Глава 2. 1770–1773

1. On Naxos with “kollivads” … To those who love God... all things work together for good. 64 By 1770, an event occurred that unwittingly brought Nicholas to Naxos. The Russian fleet, having reached the Dodecanese archipelago, destroyed the Turkish squadron. The enraged Turks, in retaliation, began a bloody persecution of the Christians of Smyrna, to which many Orthodox Greeks fell victim. Then Nikolai was forced to return to his homeland. He was already a graduate of the School, and his patron, Metropolitan Cyrus Anfim Vardis, appreciating the virtue and wisdom of the young man, made him his secretary. The Metropolitan’s goal was to prepare Nicholas for the priestly career, especially since he possessed all the necessary virtues for high service to the Holy Mysteries of the Church. Vladyka Anfim believed that he would thereby fulfill the will of God and act in accordance with the inclinations of the young man. But who knows what is in a person? Is it only his spirit living in him 65 . Nicholas's heart was already turned to the search for a higher spiritual life. As his entire subsequent holy life confirmed, He was attracted to the Cross of the Lord, which mysteriously revealed spiritual pleasures and the accompanying glory that are given to those who renounce temporal blessings and peace for the sake of love for God. The soul of Nicholas, having fallen in love with the One who hurt her, sought silence. He sought to feel the fragrance of Christ, which is most strongly and clearly felt on the immaculate mountain peaks and in the deserts. About the divine and indescribable beauty of this mysterious spiritual path - the path on which, in the image of the night struggle of Jacob 66, God and man, the first and beginningless Mind with the created and human mind, lovingly converge - the thoughtful and contemplative Venerable Nicodemus, while staying on the island of Skiropoula, a full ten years after the events described, told such wondrous outpourings of his holy heart: “...According to the thoughts of holy theologians, the mind and God are an example of One for the other: just as the loving mind ascends to its beloved God through the contemplation of His divine perfections, so the beloved God descends from His heights to the loving mind, and unites it with Himself, and adores it, and fills it with His grace. And so, through the ascension of God, the blissful and supernatural unity and combination of God and the mind, the Beloved with the loving, the Prototype with the image, and, simply speaking, the immeasurably distant Creator with the creation immeasurably remote from Him by nature, takes place.”67 “...O wealth of blessings! - proclaims the “high-minded” reverend. - O divine gifts! O supernatural blessings of those who meditate on the properties and perfections of God! And the mind will enjoy such grace-filled gifts and supernatural benefits even more and even more perfectly when it not only contemplates these wonderful properties and perfections of God, but also makes an effort and begins to strive as far as possible in deeds. For just as it is not enough for a painter to only look at an image that is perfect and meets all the rules of art, but also needs to depict its likeness with his hand if he wants to get a drawing of it, in the same way it is not enough for the mind to only contemplate divine perfections, but it is necessary to imitate them in action if it wants to transform itself in accordance with them. Contemplation in itself is fragile, but imitation and action make up everything. Is God completely good by nature? No one is good except God alone 68. And goodness is His natural perfection and inalienable property? So the mind should imitate this goodness of God by deed, as it is written: “In chastening us... let us think of Your goodness” 69. He must also be good through communion and grace, doing good not only to those who do good to him, but also to those who do evil to him, and to his enemies. Just as God commands His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous 70 » 71 . It was thanks to the monk’s fiery love for God that it became possible for him to become acquainted with men who suffered hardships in persecution and exile because they were filled with the fear of God. For to those who love God... all things work together for good 72 and for the fulfillment of their holy desires. During Nicholas’s service with the Metropolitan, as Saint Euthymius’ biographer tells us, he met the most reverend and virtuous Holy Mountain dwellers, hieromonks Gregory, Nifont and Elder Arseny. Perhaps we would have to pass by these fathers without any more detailed story about them, which they undoubtedly deserve - after all, they had such a strong and good influence on the young Nicholas - if the manuscript of the didaskal 73 of Athanasius of Paros 74 had not left us with a detailed description of one mournful, but at the same time majestic page of Svyatogorsk history associated with the names of these men, which covers the entire second half of the 18th century. These hieromonks were expelled for the sake of truth 75. For the sake of fulfilling the divine commandments, they preferred evil-suffering in exile to temporary sinful pleasure. And truly, as the Apostle says, everyone who wants to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted 76. People always invent ways to unite their will with the will of God, but these wills are different. Those who prefer to do only the will of God are persecuted, and their name is carried as dishonorable 77. This is how they persecuted the holy apostles, teachers of the Church, and confessors. Some were persecuted for the truth of the Gospel, others for the teaching of the Church, and others for the Sacred Traditions. These Holy Mountain residents were persecuted precisely because of the Sacred Traditions. They were "kollivads". This name does not at all emphasize any important feature of them, as an inexperienced person might think, but is an offensive, ironic and mocking nickname that the monks who fell into temptation bestowed on their brothers. And since the Monk Nicodemus was also a collivad, and his history is closely connected with this name, we considered it necessary to tell the reader about the essence of the conflict, so that he could better understand that historical period when the 78 reverend lived, labored and gave up his soul to the God of spirits and all flesh. We do this not without some fear that we will cause the displeasure of certain circles of the monasticism of the Holy Mountain, who played the main role in the dispute described, despite the fact that, thank God, these verbal disputes, displeasing to the Lord, have been covered by silence for a century and a half. Our fears are also fueled by the fact that at the end of the 18th century. three conciliar messages of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were published, strictly prohibiting the initiation of the named topic from any side. But since it is impossible to describe in full the life of the holy father in any other way, we decided with all caution and impartiality, as a witness of which we call upon God, who searches the heart, to present the question in its main features, without taking sides in the dispute, so as not to fall under the rebuke of the Church. However, now this topic has found its final resolution, so that there is no longer any danger of renewed strife on any side. It would be a very significant omission if we, studying the era against which the life of St. Nicodemus took place, did not touch upon, at least briefly, the extremely important consequences of the persecution of the Kollivads and the known influence exerted by their movement. The Kollyvads, thanks to their enlightened piety, became true revivalists of church life. And therefore, scattered in various places, they became that little leaven 79 that kindled the religious feeling of the enslaved Orthodox people. They founded monasteries in which, including with the help of the writings of St. Nicodemus, prayerful and sacramental life flourished. They attracted the people to Orthodox worship and taught frequent communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, which until then had been neglected by many. “This persecution,” writes Veritis 80, “had its beneficial fruits. The Kollyvads scattered across different dioceses, which gave them the opportunity to convey their message of spiritual revival to the Greek people. This preaching had not previously been confined to the monasteries of the Holy Mountain alone. It sounded in Thessaly, Epirus, the Peloponnese and the islands. However, now, as a result of persecution, the number of its apostles increased, Kollyvad monasteries arose in many parts of Greece, the most experienced confessors scattered across many dioceses and islands of the Aegean Sea, bringing there the leaven of spiritual revival. One of these islands was Skiathos, the famous island of the two Alexanders. If only the persecutors of the Kollivads knew that this persecution would give Hellas Papadiamandis and Moraitidis 81!..” 82. Here it seems necessary for us to point out the inconsistency and superficial nature of the statements of S. Kommitas, according to which the Kollivads “believed that the priests were obliged to celebrate the liturgy only before sunrise, and to celebrate the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts on Pentecost after sunset, and that they should proclaim all the secret prayers of the liturgy in the hearing of all, and perform the Sacrament in front of the eyes of those present at that liturgy, who were all without exceptions are obliged to take communion...” Thus, it turns out that the collivads held erroneous views. True, in addition to the collivads, there were also some monks on Athos at that time who sought to say aloud the secret prayers of the Divine Liturgy, as is clear from one unpublished manuscript of Jacob Neaskitiot. But this group was completely alien to the kollivadas. The Monk Nicodemus was the most significant interpreter of the issues around which controversies shook his era. A deep connoisseur of the liturgical life of the Church, who knew the reasons for the changes both in the decoration of the church and in the celebration of the sacraments, which, of course, in no way distorted the essence - is it possible that he defended false beliefs? It seems that Commitas studied very shallowly the problems that worried the collivads, which primarily concerned the commemoration of the dead and constant communion. All other accusations against St. Nicodemus were of a personal nature, to which he responded in his “Confession of Faith.” In this little book there is not a single mention of the opinions listed by Kommitas (who thereby misled the late Veritis, Mr. I. Kolitsaras and the Zoe brotherhood 83) - and this circumstance alone proves that such questions were never raised in the Kollivad environment, for otherwise they would inevitably have aroused the righteous anger of the reverend’s opponents, who would have received irrefutable evidence of their innocence. Saint Nicodemus, aware of his mission as a teacher of the Church, did not arouse those liturgical themes that from time immemorial have been distinguished by their inviolability, but fought against distortions in the worship of the Sacrament of the Divine Eucharist. Defending constant communion, the monk opposed the dark delusion of receiving communion only twice or thrice a year. His desire was to bring the Orthodox world, suffering from spiritual hunger, to the mysterious Meal as often as possible. He did not touch upon the question of whether the Divine Liturgy is celebrated behind the veil and whether secret prayers are said. If such a question had arisen, undoubtedly, the Monk Nicodemus would not have agreed with the understanding given above, since he knew perfectly well the teaching of the Fathers and the spirit of the Church 84 . After all, Dionysius the Areopagite says: “...mysterious invocations should not be interpreted in writing - neither their mysterious meaning, nor the divine powers operating in them - all this should not be made universal from secret, but, as our Sacred Tradition contains, it should be studied in secret...” 85. And the divine Chrysostom says: “Our Lord Jesus Christ performed the sacred act with silent invocations, which is why they should not be proclaimed publicly, but pronounced secretly by the priest, as an intercessor for the people before God.” And Blessed Augustine says that “the sacred act is performed through secret prayer.” Saints Gregory Dvoeslov and Cyril of Alexandria also agree with this opinion. This is exactly how the Monk Nicodemus thought about secret prayers, as is clear from his book on constant Divine Communion, in which he writes: “... since the prayers that the priest reads secretly, and the exclamations, and in general all the sacred prayers, sacred rites and rites performed during the Liturgy, confirm this (that the believers have gathered for the Liturgy for Communion. - Note. Transl.) ...” 86 One should also not think that, according to the saint, everyone present at the Divine Liturgy is obliged to receive communion, but only those who have prepared for communion through confession and fasting. We will return to this issue later. What Commitas said that the Kollivades allegedly wanted the Divine Liturgy to be celebrated before sunrise, and the Presanctified Liturgy after sunset, as if we lived in the era of the catacombs, is also incorrect. The Monk Nicodemus, in his “Pidalion” 87, condemns those priests who perform the Presanctified Liturgy in the morning, and reminds that its prayers speak of the evening sacrifice and that it should be performed in the afternoon, as is the case on the Holy Mountain. And Commitas’s indication that the collivades allegedly “perform the Sacrament before the eyes of all those present at the Liturgy,” makes us recall the Monk Nikita Stifata, 88 who says: “The one who says that the deacon shouts: “Doors, doors!” is worthy of laughter, calling on those standing outside the altar to listen to the Divine Mysteries. For if they are Mysteries, then they are hidden in every possible way... In other places I saw how the curtain hanging before the Divine Throne during the celebration of the Sacrament unfolded and covered the altar, so that even the priests themselves were not visible from the outside...” 89 Is it possible that Saint Nicodemus, the greatest liturgist of the post-Byzantine era, thought otherwise? For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that the skillful ones may be revealed among you. In 1754, the monks of the Svyatogorsk monastery of St. Anna began to rebuild their cathedral church, the so-called Kyriakon, at the expense and donations of all Orthodox Christians and especially the residents of Smyrna. The condition for alms was the commemoration of the deceased relatives of the donors, as is customary on the Holy Mountain, where special all-night vigils with commemorations, which are called “paid”, are held in monasteries and monasteries. However, the fathers were busy with construction throughout the week, and therefore it was difficult for them to commemorate the dead on Saturday, as required by church rites, so they decided to move it to the Sunday vigil. Some monks felt that this was contrary to the canons. The embarrassed monks left the church when the commemoration began there. A flame of hostility flared up, dividing the entire Svyatogorsk brotherhood into those who considered it “lawless to perform commemorations on Sunday” and those who argued that “the Lord’s Day is the most suitable for commemorating the dead in the hope of the resurrection, for the Resurrection of the Savior took place on this day.” The warring parties moved from words and disputes to persecution and insults. The matter took a very dangerous turn for the peace of the holy place, since this fierce quarrel, as Sergius Makreos impartially wrote, 91 “penetrated every monastery and reached the ears of every inhabitant, so that they (the followers of the Holy Tradition - Ed.) began to be called “subbotniks” and “collivists.” The most learned monks also joined in this dispute, bombarding each other with refined sophistic arguments, making up complaints, digging ditches of false conclusions, and so the thorns of slander grew, and the harvest of tares accumulated, and the cloud of evils grew.” The five patriarchs tried to quell the dispute, but in vain. In 1772, Patriarch Theodosius 2 of Constantinople, together with the then Patriarch of Jerusalem Sophronius, declared that “those who commemorate the dead on Saturday do well, preserving the ancient Tradition of the Church; and those who do this on Sunday are not subject to condemnation.” The turmoil did not subside. A year after the message of Theodosius, the Council Epistle of Patriarch Samuil Khandzeris was issued, which determined that “those who labor in cells and monasteries, as subordinate to the sacred monasteries located there, must unwaveringly follow the rite and custom preserved in the monasteries regarding commemorations,” in other words, perform them on Saturdays. After the removal of Samuel from the throne of Constantinople, under Sophronius 92, his successor, the monks who advocated commemorations on Sunday sent Vissarion of Rapsansky to Constantinople, who, having expressed many accusations against the so-called “collyvades,” initiated the appearance of a new Council Epistle, which determined “to perform commemorations equally on Saturday and Sunday.” But the unrest continued until the beginning of the 19th century, as is clear from the District Epistle of Patriarch Gregory 5, published in September 1819, which conciliarly declared: “... commemorations of those who have died in piety should be carried out without distinction on Sundays and Saturdays, as well as on other days of the week, so that the unrest that once arose completely subsides.” To help the reader more fully imagine the events of that era, as well as the position of the collivads, which will be discussed in a separate chapter, we present an excerpt from message 93 of the general Assembly of the sacred monasteries of the Holy Mountain, signed on May 19, 1807 and directed against one deacon from the monastery of Esphigmen. This deacon spread rumors about a certain confessor, Cyrus Hierotheos 94. The message was read publicly in the famous church of Protat: “...may his example (i.e., the scolding deacon) bring wisdom to other disputants and slanderers, whose heart is open to lies and whose tongue is sin-loving, who, at the instigation of the devil, open their chattering lips and, without fear of God, slander innocent and Orthodox brothers, calling them collivades, farmazons, heretics and slanderers; these false accusations of theirs produce discord, give rise to unrest, stir up hatred, disturb the universal peace of the Holy Mountain and eradicate love from their hearts - the sign and distinctive feature of the disciples of Christ and the main principle of all virtues, without which no one can be saved. If they do not become chaste and do not stop further dishonoring innocent brothers, attributing vices to the innocent and sowing suspicions against honest men, let them know that they will be severely punished by our Sacred Assembly...” Unfortunately, this definition of the Holy Kinot of the Holy Mountain did not put an end to the dispute that had been going on for half a century about the collivades, who, in addition to preserving the patristic Tradition of commemorations, were also condemned for their Orthodox opinion on the need for constant communion. This opinion was expressed in the book of St. Nicodemus published in 1783. The persecuted Kollivads were very pious monks, adherents of a silent life, who did not annoy anyone, 95 who thought and lived within the framework of the Orthodox Church and never blamed those who followed a different path. The event that the Council Epistles mention and which happened to Saint Macarius, also a collivad, is characteristic: some specifically performed the commemoration of the dead on Sunday in order to accuse Macarius of Corinth and his like-minded people before the Great Church of Christ of not obeying it. Unfortunately, the enemies of the Kollivads, who were partial towards them, distorted the spirit of the Council Epistles, and therefore themselves turned out to be disobedient to the Church. They interpreted oikonomia, with the help of which the Church sought to establish peace among its warring children, as a command obliging supporters of Akrivia to perform commemorations on Sunday. The “Confession of Faith,” written by Nicodemus the Holy Mountainer about a year before his departure to the Lord, says this: “... let us also add the following: in the Holy Church of Christ there are two types of government. And the first is called “akrivia” 96, and the second is called “economy” and condescension. So there is nothing new in the fact that the Epistle of Cyrus Sophronius determines that commemoration of the dead can be performed both on Saturday and on Sunday. After all, the Holy Mountain was shaken by quarrels and confusion because of this issue of commemoration, and therefore Cyrus Sophronius with his Holy Synod, wanting to pacify these unrest, used the second method of government, that is, oikonomia and leniency, and determined that commemorations should be performed on Saturday or Sunday without distinction. What does “without distinction” mean? This means, without observing the days, but not by force, not by reproaching or accusing one side of the other, but freely everyone should perform commemorations. I will say more clearly: if you, brother, want to perform commemorations on Sunday, observing the economy of the Church and leniency, we should not hinder you and blame you for this, much less force you to perform commemorations on Saturday. And vice versa, if we perform commemorations on Saturday, preserving the akrivia and ancient Church Tradition, you should not interfere with us and blame us for this, slandering us with offensive nicknames, but rather you should praise us. From which it follows that you should not test us whether we perform commemorations on Sunday or not: for this is characteristic of rapists and people who love troubles” 97 . In any case, what we have given here is enough to feel the spiritual atmosphere of that era and understand how 35 the Kollivada fathers 98 thought, with whom 22-year-old Nicholas maintained spiritual relations in Naxos. 3. Friendly connections with St. Macarius Brother from brother we help, like the city is hard... 99 From the holy fathers, Nicholas learned that on the island of Hydra was a man of high virtue, connected with them spiritually - St. Macarius, the former Metropolitan of Corinth. Nikolai, like a thirsty deer, went to meet him. Saint Macarius, at that time almost forty years old, resigned his see due to accusations that he, together with his father, had prepared an uprising in the Peloponnese in 1769, and was forced to leave the episcopal throne due to the danger that threatened him. He first moved to the island of Kefallinia, from where he retired to Zakynthos and, at the end of his three-year stay there, moved to Hydra, where his brothers lived and where he was tonsured a monk in the monastery of the Virgin Mary. Later he went to Chios, then to the Holy Mountain, then to Patmos, where he spent his ascetic life in the ascitirium he created above the monastery of St. John the Theologian. From there he again retired to Chios, where he rested in the Lord. So, two husbands met on the island of Hydra - and from then on, a strong bond of love in Christ and deep mutual respect was established between them. In a fraternal spirit they discussed various issues, including, no doubt, regarding commemorations, since Saint Macarius was a collivad and a friend of the persecuted fathers and the Svyatogorsk elder Sylvester, who at that time was also on Hydra - for the same reason (due to persecution). Nicholas confessed his desire to become a monk, and the monk-loving Saint Macarius gave him his blessing and wished him every success. Both of them knew well what spiritual darkness reigned in that era, and agreed to take on the joint feat of enlightening the enslaved Greek people in order to prepare their liberation from the heavy yoke. This meeting was of decisive importance for the entire subsequent life of Nicholas. The two husbands said goodbye, kissing each other in Christ, and parted with the hope of future collaboration. Macarius returned to the place of his repentance, to the monastery of the Mother of God, and Nicholas came to the Svyatogorsk elder Sylvester, “who had a deep and penetrating mind,” 100 as Euthymius says. Who was this Sylvester, who later for some time became the elder of St. Nicodemus? Athanasius of Paros left memories of him in his manuscript. “There were then,” he writes, “in one cell several brothers from among the persecuted, about ten or fifteen people, who were pondering what they should do in the face of such misfortunes? And after many words, a certain one-eyed man stood up, a great and virtuous ascetic, originally from Caesarea in Cappadocia. Not only had he never studied grammar, but he did not even speak common Greek correctly. Through long practice and study, he learned general literacy, and from much silence he acquired such an experienced knowledge of Church Tradition and so understood the books written in ancient Greek that he put even scientists to shame.” So, Nicholas found the monk Sylvester of Caesarea, famous for his virtue, “imbued with the honey of silence and contemplation” and “laboring in a cramped hut” 101. In the person of this sage, Nicholas seemed to have discovered one of the ancient ascetic Fathers and practitioners of mental prayer of the 14th century. Oh, how sweet it is for a young man who wants to become a monk to meet a holy and wise monk and talk with him! “When the human soul sees intelligent beauty,” writes Basil the Great, “everything that it previously loved appears to it as shameful and rejected. Therefore, when Paul saw the Red One with kindness, he counted everything as rubbish in order to gain Christ.” 102 Sylvester inspiredly theologizes about the extraordinary beauty of Jesus, surpassing all beauty: “Child, what is more beautiful than being with Christ? What is more desirable than His divine glory? There is nothing sweeter than this Light, by which every angelic and human rank is brightly illuminated. There is nothing more lovable than this Life, by which we all live, and move, and exist. There is nothing sweeter than ever-present beauty, nothing more joyful than constant joy. There is nothing more desirable than eternal joy, all-beautiful splendor and endless bliss, which cannot be expressed either in words or in thoughts to express the immensity of this superiority. For how can we talk about unspeakable beauty, or how can we measure joy that is indescribable and unimaginable in our thoughts? It is the top of every hope and every desire, the fulfillment, the limit and chiefness of God’s blessing and every promise and blessing, certified by feeling and knowledge. It is the pleasure of Christ-shaped bliss; inheritance of the visible theophany of the Lord in pure contemplation; His intelligent dispensation of light in the brightest radiances is fulfilled; outpouring of heavenly rays; communion with the most luminous illumination... Therefore, Peter, having been rewarded with this glorious vision, did not want to be separated from it for a short time: for he saw the pleasure of the future age, and immediately threw everything away from his soul for the sake of the sweetness and joy he received from that vision, O beloved child Nicholas in the Lord! 103 It can be assumed that Sylvester, “who had a deep and insightful mind,” spoke to Nicholas about the need for desert life and about the divine love that silence kindles in the heart, as the monk himself will later write about this in his grave interpretation from personal experience: “Those who live in the desert and lead a silent life despise everything sweet and desirable for others as harmful to the soul and separating from God. They keep their minds from all worldly confusion and visions in their hearts, and pray there (in the heart) unceasingly, learning from the all-desirable and sweetest Name of Jesus, and saying with love: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me.” And from this unceasing prayer and frequent teaching of the divine Name of Jesus, they kindle their hearts with one desire and love for God, stretching their minds to the contemplation of divine beauty. Why are they, enchanted by its beauty that surpasses all beauty and being beside themselves, forget about food, and drink, and about clothing, and about the most natural bodily needs” 104. The child, the ascetic of Christ Sylvester tells him, 105 “is cruel at first, difficult to navigate, and filled with a lot of sweat and labor, the steep path leading to virtue. For not everyone succeeds in overcoming the ascent, and it is not easy for those who have overcome it to reach the end of the road. And the one who finds himself at the top sees that this path is beautiful, that it is easy, and convenient, and more pleasant than the other one, which leads to evil. For while we are in passions, virtue seems to us difficult and inconvenient, and vice desirable and sweet. When we retreat a little from passions, then vice seems to us vile and ugly, and virtue is easy, and convenient, and desirable. And this can be learned from those who have walked the path of correcting virtue. So, listen to how Paul is ashamed of it (vice) even after getting rid of it, saying: “What fruit did you have then? The deeds of which you are now ashamed? 106 And this (virtue), even after labor, he says, is easy, and he calls the sorrowful and difficult things easy, rejoicing in suffering, and rejoicing in sorrow, and being arrogant in wounds for Christ... 107.” Stung in his heart by divine love, Nicholas, preparing for the difficult first, the field of monasticism and asceticism, probably let out a deep groan to the Lord: “O Lord, give me the strength and boldness to look at my soul and body without disgust...” Sylvester told him at length about Svyatogorsk life and the rites of Svyatogorsk monasticism. Being a highly experienced hesychast, Sylvester outlined to Nicholas the foundations of the moral philosophy of silence and told about the great Fathers who taught sobriety. In his small hut, the wise hermit kept the young man for several days, in whom he recognized rare spiritual gifts, predicting success and great literary feats awaiting him. Nicholas was not completely ignorant of monastic philosophy. Reasonable and possessed of a sharp mind, adorned with purity of character, he peered into the hidden greatness of the holy monastic life, while the treasures of God's love were mysteriously revealed to him, found in humble clay vessels 108 - in the simple in heart, in the unwise, in the foolish for Christ's sake, in babies. Sylvester taught Nicholas the fundamentals of the contemplative life and gave practical advice about life on the Holy Mountain. Touched by his care, Nicholas, kneeling down, kissed the right hand of the holy elder and returned to his native Naxos, so that when the time came and all household affairs were settled, he could retire to the Holy Mountain, which he loved so much and the longing for which consumed him. Συμβουλευτικὸν Ἐγχειϱίδιον. Σ. 278. Συμβουλευτικὸν Ἐγχειϱίδιον. Σ. 279–280. Didaskal - in Greek. “teacher”, in this case - the mentor of a school or monastery school. St. Athanasius of Paros (i.e., a native of the island of Paros; 1721–1813), theologian, church educator, participant in the Kollivad movement (June 24, 2010). G. Veritis, a famous Greek writer, in his works dedicated to the Kollivades, sought to show the spiritual continuity that supposedly existed between the Svyatogorsk movement in the 18th century. and fraternities in the mid-20th century. This refers to A. Papadiamandis, one of the greatest writers of New Greece, and his relative, A. Moraitidis (spiritual son of the great hesychast elder Daniel Katunakiot), who before his death took monastic vows in his homeland. See: Βεϱίτης Γ. Τὸ ἀναμοϱφωτικὸ κίνημα τῶν κολλυβάδων καὶ οἱ δύο Ἀλέξανδϱοι τῆς Σκιάϑου // Ἀκτῖνες. 1943. 6. Σ. 99–110. – Note. m. Theoclitus. Greek brotherhood, whose peak activity occurred in the 50s and 60s. 20th century Its members preached a liturgical revival, sometimes proposing changes in worship that were most reminiscent of Protestant liturgical reforms. They tried to support their practice and ideas with the authority of the collivads and the Fathers of the Philokalia. The point of view expressed here belongs entirely to the author, the monk Theoclitus, since the Venerable himself. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain did not touch upon this topic in his writings (as confirmed by M. Theoclitus). It is known that initially the Eucharistic and other prayers of the priest were pronounced aloud. “The early Christian consciousness looked at the people as an active participant in the sacraments, as an accomplice... even as a co-servant, and not as a passive visitor to the church, spectator and listener. Eucharistic prayers in the ancient Church, like all prayers, were prayers of the entire community to God.” See about this in more detail: Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Eucharist. Paris, 1947. pp. 165–167. Among the Greeks themselves, there are different points of view regarding secret prayers at the Divine Liturgy. For example, at the courtyard of the Patriarchate of Alexandria (in Moscow), the Greek bishop says slowly, clearly and loudly all the prayers (including the long prayers of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great). – Note. ed. Dionysius the Areopagite. About the church hierarchy. 7.10. From the example given, it is impossible to establish what St. Petersburg thought. Nicodemus on this issue, because it simply lists what the Divine Liturgy consists of. The clergyman says some prayers “exclaiming” (exclamations), and others “mysteriously” (secret). Archim. Cyprian writes about this: “Secret, as mysterious, mystical, modern liturgical practice understands as “secret”, hidden. Secret prayers are not secret, but only mysterious” (Cyprian (Kern), Archimandrite Eucharist. P.165:167). – Note. ed. Πηδάλιον. Ἀϑῆναι, 2003. Σ. 267–268. Σημ. I. “Pidalion” (Πηδάλιον), or “The Helmsman,” is a set of canons of the Church with a translation into Modern Greek and interpretations of St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain (see Chapter 9.3). St. Nikita Stifat (11th century), one of the closest students of St. Simeon the New Theologian, who prepared the first edition of the works of his teacher, is himself a great ascetic writer, the author of several treatises (“On Paradise”, “On the Soul”, “On the Hierarchy”, “On the Limits of Life”) and “The Centurions” included in the Philokalia. St. Nikita Stifat. Letter 3. See: Nicetas Stethatos. Opuscules et Lettres // Sources Chretiennes. 1961. 81. P. 232–234. Makreos Sergius (1734/40–1819), teacher of the Great National School in Constantinople, chronicler, historian, supporter of the Kollivads. – Note. ed. This refers to Sophronius 2 Patriarch of Constantinople (1774–1780), who was previously the Patriarch of Jerusalem. If in 1772 he adhered to the views that it was necessary to preserve the Church Tradition, then in 1776 his position changed sharply, because The decree adopted on June 9, 1776 at the Council of the Ecumenical Patriarchate contained church condemnation of the collivades and deprived Athanasius of Paros, James of the Peloponnese and Agapius of Cyprus from the priesthood. – Note. ed. The message is quoted from the Confession of Faith, see: Νικοδήμου τοῦ Ἁγιοϱείτου // Πάσχος Π.Β . Ἐν ἀσκήσει καὶ μαϱτυϱίῳ. Ἀϑῆναι, 1996. Σ. 127. Hieromonk Hierotheos was the confessor of the Holy Mountain. The message of the Assembly of all the monasteries of the Holy Mountain was caused by the fact that in 1804 a letter from St. Nicodemus to the confessor Hierotheus, after which a certain deacon again began to speak out against the collivades and slander Hierotheus. This message is quoted by St. Nicodemus in the “Confession of Faith” (see: Ὁμολογία Πίστεως. Σ. 141). But despite this message in defense of Hierotheus in 1808, the anti-collivads still managed to remove him from the obedience of their confessor from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. One of the anti-collivads, Abbot Savva, was not too lazy to arrive in Constantinople and demanded that Hierotheus be expelled, because. he (the message of Patriarch Callinicus is further quoted) “renews... disputes regarding kolyva and Holy Communion... and allows... to proceed constantly to the Divine Mysteries.” Patriarch Kallinikos (anti-kollivad) sent a message to the Holy Mountain in which he removed Hierotheos from spiritual leadership. See the Greek text of the message: Sokolov I.I. Church of Constantinople in the 19th century. St. Petersburg, 1904. Appendix. P. 48. – Note. ed. Lit. "strict precision, thoroughness." Ὁμολογία Πίστεως. Σ. 129–130. It should be noted that the author (monk Theoclitus) says practically nothing about the actions of the opponents of the Kollivads (anti-Kollivads), who caused unrest on the Holy Mountain. But at present, the monasteries of the Holy Mountain, following the Church Charter, do not commemorate the dead (funeral liturgies, memorial services, litias) on Sundays and days of great holidays. There is a wonderful book about commemorating the dead, see: Afanasy (Sakharov), bishop. On the commemoration of the dead according to the charter of the Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg, 1995. – Note. ed. For more information about the Kollivads and the Greek enlightenment, see: Govorun S. The Kollyvad Movement; aka. The Age of Greek Enlightenment: History and Controversy; aka. Saint Macarius Notaras, the founder of “philocalism” // Sretensky almanac. History and culture. Sretensky Monastery Publishing House, 2001. pp. 28–45, 50–60, 94–111. See also the collection “History of the Kollivad Movement” (in press). – Note. ed. St. Basil the Great. Discourse on Psalm 44: PG. 29. Col. 396. Basil the Great quotes Philippians 3:8. Συμβουλευτικὸν Ἐγχειϱίδιον. Σ. 288–289. Σημ. 104. The above excerpt is a quotation from the “Sermon on the Transfiguration” by Macarius Chrysocephalus, which is placed in the indicated note by St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. Νικόδημος Ἁγιοϱείτης. Νέα Κλῖμαξ. Θεσσαλονίκη, 1976. Σ. 37–38. Further, when referring to this publication: Νέα Κλῖμαξ. See about the book “New Ladder”, compiled by St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, in ch. 13.2. Further, the monk Theoclitus quotes the “New Ladder”, see: Νέα Κλῖμαξ. Σ. 261–262. In this quotation, the first part represents the words of St. Basil the Great (see: Conversation 22.5). Rom.6:21. Wed. Synodal Russian translation: What fruit did you have then? Such things that you yourself are ashamed of? The second part of the quotation from the “New Ladder” consists of the words of St. John Chrysostom (see: Discourse 16 on the Gospel of Matthew. 11: PG. 57. Col. 254).