four other primates of the Orthodox Churches. And Byzantium fell away (“threw off the gospel yoke”) - the state with all its institutions. One of them is also called the Church. It is in the latter sense that Theodore mentions the “fall of the Church” 523. We believe that for St. Theodore, who grew up in the family of a high-ranking imperial official and maintained contact with noble relatives, was naturally saddened by the fall of so many people from the Cup of salvation. It seems more likely that in his church-political activities the monk was guided by concern for the preservation of the Church - the community of confessors, where salvation is achieved through the imitation of Christ, through martyrdom for the Truth. In calm times, this is bloodless martyrdom (see paragraph 2.2.7), and in troubled times, it is a principled struggle for the right faith. So, in one of the letters to St. Theodore writes: “This is a sweet feat, this is a blessed gain - through short-term sorrows and oppression or scourging and drops of blood, to become a god and to achieve the God who truly exists” 524. From this it is clear that for St. Theodore's confession of the right faith, associated with suffering 525, has a clear soteriological aspect - it represents the ascetic the path to deification. Hence his principledness regarding the Eucharistic purity of communion, since according to the views of the Venerable himself. Theodore (see paragraph 2.2.4) in the sacrament of the Communion of the Body of the Blood of the Lord, the salvation of the community is created through the closest unity with Christ, and the one participating in the “τοῦ ἰoβόλου ἄρτου” of heretical communion is separated from Christ 526. Moreover, the question of defining heresy is a question of the boundaries of the Church. It is worth noting that Theodore is familiar with the definition of heresy by Basil the Great 527 and with the collection of such by St. Euthymius 528. However, in order to clarify the views of the reverend himself on this issue, I believe it is necessary to compare his statements during the first (“Michian”) and second (“Joseph’s case”) schism, when the grounds for separation from the patriarch were not obvious to the conciliar consciousness of the Church 529. From the period of the “Michian” schism, few statements have come down (the first five letters of the first book) and nowhere is what happened directly called a heresy, but a “crime of the commandment” 530, a distortion of Holy Scripture and Tradition, a “distortion of the truth” 531. At the same time, Theodore communicated with bishops in exile and went to churches to pray 532. As a zealot for the canons of his fathers, he did not approve of some of the actions of Patriarch Tarasius 533, but nowhere does he call him a heretic. On the contrary, in the second schism of St. Theodore directly calls what happened “an adulterous heresy” 534, violating the Holy Gospel, abolishing the economy of Christ 535, anathema to the Catholic Church 536, the Forerunner and the Lord of saints Himself 537. In the letter, Theodore asks the question: “Could there be anything worse than this heresy until the very appearance of the Antichrist?” 538. Or in another place: “Although this turned out to be after the iconoclastic heresy [we are talking about the first iconoclastic period - K.V.], it is no less than it for those who reason piously” 539. In a letter to Pope Leo, the abbot of Studium compares the current state of affairs with the Eutychian heresy, and accordingly calls on the pope to become like Leo the Great and convene a council denouncing the false teaching of Constantinople 540. Theodore, answering questions from like-minded people, formulates rules of conduct during heresy, where he stipulates the discipline of alienating his followers from the supporters of the patriarch: a ban on communication in the sacraments, prayer, and sharing meals 541. The differences in the perception of the first and second “Michian” schisms by the Studian abbot seem to be obvious. Justifying his harsh statements during the second schism, Theodore the Studite writes: “If your reverence asks why we ourselves did not say this before being taken into custody, but also commemorated those who ruled in Byzantium, then take note of the fact that then there was no council yet and this wicked teaching and anathema was not pronounced” 542 . Thus, for St. For Theodore, what determined the separation from the patriarch and clergy was not the violation of the canons by individuals, but the legitimization of these violations by the council, with anathema to dissenters; raising these violations to the status of Holy Tradition. If the separation under Tarasius for St. Theodore was only a desire for personal martyrdom for fidelity to the Gospel word (in imitation of the zeal of John the Baptist), then in the “case of Joseph” it was an uncompromising struggle against heresy that had engulfed the entire Church, the teaching of which violated the Gospel and abolished the economy of Christ 543. Hence the eschatological expectations, hence the radical opposition of their community to all those who accepted the oikonomia of Patriarch Nicephorus. However, even here with the understanding of heresy, not everything is simple, when the opportunity to reconcile presented itself, St. Theodore agreed, and without any church definition condemning the actions of the Council of 809, the removal of Joseph was sufficient. Thus, Theodore recognized what happened not as a “complete heresy” and “impious teaching” of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but as a violation of the canons by individual representatives of the latter (Joseph and Emperor Nicephorus). Thus, for St. Theodora, the truth of the church community is conditioned by genuine fidelity to Holy Tradition, while the purity of Eucharistic communion, restored after the removal of Joseph, became the fundamental criterion in the matter of church unity. This explains the position of St. Theodore regarding the compromise proposal of the iconoclasts, according to which the Orthodox were allowed to venerate icons, but at the same time they were required to enter into Eucharistic unity with the iconoclastic clergy 544; The monk resolutely rejects such “oikonomia” as alienating from the true Body of Christ 545. What is important for him is not external adherence to the form of Orthodox worship, but loyalty to the Orthodox dogmatic content of church sacraments 546. Perhaps there is no reason to believe that St. Theodore admitted his actions during the schism were wrong, however, as the years passed, the abbot of Studium was already cautious in negatively assessing the actions of Patriarch Nicephorus (in the “case of Joseph”) and restrained others from doing so, leaving it to his descendants (about the Church reception of this dispute, reflected in the Synod on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, we already noted above in note No. 529) and God to judge the correctness someone's side; at the same time, considering that it is not necessary to resume the affairs of that time, since this produces unrest and temptation for the Church of God 547. However, this call was not heard even by the monk’s closest disciples; shortly after the death of St. Theodore, the monks of the Studite community went into schism, defending the infallibility of the position of their beloved teacher in his schisms 548. The particularly sublime teaching of St. Theodore about the truth of only that church community that strictly follows the Gospel and patristic tradition has been used over the centuries by various religious figures to criticize the church policy of oikonomia 549. Thus, the soteriological basis of the church-political struggle of St. Theodore became the saint's conviction of the truth of that Eucharistic community in which deification is achieved through unity with Christ and confession of the right faith. The boundaries of such a community are determined by true fidelity to Holy Tradition, and the criterion of church unity is the purity of Eucharistic communion. At the same time, it is obvious that for the saint, peace and unity in the Church were more important than personal ambitions. 3.3 Charter of Cenobial Monasticism Perhaps the most popular of the works of the Abbot of Studium for the church tradition, where the soteriology of the saint was reflected, was the liturgical heritage of the saint. And first of all, this is Studio Charter 550. Here the unity of church prayer and the monastic way of life reflect the saint’s view of the community as a single Divine-human organism; here, by following the liturgical circle, reading the catechetical words of the monk and detailed regulation of the monastic way of life, the doctrine of the salvation of St. Theodora. Thus, the liturgical circle, through holidays and prayers, reveals the experience of Orthodox theology. If about the triadology of the prayer experience of St. We have already spoken about Theodore above, then the following can be added about his perception of the events of the House of Our Salvation (the content of which was also discussed in the second chapter) through the holidays. For Rev. To celebrate Theodore means, first of all, to perceive the spiritual side of the remembered event. Thus, on the day of the Annunciation, the abbot exhorts the brethren: “...we must celebrate spiritually and behave spiritually - in truth and reverence, in love, meekness, in peace, in long-suffering, in kindness, in the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 6:6), so as not to show the Economy of our Lord Jesus Christ in relation to us as vain and ineffective” 551. From this it is clear that the spiritual side of remembering the events of the House of God is the actualization of the assimilated fruits of the redemptive feat of Christ, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as evidence of the truth of what the Savior accomplished. Thus, the liturgical circle, in the charter of St. Theodora, through certain prayers and announcements timed to commemorate the events of the House of Our Salvation, is called to reveal the Truth of Orthodox dogma; and introduces to Her those who follow this church tradition. Considering the detailed regulation of the monastic way of life in the charter of St. Theodore, it can be noted that it serves to embody the saint’s idea of ​​the monastic way of life, as the perfect path to unity with God in the Theanthropic organism, through the service of love. Hence the prescription of regular readings from the “Catechetical Words” 552, for a more solid assimilation of the instructions of the Studite Abbot. Hence the attention to cleansing repentance and correction 553, because revelation of thoughts and obedience for St. Theodora is an indispensable condition for growth in virtue and deification (see paragraph 2.2.5). Hence the establishment of a general procedure for taking food and its composition 554, a unified list of necessary clothing 555, a general procedure for prayer, work and leisure 556. Everything here is subject to the rules of communal monasticism and reflects the perception of St. Theodore of the cinematic way of life, as a perfect adherence to the ideal of the early Christian community, the ideal of serving love. Thus, the Studio Charter reflects the main position of the soteriology of St. Theodora - salvation in deeds of love consistent with the Orthodox faith. The monk himself highly valued strict adherence to the orders accepted in his community and strictly reproached those who shied away from observing them: “... so why, after this, do not you all obey me and do not go correctly and calmly, according to the rules... In no way, my children, should you leave your work in such a sad situation. Believe me, this is wiser than all wisdom, holier than all holiness and more useful for you than anything useful - for you to remain in the state to which the Lord has called you, that is, to remain in the community, with your father, with your brothers, in that courtyard where God Himself is the shepherd" 557 . This high assessment was accepted by the Church and was reflected in the extraordinary spread of the Studite Rule, the rules of which formed the basis of the typikons of various cenobitic monasteries of the East and West 558. From the above, we can conclude that the soteriology of St. Theodora left a noticeable mark on the life of the Church. She, through the experience of the sacrament of the Incarnation of God in the experience of contemplating the face of Christ, served the final formation of the Orthodox theology of the icon. The saint's soteriological views on the church structure made it possible to form a community which, through fidelity to the Orthodox Tradition and confession of it in deed and word, even to the blood of martyrdom, raised the authority of the Orthodox (icon-venerating) Church very highly in the eyes of Byzantine society. Reflected in the charter, the soteriology of St. Theodora contributed to the widespread dissemination of the ideals of the cinematic lifestyle. From this study, the soteriology of St. Theodora appears as a traditional patristic teaching, which, refracted through personal experience, serves the Studian abbot as a guide to the transformation of the monastic community. The formation of the soteriological views of the future ascetic began under the influence of his immediate environment: thanks to his mother Theoktista - the desire to embody evangelical ideals, and to his father Fotin - the projection of these ideals onto social values ​​(family, state). Thanks to his mother and spiritual father Plato, St. Theodore inherits an ardent desire to find unity with God. This desire, through the renunciation of one’s will and spiritual unity with a leader in asceticism, finds expression in the mystical experience of Communion with God. A quantitative analysis of the frequency of quoting Holy Scripture showed that the doctrine of salvation by St. Theodore’s life was formed largely due to the acquired spiritual experience of understanding the Word of God. It was perceived, in relation to the interpretation of the holy fathers, as a guide to practical activity. The monk very deeply perceives the patristic tradition and focuses on such soteriological ideas of the monastic path to perfection as imitation of Christ, renunciation of the world, obedience, the Eucharistic life of the community, witness to the world of Christ’s love, martyrdom. Perceiving these ideas, the monk forms from them a guide to salvation for the Studite community. Soteriology of St. Theodora is defined by the unity of the Orthodox faith and the service of love, in accordance with faith. From the objective side, the doctrine of the saint’s salvation is quite traditional. In his exposition of the Orthodox faith, the abbot of Studium attaches special importance to the soteriological aspect of the theology of the Holy Trinity, which is reflected in the saint’s trinities. At the same time, from the subjective side of soteriology, St. Theodore's consideration of the Trinity reveals to us the living experience of prayer of the Abbot of Studium, which he tried to convey to his community. Here the dogmatic text, skillfully woven by the monk into the fabric of the narrative of ascetic content, is perceived as a person’s healing communion with the heavenly Truth through the purification of the heart. Thus, each trinity leads the experiencer to the understanding and contemplation of the Holy Trinity. In the teaching about the Divine economy of Christ, a feature of the view of the Studite abbot is the emphasis on faith in the incomprehensible love of the Creator and on the kenosis of the incarnate Word, which serve as the objective basis of our salvation. For the monk, in the subjective aspect of soteriology, it is precisely following Christ, imitating the Savior in love and humility that is the path that leads a person to God. From here the key stages of the Economy of our salvation are projected by St. Theodore on the establishment of the way of life of cinenial monasticism, namely: the Incarnation - baptism and tonsure (spiritual birth and virginity), the Cross - renunciation and obedience (testimony of love), the Ascension - ascent (through virtue) to contemplation and deification, Pentecost - knowledge of God (through the communion of the life of the Spirit in the Body of Christ). According to this soteriology, the Abbot of Studium forms from his community a single Divine-human organism that walks the “royal path” of the Gospel commandments. In this organism, not only the healing of the irreversible disastrous effect of original sin in human nature occurs, but also collaboration with God in increasing love and holiness (monks are planted by God - they bring God the fruits of virtue - they receive blessings from God). Soteriological views of St. Theodora did not remain the property of only the Studite community, but influenced the practical aspects of Church life. Thus, the kenosis of the incarnate Word for St. Theodora, suggests the possibility of the existence of an icon of Christ; images where the Indescribable is described by the human form He assumed. Thanks to the icon, a person can have a real experience of communion with God, ascending with his mind from the image to the Prototype; remember the mystery of God’s love for man, captured in colors. These theological views of St. Theodora found themselves in demand during the period of the struggle of the Orthodox Church with the iconoclasts. The reverend's zeal for strict observance of church canons prompted him to twice interrupt communication with the patriarch. This church-political struggle had as its soteriological basis the views of St. Theodore on the truth of only that Eucharistic community in which deification is achieved through the confession of the right faith and strict observance of the Gospel commandments (reflected in the church canons) by a “Christ-bearing” life. At the same time, the slightest deviation from church tradition for St. Theodora is a departure from the Truth and the overthrow of the entire House of Our Salvation. And although the saint’s rigorism did not receive church approval, the moral authority of the Studian community in Byzantine society became very high, which, in turn, contributed to the restoration of icon veneration. Practical application of the soteriological views of St. Theodore was expressed in the reform of the monastic way of life. Here there is a harmonious combination of the cinenial way of life (achieving unity with God through the Eucharistic life of the community, conscientious performance of the entrusted service) and the individual feat of the monk (cutting off one’s will, prayer, revelation of thoughts, bodily labor), a balanced approach in the detachment of the monastic community from the world (limitations in contacts with worldly people, unconditional personal non-covetousness) and its openness to the world (clergy over the laity, charity and social service) And if the height of the cinematic lifestyle of the Studio community was reflected in the dissemination of the Studio Charter, then about the saving fruits of the spiritual experience of St. Theodora - we can judge by such prayer books and ascetics as St. Simeon the Reverent, St. Simeon the New Theologian, St. Nikita Stifat. List of sources and literature Bible: Books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: In Russian translation with parallel passages and applications. – M.: Biblical Society, 1995. 1. Gregory the Theologian, archbishop, saint. Creations. Sergiev Posad. 1994. 2. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. St. Petersburg, 1996. T. 4. 3. Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. Interpretations of Maximus the Confessor. – St. Petersburg: Alethea, 2003 (Byzantine Library. Sources). 4. John of Damascus, St. Three words of defense against those who condemn the holy icons. St. Trinity-Sergius Lavra. RFA, 1993. 5. Complete collection of the works of St. John of Damascus. St. Petersburg, 1913. T. 1. 6. Reverend Father Abba John, abbot of Mount Sinai. Ladder. St. Petersburg, 1995. 7. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. Spiritual words and messages. Collection of type I (Vatic.graec.694) / Preface, translation, comments, indexes, A. G. Dunaev. – M.: Indrik, 2002. 8. Venerable Theodore the Studite. Creations: In 3 volumes. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2010. T. 1., 2011. T. 2., 2012. T. 3. 9. The successor of Feofan. Biography of the Byzantine kings. St. Petersburg, 1992. 10. St. Amphilochius of Iconium. Word for Holy Saturday. Translation of Abbot Vassian (Zmeev) // Theological Bulletin. 2005–2006. No. 5–6. 11. Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Creations. In 2 volumes. M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2009. T. 2. 12. St. Irenaeus Bishop Lyonsky. Essays. St. Petersburg, 1900. – Reprint: M.: Pilgrim, 1996. 13. Creations of the blessed Hieronymus of Stridon. Kiev, 1880. Part 6. 14. Creations like the saints of our father Athanasius the Great, Archbishop. Alexandria. Sergiev Posad, 1902. Part 1. 15. Creations of St. John of Damascus. Christological and polemical treatises. 16. Words for the Feasts of the Mother of God / Transl. and comment. priest M. Kozlova, D.E. Afinogenova. M.: Martis, 1997. 16. Creations of St. Theodore Studite in Russian translation. St. Petersburg, 1907. T. 1., 1908. T. 2. 17. Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1896. Part 3. 18. The works of our holy father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople in Russian translation. Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, 2005. T. 1. 19.Creations of our holy father Nicephorus Archbishop of Constantinople. Sergiev Posad, 1907. Part 2. 20. Lenten Triodion. Part 1. – M.: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2002. 21. Theophanes the Byzantine. Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophanes from Diocletian to the kings Michael and his son Theophylact / Priscus of Ponia. Tales of Priscus of Ponia. Ryazan: Alexandria, 2005. 22. Theodori Studitae Epistulae/Ed. G. Fatouros. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. Series Berolinensis. Berlin, 1992. Vol. 31/1–2. 23. Patrologiae cursus completes / Ed. J.–P. Migne. Series graeca. Parisiis, 1860. T. 99. 24. Sancti Theodori Studitae sermones parvae catecheseos / Ed. J. Cozza Luzi, in A. Mai // Nova patrum bibliotheca. T. 9/1. Roma, 1888. 25. Sancti Theodori Studitae sermones magnae catecheseos / Ed. J. Cozza Luzi, in A. Mai // Nova patrum bibliotheca. T. 9/2. Roma, 1888. 26. Τοῦ ὁσίου Θεοδώρου τοῦ Στουδίτου Μεγάλη κατήχησις. ΒιβλJον δεύτερον/ Publisher: A.I. Papadopoulo-Keramevs // Great Fourth Menaion, collected by All-Russian Metropolitan Macarius. November, day 11. Issue seven. Application. St. Petersburg: Kirshbaum Printing House, 1904. 27. Clement of Alexandria. Stromata / Transl. from other Greek, and comm. E.V. Afonasina. St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko, 2003. http://krotov.info/acts/03/1/kliment aleksandr 21.htm. > (copied. 19.09.2014). 28. Stoudios: Rule of the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks online publications/tvpikaPDF/typ010.pdf > (copied 04/17/2010). 29. Testament of Theodore the Studite for the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople / Timothy Miller. Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments edited by John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero with the assistance of Giles Constable. Series Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35. Harvard University Press. Washington, DC. 2000. P. 67–83. (copied 04/17/2010). 1. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. 2. Afinogenov D.E. The Tale of the Forgiveness of Emperor Theophilus and the Triumph of Orthodoxy. M.: Indrik, 2004. 3. Afinogenov D.E. Once again about the benefits of reading “between the lines”: Methodological reflections // Byzantine timebook. 2001. T. 60. pp. 201–203. 4. Baranov V.A. Iconoclasm // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. M., 2009. T. 22. pp. 31–44. 5. Barmin A.V. Review of: Afinogenov D. E. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997 // Byzantine temporary book. 1999. T. 59. pp. 249–252. 6. Besançon A. The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm. M.: MIC, 1999. 7. Belting H. Image and cult. The history of the image before the era of art. Translation with him. K.A. Piganovich. M., 2002. 8. Bibikov M.V. Historical literature of Byzantium. St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1998. 9. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient church / Ed. A.I. Brilliantova. M., 1994. T. 4. 10. Valentin Asmus, prot. Review of: Afinogenov D. E. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997 // Theological Bulletin. 2004. No. 4. pp. 497–510. 11. Vasiliev A.A. History of the Byzantine Empire. Time before the Crusades (before 1081). Translation from English A. G. Grushevoy. St. Petersburg, 1998. 12. Weisman A. D. Greek-Russian Dictionary / 5th ed. St. Petersburg: Author's publication, 1899. – Reprint: M.: Greco-Latin Cabinet Yu.A. Shichalina, 2006. 13. Vladimir Shmaliy, priest. Theology // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. M., 2009. T. 5. P. 515. 14. Eastern Christian relics / Editor-compiler A. M. Lidov. M.: Progress–Tradition, 2003. 15. Gnedich P.V. The dogma of atonement in Russian theological literature of the last fifty years: Coursework for the degree of candidate of theology. Zagorsk - Moscow, 1949. 16. Grossu N. Venerable Theodore the Studite: his time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. 17. Davydenkov Oleg, priest. Dogmatic theology. M., 2006. 18. Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Dorofey Gazsky. Ascetic teaching // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. M., 2010. T. 16. pp. 38–43. 19. Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Andrey Kordochkin, priest. John Climacus. Ascetic teaching // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. M., 2011. T. 24. pp. 409–421. 20. Dobroklonsky A.P. Venerable Theodore, confessor and abbot of Studi. Odessa, 1913. Parts 1–2. 21. Zhivov V. M. “Mystagogy” of Maximus the Confessor and the development of the Byzantine theory of image // Artistic language of the Middle Ages. M.: Nauka, 1982. pp. 108–127. 22. Zarin S.M. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching. Ethical theological research. St. Petersburg, 1914. Book. 2. – Reprint: M.: Pilgrim, 1996. 23. Ignatius, nun. Church songwriters. M., 2005. 24. Ishchenko D.S. Catechetical teachings of Theodore the Studite in Byzantium and among the Slavs // Byzantine temporary book. 1979. T. 40. pp. 157–171. 25. Kazhdan A.P. History of Byzantine literature (650–850). Translation from English Belozerova A.A., Vaneeva E.I. et al. St. Petersburg, 2002. 26. Karabinov I. Lenten Triodion. Historical overview of its plan, composition, editions and Slavic translations. St. Petersburg, 1910. 27. Lurie V.M. History of Byzantine philosophy. Formative period. St. Petersburg: Axioma, 2006. 28. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Orthodox dogmatic theology. SPb., 1883 – Reprint: M.: Pilgrim, 1999. T. 2. 29. Mansvetov I.D. Studiysky monastery and its church and official orders // Additions to the works of the holy fathers. 1884. Part 34, pp. 145–221. 30. Melioransky B.M. The philosophical side of iconoclasm // Church and Time. 1991. No. 2. pp. 37–52. 31. Menea. November. M.1980. Part 1. 32. Pentkovsky A.M. Typikon of Patriarch Alexy Studite in Byzantium and Rus'. M., 2001. 33. Pentkovsky A.M. Studio charter and charters of the studio tradition // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2001. No. 5. pp. 69–80. 34. Peter (Polyansky), Metropolitan, Holy Martyr. The first letter of St. ap. Paul to Timothy. Experience of historical and exegetical research. Sergiev Posad, 1897. 35. Petrenko V.I. Theology of the icon. St. Petersburg, 2000. 36. A complete prayer book and psalter for every need. St. Petersburg, 2003. 37. Popov I.V., prof. The idea of ​​deification in the Ancient Eastern Church // Orthodox way. Church-theological-philosophical yearbook. Supplement to the magazine “Orthodox Russia” - Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, 2002. 38. Popov K. Review of the essay by Associate Professor Priest. N. Grossu “Reverend Theodore the Studite: his time, life and creations.” Kyiv, 1908 // Proceedings of the Imperial Kyiv Theological Academy. 1910. No. 5, appendix: Journal of the Academy Council for December 16. 1909. pp. 203–221. 39. Piotrovskaya E.K. Byzantine chronicles of the 9th century. and their reflection in monuments of Slavic-Russian writing // Orthodox Palestine Collection. St. Petersburg, 1998. Issue. 97 (34). 40. Sergei (Rybko), hieromonk. Where to start building a monastery? // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2003. No. 2. pp. 26–33. 41. Sidorov A.I. Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism. M.: Orthodox Pilgrim, 1998. 42. Sidorov A.I. Venerable Macarius of Egypt and the problem of the “Makariev Corps” // Alpha and Omega. 1999. No. 3(21). pp. 103–129; 1999. No. 4 (22). 43. Sidorov A.I. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. M., 2002. 44. Sidorov A.I. At the origins of the culture of holiness. Monuments of ancient church ascetic and monastic writing / Introductory article, translations, comments by prof., doc. church history by A.I. Sidorov. M., 2002. 45. Skurat K.E. Memoirs and works on patrolology (I–V centuries). – Yakhroma: Trinity Cathedral, 2006. 46. Skurat K.E. The doctrine of the saint's salvation. Athanasius the Great. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2006. 47. Uspensky L.A. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. M., 1989. 48. Uspensky N.D. Orthodox Vespers: Historical and liturgical outline. The rite of the all-night vigil in the Orthodox East and in the Russian Church. M. Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2004. 49. Khosroev A.L. From the history of early Christianity in Egypt. Based on material from the Coptic library from Nag Hammadi. M.: Priscels, 1997. 50. Khosroev A.L. Pachomius the Great (From the early history of cenobitic monasticism in Egypt). St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Nestor-History”, 2004. 51. Schönborn K. Icon of Christ, Theological foundations. Translation with him. Vereshchagin E. M. Milan–Moscow: Christian Russia, 1999. 52. Alexander P. J. Church Councils and Patristik Authority the Iconoclastic Councils of Hiereia (754) and St. Sophia (815) // Harvard Studies in Classical Philology. 1958. Vol.63. R. 493–505. 53. Grumel V. Jean Grammaticos et saint Theodore Studite // Echos d’Orient. 1937. Vol. 36. P. 181–189. 54. Dagron G. Le second iconoclasme et l’établissement de l’orthodoxie (787–847) // Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours. T.VI. Evêques, moines et empereurs (610–1054). Desclee. 1993. P. 135–165. 55. Hieromonk Patapios. St. Theodore the studite and problem of the Paulicians // Greek Orthodox Theological Review. 1998. Vol. 43.Nos. 1–4. P. 143–154. 56. Irenee Hausheer. Saint Theodore Studite. L'homme et l'ascete // Orientalia Christiana 1926. Vol. VI–1. No. 22. 57. Janin R. Προδρόμου (Μονὴ τοῦ) ἐν τοῖς Στουδίου.... / Le siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat Ocumenique. Les églises et les monastères // La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire Byzantin. Paris, 1953. Volume 3. P. 444–455. 58. L.d'Ayala Valva. Introduzione / Nelle prove, la fiducia. Theodoro Studita. Piccole catechesi. Qiqaion Edizioni, 2006. 59. Lampe G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1961. 60. Leroy J. La reforme studite // Orientalia Christiana Analecta. 1958. Vol. 153. P. 181–214. 61. Liddell H. G., Scott R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1996. 62. Lourie B. Le second iconoclasme en recherche de la vraie doctrine // Studia patristica. Vol. XXXIV. Historica, Biblica, Theologica et Philosophica. Leuven, 2001, pp. 145–169. 63. Peter Hatlie. The Politics of Salvation: Theodore of Stoudios on Martyrdom (“Martyrion”) and Speaking out (“Parrhesid”) // Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 1996. Vol. 50. R. 263–287. 64. Roman Cholij. Theodore the Stoudite: the ordering of holiness. Oxford University Press, 2002. 65. Studer V., Brian D. Soteriologie in der Schrift und Patristik // Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte. Freiburg; Basel; Wien, 1978. Bd. 3, T. 2 a. 66. Theodore of Studios // The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York, 1991. Vol. 3. P. 2044–2045. 67. Thomas Pratsch. Theodoros Studites (759–826) – zwischen Dogma und Pragma // Berliner Byzantinistischen Studien. Frankfurt am Main, 1998. Band 4. 68. Von Ernst Werner. Die Krise im verhaltnis von Staat und Kirche in Byzanz: Theodor von Studion //Aus der Byzantinischen Arbeit der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Berlin, 1957. I. S. 113–133. 69. Gubareva O.V. Icon and image // Church Bulletin. No. 3 (328) February. 2006. http://www.tserkov.info/numbers/diskus/7ID~2079 (copied 08.10.2007). 70. Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. Monasticism as a Sacrament of the Church // International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church “Monasteries and Monasticism: Tradition and Modernity” (Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, September 23, 2013). (copied 15.10.2014). 71. Lurie V.M. Two Churches. Perplexed questions of Russian church reality and the answers of St. Theodore the Studite (copied 02/17/2010). 72. Lurie V.M. The Calling of Abraham: The Idea of ​​Monasticism and Its Embodiment in Egypt. (copied 17.02.2010). 73. Stoikoye V. Liturgical theology // Report at the conference “Orthodox theology on the threshold of the third millennium” (Moscow, February 2000). (copied 10.07.2014). 74. Florovsky G. prot. Incarnation and Redemption. Cur Deus Homo? About the Cause of the Incarnation. (copied 04/17/2010). 75. Yakov Krotov. Dictionary of Saints. (copied 17.02.2010) For a description of the morals prevailing in society and the Church at the time of the monk, see A.P. Dobroklonsky. Venerable Theodore, confessor and abbot of Studi. Odessa, 1913. Part 1, pp. 151–155. St. Theodore the Studite. The Great Announcement (hereinafter - VO). 3. 24 // Prp. Theodore the Studite. Creations. T. 1. M., 2010. (Complete collection of the works of the holy fathers of the Church and church writers in Russian translation (hereinafter referred to as PSTSO); T. 5.) P. 750. Cf. St. Feud. Stud. IN. 3. 25 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 751; Sancti Theodori Studitae sermones magnae catecheseos (hereinafter - MC) / Ed. J. Cozza Luzi, in A. Mai // Nova patrum bibliotheca (hereinafter – NPB). T. 9/2. Roma, 1888. P. 83. Sergei (Rybko), hieromonk. Where to start building a monastery? // ZhMP. 2003. No. 2. P. 26. Hilarion (Alfeev), Metropolitan. Monasticism as a Sacrament of the Church // International Theological Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church “Monasteries and Monasticism: Tradition and Modernity” (Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, September 23, 2013). http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/3513905.html (copied 10/15/2014). St. Feud. Stud. Small announcement (hereinafter - MO). 89 // PSTSO. T. 6. P. 166. Theod. Stud. Parvae catecheseos (hereinafter - PC). 89 // NPB. T. 9/1. Roma, 1888. P. 205; For more details, see the historiographical essay P. 17 below. In the service of St. Theodore, the Holy Church calls him: “mentor of Orthodoxy,” “teacher of piety and purity,” “lamp of the universe,” see: Menaion. November. M., 1980. Part 1. P. 296. The fact that in this hymn to the saint (compare with the troparion from the general service to the confessor, see: Complete prayer book and psalter for every need. St. Petersburg, 2003. P. 210), as in other texts of the service, epithets are attached, praising the feat of the confessor, in the best possible way, indicates the meaning that The Church assimilates his life path - the feat of mentoring in the testimony of the Truth. Skurat K E. The doctrine of salvation of St. Athanasius the Great. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 2006. P.3. A similar thought was expressed by Peter Gnedich in relation to one of the aspects of soteriology - the dogma of atonement: “...thus, the task for further study of the doctrine of atonement should not be an eclectic bringing together of individual ideas and concepts as “elements” for the interpretation of the dogma, but an in-depth study of the works of St. fathers and the entire Tradition of the Church and thereby verifying the results and conclusions that Russian religious thought and theological science have achieved,” see: Gnedich P.V. The dogma of atonement in Russian theological literature of the last fifty years: Coursework for the degree of candidate of theology. Zagorsk - Moscow, 1949. P. 163. We believe that this approach is also valid for a holistic study of any theological teaching that claims authenticity to the patristic teaching. For a detailed understanding of this term in the patristic tradition, see: Zarin S.M. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching. Ethical and theological study. St. Petersburg, 1914. Book. 2. – Reprint: M.: Pilgrim, 1996. P. 4–23. For examples of the use of the term, its semantic shades, see: Lampe G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1961. P. 1369. Davydenkov O. priest. Dogmatic theology. M., 2006. P. 287. Cf. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. Orthodox dogmatic theology. St. Petersburg, 1883 – Reprint: M.: Pilgrim, 1999. T. 2. pp. 8–9. For a critical edition of the letters, see: Fatouros G. Theodori Studitae Epistulae // CFHB. Series Berolinensis. Berlin, 1992. Vol. 31/1–2 (hereinafter referred to as TSE. 1–2). Russian translation see: Works of St. Theodore Studite in Russian translation. St. Petersburg, 1908. T. 2 (hereinafter referred to as TFS. T. 2). Here is a translation from PG. T. 99 and Nova Patrum Bibliotheca / Ed. J. Cozza Luzi. R., 1871. T. 8/1. Regarding the probable number of letters attributed to the Abbot of Studium, see: Fatouros G. TSE. 1. S. 41* (note 5). Dobroklonsky A.P. Venerable Theodore, confessor and abbot of Studi. Odessa, 1914. Part 2, pp. 66–105. For a link to other research opinions, see: Peter Hatlie. The Politics of Salvation: Theodore of Stoudios on Martyrdom (“Martyrion”) and Speaking out (“Parrhesid”) // DOP. 1996. Vol. 50. P. 265 (footnote No. 10). This area of ​​study of the works of St. Theodora is entirely devoted to the first issue of the second part of the fundamental work of A.P. Dobroklonsky: Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 2. P. 52569. To date, the most complete publication of the announcements of St. Theodora is TFS (republished in PSTSO. T. 5–6), where the translation of the “Small Announcement” was carried out from the critical edition of Auvray: Auvray E. Τοῦ ὁσίου πατρ. ἡμ. καί ὁμολ. Θεοδώρου ἡγ. τοῦ Στουδίου Μικρὰ κατήχησις. S. Theodori Stud. Parva catechesis, Par. 1891, and the “Great Announcement” - the first part: from the manuscript of the Patmos Monastery of John the Theologian No. 111–112 (87 teachings), the second part: according to the Greek text, ed. Imperial Archaeographical Commission - Τοῦ ὁσίου Θεοδώρου τοῦ Στουδίτου Μεγάλη κατήχησις, βιβλ. δεύτερον, ἐκδοθ. ὑπὸ τῆς αὐτοκρ. Ἀρχαιογραφικῆς Ἐπιτροπῆς, Πετρούπ. 1906, – (124 teachings), third part: (46 teachings) from the already mentioned manuscript (see above) of the Patmos Monastery, and the missing one from the NPB. T. 9–10 and 46th teaching from the Greek manuscript of the St. Panteleimon Monastery No. 565, see: A. P. Dobroklonsky. Decree. op. Part 2. P. 48. It is worth noting that modern researchers give a good assessment of the translation in the TFS publication, see: Lurie V. History of Byzantine Philosophy. Formative period. – St. Petersburg: Axioma, 2006. P. 421 (see note). For some comments on the quality of translation, see: A.P. Dobroklonsky. Decree. op. Part 2. pp. 49–50 (see note). Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain a critical edition of Ovray’s “Μικρὰ κατήχησις”, and a critical edition of the Greek text of all books of the “Big Catechism” is missing (see: Ishchenko D.S. Catechetical teachings of Theodore the Studite in Byzantium and among the Slavs // VV. 1979. Vol. 40. P. 158), therefore, in our study, when referring to the texts of the Small Catechism, we had to use what Cozza published in NPB. 1. P. 1–318 (here 134 are announcements); refer to the same publication (NPB. 2) when considering the first and third parts of the “Large Catechism”, for the second part - use the publication: κατήχησις, βιβλ. δεύτερον / Publisher: A.I. Papadopoulo-Keramevs // Great Fourth Menaion, collected by All-Russian Metropolitan Macarius. November, day 11. Issue seven. Application. St. Petersburg: Kirshbaum Printing House, 1904 (hereinafter referred to as PC). However, given the extremely poor quality of the Greek text published in the NPB. 1–2 (see: Dobroklonsky A. P. Op. cit. Part 2. P. 38–39), we believe it is justified to be guided in the study by the scientific publication of the catechumens of St. Theodore Studite in Russian translation. For the Large Catechism, such a publication is PSTSO. T. 5, which contains a corrected translation of the “Great Announcements” from the TFS, indicating discrepancies. Similarly, to work on the “Small Catechism” we will turn to the corrected text of the “Small Catechisms” from the TFS published in PSTSO, see: St. Feud. Stud. MO // PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 26–242. St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 5 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 236 (see footnote). The assumption about a different number of teachings in the “Large Catechism”, as well as the opinions of researchers about the order of formation of the “Large” and “Small” catechisms - see: Ishchenko D.S. Decree. op. pp. 157, 159–161; Fatouros G. TSE. 1. S. 25*. About the benefits of his instructions, St. Theodore convinces the brethren this way: “...they [i.e. e. announcements - K.V.] little by little they translate and transfer your dear souls from bottom to top, and especially from earth to heaven itself (τόν οὐρανὸν τοῦ οὐρανὸῦ),” see: Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 22 // PC. I. 71 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 477). And there below: “there is no need to say that we do not benefit from the catechumens and that we do not seem to move forward from the teachings. By the grace of Christ and through the prayers of my father and yours, we actually receive benefit, and succeed, and successfully ascend the mountain of virtues, all being enlightened, sanctified and deified (θεοποιούμενοι),” see: Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 22 // PC. I. 72 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 478). From these words it is clear that the Studian abbot assessed his catechumens as an effective means towards achieving the goal of Christian life - deification. Here, under the “Charter of St. Theodore" we will consider the liturgical and disciplinary practice of the Studite monastery, the foundation of which tradition attributes to St. Theodore, see: Sokolov I.I. Venerable Theodore the Studite, his church-social and theological-literary activities. Historical sketch // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 101. Theod. Stud. Ttotblueats // PG. T. 99. Col. 1704–1720; rus. lane see: TFS. T. 2. P. 822–830; Dr. Editorial see: Dmitrievsky A.A., prof. Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in libraries of the Orthodox East. Vol. 1–3. Kyiv, 1895–1917. T. 1: Τυπικά. 1895. pp. 224–238. For an English translation with commentary, see: Timothy Miller. Rule of the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople // BMFD. Series Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35. Harvard University Press. Washington, DC. 2000 < http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks online publications/tvpikaPDF/tvp010.pdf > (copied 04/17/2010). Both versions of the Charter in Russian translation with notes (scientific edition - P.K. Dobrotsvetov), ​​see: “Hypotiposis” of the Studite Monastery // PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 513–535. Mansvetov I.D. Studiysky monastery and its church and official orders // Additions to the works of the holy fathers. 1884. Part 34. P. 165. Pentkovsky A.M. Typikon of Patriarch Alexy Studite in Byzantium and Rus'. M., 2001. pp. 141–142. Theod. Stud. Testamentum // PG. T. 99. Col. 1813–1824 (TFS. T. 2. P. 853–860). For an English translation with commentary, see: Timothy Miller. Testament of Theodore the Studite for the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople // BMFD. Series Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35. Harvard University Press. Washington, DC. 2000. P. 67–83 (copied April 17, 2010). For the Russian translation with commentary, see: Testament of our venerable father and confessor Theodore, abbot of Studium // PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 504–512. Theod. Stud. Έπιτίμια κοινὰ // PG. T. 99. Col. 1733–1748 (TFS. T. 2. P. 838–848; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 487–498). Theod. Stud. Έπιτίμια καθημερινὰ // PG. T. 99. Col. 1748–1757 (TFS. T. 2. P. 848–853; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 498–503). Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 433. Mansvetov I.D. Decree. op. P. 153. Theod. Stud. Oratio 2–13 // PG. T. 99. Col. 691–902 (TFS. T. 2. P. 94–199; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 367478). There are nine of these in the accessible edition, namely: a word on the veneration of the Honorable and Life-Giving Cross in the midst of Pentecost, on the Eve of Lights, on the holy and great week of Easter, on the Dormition of our Holy Lady Theotokos, on the Council of Heavenly Orders, on the Nativity of the holy prophet the Forerunner of the Baptist, on the beheading of the sacred head of the great Baptist of Christ and the Forerunner, in honor of the great John Apostle and Evangelist of Christ, in honor of the glorious and holy Apostle of Christ Bartholomew - see: Theod. Stud. Oratio 2–10 // PG. T. 99. Col. 691–801 (TFS. T. 2. P. 94–151; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 367–431). In addition, Peru St. Researchers attribute to Theodore (see: Vladimir (Ikim), Metropolitan. Preface to the third volume of the Works of St. Theodore the Studite // PSTSO. T. 7. pp. 25–27) the following words on church holidays: a word on the Nativity of our Most Holy Lady Theotokos (PSTSO. T. 7. p. 895903), on the third finding of the Honest Head of the Holy Forerunner (PSTSO. T. 7. pp. 904–907), on Saturday Akathist (PSTSO. T. 7. pp. 925–930). These include: a eulogy to St. Arseny the anchorite, a catechetical funeral eulogy in honor of his mother and a eulogy in honor of his spiritual father Plato - see: Theod. Stud. Oratio 11–13 //PG. T. 99. Col. 804–901 (TFS. T. 2. pp. 151–199; PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 432–477), the word about the transfer from Samothrace to Sigriana of the sacred relics of the most holy wonderworker our father Theophan (PTSO. T. 7. pp. 908–918). Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 803–850 (TFS. T. 2. P. 151175; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 432–454). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 883–902 (TFS. T. 2. P. 189–199; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 468–477). Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 1–3 // PG. T. 99. Col. 328–436 (TFS. T. 1. P. 119–230; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 247323). There is an edition of the Greek text with commentaries, in progress: κονομάχων. Ε σαγωγή, Έπιμέλεια, Μετάφραση, Σχόλια – Κωνσταντίνος ιω. Δάλκος, Ἀθήνα, 1998; however, it does not pretend to be critical, see: Ibid., E. 37. Theod. Stud. Refutatio poem. iconomach. //PG. T. 99. Col. 436–477 (TFS. T. 1. P. 191–217; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 324–351). It is worth noting here that the iambic verses of St. Theodore is much larger, 124 epigrams have been preserved (see: PSTSO. T. S. 850–894, according to the critical edition: Speck P. Jamben auf verschiedene Gegenstande // SB. Berlin, 1968. Bd.1). These works of the reverend do not represent significant significance for our study, since in terms of content they are a poetic exposition of those already known from other works of the reverend. Theodora, ideas. Theod. Stud. Problemata ad iconomach. //PG. T. 99. Col. 477–485 (TFS. T. 1. P. 217–222; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 352–357). Theod. Stud. Adversus iconomach. cap. septem. //PG. T. 99. Col. 485–497 (TFS. T. 1. P. 222–230; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 358–366). Ibid., Col. 489 and Col. 493 (respectively: PSTSO. T 6. P. 361–362 and P. 362–363). Lenten Triodion. M., 1992. Part 1. Mansvetov I.D. Decree. op. P.160. Karabinov I. Lenten Triodion. Historical overview of its plan, composition, editions and Slavic translations. St. Petersburg, 1910, pp. 123–124. This is how such an attitude was reflected in the life of St. Theodore, where a certain husband was severely punished for neglecting the three songs of the Abbot of Studium. See: Vita B // PG. T. 99. Col. 312C-313B (PSTSO. T. 5. pp. 208–209). Since the hymnographic creations of St. Theodore is not limited to the period of the Lenten Triodion (see: Vladimir (Ikim), Metropolitan. Preface to the third volume of the Works of St. Theodore the Studite // PSTSO. T. 7. pp. 16–22), our choice is due to the fact that it is the authorship of the Tripes that is least of all in doubt among researchers - see: Karabinov I. Decree. op. P. 124). For example, in addition to the above-mentioned messages (from which only inscriptions have come down), in one of the letters the Abbot of Studium mentions his treatise “On oikonomia in general” (Περί τῆς καθόλου οίκονομίας), written on the occasion of the “Michian” schism and also not preserved, see: TSE. 1. S. 141 (TFS. T. 2. S. 305). And the Life mentions both exegetical (on Genesis) and apologetic (with the calculation and refutation of all heresies) treatises written in iambic verse, see: Vita A // PG. T. 99. Col. 264C (PSGSO. T. 5. P. 185). And this may well be true, since some examples of the poetic creativity of the Studio abbot have reached us, as described above. About the probably existing works of St. Theodora also see: Fatouros G. TSE. 1. S. 36*-38*. These are works such as: “Four Chapters” (Theod. Stud. Capit.quat. // PG. T. 99. Col. 16811684) - where excerpts about the ascetic life from the Small Annunciation are collected, see: Grossu N. Decree. op. pp. 303, 304 (note No. 1); “Rules on confession and its permissions, set out by him” (Theod. Stud. De confes. et satisfact. // PG. T. 99. Col. 1721–1730), “Rules regarding certain questions and answers to them, collected by him” (Theod. Stud. Quaedam // PG. T. 99. Col. 1729–1734). These works are exclusively disciplinary and canonical in nature. The affiliation of such works with the Studian Abbot, such as: “Explanation of the Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts” (Theod. Stud. De Praesenctificatic. // PG. T. 99. Col. 16871690), “Scholia to the rules of St. Basil the Great, briefly stated” (Theod. Stud. Scholion in S. Basil. // PG. T. 99. Col. 1685–1688) and “Διδασκαλια χρονικη” (Theod. Stud. Catechesis chronic. // PG. T. 99. Col. 1693–1704), - is questioned by researchers, see: Grossu N. Decree. op. S. 301302, 304 (note No. 2). For the first editions and well-known lists of lives, see: Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 290. Roman Cholij. Theodore the Stoudite: the ordering of holiness. Oxford University Press, 2002. P. 7; L.d'Ayala Valva. Introduzione / Nelle prove, la fiducia. Theodora Studita. Piccole catechesi. Qiqaion Edizioni, 2006. P. 6–7 (see note No. 3). Full title of the life: “Βίος καὶ πολιτεία τοῦ ὁσίου πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ὁμολογητοῦ Θεοδώρου ἡγουμένου μονῆς τῶν Στουδίου, συγγραφεὶς παρὰ Μιχαὴλ μοναχοῦ" (“The life and exploits of our venerable father and confessor Theodore, abbot of the Studian monastery, described by the monk Michael”), see: Vita B // PG. T. 99. Col. 233–363 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 170–216). Kazhdan A.P. History of Byzantine literature (650–850). Translation from English by Belozerova A.A., Vaneeva E.I. and others. St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 306. Vita B // PG. T. 99. Col. 233–363 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 170–216). Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. P. 203. Theophanes the Byzantine. Chronicle of the Byzantine Theophan from Diocletian to the kings Michael and his son Theophylact / Priscus of Ponia. Tales of Priscus of Ponia. – Ryazan: Alexandria, 2005. Piotrovskaya E.K. Byzantine chronicles of the 9th century and their reflection in monuments of Slavic-Russian writing // PPS. 1998. Vol. 97 (34). pp. 11–13. For example, about the installation of a patriarch from the laity (Theophan the Byzantine. Chronicle... Op. cit. P. 353), about the execution of heretics (Ibid., P. 364). Piotrovskaya E.K. Decree. op. P. 13. The successor of Feofan. Biography of the Byzantine kings. St. Petersburg, 1992. Bibikov M.V. Historical literature of Byzantium. – St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 1998. pp. 99–100. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. St. Petersburg, 1996. T. IV (hereinafter referred to as ICE). Grossu N. Venerable Theodore the Studite: his time, life and creations. Kiev, 1907. Dobroklonsky A.P. Venerable Theodore, confessor and abbot of Studi. His era, life and work. Odessa, 1913. Part 1. 1914. Part 2. Grossu N. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 179–205. Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. S. 3. Right there. P. 434 (see note No. 1). Dobroklonsky A P. Decree. op. Part 2. Popov K. Review of the essay by Associate Professor Priest. N. Grossu “Reverend Theodore the Studite: his time, life and creations.” Kyiv, 1908 // TKDA. 1910. No. 5, appendix: Journal of the Academy Council for December 16. 1909. pp. 203–220. Wed. Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. XVII–XIX. Melioransky B.M. The philosophical side of iconoclasm // Church and Time. 1991. No. 2. P. 3752. In particular, the position that the basis of the views of icon worshipers was Neoplatonic was revised (in Grossu N.S. 200); for criticism, see: Zhivov V.M. “Mystagogy” of Maximus the Confessor and the development of the Byzantine theory of image // Artistic language of the Middle Ages. – M.: Nauka, 1982. P. 108–127; or, for example, a look at the role of St. Theodore in the church-political struggle: if Dobroklonsky considered him the organizer of the Orthodox resistance (Dobroklonsky A.P. Part 1. P. 748), then the modern researcher D.E. Afinogenov quite convincingly shows that the strategy of the Orthodox struggle came from the patriarch and is the height of perfection in politics and diplomacy, and St. Theodore was only one of the supporters of the patriarch, who actively implemented his plans (Afinogenov D.E. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997. P. 74:78). Karabinov I. Lenten Triodion. Historical overview of its plan, composition, editions and Slavic translations. St. Petersburg, 1910. For a list of analyzed manuscripts, see: Ibid., pp. 8–11. Ignatius, nun. Church songwriters. M., 2005. About the life path of Mother Ignatius - Maria (Sokolova), see: Ignatius, nun. Church songwriters. M., 2005. pp. 452–461. For the difference in approach to the analysis of ternaries in this study, see note No. 396 below. Zarin S. M. Asceticism according to Orthodox Christian teaching. Ethical and theological study. St. Petersburg, 1914. Book. 2. – Reprint: M.: Pilgrim, 1996. Sidorov A.I. Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism. – M.: Orthodox Pilgrim, 1998. Sidorov A.I. At the origins of the culture of holiness. Monuments of ancient church ascetic and monastic writing / Introductory article, translations, comments by prof., doc. church history by A.I. Sidorov. M., 2002. Leroy J. La reforme studite // OCA. 1958. Vol. 153. P. 181–214. Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 425. Leroy J. Op. cit. P. 190. Peter Hatlie. The Politics of Salvation: Theodore of Stoudios on Martyrdom (Martyrion) and Speaking out (Parrhesid) // DOP. 1996. Vol. 50. P. 263–287. Peter Hatlie. Op. cit. R. 266. Thomas Pratsch. Theodoros Studites (759–826) – zwischen Dogma und Pragma // BBS. 1998. Band 4. Afinogenov D.E. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784847). M., 1997. See critical reviews: Barmin A.V. Review of: Afinogenov D.E. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997 // VV. 1999. T. 59. pp. 249–252; Valentin Asmus, prot. Review of: Afinogenov D. E. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784–847). M., 1997 // BV. 2004. No. 4. pp. 497–510. Wed. Afinogenov D.E. Once again about the benefits of reading “between the lines”: Methodological reflections // VV. 2001. T. 60. pp. 201–203. Afinogenov D.E. Patriarchate of Constantinople. Decree. op. P. 130. Roman Cholij. Theodore the Stoudite: the ordering of holiness. Oxford University Press, 2002. For example, Wed. Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 300 (note No. 2) and Roman Cholij. Op. tit. P. 21 (note no. 114). HieromonkPatapios. St. Theodore the studite and problem of the Paulicians // GOTR. 1998. Vol. 43.Nos. 1–4. P. 143–154. Hieromonk Patapios. Op. cit. R. 145–146. Christoph Schönborn. Icon of Christ; Theology basics. Milan - Moscow, 1999. See criticism: Lourie B. Le second iconoclasme en recherche de la vraie doctrine // Studia Patristica. Vol. XXXIV. Historica, Biblica, Theologica et Philosophica. Leuven, 2001, pp. 165–167. Wed. also: Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 1 //PG. T. 99. Col. 344B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 257–258). Christoph Schönborn. Decree. op. P. 208. Dagron G. Le second iconoclasme et l’établissement de l’orthodoxie (787–847) // Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours. T.VI. Evêques, moines et empereurs (610–1054). Desclee. 1993. P.135–165. Bolotov V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church / Ed. A. Brilliantova. Petrograd, 1918. T. IV. P. 573. Besançon Alain. The Forbidden Image: An Intellectual History of Iconoclasm. M.: MIC, 1999. P. 129. Lourie B. Le second iconoclasme en recherche de la vraie doctrine // Studia Patristica. Vol. XXXIV. Historica, Biblica, Theologica et Philosophica. Leuven, 2001 Lurie V. History of Byzantine philosophy. Formative period. – St. Petersburg: Axioma, 2006. Thus, the phrase from the inscription from the gate in Halki “..deprived of breath..” (see: Lurie V. Op. cit. P. 446447), the interpretation of which is the basis for all judgments, does not necessarily indicate a “despicable dead body.” For example, the image of the emperor “from earthly matter”, “in a silent form” was given honors as a living representative (see: Hans Belting. Image and cult. History of the image before the era of art. Translation from German. K. A. Piganovich. M. 2002. P. 179. Cf. Besançon Alain. Op. cit. P. 138). And the surge in iconographic activity in the depiction of the dead Christ (crucifixion), observed after the first period of iconoclasm (Lurie V.S. 449), can be explained by the desire of the Orthodox to remove the iconoclastic opposition of the cross to the icon (see: DVS. P.536:591). Alexander P.J. Church Councils and Patristic Authority the Iconoclastic Councils of Hiereia (754) and St. Sophia (815) // HSCP. 1958. Vol. 63. P. 502. Dating of events related to the life of St. Theodore, given according to the research of A.P. Dobroklonsky, see: Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 379–380. Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 763 (note No. 4). Briefly about the life and work of St. Theodore, see Theodore of Studios // ODB. 1991. Vol. 3. P. 2044–2045. However, we note in this article that to reduce the essence of the activities of St. Theodore to the creation of an independent monastic organization is not entirely fair (about which more below). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 888C (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 470). Theod. Stud. Vita B // PG. T. 99. Col. 236D (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 171). For the position held by Photinus, see: Thomas Pratsch. Op. cit. S. 18–22. On the financial situation of Fotin’s family, see: A. P. Dobroklonsky. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 290. Theod. Stud. Vita B // PG. T.99. Col. 236C (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 171). Theod. Stud. Vita A // PG. T.99. Col. 116C (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 110). Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 295. Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 297 (see extensive footnote). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 897B (PSTSO. T.6. P.475). Ibid., Col. 885B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 469). For a mention of the existence of such a monastic tradition, see: Khosroev A.L. Pachomius the Great (From the early history of cenobitic monasticism in Egypt) - St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Nestor-History”, 2004, pp. 194, 402. Theophanes the Byzantine. Chronicle... Decree. op. pp. 374–375, 379. Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 885B (PSTSO. T.6. P. 469). Ibid., Col. 889C (PSTSO. T.6. P. 471). Ibid., Col. 885D, 888A (PSTSO. T.6. P. 469). Roman Cholij. Op. cit. P. 15 (note no. 75). Thomas Pratsch. Op. cit. S. 23–24. See: TSE. 1. S. 8 (TFS. 2. S. 202). So Theodore calls father out of respect, for example, a simple monk (TSE. 1. S. 54; TFS. 2. S. 237), similarly, master; The last Theodore names noble people - patricians (TSE. 1. S. 80; TFS. 2. S. 257) and clergy - abbot (TSE. 2. S. 622; TFS. 2. S. 464), patriarch (TSE. 1. S. 128; TFS. 2. S. 295), and finally, the younger brother (TSE. 1. S. 21; TFS. 2. S. 213). From this we can only assume that the deacon mentioned was of noble origin. In addition, in the same letter to St. Theodore, speaking about relatives (accompanying him), mentions only brothers according to the flesh: “τρεῖς ἐσμεν ἀδελφοὶ τὸ κατὰ σάρκα...” (TSE. 1. S. 7; TFS. 2. P. 202) and does not mention his father at all, describing the meeting with his mother on the road to Thessalonica, in the Funeral Homily in honor of the latter (which would be appropriate if Photinus were one of the confessors), but only the brothers, see: Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 893BD (PSTSO. T.6. P. 473). TSE. 1.S.23 (TFS. 2. P. 214). TSE. 2. S. 555–556 (TFS. 2. P. 412). Wed. also messages “Στεφάνῳ ἀδσηκρῆτις” – see: TSE. 2. S. 586–588 (TFS. 2. S. 435–437), “Στεφάνῳ μαγίστρῳ,” see: TSE. 2. S. 588–589 (TFS. 2. S. 437–438). For example, in one of the letters to St. Theodore instructs: “... for the law strictly demands that the Orthodox should not have any communication with non-believers and not take part with them in food, drink, or conversion” (TSE. 2. S. 754; TFS. 2. P. 567), - we believe that the Studian abbot knew that the court officials to whom he addressed could not combine official powers and the above law; At the same time, the monk, in another place, blames the Orthodox abbot even for the fact that he was not subjected to repression for his adherence to Orthodoxy, see: TSE. 2. S. 633 (TFS. 2. S. 469). Thus, there is economia, condescension, on the part of St. Theodore, in relation to the laity in the service of the emperor. If the conspiracy against Emperor Leo St. Theodore met with undisguised joy (TSE. 2. S. 582–584; TFS. 2. P. 433–434), but the rebellion against Michael did not arouse his sympathy (TSE. 2. S. 696; TFS. 2. P. 497. Cf. Dobroklonsky A.P. Part 2. P. 466) and this despite the pro-icon-worshipping policy of the rebels (Continuator of Theophan. P. 34; Dobroklonsky A.P. S. 856.), and despite the fact that the wickedness of Emperor Michael was not in doubt by the abbot of Stud (Theod. Stud. PC. 74 // NPB. P. 175–177; PSTSO. T.6. P. 145–147). The point of view of D.E. deserves attention here. Afinogenov about the special connections of the Fotin family with the “Armenian group” (for the introduction of this designation [“Armenian group”] and its content, see: Afinogenov D.E. The Tale of the Forgiveness of Emperor Theophilus and the Triumph of Orthodoxy. M.: Indrik, 2004. P. 39), among the aristocratic families in Constantinople (Ibid., P. 42), and how consequence, lobbying their interests prp. Theodore. The last statement, in our opinion, does not have sufficient grounds. The researcher considers Rev. Theodora as the author of pamphlets against the emperor. Michael II, a king who relied on the Greek nobility (Ibid., pp. 42–45). At the same time, the scientist starts from the statements of St. Theodora: about the rebel Thomas (not too harshly), about the condemnation of the marriage of the emperor. Michael II and that when denouncing this emperor the saint did not focus on the topic of iconoclasm (Ibid., pp. 41–44). We believe that these statements can be dictated not only by family and clan preferences. So about the rebels: St. Theodore nevertheless decisively condemns them - he advises to punish (TSE. 2. S. 696; TFS. 2. P. 497) and this despite the fact that Thomas favored the Orthodox (Vita B // PG. T. 99. Col. 320A; PSTSO. T. 5. P. 212; Cf. Continuer of Theophanes. P. 34); when compared with the protests of St. Theodora against the punishment of the Paulicians (TSE. 2. S. 645; TFS. 2. S. 533–535. See: Hieromonk Patapios. Op. cit. P. 143–154), then we can conclude that for the Studian abbot, fraternal bloodshed is no less evil than heresy. And this points to St. Theodore is more likely to be seen as a figure who cares about the interests of the state (situated in the moral and doctrinal spheres) and is more of a supporter of the symphony of authorities than clan politics. On the condemnation of the marriage of the Emperor. Michael II: it is completely natural for Theodore to draw analogies here with Constantine VI (by the way, where the guilt of the relatives of St. Theodore was obvious), since for the abbot an illegal marriage is the same overthrow of faith as heresy: “...overthrow (is added) to overthrow (καί καταστροφἡ ἐρῐ καταστροφἡν), persecution to persecution” (Theod. Stud. PC. 74 //NPB. P. 175; PSTSO. T6. P. 146); what St. Theodore here does not expand much in his denunciations regarding the trampling of monastic vows (see: Ibid.) may serve as an indication that although Euphrosyne made vows, she was hardly tonsured into the schema. Thus, Michael II himself condemned such a marriage: he ordered that Tourmarch Euthymius be punished with mutilation for marrying “who took the schema” (Continued by Theophan, p. 38). Hence, the marriage of the imp. Michael II can be censured by St. Theodore not because of clan interests in choosing a bride, as D.E. Afinogenov suggests (Afinogenov D.E.S. 44), but in principle, as an encroachment on what was once dedicated to God (TSE. 2. S. 739; TFS. 2. S. 564). About the nature of the accusations of the imp. Michael II: what St. Theodore in an accusatory word (Theod. Stud. PC. 74 // NPB. P. 175–177; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 145147) mentions the emperor’s iconoclasm as if in passing, rather speaking about the nature of the religious policy of Michael II (Vita B // PG. T. 99. Col. 304C; PSTSO. T. 5. P. 204) than about the priority of clan interests in assessing the actions of the king (Afinogenov D. E. S. 44–45). Let us also note that in the same accusatory word, two-thirds of the text is devoted to exhortations to stand in faith and prepare for persecution; Thus, the theme of iconoclasm is implicitly still the main one, and the latest wickedness of the emperor is rather an occasion to recall the reason for the prevailing heresy: “Is it not from this (crime) [meaning the illegal marriage of Constantine VI - K. 5.] that persecution and misfortune flared up in the Church of God?” (Theod.. Stud. PC. 74 // NPB. P. 175; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 146). Here the zeal of the Studian abbot for the purity of church tradition clearly sounds (Cf. TSE. 2. S. 214–215; TFS. 2. P. 650). From the above it is clear that for St. Theodore's family and clan interests were not decisive in his judgments, and the conclusions of D. E. Afinogenov about the participation of St. Theodore or his people in creating pamphlets against Michael II are quite controversial. However, we note that these interests were understood differently even within the family; for example, the illegal marriage of Constantine VI with Theodota (a relative of St. Theodore), in relation to this union, split relatives: into those who approve of it and those who are against it. This is how Thomas Pratch divides the relatives of St. Theodora on the party: monastic and palace (Thomas Pratsch. Op. cit. S. 57–60). However, the difference in views did not prevent them from communicating (Ibid., S. 58). Level of education prp. Theodore is discussed in detail by A.P. Dobroklonsky, see: Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 299–303; Wed Roman Cholij. Op. cit. P. 19–21. For example, he uses Aristotle’s rules of logic in “Antirrhetics” (proof through reductio ad absurdum, see: Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 3 // PG. T. 99. Col. 393B, 401D–404A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 291:298) et. al., denounces iconoclastic iambs that are not skillful in structure and according to established rules, he writes his own, polemical ones, see: TSE. 2. S. 490 (TFS. 2. S. 796–797). TSE. 1. S. 139 (TFS. 2. S. 304). TSE. 2. S. 628 (TFS. 2. S. 304). Wed. “...for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12). Unlike his father, about his mother, St. Theodora has preserved information and her life is more or less covered in historical science (Dobroklonsky A.P. Op. cit. Part 1. 292–298; Thomas Pratsch. Op. cit. S. 26–42), so we will highlight only the key aspects in the nature of the family life of this amazing woman. Theophanes the Byzantine. Decree. op. pp. 367. 292–298; Thomas Pratsch. Op. cit. S. 26–42), therefore, we will highlight only the key aspects in the nature of the family life of this amazing woman. Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 805BC (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 433). Thus, it is the temperament of Theoktista that allows Auxerre to conclude that St. Theodore: “...et toute sa vie temoigne en effet qúil fut l'image vivante de sa mere tant aimee”, see. Irenee Hausheer. Saint Theodore Studite. L'homme et l'ascete // OC. 1926. Vol. VI-1. No. 22. P. 4. Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 885B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 469).). St. Theodore speaks of some magical rituals (spells, headbands, necklaces, amulets) associated with childbirth and which were widespread among women, see: Ibid., Col. 884C-885A (PSTSO. T.6. P. 468). Ibid., Col. 885C (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 469). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 885D (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 469). Ibid., Col. 889AB (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 471). Ibid., Col. 889BC (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 471). Ibid., Col. 888C (PSTSO. T.6. P. 470). TSE. 1. S. 23 (TFS. 2. S. 214). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 892C (PSTSO. T.6. P. 472). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 885D-888A (PSTSO. T6. P. 469). TSE. 2. S. 679 (TFS. 2. S. 490). TSE. 1. S. 180 (TFS. 2. S. 495). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 885C (PSTSO. T.6. P.469). TSE. 1. S. 147 (TFS. 2. S. 309). TSE. 1. S. 96 (TFS. 2. S. 268). TSE. 2. S. 597 (TFS. 2. S. 444). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 889AB (PSTSO. T.6. P. 471). These words can be completely trusted, because... above, the abbot of Studio addresses the listeners: “I know that all of you who enjoyed her hospitality will confirm this,” see: Ibid., 888D (PSTSO. T.6. P. 470). That is, Rev. Theodore delivers a panegyric to people who personally knew Theoktista. Wed: Matthew 25:35; Luke 14:13; James 1:27. TSE. 1. S. 41 (TFS. 2. S. 228). For more information about the various charitable activities of the Studite Monastery, see A.P. Dobroklonsky. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 580–586. We believe that this explains the fact that the memories of the mother of St. Theodore was carefully preserved by his students and has come down to us. Briefly but meaningfully about St. Plato, see Thomas Pratsch. Op. cit. S. 47–48. Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 821B (PSTSO. T6. P. 441). About this also see: Vita B // PG. T. 99. Col. 240D (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 174). Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 809B (PSTSO. T.6. P. 435). Theod. Stud. Oratio 13: Laudatio in matrem // PG. T. 99. Col. 892A (PSTSO. T.6. P. 471–472). Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 812AB (PSTSO. T.6. P. 436). For a description of monasticism after the iconoclastic period, see N. Grossu. Decree. op. pp. 74–77. Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 809B (PSTSO. T6. P. 435). TSE. 2. S. 670 (TFS. 2. S. 542). Read more about this from A.P. Dobroklonsky: A.P. Dobroklonsky Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 452–456. Particularly noteworthy are the parallels with similar passages in the writings of other ascetics, see: Ibid., p. 453 (note No. 2). Theod. Stud. Έπιτίμια καθημερινὰ // PG. T. 99. Col. 1752B (PSTSO. T6. P. 500). Ibid., Col. 812C (PSTSO. T.6. P. 436). These denunciations of the modern St. Theodore of monasticism also point out that we are talking here not just about the praise of traditional monastic vows (negative examples were hardly appropriate here), but about their personal perception by the Studian abbot and St. Plato. Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 812BC (PSTSO. T.6. P. 436). Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 812D (PSTSO. T.6. P. 436). About this Rev. Theodore, addressing the brethren, says: “... where do you have willful actions and inappropriate actions that arise from this? Is it not because you do not open, but hide your harmful thoughts (λογισμούς)?” - see: Theod. Stud. PC. 133 // NPB. P. 314 (PSTSO. T.6. P. 239). Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 812D–813A (PSTSO. T.6. P. 437). Ibid., Col. 848C (PSTSO. T.6. P. 454). TSE. 1. S. 12 (TFS. 2. S. 205). TSE. 1. S.8 (TFS. 2. P. 203). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 45 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 327. More details “about obedience” in the works of St. Theodore, see A.P. Dobroklonsky: Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 506–510. For parallels with similar passages in the writings of other ascetics, see: Ibid., pp. 510–511 (note No. 5). Theod. Stud. Testamentum // PG. T. 99. Col. 1824AB (PSTSO. Vol. 6. pp. 511–512). Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 825A (PSTSO. T.6. P. 443). A.P. Dobroklonsky is inclined to see in these words nothing more than modesty and the initiative to carry out reform, following the Lives, is attributed to Theodore, and not to Plato. In this case, the scientist’s arguments are as follows: firstly, Plato “gravitated towards a contemplative-ascetic life” and did not show himself as an organizer; secondly, it is not clear what prevented Plato from starting the reform earlier, when he was abbot of the Monastery of Symbols. (Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. Op. Part 1. P. 332–334). The following can be objected to this: firstly, if the craving for a contemplative-ascetic life did not prevent Plato from taking part in the VII Ecumenical Council and the “Michian” schism, then it is unlikely that the fight against violations, “lawless traditions, like evil heresies,” within the monastic community (which is the duty of the spiritual leader) would have been a big obstacle. For the second consideration of the researcher, it can be noted that the Saccoudio Monastery (unlike the Monastery of Symbols) was a family one, where the authority of Abbot Plato was undeniable; and as soon as the monastery was founded, it did not yet have either experienced monks or its own ascetic tradition, and therefore could conveniently accept from the abbot rules that were different from the rules of other monasteries. Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 825C (PSTSO. T.6. P. 433). TSE. 1. S. 10 (TFS. 2. S. 204). About the meaning of these ideals for St. Theodore is well covered by Peter Hatlie, see: Peter Hatlie. Op. cit. P. 263–287. However, it is worth noting here that, according to the researcher, the idea of ​​imitating martyrs among the Abbot of Studium developed itself from written and living examples of martyrdom (Ibid., P. 267), and this, I think, is a somewhat simplified view of the evidence of the sources, as discussed further. TSE. 1. S. 12 (TFS. 2. S. 206). TSE. 1. S. 73 (TFS. 2. S. 252) Cf. words of the Holy Patriarch Nicephorus: “...tradition in its entire volume is the same in essence, prescription and authority” (Creations of our holy father Nicephorus Archbishop of Constantinople. Sergiev Posad, 1907. Part 2. P. 136). It is obvious that Tradition, during this period, was perceived as a holistic and unchangeable teaching of the Church. TSE. 1. S. 74 (TFS. 2. S. 252). TSE. 1. S. 18 (TFS. 2. S. 210). Also the exhortation of the Abbot of Studium to the brethren “On attentive listening to the Holy Scriptures” - see: Theod. Stud. Sermones catechetici. //PG. T. 99. Col. 612–613; PC. 78 // NPB. P. 183–185; St. Feud. Stud. MO. 78 // PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 150–152. TSE. 1. S. 132 (TFS. 2. S. 298). The significance of the examples of Holy Scripture for the ideals of the martyrdom of St. Theodore, see Peter Hatlie. Op. cit. R. 267–268. On the significance of the appeal to Tradition for the discussion of the first and second iconoclastic periods, see: Alexander P. J. Op.cit. P. 501, 502. TSE. 1. S. 103 (TFS. 2. S. 274–275). This phrase implicitly contains anathema to the emperor who acts contrary to Holy Scripture, since the text (Gal. 1:8), to which there is an allusion here, contains a certain threat: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel other than what we preached to you, let him be anathema.” We have chosen for analysis the epistolary heritage of St. Theodore was due to: the presence of a critical edition of the saint's messages, their genre features (there is no connection to liturgical readings, as in the Announcements, and, accordingly, references to Holy Scripture will not be due to them) and the presence of a direct connection of the content with the historical context (here is a live reaction to well-known events). For the analysis, data from the “Index locorum” in the publication of Faturus was used, see: TSE. 2. S. 956–972. On the Christocentric-soteriological direction as central to the theology of St. Paul, see Studer V., Brian D. Soteriologie in der Schrift und Patristik // Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte. – Freiburg; Basel; Wien, 1978. Bd. 3. T. 2 a. S.31. On the similarity of the epistles of St. Theodore with the epistles of the apostle. Paul, see TSE. 1. S. 39*-40*. TSE. 1. S.6 (TFS. 2. P. 201). TSE. 2. S. 214–215 (TFS. 2. P. 650). Khosroev A. L. Pachomius the Great (From the early history of cenobitic monasticism in Egypt) - St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Nestor-History”, 2004, pp. 194, 402. Prp. Theodore, in one of his letters, also praises his spiritual child for such zeal: “You do well that you learn by heart (ἑκστηθίζεις) chapters (of the Holy Scripture),” - TSE. 2. S. 505 (TFS. 2. S. 806). For an analysis of this passage in the apostle’s letter, see: Peter (Polyansky), Metropolitan, Holy Martyr. The first letter of St. ap. Paul to Timothy. Experience of historical and exegetical research. Sergiev Posad, 1897. P.407–413. Alexander P. J. Op. cit. P.502. TSE. 2. S. 535 (TFS. 2. S. 397). On the Christology of Maximus the Confessor, regarding the theology of the image (the relationship between Person and nature), see Christoph Schönborn. Decree. op. pp. 100–131; Wed. Ibid., pp. 210–212. So on St. Maximus the Confessor. Theodore refers only in two places, one in the epistle (TSE. 2. S. 676–677; TFS 2. P. 543) and the other in the second antirretic (Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 2 // PG. T. 99. Col. 381A (PSTSO. T. 6. 283). There is one reference to John of Damascus in the epistle, where St. Theodore, without naming the writer’s name (φησιν ὁ συγγράφων), quotes his work, see: TSE. 1. S. 137 (TFS. 2. P. 302). For example, in one of the letters, Rev. Theodore is forced to explain the teaching of Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Nyssa about apocatastasis and, among other things, mentions the consideration of this teaching by “our most holy patriarch,” i.e. Nicephorus, see: TSE. 2. S. 676–677 (TFS 2. S. 543544). So Rev. Theodore refers to the authority of the VII Ecumenical Council in a letter to John Grammaticus (possibly the main theologian of the iconoclasts and the future patriarch, see: Grumel V. Jean Grammaticos et saint Theodore Studite // Echos d’Orient. 1937. Vol. 36. P. 181–189), see: TSE. 2. S. 791 (TFS. 2. S. 593). The closeness of the positions of the Rev. is obvious. Theodore the Studite and St. John of Damascus in defense of icon veneration; for example, compare about the inscription of the name in the theology of the icon, see: TSE. 2. S. 442 (TFS. 2. S. 812). And also: Complete collection of the works of St. John of Damascus. St. Petersburg, 1913. T. 1. P. 362. It should be noted that the attitude of St. to the VII Ecumenical Council. Theodore was not unambiguous (cf. TSE. 1. S. 110; TFS. 2. P. 280), and another: ibid., TSE. 2. S. 684 (TFS. 2. S. 494). Moreover, the fact that the Abbot of Studium recognized the status of the Ecumenical Council of the Second Council of Nicaea indicates the monk’s attention to its (the Council’s) dogmatic significance. On the lack of authority of fathers close in time, see: Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 2 // PG. T. 99. Col. 380D (PSTSO. T.6. 283). Theod. Stud. In S. Joannis Bapt. Nativitatem // PG. T. 99. Col. 752B–756B (PSTSO. T.6. P. 405407). Theod. Stud. In decollationem S. Joann. Bapt. //PG. T. 99. Col.761D–68D (PSTSO. T.6. P. 411414). Theod. Stud. In S. Joannis Bapt. nativitatem // PG. T. 99. Col. 753C, 756A (PSTSO. T.6. P. 406407). Wed. The works of our holy father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople in Russian translation. Holy Dormition Pochaev Lavra, 2005. T. 1. P. 601–602. heod. Stud. In S. Joannis Bapt. nativitatem // PG. T. 99. Col. 749D-752AB (PSTSO. T6. S. 404405) and Theod. Stud. In decollationem S. Joann. Bapt. //PG. T. 99. Col. 761BC (PSTSO. T.6. P. 410411) respectively. Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 449 Theod. Stud. In S. Joannis Bapt. nativitatem // PG. T. 99. Col. 752CD (PSTSO. T.6. P. 405). TSE. 2. S. 771 (TFS. 2. S. 580). TSE. 2. S. 195 (TFS. 2. S. 637). TSE. 2. S. 421 (TFS. 2. P. 768 in this edition the letter is mistakenly inscribed “To Monk Anthony”, instead of “Monk Arseny”, see: Dobroklonsky A.P. Op. cit. Part 2. P. 347, note No. 2). Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 422–425. Grossu N. Decree. op. pp. 72–73. Leroy J. Op. cit. R. 190. Roman Cholij. Op. cit. P. 35–36. So even in his will, Rev. Theodore instructs the future abbot: “You must not transgress the laws and canons of the holy fathers, first of all (πρό γε πάντων)) - the divine and great Basil” (Theod. Stud. Testamentum // PG. T. 99. Col. 1820C; PSTSO. T.6. P. 510). Although the Palestinian cinematic tradition, described in the writings of Dorotheus of Gaza, for St. Theodora apparently had high authority. This is indicated by Palestinian traditions in the studio charter, see: Pentkovsky A.M. Studio charter and charters of the studio tradition // ZhMP. 2001. No. 5.S. 71–73. Sidorov A.I. At the origins of the culture of holiness. Decree. op. P. 69. Creations like the saints of our father Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1903. Part 3. P. 180. “And the world passes away, and so does its lust, but he who does the will of God abides forever” (1 John 2:17). Compare the instruction of St. Anthony, see: Works of Athanasius the Great. Decree. op. pp. 193–194. “Do not love the world, nor the things that are in the world: if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). Wed. St.'s instruction Anthony, assimilated to him by the compiler of his life, see: Works of Athanasius the Great. Decree. op. P. 192. “Love is from God, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. He who does not love has not known God, because God is love” (1 John 4:7–8). “And we knew the love that God has for us and believed in it. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him” (1 John 4:16). About the presence of the idea of ​​“Christian gnosis” in St. Anthony (in the messages attributed to him) see Sidorov A.I. At the origins of the culture of holiness. Decree. op. P. 84. Works of Athanasius the Great. Decree. op. pp. 195–197. Ibid., p. 193; Khosroev A.L. Pachomius the Great. Decree. op. pp. 92–93. Noting the influence of the personality of St. Anthony on the dissemination of the ideals of monasticism by Prof. Sidorov A.I. writes: “The glory of him [i.e. e. about St. Anthony - K.V.] as a great saint, spread throughout the nearby areas and attracted many... Even when the centers of monastic life arose independently, the great elder served as a “point of attraction” for them, and between them and St. Anthony established a close relationship,” see Sidorov A.I. Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism. – M.: Orthodox Pilgrim, 1998. P. 129, 134. Works of Athanasius the Great. Decree. op. P. 193. Sidorov A.I. Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism. Decree. op. pp. 125–127. Khosroev A.L. Pachomius the Great. Decree. op. P. 201. The problem of the authorship of the “Makaryevsky Corps” is a hotly debated topic in patrolology, for example, see A.I. Sidorov. Venerable Macarius of Egypt and the problem of the “Makariev Corps” // Alpha and Omega. 1999. No. 3 (21). pp. 103–129; 1999. No. 4 (22). pp. 136–165. Wed. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. Spiritual words and messages. Collection type I (Vatic. graec. 694) / Preface, translation, comments, indexes, A.G. Dunaev. – M.: Indrik, 2002. P. 12–36. See also: Sidorov A.I. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. His life, works and theology // Works of St. Macarius of Egypt. M., 2002. P. 3–94. But, for our research, the scientific solution to the problem of the authorship of the “Makarevsky Corpus” is not so important as the significance that Tradition has endowed on these works, having assigned them the authorship of the Egyptian ascetic. Popov I.V. The idea of ​​deification in the ancient Eastern Church. M., 1909. pp. 14–15. Sidorov A. I. Venerable Macarius of Egypt. Decree. op. pp. 71–74. Right there. pp. 74–76, pp. 80–85, pp. 91–92. Sidorov A.I. At the origins of the culture of holiness. Decree. op. pp. 103–104. Sidorov A.I. Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism. Decree. op. pp. 117–118 (see note). Lurie V. M. The Calling of Abraham: The Idea of ​​Monasticism and Its Incarnation in Egypt. (copied 02/17/2010). Sidorov A.I. Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism. Decree. op. pp. 26–53. For example, one of the early Christian thinkers writes: “So, martyrdom consists in confessing God. And if this is so, then every soul that spends its life in accordance with the knowledge of God and fulfills his commandments is already a confessor, in deed and word. Does it matter how to free yourself from the prison of this body? Instead of shedding blood, she testifies to her faith with her whole life and confesses God even in her moments of death. Doesn’t the Lord say in the Gospel: “Whoever leaves father, or mother, or brothers... (and further to the words) ... for the sake of the Gospel and my name, he will be blessed.” The Lord is not talking about martyrdom in the usual sense of the word here, but about one that stems from revealed knowledge, gnosis, about confessing the Lord with one’s life in love for him, in accordance with the Gospel canon,” see Clement of Alexandria. Stromata / Transl. from ancient Greek, and comm. E.V. Afonasina. St. Petersburg: Oleg Abyshko, 2003. <http://krotov.info/acts/03/1/kliment aleksandr 21.htm.> (copied. 19.09.2014). From these words of the church teacher it is clear that martyrdom is the knowledge of God through the ascetic experience of Christian love. For a detailed discussion of the correlation between asceticism and martyrdom in the patristic tradition, see Zarin S.M. Decree. op. pp. 662–670. Lurie V.M. Abraham's Calling. Decree. op. (copied. 08.08.2009). Khosroev A.L. From the history of early Christianity in Egypt. Based on material from the Coptic library from Nag Hammadi. – M.: Priscels, 1997. P. 110. Skurat K.E. Memoirs and works on patrolology (I-V centuries). – Yakhroma: Trinity Cathedral, 2006. P. 332. St. Basil the Great, praising the monastic way of life, writes about the soteriological meaning of it: “They [i.e. e. true ascetics - K.V.] clearly showed to human life how many benefits the Savior's incarnation (ή ὲνανθρώπησις) brought us, because human nature, torn apart and cut into thousands of parts, to the best of its ability, again brings into unity with itself and with God. For this is the main thing in the Savior’s Economy in the flesh - to bring human nature into unity with itself and with the Savior and, having destroyed the Evil dissection (τὴν κατατομὴν), to restore the primitive unity, just as the best doctor, with healing medicines, again binds a body dismembered into many parts" (St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea of Cappadocia. T. 2. – M.: Siberian Blagozvonnitsa, 2009. P. 353). From here the soteriological mission of monasticism is visible - to testify to the world with one’s life about the effectiveness of the Divine Economy. On the need for frequent communion, see Ibid., p. 594. Dionysius the Areopagite. Essays. Interpretations of Maximus the Confessor. – St. Petersburg: Alethea, 2003 (Byzantine Library. Sources). P. 698. Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Dorofey Gazsky. Ascetic teaching // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. M., 2010. T. 16. P. 38–43; Dionysius (Shlenov), abbot. Andrey Kordochkin, priest. John Climacus. Ascetic teaching // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. M., 2011. T. 24. pp. 409–421. Theod. Stud. Oratio: 4. In Sanctum Pascha //PG. T. 99. Col. 716A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 382). Ibid., Col. 717A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 383). Theod. Stud. Oratio: 4. In Sanctum Pascha //PG. T. 99. Col. 712D-713A (PSTSO. T.6. P. 381); Wed. Theod. Stud. PC. 24 // NPB. P. 58 (PSTSO. T.6. P. 67), web. ZrovS. Msy. catlx 2. 94 // PC. I. 295 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 628). Theod. Stud. PC. 20 // NPB. P. 48 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 60), 100 // NPB. P. 232 (PSTSO. T.6. P. 184); Theod. Stud. M.C. 1. 42 // NPB. P. 116 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 357); web ZrovS. Msy. cathode. 2. 83 // PC. I. 256 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 600), 2. 103 // PC. I. 334 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 654). Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 1 // PG. T. 99. Col. 348A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 260). Here, probably, St. Theodore follows the authoritative opinion of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who, unlike many holy fathers, considered the words “image” and “likeness” to be synonymous, see Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Anthropology of Saint Gregory Palamas. Paris, 1950. (2nd edition - M., 1996) pp. 187–188. Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 1 // PC. I. 1 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 429). At the same time, Rev. Theodore, apparently, adheres to the traditional doctrine of patristic literature about the tripartite composition of the soul (of three parts - mental, violent and desirable), see: St. Feud. Stud. MO. 30 // PSTSO. T. 6. P. 77 (note No. 1). Theod. Stud. PC. 20 // NPB. P. 47–48 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 60). Perhaps there is a reminiscence here, cf. Afan. Alex., saint. Word on the Gentiles // Creations: In 4 volumes. Serg. P., 1902. Part 1. P. 127). Many holy fathers have a teaching about the belonging of the image of God to the human soul, its essential powers (see Sylvester (Malevansky), bishop. Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology (with a historical presentation of dogmas). Kyiv, 1889. Vol. 3. pp. 262–280). St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John of Damascus directly called the human soul the image of God, see Gregory the Theologian, saint. Homily 38 on Epiphany, or on the Nativity of the Savior // Creations. T. 1.S. 527; John of Damascus, St. Source of knowledge. / Per. from others – Greek and comment. D. E. Afinogenova, A. A. Bronzova and others - M.: Indrik, 2002. P. 209). About the fact that it is precisely thanks to the presence of the image of God in us that we can be involved in God and deified, St. Theodore writes: “I will also say something higher: man is God, as the image of God (καὶ θεός ἄνθρωπος ὼς θεοῦ εὶκών),” see: TSE. 2. S. 442 (TFS. 2. S. 812). The last thought is revealed by the following words of the Abbot of Stud: “So, all of you, save yourself and all of you try and strive to appear to God pure, as you were and were created from the beginning, having the likeness of the Divine image (τῆς θείας είκόνος τὴν ὁμοίωσιν) - peace-loving and humble,” see: St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 56 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 357. Here it is clear that “similarity”, St. Theodore, considers it as a goal and example for virtue, which is to be acquired. Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 83 // PC. I. 256 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 600). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 1 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 221. Through perfect service (keeping the commandments), perfect love for the Creator, a person gains participation in God. So Rev. Theodore instructs: “... let them speak about the perfection of your life in this way, so that you become famous both among your brothers and outside. For every person, no matter who he is, once he has acquired God within himself by fulfilling the divine commandments, becomes glorious in heaven and on earth, and this glory becomes greater the more he, in turn, increases his love for God” (Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2.55 // PC. I. 173–174; PSTSO. T. 5. P. 544–545). From this it is clear that “fulfilling the divine commandments” for man is the path to deification (“acquiring God within himself”) and glorification. Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 117 // PC. I. 382 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 687) Theod. Stud. PC. 4 // NPB. P. 9 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 33), PC. 6 // NPB. P. 13 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 36). So in one of the catechumens the monk says: “For sin is the mother of death: sin made mortal our forefather Adam, immortal by grace.” (Theod. Stud. PC. 117 // NPB. P. 273 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 212). From here it is clear that immortality for a person is a state of participation in God through the gift of grace. Theod. Stud. PC. 49 // NPB. P. 118 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 212). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 3. 22 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 748. Theod. Stud. PC. 6 // NPB. P. 13 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 36). The monk says the following about this: “...fierce [the power of the soul was given to us - K.V.] so that we would be angry with the seducing serpent, not allowing him to come to us. The devil, having changed and perverted the powers of the soul, began long ago to prepare our destruction. How? By the force of desire, seducing our forefather Adam into eating... This is the way of action (truebloD and such is the envy of the enemy,” see: Theod. Stud. PC. 30 //NPB. P. 73–74 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 77). From these words it is clear that for St. Theodore, the way of action of the tempter is to direct the positive forces of the soul to the false. To the devil, as capable of changing and perverting, a certain skill is acquired. In another place, the saint calls him a “sophist of evil,” see: Theod. Stud. PC. 25 // PSTSO. T. 6. P. 69. Also, St. Theodore notes that the “evil serpent” represents things differently from what they are. seduced the forefather, deceiving his eyesight (Theod. Stud. PC. 66 // NPB. P. 157 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 134) St. Feud. Stud. IN. 3. 24 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 750. Elsewhere, Rev. Theodore calls intemperance the cause of the fall and exile (Theod. Stud. PC. 49 // NPB. P. 118 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 109), human pride, see Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 3 // PK. E. 9 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 434). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 6 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 238, Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 28 // PC. Σ. 87 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 486). St. Feud. Stud. MO. 121 // PSTSO. T. 6. P. 219. For example, God’s attitude towards man, St. Theodore describes it this way: “A young man does not love his beloved, nor a parent his children, as tenderly the Lord of all God loves us,” see Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.2. 85 // PC. E. 265 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 606); and about man’s relationship to God - the following: “Love for Him [i.e. e. God - K.V.] completely changes the admirer, forcing him to belong not to himself, but to the One Whom he loves. And this can be observed in those who love carnally. For if a husband loves his wife, he gives himself entirely to his beloved, breathing her and dreaming about her,” see: Theod. Stud. PC. 3 //NPB. P. 7 (PSTSO. T.6. P. 31). Such a comparison of the relationship between man and God with the relationship of lovers is quite traditional, see the works of the blessed one. Hieronymus of Stridon. Kyiv, 1880. Part 6. P. 142; Works of St. Gregory of Nyssa. M., 1896. Part 3. P. 27 St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 3 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 226. Theod. Stud. PC. 111 // NPB. P. 258 (PSTSO. T.6. P. 202). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ 2.83 // PC. E. 256 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 600). On metaphors from the field of law in the epistles of St. Paul, see Studer V., Brian D. Soteriologie in der Schrift und Patristik // Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte. – Freiburg; Basel; Wien, 1978. Bd. 3.T. 2 a. S. 37. St. Theodore writes: “...I must care and watch for your souls, convince and admonish everyone in private and publicly, proclaim the truth of God and the coming sword...” (Theod. Stud. PC. 44 // NPB. P. 106 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 101). Here, the last words indicate that the eschatological aspirations in the preaching of the abbot are given the most significant place. So, in another place, St. Theodore writes: “... and how then [i.e., after the fall - K.V.] we were commanded for insulting the good Master to subsequently appear before Him and give Him an account of our life in exile. Where will we go? To the next world...to the terrible and universal Judgment, where the Judge and God of all...in the blink of an eye will judge everything, reward everyone according to his deeds..." - see: Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 83 // PC. Σ. 256–257 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 600–601). Here, the monk compares God's judgment, after the Fall, over the first people and the judgment of every person in general, thereby emphasizing both the depth of the fall of those who deviate from the commandments of God, and the inevitability of punishment. I think it is natural that both when describing the world Judgment, where the Lord will consider everything and reward everyone, and when describing the fall of an individual person, the saint uses legal terminology; it allows you to extremely focus the attention of those listening on the inevitability of retribution. Theod. Stud. PC. 40 // NPB. P. 97 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 93), PC. 101 // NPB. P. 234 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 185). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 103 // PC. I. 333 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 653). Theod. Stud. PC. 121 // NPB. P. 285 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 219). Theod. Stud. PC. 40 // NPB. P. 97 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 93). Theod. Stud. PC. 30 // NPB. P. 73 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 77). Theod. Stud. PC. 122 // NPB. P. 288 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 221). Theod. Stud. PC. 115 // NPB. P. 268 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 209). Theod. Stud. PC. 36 // NPB. P. 89 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 88). Wed. PC. 82 // NPB. P. 192 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 156). Theod. Stud. PC. 11 // NPB. P. 27 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 45). Explaining how unfavorable this state is for salvation, in one of his teachings, the abbot gives the following comparison: “Good for human nature is as difficult as a steep and uneven path.” - see: Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 81 // PC. I. 249 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 595). Theod. Stud. PC. 109 // NPB. P. 254–255 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 199). Theod. Stud. PC. 40 // NPB. P. 97 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 93), PC. 125 // NPB. P. 295 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 226). Theod. Stud. PC. 4 // NPB. P. 9 (PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 33–34). Theod. Stud. PC. 12 // NPB. P. 30 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 47). St. Theodore instructs the brethren: “... if our nature, which is prone to fall, receives. relaxation, it runs wild. It gives birth to sinful death" (Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.. 2. 73 // PC. E. 220; PSTSO. T. 5. P. 575), - and in another place, - “If we spend our lives in anger, envy. and other vices. – [we will have] daily death and condemnation before judgment. Then death will come." (Theod. Stud. PC. 121 // NPB. P. 285; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 220). Here it is clear that the saint separates death as a moral state of the soul (“sinful death”, “daily death”) and death as the result of earthly life. In another place the monk says: “Let us, brothers, avoid eternal (αἰώνιον) death: let us avoid a very serious illness (νόσον) of the soul” (Theod. Stud. PC. 113 // NPB. P. 263; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 205). Here, moral death has a timeless assessment: “eternal death,” which in turn emphasizes its priority in relation to death as the end of life’s journey. In addition, the saint calls the state of moral death “disease,” which characterizes this state as corruption, damage to human nature. Theod. Stud. PC. 123 // NPB. P. 290 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 223). Theod. Stud. PC. 103 // NPB. P. 238 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 188). What St. Theodore, in the matter of saving man, puts emphasis on restoring the pristine state, which we believe is explained by the abbot’s views on the monastic community as the Body of Christ, in which the renewal of the image of God, distorted by the Fall, takes place (see paragraphs 2.1.6, 2.2.3). However, it is worth noting that Rev. Theodore did not consider the salvation accomplished by Christ to be only a return to the primitive state (for this, see paragraph 2.1.5). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 53 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 348. Theod. Stud. PC. 111 // NPB. P. 258 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 202). Florovsky G. prot. Incarnation and Redemption. Cur Deus Homo? About the Cause of the Incarnation. (copied 04/17/2010). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 85 // PC. I. 265 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 607). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 49 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 337. St. Feud. Stud. IN. 3. 22 // PSTSO. T. 5. pp. 747–748. Theod. Stud. PC. 65 // NPB. P. 154 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 132). Theod. Stud. PC. 46 // NPB. P. 111 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 104). Theod. Stud. PC. 32 // NPB. P. 78 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 81). Theod. Stud. PC. 64 // NPB. P. 152 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 131). Theod. Stud. PC. 7 // NPB. P. 16 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 38). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 78 // PSTSO. T. 5. pp. 411–412. Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.2. 47 // PC. I. 150 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 529). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.2. 47 // PC. I. 151 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 529). Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 716A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 382). For his zeal for God, Phinehas is awarded a promise, which is an undoubted messianic prophecy: “...I give him My covenant of peace, and it will be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he showed zeal for his God and interceded for the children of Israel” (Num. 25:12-13). After all, Christ in His incarnate love of God for man is the fulfillment of the “covenant of peace,” the “covenant of the eternal priesthood.” Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 736A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 395. For translation features, see note No. 1). Theod. Stud. PC. 125 // NPB. P. 295 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 226). Theod. Stud. PC. 11 // NPB. P. 27 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 46, see also note No. 1). Elsewhere, St. Theodore says: “If he asks you why (the Lord) was hanged on the tree (and even carried thorns), then tell him: to uproot the thorns and thistles of Adam, so that the land poorly cultivated by disobedience could be made more fruitful through His own obedience” (Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 717A; PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 383–384). From this we can see the importance of obedience in the matter of saving the world: if Adam’s disobedience upset all the primordial harmony that reigned on earth, then the restoration of the latter became possible only through the obedient enduring of the sufferings of the Cross by the Son of God. Theod. Stud. PC. 36 // NPB. P. 88 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 87–88). Wed. “...man needed to be sanctified by the humanity of God,” see Gregory the Theologian, holy. Word 45 for Holy Easter // Creations. T. 1. pp. 675–676. Theod. Stud. PC. 24 // NPB. P. 57–58 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 66–67). Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 713A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 381, here the proposed translation is “delivered from the dominion of the devil,” see also note No. 3). Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 716B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 382, ​​here the publisher notes in St. Theodore an allusion to the words of the Apostle Paul - Eph. 2:2). Creations like the saints of our father Athanasius the Great, Archbishop. Alexandria. Sergiev Posad, 1902. Part 1. P. 223. Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 716D-717AB (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 384). Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 2 //PG. T. 99. Col. 380C (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 282). Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 713A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 381). Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 716BC (PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 382–383). Elsewhere, St. Theodore, discussing the improvement of life, says: “...virtue is difficult to achieve for human nature. And no one can defeat evil without exhausting himself with much and prolonged labor and without suffering” (Theod. Stud. PC. 28 // NPB. P. 67; PSTSO. T. 6. P. 73). From this it is clear that, according to the abbot’s thought, the fight against evil in human nature, damaged by sin, is inevitably associated with labor and suffering. Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 716CD (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 383). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 1 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 222. Theod. Stud. PC. 72 // NPB. P. 170 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 143). St. Theodore often, to describe the mystery of the suffering of the Son of God, resorts to a comparison of the greatness of the Creator and His humility: “For let us imagine, brethren, this great and inexplicable mystery. The Lord (in the NPB here stands “Θεὸς”), who reveals the counsels of the heart and knows every thought of man, is led to a council [sentencing Him to] death, having adorned the surface of the earth with various flowers and is crowned with a crown of thorns for dishonor; he who planted the tree of life in paradise is nailed to the accursed tree" (Theod. Stud. PC. 73 // NPB. P. 173 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 144). Compare PSTSO. P. 222. We believe that such a comparison is quite traditional (perhaps there is a paraphrase of the creation of St. Amphilochius of Iconia, see St. Amphilochius of Iconium. Translation of Abbot Vassian (Zmeev) // BV. 2005–2006. P. 62), St. Theodore wants to emphasize the idea that the true greatness of the Creator is revealed in His humility. Theod. Stud. Oratio 4: In Sanctum Pascha // PG. T. 99. Col. 713B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 381). Theod. Stud. PC. 40 // NPB. P. 97 (PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 93–94). Theod. Stud. PC. 64 // NPB. P. 152 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 131). Theod. Stud. PC. 12 // NPB. P. 28–29 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 46–47). Theod. Stud. PC. 66 // NPB. P. 156 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 133). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 26 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 287. Theod. Stud. PC. 67 // NPB. P. 158–159 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 135). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 29 // PC. Σ. 92 (PSTSO. T. 5.PSTSO. P. 489). Theod. Stud. PC. 8 // NPB. P. 17–18 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 39). In another place he writes about the “co-reign”, “adoption” and “co-inheritance” of those who worship Him with God, see Rev. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 67 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 389. Theod. Stud. PC. 7 // NPB. P. 15–16 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 37–38). Theod. Stud. PC. 9 // NPB. P. 20 (PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 40–41). Theod. Stud. PC. 124 // NPB. P. 293 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 225. Here, and in TFS, the last sentence is as follows: “This is bliss; this is pleasantness; this is happiness; this is angelic life). TSE. 2. S. 529 (TFS. 2. S. 392). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 9 // PC. Σ. 27 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 446). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 93 // PC. Σ. 293 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 626). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 66 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 385. TSE. 1. S. 176 (TFS. 2. S. 536). Theod. Stud. Testamentum // PG. T. 99. Col. 1813C-1816A (TFS. 2. pp. 853–854). Grossu N. Decree. op. P. 249. Stoykov V. Liturgical theology // Report at the conference “Orthodox theology on the threshold of the third millennium” (Moscow, February 2000). (copied 10.07.2014). On the patristic tradition of perception of the term (θεολογία), see Vladimir Shmaliy, priest. Theology // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. M., 2009. T. 5. P. 515. Lampe G. W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1961, pp. 627–628. Theod. Stud. Problemata ad iconomach. //PG. T. 99. Col. 484C (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 356). Lenten Triodion. M., 2002, Part 1. P. 33, 157, 172, 212 on the back, 319, 361 (for ease of typing, the letter designations of the pages are converted into numbers). About borrowings and imitations of St. Theodore among the hymnographers of the Lenten Triodion, see Karabinov I. Lenten Triodion. Historical overview of its plan, composition, editions and Slavic translations. St. Petersburg, 1910, pp. 138–184. Since the modern Lenten Triodion is a complex source (which is only worth the confusion with punctuation marks in the ternary: cf. on P. 33 and P. 157; 107 and 127 on the back; changed order of words: cf. P. 97 and P. 177 on the back) - also see the study on formation of the printed Lenten Triodion: Karabinov I. Decree. op. pp. 205–245, - I consider it appropriate to consider only those ternary ones that are in the hymnographic works inscribed with the name of the Studite abbot. The study of nun Ignatius (Sokolova) is less critical here; she is more generalizing, assimilating St. Theodore is all trinity of the Great Canon and trinity of other hymn writers (Ignatius, nun. Church hymn makers. M., 2005, p. 251), which in my opinion is not correct. Probably, the statement of M. Ignatius was influenced by a similar assumption of Karabinov I., which he motivates with the following: “... because he [St. Theodora Studite - K. V.] this manner of ending the songs of the canons is mainly observed” (Karabinov I. Decree. Op. P. 101). This is hardly a good reason, because if the creations of St. Theodore served as a model for later hymnographers to follow, which could prevent the latter from using the same structure (“manner”) to edit the Great Canon. Thus, for 199 trinities of the Lenten Triodion, 114 can be attributed to St. Theodore (according to the inscription), of which in the Great Canon, as belonging to the Abbot of Studium, only one trinity can be spoken of; it is repeated according to the third song of the canon (cf.: P. 28 and P. 102, P. 113, P. 122). The uninscribed canon for the morning of Cheese Saturday consists almost entirely of Theodore’s trinities (the late edition of the canon is indicated by the commemoration of Athanasius of Athos among other ascetics (P. 61 on the reverse), here compare: P. 62 and P. 18, P. 62 on the reverse and 18 on the reverse; P. 63 and 19 on the reverse; P. 65 and 221; P. 67 and 23 on the reverse; P. 67 on the reverse and 24. On the morning of Cheese Friday in the three-canticle inscribed: “Mr. Joseph”, in the “Other” canon (not inscribed) the Trinity of Theodore is also found, cf.: P. 55 and 241. On Tuesday of the first week at Matins, the “Other” canon (not inscribed) also contains one trinity of Theodore, cf.: pp. 97 and 177. On Wednesday of the 4th week of Holy Lent, at matins, in the “Other” canon (not inscribed) we find the trinity of the abbot of Studium, cf.: pp. 249 and 230 on the back; P. 250 and 231. On Tuesday of the 5th week, at Matins, in the “Other” canon cf.: P. 282 and 81, P. 283 and 82, On Wednesday Vaiya, at matins in the “Other” canon cf.: P. 354 on the reverse 182 on the reverse. In terms of emotional coloring, the saints are threefold. Theodora is very restrained, occasionally the saint retreats from a capacious, theological presentation of the Trinity dogma to personal prayerful experiences (see: P. 33, P. 162 on the reverse, P. 182 on the reverse), which cannot be said about the trinities of the great canon (see: P. 89 on the reverse, 90 on the reverse, 91, 112 on the reverse). Such observations suggest, for a more adequate presentation of theology, in fact, St. Theodora, to narrow (in comparison with M. Ignatius) the scope of the material being studied. Deeper conclusions can be drawn only by having a critical edition of the texts of the Lenten Triodion. Ignatius, nun. Decree. op. P. 258. On the weakness and apophatic language for expressing the inexpressible - see Gregory the Theologian. Decree. op. T. 1 P. 397 Lenten Triodion. Decree. op. Part 1. p. 19 on the back Ibid., p. 162 overleaf. Here, for example: “...like the speed of lightning, the Tri-shining one is seen in unity” (Ibid., p. 18 overleaf) - how can one explain such a vivid image, where the dynamics emphasize the elusiveness, inexpressibility of the secret and at the same time leaves no doubt about its visual perception. On the connection between the Large and Small Catechism with the Tripes of the Lenten Triodion, see Mother Ignatius (Ignatius, nun. Op. op. p. 239) Lenten Triodion. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 195 rev. Wed. St. Gregory the Theologian writes: “Therefore, we must first cleanse ourselves, and then converse with the pure” (Gregory the Theologian. Op. cit. p. 299) - for the saint these are not just words, but a covenant of Holy Scripture (Ex. 24:1-2), (1 Kings 6:5), which sounds like a stern warning to those approaching the shrine. Obviously for St. For Theodore, this covenant is also important. Uspensky N.D. Orthodox Vespers: Historical and liturgical outline. The rite of the all-night vigil in the Orthodox East and in the Russian Church. M. Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2004. pp. 208–210 (extensive footnote). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.2. 40 // PC. I. 127 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 514). Theod. Stud. PC. 44 // NPB. P. 106 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 100). Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 348. If A.P. Dobroklonsky speaks cautiously about St. Peter's disapproval. Theodore for other types of monastic feats, see A.P. Dobroklonsky. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 443–444, then we are ready to decisively contrast the ideals of the Studio abbot with those of the anchorites - Leroy, see Leroy J. Op. cit. R. 199 (for more details, see the main text) and Roman Cholij, see Roman Cholij. Op. cit. P. 29–30. At the same time, in Cholia, as in Dobroklonsky, the argument in defense of this opinion is criticism of St. Theodore unworthily labored, which is untenable, in view of the direction of criticism not against the labors themselves, but against the monks who take them upon themselves without spiritual experience. Leroy J. Op. cit. R. 184 (note 25). Ibid., P. 195. Let us also note here the opinion of A.P. Dobroklonsky, who believes that for St. Theodore, the goal of monastic life is only moral perfection and salvation, see Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 434. We consider this opinion to be somewhat superficial, since it does not reveal what the monk’s salvation actually consists of. Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni //PG. T. 99. Col. 816C (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 438). Theod. Stud. Oratio 12. Laudatio S. Arsenii anachoratae // PG T. 99. Col. 856B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 457). More details about the praise of Cenobia in the works of St. Theodore, see A.P. Dobroklonsky: Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 441–444. Theod. Stud. Oratio 12. Laudatio S. Arsenii anachoratae // PG T. 99. Col. 856A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 457). Theod. Stud. PC. 4 // NPB. P. 9 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 33). Theod. Stud. Oratio 11: Laudatio S. Platonis higumeni // PG. T. 99. Col. 816D-817A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 439). With the same meaning, but closer to the context (metaphor of eating), here we can translate “τῆς ἀκορέστου ἀγάπης” as “insatiable love”, see Weisman A.D. Greek-Russian Dictionary /5th ed. St. Petersburg: Author's publication, 1899. – Reprint: M.: Greco-Latin Cabinet Yu.A. Shichalina, 2006. P. 42; LiddellH. G., Scott R. A Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1996. P. 53. This may contain an allusion to the words of St. Gregory, see Gregory the Theologian. Decree. op. P. 299. Theod. Stud. PC. 39 // NPB. P. 95–94 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 92). Theod. Stud. PC. 90 // NPB. P. 208 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 168). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 12 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 254. St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 54 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 352. Theod. Stud. Oratio 3: In vigiliam Luminum //PG. T. 99. Col. 701B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 373). Ibid., Col. 708B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 378). “.to those who believe in His name He gave power to become children of God, who were born neither of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12–13). Theod. Stud. PC. 29 // NPB. P. 70 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 75; here and in TFS it stands “for adoption”). TSE. 2. S. 720 (TFS. 2. S. 555). Ibidem, 12 Dion. Ar. eccl. hier. 6, 3 (PG 3, 533A). Theod. Stud. PC. 100 // NPB. P. 232–233 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 184–185). It is worth noting that Rev. Theodore did not consider the sacrament of tonsure as obligatory for salvation as baptism; for the monk, monasticism is only a more convenient and perfect way of life (about the praise of monastic life by St. Theodore, see A.P. Dobroklonsky, Op. cit. Part 1, pp. 434–441). Also, obviously, the reverend’s exalted attitude towards the sanctity of marriage (see paragraph 1.1.2 above). In addition, the monk does not radically divide Christians into laity and monastics in the pursuit of perfection; thus, explaining the virtues characteristic of true Christians, the abbot writes in a letter to Marian Spafarius: “For do not think, sir, that what has been said applies to a monk, and not all the same to a layman (molding), although especially to a monk, except for celibacy and non-covetousness, for (non-compliance with) which a layman will not be condemned; however, he also has times of abstinence and laws of moderation.” (TSE. 2. S. 665; TFS. 2. S. 482). From this it is clear that what was said for monastics is true for the most part for the laity. Theod. Stud. PC. 40 // NPB. P. 98 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 94). About who the stone is, the Apostle Paul testifies: “...and they all drank the same spiritual drink: for they drank from the spiritual stone that followed; and the stone was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4). Theod. Stud. PC. 83 // NPB. P. 195 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 158). Theod. Stud. PC. 29 // NPB. P. 72 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 76); cf: PC. 21 // NPB. P. 50 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 62). In PSTSO: “great”, in TFS: “powerful” - see: St. Feud. Stud. MO. 107 // PSTSO. T. 6. P. 196, note No. 1. Theod. Stud. PC. 107 // NPB. P. 250 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 196). Theod. Stud. PC. 46 //NPB. P. Ill (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 103–104). In PSTSO: “μετέχειν τῶν ἁγιασμάτων,” see: St. Feud. Stud. MO. 8 // PSTSO. T. 6. P. 39. Theod. Stud. PC. 8 //NPB. P. 18 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 39). Theod. Stud. PC. 107 //NPB. P. 249 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 195). In the NPB there is the word “ἀδελφοί” in the translation by TFS and PSTSO is missing. Theod. Stud PC. 25 //NPB. P. 60 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 68). Theod. Stud. PC. 44 // NPB. P. 106–107 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 101); cf: PC. 48 // NPB. P. 115–116 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 107). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 46 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 329. On the expression “Royal Way” in the patristic tradition, see: St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 4 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 230 (Note No. 1). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 42 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 320. St. Feud. Stud. IN. 3. 40 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 781. In the Studiisky monastery, as in the early Christian community, social service was given special importance. In the monastery of St. Theodora had a school for children, a shelter for wanderers; generous charitable assistance was provided, spiritual nourishment of the laity was provided; The abbot was part of a brotherhood that assisted in the burial of the dead poor and foreigners, see A.P. Dobroklonsky. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 580–586. St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 84 // PSTSO. T. 5. pp. 421–422. In another place, the abbot of Studium calls the lifestyle in purity before God “the highest knowledge,” see Ibid., p. 421. In PSTSO, TFS stands for “evil thoughts” and in NPB, in a parallel Latin translation, also “pravis cogitationibus”. Theod. Stud. PC. 20 // NPB. P. 48 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 60). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.2. 25 // PC. E. 78 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 482); also Rev. Theodore calls repentance a medicine (see Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 105 // PC. E. 339; PSTSO. T. 5. P. 658), and confession of thoughts “a great and saving activity,” see Theod. Stud. PC. 133 // NPB. P. 313 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 239). About the place of confession and repentance given in the statute of St. Theodore, see A.P. Dobroklonsky: Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 531–540. Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.2. 25 // PC. E. 79 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 482). St. Feud. Stud. MO. 20 // PSTSO. T. 6. P. 60. Theod. Stud. PC. 20 // NPB. P. 49 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 60, here and in TFS, there is no word “brothers” at the end of this sentence). Theod. Stud. PC. 42 // NPB. P. 101–102 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 96). St. Feud. Stud. MO. 1. 108 // PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 196–197). Theod. Stud. PC. 79 // NPB. P. 186 (PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 152–153). So in another announcement by St. Theodore says: “For he [a virtuous husband – K.V.] has God living in him, to whom he calls in unfortunate cases... This is the blessed life that we, brothers, have received by the grace of God” (Theod. Stud. PC. 26 // NPB. P. 64 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 71). From these words it is clear that a virtuous husband has a blessed life in the closest unity with God, Who serves the ascetic as a source of love. Theod. Stud. PC. 89 // NPB. P. 205–206 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 166). Dobroklonsky A P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 490. Theod. Stud. PC. 111 // NPB. P. 259 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 202). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.2. 64 // PC. I. 198 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 562). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ.2. 114 // PC. I. 371 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 680). It is noteworthy that Rev. Theodore here hides his experience of communicating with the heavenly Guest of Light, but only mentions his struggle with darkness: “I write this [the catechumen was written by the monk in illness, which follows from the text of the catechumen itself - K.V.] not because I myself am already dispassionate, but because I have suffered many temptations. And also because I know this from books, I learned this from my father and heard from many experienced people.” (Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 114 // PC. I. 371–372; PSTSO. T. 5. P. 680). Hence there is continuity in the spiritual life of St. Theodore, both from the written patristic tradition and from personal communication with living bearers of this tradition. Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 64 // PC. I. 199 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 562). However, the traditional invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, to combat passions, also finds a place in the teachings of the monk, see Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 4 // PC. I. 12 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 436). For details on the references of the Studite abbot to the works and examples of the holy fathers, see A.P. Dobroklonsky: Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 422–427. So if in one place St. Theodore praises patience as “the greatest virtue of virtues” (Theod. Stud. PC. 19 // NPB. P. 45 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 58), then in another he calls virginity “the queen of virtues" (Theod. Stud. PC. 65 // NPB. P. 154 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 132). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 27 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 289. Theod. Stud. PC. 47 // NPB. P. 114 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 106). Theod. Stud. Testamentum // PG. T. 99. Col. 1816D (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 507). Also see link No. 8 in English translation - Timothy Miller. Testament of Theodore the Studite for the Monastery of St. John Stoudios in Constantinople // BMFD Series Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35. Harvard University Press. Washington, DC. 2000. P. 76, 81 (copied 02.03.2008). There are also other references to John of Sinai, see Theod. Stud. PC. 29 // NPB. P. 70 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 75); PSTSO. pp. 264, 289, 336, 577, 639, 700; TSE. 2. S. 446 (TFS. 2. S. 777). In clause 1.2.1. of this work, we have already talked about the significance of these feats (renunciation and obedience) for St. Theodora, Wed. with St. John. Lestv. Homily 1–3 and Homily 4 (respectively) - see Rev. Father Abba John, Abbot of Mount Sinai. Ladder. St. Petersburg, 1995. pp. 14–31 and pp. 32–35 (respectively). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 15 // PC. Σ. 43–44 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 458). Elsewhere, St. Theodore says: “For neither by abstinence, nor by vigil, nor by lying on the ground, nor by any other labor can we earn praise and so testify to the feat of the cinematic life, as by cutting off our own will,” - see: Theod. Stud. PC. 39 // NPB. P. 96 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 93). Theod. Stud. PC. 10 // NPB. P. 25 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 44). Elsewhere, St. Theodore directly condemns the unreasonable zeal for bodily torment: “Why do some hotheads often seek bodily torment for Christ? Endure the local torment and suffering courageously and properly [we are talking about the “martyrdom of the communal system” - K.V.], without bending the knee to Baal, without making sacrifices to the passions of the soul, without renouncing what you previously confessed.” (PSTSO. pp. 301–302). From this it is clear that fidelity to the vows once taken and not indulging in the passionate movements of the soul is considered by the Abbot of Studium as martyrdom. “Nevertheless, I have left among the Israelites seven thousand [men]; All these knees did not bow to Baal, and all these lips did not kiss him” (1 Kings 19:18); “God did not reject His people, whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says in [the story of] Elijah? how he complains to God about Israel, saying: Lord! They have killed Your prophets, They have destroyed Your altars; I am left alone, and they are looking for my soul. What does God's answer tell him? I have reserved for Me seven thousand men who did not kneel before Baal. So also at this time, according to the election of grace, a remnant is preserved” (Rom. 11:2-5). Theod. Stud. PC. 84 // NPB. P. 197 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 160). Theod. Stud. PC. 126 // NPB. P. 297 (PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 227–228). In another catechumen, the monk speaks of the monastic rank: “...being a monk who is crucified for the world, who has his flesh nailed to the cross” (Theod. Stud. PC. 45 // NPB. P. 107 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 101). Theod. Stud. PC. 70 // NPB. P. 165–166 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 139–140). Theod. Stud. PC. 10 // NPB. P. 26 (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 45). It is briefly and thoroughly presented by K. Schönborn - see Christoph Schönborn. Decree. op. pp. 206–222 (for criticism, see above, in the historiographical essay) consistently to Schönborn on the theology of the icon, but at a more modern level, writes V. Lurie - see Lurie V.I. Decree. op. pp. 483–485 (in relation to the contents of the entire third chapter of this book). Extensive historiography on this issue is attached to the article by V.A. Baranov. Iconoclasm // Orthodox Encyclopedia / Ed. Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. M., 2009. T. 22. pp. 42–43. So, for example, a tendentious Protestant view of the iconoclastic reform is presented in the work of V.I. Petrenko. Theology of the icon. St. Petersburg, 2000. This study does not set itself the task of polemicizing with similar works, however, we note that in the above essay there are no direct references to sources, and this circumstance significantly reduces the scientific significance of the study. On the relevance of the modern discussion on the theology of the image in the Orthodox environment, see Gubareva O.V. Icon and image // Church Bulletin. No. 3 (328) February 2006 (copied 08.10.2007). This fact is indicated by the fact that Patriarch Nicephorus, Abbot Theodore and Patriarch Methodius repeatedly reject accusations of idolatry, although the council of 815 no longer calls icons idols. The inconsistency of iconoclastic argumentation is especially pronounced in the antirhetics of St. Theodora. So in the “first refutation” of the iconoclasts, St. Theodore concludes his reasoning with twelve definitions of wrong-thinking in relation to icons; Of these, four definitions are against those who call images of Christ and saints idols; against those who incorrectly worship the icon and thus give reason to call them idols - three definitions; against those who allow images, but without due worship (official position, theology of John the Grammar, see Lourie B. Op. cit. P. 159-162) - two definitions. And here, from the second definition, it is not entirely clear; either the placement of the image in any place is denied (i.e., that would not be accessible to worship), or the image as such is generally denied (then this is not John the Grammar with the heresy of Eutyches, because we are talking about the image of Christ on the Cross, i.e. before the Resurrection); against those who deny St. icons due to prayer practice and against those who do not seriously consider the iconoclastic heresy - according to one definition. The last definition is against those who unreasonably exaggerate the honor of the icon of Christ, considering that it does not bring benefit to those who transgress against it without first being cleansed of all sin (Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 1 // PG. T. 99. Col. 349352; PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 262–263). In the latter case, I think, there is a denunciation of the elements of iconolatry, since the attitude towards the image here is similar to the attitude towards the Eucharistic gifts (it is quite possible that the iconoclasts formed their teaching about the image of Christ, Who reveals the Holy Gifts, as a counter-argument to such practice - see DVS. pp. 540-541). Such a diversity of doctrinal views on the existence of the icon, I believe, is explained by the heterogeneity of the iconoclastic movement. ICE. pp.529–530,532, 534, 536. Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 3 //PG. T. 99. Col. 400CD (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 297). Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 3 // PG. T. 99. Col. 400A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 295). TSE. 2. S. 662–663 (TFS. 2. P. 540). This soteriological meaning of the dogma of icon veneration is fundamental among Orthodox polemicists, cf. Complete collection of the works of St. John of Damascus. St. Petersburg, 1913. T. 1. P. 354; ICE. pp. 463, 590; The works of our holy father Nicephorus, Archbishop of Constantinople. Decree. op. pp. 3–4. TSE. 2. S. 731 (TFS. 2. S. 560–561). St. Theodore writes: “Let us hold fast to (them) [i.e. e. ancient church customs and traditions - K.V.], approved by the divine fathers, although this is difficult for logical proof. For they say that “the simplicity of faith must be stronger than logical proof”” (Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 1 // PG. T. 99. Col. 349AB; PSTSO. T. 6. pp. 261–262). From this it is clear that the church experience of faith is more important for the monk than theological syllogisms. The third anti-rhetic of St. Theodore is built almost exclusively on this method of refutation, see: Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 3 //PG. T. 99. Col. 389–436A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 288–323). Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 1 // PG. T. 99. Col. 344BC (PSTSO. Vol. 6, pp. 257–258). Wed. John of Damascus, St. Three words of defense against those who condemn the holy icons. St. Trinity - Sergius Lavra. RPF, 1993. Slovo II, 14. P. 55 and Slovo III, 34. P. 113 TSE. 2. S. 789–790 (TFS. 2. P. 592). TSE. 2. S. 442 (TFS. 2. S. 362–363). Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 1 // PG. T. 99. Col. 344B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 257). TSE. 2. S. 516 (TFS. 2. S. 383). St. Feud. Stud. IN. 1. 78 // PSTSO. T. 5. P. 411. On deification as a traditional path of ascent from image to prototype, see Popov I.V., prof. The idea of ​​deification in the Ancient Eastern Church // Orthodox way. Church-theological-philosophical yearbook. Supplement to the magazine “Orthodox Rus'” - Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, 2002. pp. 55–58. Zhivov V.M. “Mystagogy” of Maximus the Confessor and the development of the Byzantine theory of image // Artistic language of the Middle Ages. – M.: Nauka, 1982. P. 10. Theod. Stud. Refutatio poem. iconomach. //PG. T. 99. Col. 456BC (TFS. T. 1. P. 202). Summing up the results of the Christological polemic with the iconoclasts, V. M. Lurie writes: “In the works of Theodore the Studite and his other contemporaries that have survived to our time, we would look in vain for detailed reasoning about why, if we, like the Nestorians, recognize in Christ both human nature and human hypostatic characteristics, we still refuse to recognize the human nature in Him. hypostasis" (Lurie V.M. Op. op. p. 485). Such a statement, in our opinion, is not entirely correct, since from a theological point of view it is enough to refer here to the general church teaching about a single complex hypostasis and the anathema to the Nestorian teaching (shared by the iconoclasts, see DVS. pp. 589–590); detailed discussions on this issue can be found in John of Damascus (see: Works of St. John of Damascus. Christological and polemical treatises. Words for the Feasts of the Virgin Mary. Ed., “Martis”, 1997. pp. 90–94.). But the question, in relation to the second period of iconoclasm, was posed not so much in the definition of hypostasis, but in the possibility of its depiction without division, which is what St. Theodore can be found reasoning (for example, see Theod. Stud. Antirrh. 3 // PG. T. 99. Col. 400C-401A (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 295–297), in which the abbot relies on the authority of the Church and refers to the above-mentioned soteriological premise. Uspensky F. Synodik on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Summary text with appendices. Odessa, 1893. P. 10. Janin R. Προδρόμου (Μονὴ τοῦ) τοῖς Στουδίου.. / Le siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat Ocuménique. Les églises et les monastères // La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire Byzantin. Paris, 1953. Volume 3. P. 446. Afinogenov D.E. Decree op. pp.100–109. TSE. 2. S. 522 (TFS. 2. S. 386); TSE. 2. S. 352–353 (TFS. 2. S. 339–340). Wed. Yakov Krotov’s tendentious and critical remarks regarding the “sectarianism” of the saint (on the words of St. Theodore about the salvation of only those who have the true faith), see Yakov Krotov. Dictionary of Saints. (copied 17.02.2010), and the view of Lurie V.M. [editorial, co-authored with A.V. Soldatov and E.S. Kholmogorov] in the article “Two Churches. Perplexed questions of Russian church reality and the answers of St. Theodore the Studite,” where the position of St. Theodore, condemning the economy of Patriarch Nicephorus and prescribing strict isolation of his community, is presented as the only correct one in the current situation (copied 02/17/2010). At the same time, the last article does not consider the change in the reverend’s views on this issue, does not show their reception by the Conciliar Church consciousness (the incorrect “similarity” of the church-political situation that developed in the Byzantine Empire, which had the doctrine of the symphony of Church and state, with the situation of the Russian Orthodox Church, the late 1920s and early 1930s, in a state with an atheistic ideology and anti-church terror - we will leave it on the conscience of the authors). “Do not destroy, O sir, the church structure - after all, the apostle said: And God appointed in the Church, firstly, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, shepherds and teachers, but did not say about kings. You, O sovereign, have been entrusted with the structure of the state and the army - take care of them, and leave the Church to the shepherds and teachers, according to the Apostle" (Afinogenov D.E. Patriarchate of Constantinople and the iconoclastic crisis in Byzantium (784-847). Life of Nikita of Midice. M., 1997, p. 173). These words were spoken at an audience in the palace; for a reconstruction of the circumstances of this reception, see Ibid., pp. 71–74. This refers to the religious procession with icons organized by St. Theodore in the week of Vai, after the deposition of Patriarch Nicephorus, see Vita B // PG. T. 99. Col. 285B (PSTSO. T. 5. pp. 195–196). This is the opinion about St. Theodore is found in Bolotov (Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient church / Edited by A. Brilliantov. T. 4. M.: 1994, P. 568), Vasiliev (Vasiliev A.A. History of the Byzantine Church. Time before the Crusades (before 1081). Translation from English by A. G. Grushevsky, St. Petersburg, 1998. P. 381), Ernst Werner (Von Ernst Werner. Die Krise im verhaltnis von Staat und Kirche in Byzanz: Theodor von Studion // Aus der Byzantinischen Arbeit der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Berlin, 1957. I. S. 130). Theophanes the Byzantine. Decree. op. P. 420 Thomas Pratsch. Op. cit. S. 266. For example, on the Paulician case, see Hieromonk Patapios. Op. cit. P. 143–154. TSE. 2. S. 584–586 (TFS. 2. S. 434–435). TSE. 1. S. 102–103 (TFS. 2. S. 273–274). About the fact that after the first iconoclastic period there was disharmony in the relationship between the Church and the state, see Dagron G. Op. cit. P. 152, Afinogenov D.E. Decree. op. P.10–38. Afinogenov D.E. Decree. op. P. 130. TSE. 2. S. 590 (TFS. 2. S. 438). In another place, Theodore writes: “May you [the fathers persecuted for the faith - K.V.] remain pillars and support for the Church of God.” - see: TSE. 1. S. 175 (TFS. 2. S. 597). TSE. 2. S. 433 (TFS. 2. S. 359). TSE. 2. S. 563 (TFS. 2. S. 418). Afinogenov D.E. Decree. op. C. 129. TSE. 2. S. 828 (TFS. 2. S. 620) The absence of reprisals against the clergy during persecution already causes St. Theodora is suspected of treason against Orthodoxy, see: TSE. 2. S. 633 (TFS. 2. S. 469). TSE. 2. S. 641 (TFS. 2. S. 532). TSE. 1. S. 116 (TFS. 2. S. 285). TSE. 1. S. 115 (TFS. 2. S. 285). So in the Synodikon, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, they preserved “Ἄπαντα τὰ τῶν γίων πατριαρχῶν...Ταρασίου, Νικηφόρου...γραφέντα ἤ λαληθέντα, ἁνάθεμα”, which implicitly contains an anathema to those who condemn the economic actions of these patriarchs, see F. Assumption Synodikon on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Decree. op. P. 10. For the immediate reasons for the appearance of this entry, see Afinogenov D. E. Decree. op. pp. 100–109. I believe that, despite the coming to church power of a party sympathetic to the Studites, these words were not removed from the mentioned Synodik, serves as an indication of the rejection by the Conciliar Church consciousness of the rigoristic views of St. Theodore in relation to the policy of oikonomia of the holy patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus. TSE. 1. S. 5 (TFS. 2. S. 200). TSE. 1. S. 7 (TFS. 2. S. 202). TSE. 1. S. 15 (TFS. 2. S. 208). TSE. 1. S. 111 (TFS. 2. S. 281). TSE. 1. S. 98 (TFS. 2. S. 270). TSE. 1. S. 109 (TFS. 2. S. 279). TSE. 1. S. 92 (TFS. 2. S. 265–266). TSE. 1. S. 103 (TFS. 2. S. 274). TSE. 1. S. 159 (TFS. 2. S. 317). TSE. 1. S. 93 (TFS. 2. S. 266) TSE. 1. S. 117–119 (TFS. 2. S. 286–288). TSE. 1. S. 113 (TFS. 2. S. 283). Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 782–783. TSE. 2. S. 640 (TFS. 2. S. 532) TSE. 2. S. 451 (TFS. 2. S. 366–367). TSE. 2. S. 684 (TFS. 2. S. 494–495). Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 953–955. .Afinogenov D.E. Decree. op. pp. 100–109. Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. pp. 956–960. Under the Charter here we will consider Ὑποτύπωσις τῆς καταστάσεως τῆς μονὴς τῶν Στουδίου, the authorship of which, although does not directly belong to St. Theodora, nevertheless, reflects the tradition of the Studio community, see Mansvetov I.D. Decree. op. P. 165. Pentkovsky A.M. Typikon of Patriarch Alexy Studite in Byzantium and Rus'. M., 2001. pp. 141–142. Theod. Stud. Ὑποτύπωσις // PG. T. 99. Col. 1709C (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 523). Theod. Stud. Ὑποτύπωσις // PG. T. 99. Col. 1709D, 1712B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 523, 524 - respectively). Theod. Stud. Ὑποτύπωσις // PG. T. 99. Col. 1713C-1716C (PSTSO. T. 6. P.526–529). Theod. Stud. Ὑποτύπωσις // PG. T. 99. Col. 1720B (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 532). Theod. Stud. Ὑποτύπωσις // PG. T. 99. Col. 1713B, 1717AB (PSTSO. T. 6. P. 525 and 529–530 - respectively). Θεοδ. Στουδ. Μεγ. κατήχ. 2. 17 // PC. Σ. 53 (PSTSO. T. 5. P. 464). Dobroklonsky A.P. Decree. op. Part 1. P. 943. On the place and time of distribution of the Studio Charter, see Mansvetov I.D. Decree. op. pp. 210–212. Cf. Pentkovsky A.M. Typikon of Patriarch Alexy Studite in Byzantium and Rus'. Decree. op. pp. 152–154; Pentkovsky A.M. Studio charter and charters of the studio tradition. Decree. op. pp. 74–78.