Введение

§ 1. The concept of Dogmatic Theology The meaning of the word "theology". – Dogmas are the subject of Dogmatic Theology. – The concept of “Orthodox” and what Orthodox Dogmatic Theology means. The general concept of the science of “Dogmatic Theology” is contained in its very name. It's called "theology". The word theology - θεολογία (from Θεός - God and λόγος - word, word about God), borrowed by Christian writers from the ancient Greeks, is currently used in a very broad sense. The name “theology” now means a whole set of sciences that have as their subject God, as He revealed Himself in the Christian religion, and divine economy in the broadest sense, otherwise, everything that has a direct and immediate relationship either to God or to people in their relationship to God. Subjects of particular theological sciences are now designated by those adjectives (or epithets) that are attached to the word “theology” or other special names. The subject of Dogmatic Theology is indicated in the adjective “dogmatic”, showing that in this theological science Christian dogmas are expounded and clarified, which is why it itself is often called simply “Dogmatics”. The very name “Dogmatic Theology” thus gives the following concept about it: Dogmatic Theology is a science whose subject is the systematic exposition of the entire body of Christian dogmas. Dogmas in the various Christian denominations existing today are not understood in the same way, and each of them has its own system of Dogmatics, setting out the content of this science in the spirit of the peculiarities of its denomination. Therefore, to indicate the religious point of view on the subject of these systems, corresponding epithets are usually added to their names: “Dogmatic Theology”, “Dogmatics”. Orthodox Dogmatic Theology presents its subject matter in the spirit and under the guidance of the Orthodox Church 1 . The term "dogma", its origin and application in civil and religious documents. – Establishment of this term in theological literature and its main properties. – Theological. - Divine revelation. - Churchliness. - Legality. – Modern theological meaning of the term “dogma”. The word dogma – δόγμα – is a Greek word. Coming from the verb δοκείν - to think, believe, believe, more often - from the past. its forms δέδογμαι (in 3 pages δέδοκτας - decided, laid down, defined), the word δόγμα denotes a thought that has become fully established in the human consciousness, which has become a firm conviction of a person, in general - an indisputable truth, and therefore universally binding, as well as a determined, firm, unchangeable decision of the human will 2. Ancient writers, Greek and Roman, used this word to designate such principles or rules relating to the field of philosophy, moral teaching and civil legislation, which were recognized as indisputable and binding. Legislation of state power is expressed by the word δόγμα and in Holy Scripture (for example, in Dan. 2:13; 3, 10; 6, 8 and Acts 17 - royal decrees and laws, in Luke 2 - Caesar’s command for a nationwide census). Ap. Paul also applies the name of dogma to the law of God, calling the prescriptions of the Law of Moses, which at one time were binding on every Jew, dogmas. In the book Acts.ap. the same word denotes the statutes (τά δόγματα), judged by the apostle and elder in Jerusalem (16, 4; sn. 15, 22–25), which had the meaning of law for all members of the Christian church. As it well expresses from the formal side the properties of Christian truth, as indisputable, immutable and universally binding truth for Christians, the word δόγμα, as a conditional term, came into use among Christian writers to designate the truths of revealed religion. Initially, it was applied in general to Christian teaching, and then they began to express (the fathers and teachers of the church of the 4th-5th centuries and later church writers) with this word not all, without distinction, contained in the revelation of truth, but also of the revealed truths only those related to a certain circle of ideas - to the doctrine. In modern theological science, the following are recognized as the essential features of dogmas, distinguishing them from all other Christian truths, as well as from non-Christian teachings: 1) theological nature of the dogmas of faith, 2) revelation of God, 3) ecclesialism and 4) legal binding for all members of the church. 1. Theological. – This sign, assimilated to dogmas, indicates the area of ​​​​truths embraced by dogmas. Of all Christian truths, only those that relate to the essence of religion, as the internal union of God with man, and, moreover, a union restored by the Lord I. Christ, are called dogmas, that is, truths that contain the doctrine of the triune God and His relation to the world and rationally free beings, especially to man. All other truths that are in revelation, but do not have as their subject the doctrine of God and His relationship to the world and rationally free beings, for example, moral truths or commandments, ritual truths, canonical truths, historical stories about the Old Testament Church of God and partly the New Testament, prophecies, etc. - are no longer the essence of dogmas of faith, although in general their full recognition is obligatory for a Christian. This content of the truths called “dogmas of faith” also shows why they are the truths of faith, and the church called its abbreviated statement of the dogmas of faith “a symbol of faith” and begins it with the word “I believe.” 2. Divine revelation. - All the dogmas of the Christian religion are divinely revealed truths - they are the word of God Himself to people. This origin of dogmas distinguishes them from the truths and thoughts of any non-Christian religion and from philosophical teachings. A teaching that is not contained in revelation (explicit or implicite) is not and cannot be a dogma of faith. In revelation, dogmas are not given in the form of just a few of the most general provisions, from which people little by little derived the rest of the particular dogmas in the usual logical way, but are given in full and once and for all, in the volume and sense in which the church professes them. That is why the church fathers call Christian dogmas “the dogmas of God,” “the dogmas of Jesus Christ,” “the dogmas of the Gospel,” and “the dogmas of the apostles.” 3. Churchness. – The truths of faith, called dogmas, are truths recognized as such by the universal church and offered by it as dogmas to its members. What is not confessed by the church as a dogma cannot be a dogma for private individuals. The meaning and importance of this feature of dogmas is revealed from the following. The essential property of dogma, as revealed truth, is its unconditional truth and immutability (Matt. 5:18; 2 Cor. 1:19–20). The dogmas proposed to the consciousness of believers must be firm convictions in their consciousness. What can impart proper firmness to human convictions regarding the dogmas of faith? (For this, it is not enough that every single Christian dogma is contained in revelation. Private individuals, borrowing directly from revelation, can easily fail to understand this or that utterance of the mind of God, or understand it incorrectly, and even if they understood correctly, they cannot be convinced that their understanding is correct. The following questions may also arise in the mind of a Christian: where is the guarantee of the authenticity and integrity of the very sources of divine revelation? Thus, in order for a Christian’s faith to be firm, he needs the highest testimony and guarantee of the authenticity and integrity of the sources of divine revelation and the correct understanding and determination of the exact meaning of those passages that contain the truths of our faith. We have such supreme leadership in the Church of Christ, which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim 3:15). It is her voice that imparts firmness to our convictions regarding dogmas. (Consequently, in order to be fully convinced that known revealed truths should be recognized as dogmas, and that they should be understood this way and not otherwise, we need to hear these truths and their exact definition from the lips of the Church of Christ - of course, the true Orthodox Church; without it, a person cannot go beyond personal opinions and assumptions. That is why ancient pastors often called dogmas “dogmas of the church,” “words of the church.” 4. Legal binding for all members of the church is the last essential property of the dogmas of faith. Dogmas, as truths of faith, determined by the universal church with the assistance of the Spirit of God, and taught by it not on its own, but in the name of the Holy Spirit, in the name of Christ, as divinely revealed truths, cannot have any other meaning than as mandatory rules of faith or laws, which in their entirety and their true meaning must be accepted by every Christian who does not want to renounce Christ and separate from the church founded by Him and thereby be deprived of hope for salvation. And the word of God forbids the slightest deviation from the purity of Christian teaching and any change in it, thereby affirming its obligatory nature for Christians: whether we, or an angel from heaven, says the apostle. Paul, he preaches the gospel to you; moreover, if we preach the gospel to you, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8). In accordance with this, according to history, the church actually acted, excommunicating, by virtue of the power granted to it by God (Matthew 18:17-18), everyone who consciously and persistently rejected or distorted its dogmas (sn. VI Ecumenical Council, 1st Ave.). Consideration of the essential properties of dogmas leads to the following concept about them: dogmas are divinely revealed truths that contain the doctrine of the Trinitarian God and His relationship to the world and especially to man, preserved, defined and taught by the Orthodox Church as indisputable, unchangeable and binding rules of faith for all believers. The presentation in the system, clarification, and scientific substantiation of dogmas constitute the content of Dogmatic Theology. Understood in the sense of science, Dogmatic Theology is thus nothing more than a system of Orthodox Christian doctrine, otherwise a systematic presentation of the Orthodox Christian teaching about the Trinitarian God, His properties and actions in relation to the world and, in particular, to man. § 3. Sources of Christian doctrine. Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition Divine revelation and its types: supernatural and natural. – Ways to preserve divine revelation. – Holy Scripture, its composition and inspiration. – Signs of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. – The Bible, canonical and non-canonical books. – Holy Tradition, its connection with Holy Scripture. – Holy Tradition in the general (broad) sense as evidence of the Universal Church. – Holy Tradition in the narrow sense. – The external expression of Holy Tradition in the ancient symbols of faith, apostolic canons and decrees of councils, in the works of the fathers and teachers of the Church, in acts of martyrdom, in the practice of life of the Christian Church, its worship. – Necessity of Holy Tradition. – Authenticity and inspiration of the books of Holy Scripture. – Holy Tradition as a guide to the correct understanding of Holy Scripture. The source of science, which has as its subject the systematic presentation and disclosure of the dogmatic truths of Christianity, must be divine revelation, as it is contained and explained by the Catholic Church. I. There are two types of divine revelation: revelation in the general and broad sense and revelation in the narrow and proper sense. God reveals Himself in all His creation, especially in the godlike soul of man, and in the actions of His providence for the world and man. This revelation is otherwise called natural revelation (revelatio generalis or naturalis), because God reveals Himself here in the nature or nature of His creatures, and, moreover, naturally, just as, for example, an artist reveals himself in his work, an author in his work, etc. But this type of revelation can only serve with great and significant restrictions as a source for science, which has as its subject the exposition of the Orthodox Christian faith. He cannot and does not reveal anything about many Christian dogmas, but can only lead to the consciousness of the need for a special, higher, direct revelation of God, replenishing the weakness of man in his natural quest for the Divine, and serve as “some aid to the knowledge of God from His revelation” special (Katikh. Sn. § 13). Such revelation is given to people in supernatural revelation - revelation in the proper and strict sense (revelatio specialis or supernaturalis). It consists in the fact that God, condescending to the weakness of the human spirit, directly revealed Himself to people, regardless of his (man’s) own cognitive activity, revealed first through the law and the prophets, and then through the incarnate Son of God Himself and the sent down Holy Spirit. God, - teaches the apostle, - was spoken in many parts (πολυμερώς - in different departments of time) and in many ways ( πολυτρόπως - in different ways) of old by the Father as a prophet, in the last days of these days he spoke to us in the Son (Heb. 1:1-2), who, appearing on earth in flesh, gave us light and understanding, so that we might know the true God (John 5:20). God revealed to us to eat by His Spirit! - says the same apostle about the mystery of redemption, - the Spirit tests all things, even the depths of God (1 Cor. 2:10). It is this revelation of God that serves in particular as the source of Christian knowledge of God and, at the same time, the truths revealed in Dogmatic Theology. It is given to us in the Holy Scriptures, and is also contained in the Holy Scriptures. Traditions, the keeper and interpreter of which, and consequently of revelation itself, is the Church. II. The name Holy Scripture refers to “books written by the Spirit of God through men sanctified by God, called prophets and apostles” (Katikh.). These books, called the Bible (βίβλος - book; plural τα βιβλία, from the singular diminutive το βιβλίον - small book, means a whole series or collection of such small books that form a single one), therefore, are not ordinary human literary works, nor are they the same as religious monuments of non-Christian peoples (e.g. Koran, Zend-Avesta, Vedas, etc.), but holy scriptures (γραφαί άγίαι - Rom. 1:2) sacred scriptures (' ιερά γράμματα 2 Tim 3, 15), the very word of God (Mk. 7:13; fn. Matthew 15:6; Rom. 3:2; 1 Sol. 4:15; Rev. 19; etc. The Canon of Holy Scripture consists of the books of the Old Testament, numbering twenty-two according to the Jewish number (according to our number - 38), and the books of the New Testament, numbering twenty-seven 4. All these books (canonical), as written by special illumination and enlightenment from the Holy Spirit, have the property of inspiration (θεοπνευστία, inspriratio) 5. The inspiration of the books of Moses - the law-giving ones - is revealed from the fact that, according to the testimony of the Bible, God Himself initially spoke the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), and then other decrees. concerning the internal, social, church and family life of the Jewish people (Ex. 21–23; 25–31; 34 ch.). David, whose name many psalms are inscribed, testifies of himself: The Spirit of the Lord is in me, and His word is in my tongue (2 Samuel 23:2). It is said about the prophets that they were instruments of God, whom He Himself called to serve (Isa. 6; Jon. 1:2), that they received revelations directly from God. In their books there are constantly expressions: the Lord spoke to me, and the word of the Lord came to me, etc. Ap. Peter says about the Old Testament writers that the holy men of God are enlightened not by their own will, but by the Holy Spirit (φερόμενοι - carried, moved, i.e. by the Holy Spirit) (2 Pet 1:21; sn. 1 Pet 1:10-12). Ap. Paul, referring to the Old Testament writings, says to his disciple Timothy: all scripture is inspired by God (πασα γραφή θεόπνενοτος) and is useful for teaching, if it is in righteousness (2 Tim 3:15-16). In the preaching of the apostles, therefore, the words of the Old Testament revelation are often identified with the words of God Himself, when instead of the expression “Scripture speaks,” the expressions are used: God spoke (2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 1:1; 8, 8, etc.), God spoke the mouth of His saints (Luke 1:70; Matt. 1:22; 2, 15; Acts 4:25; 3, 18, 21, etc.), the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets (Acts 1:16; 28, 25; 2Pet 1:21; 1Pet 1:10-12), etc. And Christ the Savior Himself called the writings of the Old Testament the word of God (Mk.7:13; fn. Matt.15:6), often expressed himself about these writings like this, as soon as one can speak about the word of God, and not at all human, for example: Scripture cannot be ruined (John 10:35); Until heaven and earth pass away, one jot and one tittle shall not pass from the law, until they all shall be (Matthew 5:18; sn. 26, 54; Luke 24, etc.). In particular, about David in one case, He noticed: that (David) spoke by the Holy Spirit: the verb Lord of my Lord: sit at my right hand (Mark 12:36). All apostolic writings are inspired by God - they are New Testament. I. Christ promised to send down to the apostles and actually sent down the Holy Spirit, so that He would teach them everything, remember everything to them and announce what was coming (John 14:26; 16, 13); He also promised to give them a mouth and wisdom (Luke 21:15), which, without a doubt, if they needed it at all times, then even more so when she set out in writing the teachings of I. Christ for all subsequent times (1 Cor. 2:12–13). And the apostles themselves say about themselves that they have the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16), and that in the matter of serving the new covenant they cannot even think of anything on their own, but contentment, that is, their ability from God (2 Cor. 3: 5-6), that their preaching is not human word, but truly the word of God (1 Thessalonians 2:13; cf. 1 Cor. 2:7-13). And within itself, Holy Scripture bears the indelible stamp of its divine origin. To people capable of perceiving divine truth, it testifies to its inspiration by a special effect on the soul, characteristic only of God’s power. For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, members and marrow, and judging by the mind and thought of the heart (Heb. 4:12). It is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16; cf. Eph. 6:17). Under certain conditions, it completely and instantly conquers the human heart. Church history is replete with examples of this. A comparison of the teachings contained in it with the teachings of natural religions and philosophy testifies to the immeasurable superiority of biblical teaching over all natural religious and philosophical teachings, thereby showing that it could not be invented by human reason. Its influence on entire nations and all of humanity, which has not weakened after four thousand years of its domination over people, should also clearly tell the unprejudiced human mind that the Bible is an exceptional, universal and eternal book, incomparable with any human works, in short, that it really contains the verbs of eternal life (John 6:68). Non-canonical books must be distinguished from the canonical books of Holy Scripture. The Ecumenical Church has always believed that there is a difference between them in meaning and authority: canonical books are inspired, that is, they contain the true word of God, while non-canonical books are only edifying and useful, but are not alien to the personal, not always infallible opinions of their writers; in ancient times, the latter were intended to be read by those entering the church (catechumens). There are not a single non-canonical book between the books of the New Testament, and there are only non-canonical books between the books of the Old Testament, namely nine 6 . III. Divine revelation spread among people and is preserved in the true church not only through Holy Scripture, but also through Holy Tradition. Tradition constitutes “The most ancient and original way of spreading the revelation of God. From Adam to Moses there were no sacred books. Our Lord I. Christ Himself conveyed His divine teachings and institutions to His disciples by His word and example, and not by book. In the same way, at the beginning, the apostles spread the faith and established the Church of Christ” (Katikh. Introduction). Many of them did not leave any of their writings at all. In the apostolic writings themselves, which appeared later, only a brief reminder of the detailed oral teaching is given (2 John 12; 3 John 13 and 14 vv.; 1 Cor. 11:34). Even many of the events of the Savior’s earthly life are not described in them: the essence is many other things, says St. John, - even if Jesus had done, even if they had been written one by one, I could not possibly contain the whole world to write the books (John 21:25). Ev. Luke was not a disciple of Christ, but wrote the entire Gospel according to oral tradition from Christ’s disciples (Luke 1:1). AND. Christ appeared to the disciples for forty days after His resurrection and taught them about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3), but this teaching is not recorded anywhere in the sacred books, but it was faithfully conveyed by the apostles to believers in Christ orally. The Lord said, for example, that it is more blessed to eat rather than to accept ti (Acts 20:35), but these words are not literally written down in the Gospels (similar so-called agraphs, that is, sayings of the Lord not recorded in the Gospels, are also found in other ancient written monuments), and the writer Prince. Acts ap. (Ev. Luke), who brought them, no doubt heard them from the lips of one of Christ’s disciples. Finally, the apostolic writings, written in different places and to different private churches or even to private individuals, did not become generally known throughout the entire Church of Christ very soon, and even in the days of St. Irenaeus had entire nations converted to Christianity, who did not have any books of Holy Scripture, but were content with the Holy Tradition alone (Irin. Prot. heresy. III book. IV, 2). This is the revelation of God received by the apostles from I. Christ and transmitted to the church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the apostles themselves, in addition to the Holy One. Scripture, and constitutes Holy Tradition in its own or narrow sense. For the knowledge of Christian truth, Holy Tradition, as the word of God, has the same importance and meaning as Holy Scripture. Ap. Paul directly commands: brethren, stand and hold fast to the traditions which you have learned either by word or by our epistle (2 Thessalonians 2:15; cf. 3:6). I praise you, brethren, for you remember everything I have, and as I have given you, keep the tradition, wrote the same apostle in his first letter to the Corinthians, and, obviously, meaning not written traditions, but only oral ones (1 Cor. 11:2). He convinces Timothy: O Timothy, keep the tradition!... I have heard that you have heard Me with many witnesses, and have taught this to a faithful man who will be able to teach others (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 2:2; sn. 1:13). It is extremely difficult to materially determine the composition (in its entirety and with all accuracy) of Holy Tradition in the narrow sense. Its content enters into the general church consciousness, manifesting itself in the testimony or voice of the Universal Church. From Tradition, understood in this sense, it is also necessary to distinguish Tradition in a general or broad sense, or the testimony of the Universal Church. The Lord I. Christ entrusted the storage of divine revelation (written down by the apostles and not written down by them) not to individuals, but to the church founded by Him. “Into it, like a rich man into a treasury, the apostles completely placed everything that relates to the truth,” says St. Irenaeus (Prov. heresy. III book. IV, 1). She herself, according to the divine promise, is continuously preserved by Christ, who abides inseparably with her, all the days until the end of the age (Matthew 28:20), and by the Holy Spirit, guiding her into all truth (John 14:16, 26), so that “she can neither fall from the faith, nor sin in the truth of the faith, nor fall into error” (Cati. 9 ch.). Being the pillar and affirmation of truth, it contains or transmits from century to century divine revelation (Holy Scripture and St. Tradition) intact and undamaged - in the form in which it was given to her by God; she stores within herself and transmits from century to century her understanding or understanding of divine revelation, or is an infallible interpreter of it, and in particular of Holy Scripture. This transmission in the Christian Church of divine revelation in letter, or storage of it, and transmission of it in spirit and meaning, or interpretation and understanding of it, is Tradition in the broadest sense of the word. In other words, Tradition in this sense is the testimony or voice of the Universal Church, otherwise it is that spirit of truth and faith, that consciousness of the church that lives in it, as the body of Christ, from the time of Christ and the apostles. It is not a source of divine revelation, like Tradition in a narrow or proper sense, but it is a necessary guide to the use of divine revelation, a rule for the proper understanding of the truths given in revelation. The voice of the Universal Church about the truths of faith has its external expression: 1) in the most ancient symbols of faith; 2) in the so-called the rules of the apostles and in the acts and decrees of councils, both Ecumenical and Local; 3) in ancient liturgies; 4) in the works of all the ancient fathers and teachers of the church; 5) in the most ancient acts of martyrdom, and, finally, 6) in all the practice of the ancient Christian church concerning sacred times (fasts, holidays), places (the construction of churches with their accessories), sacred actions and rituals, and in general in the surviving church rites. It goes without saying that not everything that is contained in the indicated sources or monuments is, therefore, a truly apostolic teaching or institution. The expression of the voice of the Universal Church is only that which, being in agreement with Holy Scripture, satisfies the conditions of ubiquity, continuity and universality. This is explained well by Vikenty Lirinsky. “In the Ecumenical Church itself,” he says, “one must by all means adhere to what was believed everywhere (ubique), what was always believed (semper), what everyone believed in (quod ab omnibus creditum est), because that only in reality and in its own sense is universal, which, as the very meaning and meaning of this word shows, embraces everything in general as far as possible... That all or many unanimously, openly and constantly, as if by some preliminary teachers agree among themselves, unanimously accept, contain and transmit, then it should be considered completely reliable and undoubted” (Rem. I, 2 and 28). The necessity of Holy Tradition and the obligation to be guided by the testimony of the Universal Church, although we have Holy Scripture, is revealed from the following. Although Holy Scripture is a true source of Christian doctrine, it can only be so for our consciousness if we are convinced of the authenticity and inspiration of the books of Holy Scripture that make up the Holy Canon. But who can, with indisputable conviction, define the canon of sacred books and testify that the books included in it are definitely inspired by God? Ordinary human testimony, where there is always room for doubt and hesitation, is not enough in the present case, for all Christian beliefs must be based on this immutable truth. It is impossible to make the solution to this question dependent on reason and scientific research in general, as shown by the example of the rationalists, who in their biblical criticism reached the point that there was no longer a single book left that would be unanimously recognized by all of them as canonical. To base the solution of the same question on the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit and His power, which is inherent in the Holy Spirit. books would mean opening up wide scope for personal arbitrariness in determining the canon of St. books, as we see in the example of Luther, who rejected the canonical dignity of some New Testament books (James, Jude, Peter and the Apocalypse). Finally, it is impossible to resolve this question with all the convincingness on the basis of the evidence of Scripture itself about its inspiration, for these testimonies are not always sufficiently definite (for example, 2 Tim 3:16; Matt. 22:31), which is why they are subject to various reinterpretations, sometimes relating only to one particular book, or even one section in it, a saying, etc. (for example, Mark 12:36). To determine the composition of the canon and the inspiration of St. books obviously requires a higher certificate. Such a testimony can only be, and indeed is, the authoritative voice of the Universal Church, to which the scriptures belong. Only she can be an infallible judge in deciding which books are inspired and which are uninspired: no one knows God, but the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:11), living and acting in the church and through the church. With the removal of its testimony, the only basis or beginning for determining the canon of Holy Scripture is lost. Holy Tradition is necessary “for guidance to the correct understanding of Holy Scripture” (Katikh.). In Holy Scripture, not all the truths of revelation are expressed with all completeness and clarity. Scripture is not equally clear and intelligible in all its places. Ap. Peter speaks about the epistles of St. Paul, that in them there is a certain inconvenience of reason (something incomprehensible), that the ignorant and unsteady, twist to their own destruction, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures (2 Pet 3:16). There are many truths in Holy Scripture that are mysterious, incomprehensible and generally such that a spiritual person does not accept... for he has foolishness and cannot understand (1 Cor. 2:14; cf. 1, 23). All this shows that for the correct understanding of Holy Scripture, external and authoritative guidance is necessary. Therefore, although “we must believe it (Holy Scripture) unquestioningly, but only exactly as it was explained and betrayed by the Catholic Church... Otherwise, if everyone began to explain the Scripture every day in his own way, then the Catholic Church would not, by the grace of Christ, remain to this day such a church that, being like-minded in the faith, always believes equally and unshakably; but would be divided into countless parts, would be subject to heresies, and at the same time would cease to be the holy church, the pillar and affirmation of the truth, but would become the church of the evil ones, that is, as one must assume, without a doubt, the church of heretics” (Post. Eastern Pat. 2 parts). § 4. Features of Western confessions in the doctrine of the sources of revelation Commonality with Orthodoxy in recognizing the Roman Catholic Church as the source of Christian teaching about the divine revelation of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. – The difference lies in the recognition of the equal dignity of canonical and non-canonical books, the unjustification of this equalization. – Council of Trent on the canonicity of the Vulgate text. – Question about the reading of the Bible by the laity. – Protestantism’s rejection of the authority of Holy Tradition. – Arbitrariness in the interpretation of Holy Scripture. – Extremes in relation to Holy Scripture. – Symbolic books in Protestantism. I. The Roman Catholic Church, in agreement with the Orthodox Church, professes that the only source of Christian teaching is divine revelation contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and in Holy Tradition. But both in relation to Holy Scripture and in relation to Holy Tradition, its teaching and practice represent significant features. 1) In relation to Holy Scripture, first of all, it does not make as strict a distinction as the Orthodox Church between the canonical and non-canonical books of the Old Testament, assigning to both the same inspiration and meaning. The view equating the authority of both books began to be established in the Western Church back in the 4th-5th centuries (expressed, for example, by St. Augustine in De doctr. christ. II, 8, 13), but was legitimized by the Council of Trent. This council even declared an “anathema” on Christians who did not agree to recognize “sacred and canonical” all the Old Testament books, “in their entire contents and in all their parts,” as “they are read and accepted” in the Roman Church and “contained in the ancient Latin Vulgate.” In its calculation of such books, the council included not only generally recognized canonical books, with the assimilation of canonical dignity and their non-canonical “parts,” but also non-canonical ones, namely: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of the son of Sirach), the first and second books of the Maccabees, so that the number of canonical books in the Old Testament is determined by the Roman Church at 45 (Conc. trident. Sess. IV) 7 . The Trentian definition of the composition of the Old Testament canon was also confirmed by the Vatican Council of 1871. Here an anathema was uttered against anyone “who does not recognize the inspiration of the books approved by the Council of Trent” (Sess. III, cap. II, can. 4). But the equalization in dignity and authority with canonical non-canonical books and parts in canonical books cannot be justified in any way. The Old Testament Church was entrusted with the words of God (Rom. 3:2), proclaimed through the Old Testament messengers of God. Therefore, exclusively she had the right to determine which of the Old Testament writings are truly inspired sacred writings and which are not, that is, to determine the scope and composition of the Old Testament canon. And by her, at the conclusion of her canon, that is, the final collection of sacred canonical books, to which further “adding and subtracting” was impossible, the canon was defined in twenty-two books (I. Flav. Prot. Appion, I, 8). The conclusion of the canon was completed by Ezra, Nehemiah and the Great Synagogue. In time, it coincided with the cessation of prophetic ministry among the Jewish people, and with its cessation the appearance of the holy books also ended. All books that appeared after the cessation of prophecy - in the last four centuries BC. H., were no longer included in the canon, and they were written not in Hebrew, like the canonical ones, but in Greek. According to the remark of the Jewish historian I. Flavius, “these writings no longer enjoy the same respect as those previously mentioned (i.e., canonical), because the succession of the prophets has ceased” (Prov. Appion, I, 7–8). The Jews have hitherto inviolably contained the canon in this composition; in the same composition it was inherited by the New Testament Church from the Old Testament Church. And the New Testament Church, not only local, like the Roman Church, but also universal, does not have the right to make changes in the decisions and decrees of the Old Testament Church, guided by the Spirit of God, and, consequently, to assign divinely inspired and canonical dignity to books to which the latter did not assign such dignity. It is most likely that the very idea of ​​non-canonical books, as equal in authority and dignity with the canonical ones, developed from the fact that in ancient translations of the books of St. The Scriptures of the Old Testament - Greek (LXX translation) and Latin (Italian), which were in constant use and circulation among ancient Christians, non-canonical books are included in the very codex of the books of Holy Scripture and are placed along with the canonical books, as an addition. As a result, ancient teachers, citing excerpts from non-canonical books in their works, often expressed themselves: “Scripture speaks,” “Holy Scripture speaks.” This is probably where the idea arose in the Roman Church that no distinction should be made between canonical and non-canonical books, that both have the same dignity and significance. It is not surprising, therefore, that not all Roman theologians share the official teaching of their church. Among them, it came into use to call books accepted in the Jewish canon “proto(first-)canonical,” and those not accepted in the Jewish canon, but existing in the Vulgate and authorized, “deutero(second-)canonical.” This terminology in itself, of course, does not change the essence of Roman church teaching, but some of its authoritative theologians, familiar with the history of the canon, use it to carry out the Orthodox-Eastern view of the canon (for example, Bellarmin). Having equalized the dignity of all the books in the Vulgate, the Council of Trent (in its 4th session) proclaimed the canonicity of the text of the Vulgate itself, that is, the translation of the Bible into the dead Latin language, giving preference to this text over all others and threatening with anathema to everyone who doubts the dignity of the Vulgate; The Vulgate should be used during worship, in public readings, debates, sermons, commentaries on Holy Scripture, etc. But it is obvious that if the original and authentic text of the word of God was written in Hebrew and Greek, then when comparing different texts of the word of God, one should prefer not the Vulgate, but the original text from which both the translation of the Vulgate and all other existing translations were made. This is all the more necessary because the Vulgate, despite the text corrections made more than once in it, according to the consciousness of the learned representatives of the Western Church itself, has many significant shortcomings in terms of clarity, accuracy and fidelity of translation. Finally, a characteristic feature of the Roman Church regarding St. Scripture constitutes a prohibition for the laity to read the Bible. True, this prohibition is not directly expressed either in its conciliar definitions or in symbolic books, but in reality it existed and exists in the Roman Church. Popes at different times established a number of restrictions aimed at positively prohibiting reading the Bible, either in the form of prohibiting translations of the Bible into living vernacular languages (the resolution of the Council of Toulouse of the 13th century, repeated by many of the popes) and condemnation of those already made and published without church blessing (for example, Pope Pius VII in 1816), then in the form of condemnation of all societies that set as their task the dissemination of the Bible among the common people (Pope Pius IX recognized such societies as a direct plague of modern times), then the inclusion of Holy Scripture in the Index of books prohibited for reading by the laity and making the reading of the Bible by the laity dependent on the guarantee of their shepherds that they can read it without harm to their souls (order of Pope Pius IV in 1564). The hidden reason for such restrictions and prohibitions, contrary to the direct instruction of the Savior: search the Scriptures (John 5:29) and the instructions of the apostles (for example, 1 Pet 3, 15; Col. 1:9; Rom. 12:2; 2 Tim 3, 13-17), that those who read the word of God would find in it clear exposures of the errors of Latinism and its inherent spirit of power. 2) As for Holy Tradition, the Roman Church recognizes the authority of Tradition, understood both in the narrow and in the broad sense. Therefore, he finds it necessary to substantiate all his beliefs both on Holy Scripture and on Holy Tradition. In reality, however, since its numerous religious features cannot find justification for themselves in the Tradition of the Catholic Church, on the contrary, they are denounced by it, it allowed the deliberate distortion and damage of the text of many monuments of Tradition, even the fabrication of such monuments (for example, the false Isidore decretals, acts of the unprecedented Synoese Council, the deed of gift of Constantine V., etc.), most importantly for the Tradition It accepts the local tradition of the Universal Church, the tradition of the Latin Church, the teaching of its local councils, many of which are elevated to the level of ecumenical councils, the opinions of Western church writers and theologians, especially the definitions of the Roman popes, who are recognized as having the gift of infallibility ex cathedra. II. Protestantism, having in mind the Roman Catholic abuses of the Holy Tradition, completely rejected its authority. The Protestant confessions recognize the Holy Scriptures as the only legitimate and completely sufficient source of doctrine from which all Christian truths must be drawn (the so-called formal principle of Protestantism). As for the Holy Tradition, it acquires only an auxiliary historical meaning in the explanation of Holy Scripture: it shows how at a certain time the church understood the truths of Holy Scripture 8 . Every believer can read and interpret Holy Scripture according to his own understanding, without the need for external guidance and authority. The guiding principle in explaining Holy Scripture should be the Holy Scripture itself. When explaining individual passages, one must compare them with parallel passages and explain unclear passages as clear ones. But the “true Interpreter” of Scripture for every believer is the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Luther in his catechisms constantly encourages people to turn to God in prayer when explaining Scripture, especially its dark places. “Without the Spirit of God no one understands one jot of Scripture,” he says. "St. Scripture must be explained not only by him (the reader), but also by the Holy Spirit, by whom the sacred books were written and who, as it were, lives in them.” “Where the Holy Spirit does not explain Scripture, it remains incomprehensible.” But this attitude of Protestant confessions to Holy Tradition constitutes an extreme, which reflected very harmful consequences on their beliefs and their entire church and religious life. Thus, the denial of the authority of Tradition, understood in the sense of the source of Christian teaching, could be justified if the entire content of the revelation of God by its heralds were contained in Scripture, which in fact is not the case. Consistent application to the matter of denying the authority of Tradition in this sense can easily lead to the denial of many truths of revelation that are not fully and clearly expressed in Scripture (for example, about the sevenfold number of sacraments, about the baptism of infants, about the ever-virginity of the Mother of God, about the veneration and invocation of saints and angels in prayers, about the veneration of holy relics and icons, about the remembrance of the dead, about fasting, the sign of the cross, etc.), which is partly what we see in Protestantism. It is impossible to deny the authority of Tradition, understood in the sense of the testimony of the Universal Church, primarily because then the doctrine of the canon of sacred books is deprived of a fulcrum. The canon of Old Testament books was inherited by the New Testament Church from the Old Testament on the basis of Tradition. The establishment of the canon of New Testament books was also accomplished by the church on the basis of the historical (consensual testimony of the churches about the origin of this or that scripture from the apostle or his direct disciple) and dogmatic (the purity of the teaching revealed in this or that scripture, consistent with the teaching invariably preserved in the church) Tradition of the church. To reject the necessity of Tradition for guidance to the correct understanding of Scripture means to legitimize arbitrariness in the interpretation of Scripture (complete subjectivism and individualism). Neither following the rule: “the word of God must be explained by the word of God,” nor the assurance that “inner illumination from the Holy Spirit enlightens the reader of the word of God,” guides to its correct understanding, can protect against this arbitrariness. Explaining the word of God by the word of God cannot protect against arbitrariness in understanding and interpreting it for the following reasons. St. Scripture is precisely scripture, “my book,” and not any living creature with hearing and lips. It cannot hear our questions about how we should understand this or that place in it, and it cannot answer us or resolve our perplexities. This means that resolving these perplexities when explaining Holy Scripture on the basis of Holy Scripture itself will be left to the completely personal understanding of the reader of the word of God, and it will depend on him to select for this or that place, call them the clearest and then reinterpret them as he pleases. It is clear that if only this rule is followed, all sorts of abuses are possible and inevitable. The same must be said regarding the replacement of the leadership of Tradition with grace-filled illumination from the Holy Spirit. Of course, who can more accurately show the true meaning of Holy Scripture if not the Holy Spirit, the true author of Holy Scripture? But in application this principle is extremely inconvenient and unreliable: internal illumination or anointing from the Holy One, which true believers are truly rewarded with (1 John 2:27), is a most mysterious and hidden action for all outsiders, and therefore anyone, at will, can pass off (as we see in sectarianism) their own inventions as an inspiration from the Holy Spirit. It would be a different matter if someone who was rewarded with illumination from the Holy Spirit confirmed his words with something tangible, for example, miracles, which, however, does not actually happen. Following this principle, it is easy to reach the complete rejection of Holy Scripture, for if the Holy Spirit himself teaches us the truth, then what use do we have with external aid – the Bible? This is what some of the sectarians came to (for example, Anabaptists and Swedenborgians). In the Protestant world it soon became clear that denying the authority of Tradition when explaining Holy Scripture actually leads to unbridled arbitrariness in understanding and interpreting the word of God. Soon after its appearance, Protestantism was divided into Lutheranism and Reformation, and then into many sects, on the one hand, of a mystical nature, and on the other, of a rationalistic nature. The first (Anabaptists, Quakers, etc.), posing as people directly illuminated by the Holy Spirit, proclaimed their own inventions as revelations of God, and the second subjected the most daring criticism to the word of God, excluding from their beliefs everything that in the word of God seemed to them to be contrary to reason (for example, Socinianism). To stop such disorder in their church life, the reformers compiled their confessions of faith and symbolic books, obliging their followers to be guided by them when explaining the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, but this was already a self-contradiction and self-accusation of Protestantism, for symbolic books are nothing more than tradition, only not the ancient apostolic one, but the new one - Protestant. By this they showed that a church with Holy Scripture alone, without the explanation of Holy Tradition protecting it, cannot be strong and unshakable. § 5. The immutability and imperfection of the Christian doctrine in terms of the content and number of dogmas. Possible improvement The fullness of divine revelation. - Its completion is with our Lord Jesus Christ. – Possible perfectibility of dogmas in relation to their definition and explanation or disclosure. – Emergence and clarification of new terms for these purposes. – Dogmatic formulas and conciliar definitions. – A note about the theory of dogmatic development, its justification for the emergence of new dogmas in the Roman Catholic Church. I. The Orthodox Church recognizes that in the teaching of the Lord I. Christ and His apostles, all the truth necessary for man in his earthly existence was once and forever given (Jude 1:3), and that not only was there not, but also one should not expect from God a direct revelation to people after I. Christ of any new dogmatic truths, beyond those already given. How many of them were revealed by God through the prophets and the incarnate Son of God. so much should remain for all times as long as Christianity exists. On the other hand, all open dogmas of faith, as divine in origin, represent absolute truth, therefore, forever unchangeable, and therefore are not subject to amendments, additions, or improvements. Just as no one has the right to either multiply or reduce them in number, so no one is given the right to change them in content. Revelation provides strong reasons for this view. Holy Scripture shows that with the coming of I. Christ and the establishment of the New Testament, the history of revelation, which took place in Old Testament times as preparatory to the acceptance of the Redeemer, ended. In His teaching, people were given all the truth they needed in earthly life. “All that I have heard from My Father,” He said, “I have told you (John 15:15). Christ would not have said this about Himself if He had not really communicated a complete and perfect revelation. The law of faith and morals proclaimed by Christ, as the most perfect and eternal law (Heb. 13:20), can no longer be subject to further development and change. Christ, says the apostle, is the same yesterday and today, the same and forever (Heb. 13:8). The Holy Apostles were also given the power to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 13:11). Endowed with power from above, they communicated to people the whole will of God (Acts 20:27), which is why they could say: if we, or an angel from heaven, bring you good news, let him be anathema (Gal 1:8). The purpose indicated by the Savior for sending the Holy Spirit on the apostles - for the remembrance of the teaching taught by Christ, and not for new revelations, also directly excludes the idea of ​​supplementing the revelation announced by Him with new truths (John 14:26; 16, 7-15). II. Recognizing the immutability and imperfection of the Christian doctrine in terms of its content, the Orthodox Church does not thereby reject the possibility of some kind of its perfectibility and development. She believes this perfectibility and development in the most precise definition and explanation or disclosure of the same essentially unchangeable dogmas, but not in multiplying the number of dogmas, not in changing the very content of the Christian doctrine. The perfectibility and development of Christian doctrine, therefore, may not be objective, but only subjective - in relation to human consciousness, to the assimilation and understanding of dogmas by people 9. That Christian doctrine in this sense can really be improved is inevitable if the dogmas of faith must be assimilated by human consciousness. This kind of revelation of dogma actually took place in the church. Having received from I. Christ and the Apostles taught the faith, the church did not limit itself to its immobile and dead storage, literally repeating only the teaching transferred for storage; on the contrary, she tried to translate the truths of faith into a language understandable and accessible to every believer, and when necessary, she tried to develop more precise and specific formulas, in accordance with the circumstances of the time, to clarify their inner essence, to clarify mutual connections, to protect them from the admixture of opinions alien to the truth, etc. Thus, when revealing dogmas in the fight against heretics, theological terms with a certain meaning were developed for a more precise designation dogmas not found in Scripture, for example: Trinity (Τριάς), unit (μόνας, ένας), person, hypostasis (' υπόστασις), being ( ούσία), consubstantial (' ομοούσιος), God-man (Θεάνθρωπος, Θεόμβροτος), incarnation (ενανθρώπος), incarnation (ενσωμάτωσις , ενσαρκος παρουσία, επιφάνεια), Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), Mother of God (Θεομήτωρ), Ever-Virgin (A ειπάρθενος), later - transubstantiation (transsubstantiatio, μετούσιωσις) and many more. etc. In the same way, in the struggle with heretics regarding the distortions of dogmas they allowed, the very content of dogmas was more accurately determined and clarified, especially at the Ecumenical Councils, for example, in the 4th century. – against Arius and Macedon the dogmas about the consubstantiality of the persons of the Holy Trinity and the deity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit were revealed in the 5th century. - regarding the heresies of Nestorius and the Monophysites - the dogma of two natures in I. Christ, in the 7th century. - regarding the heresy of the Monothelites - the doctrine of two wills in Christ, regarding other heresies - dogmas about original sin, about grace, etc. But by revealing the dogmas in this way, the church, even at the Ecumenical Councils, did not at all introduce anything new into the frank teaching. It is impossible to recognize as true the opinion (of defenders of the theory of dogmatic development or progress of the church) that by the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils they supposedly established and raised to the level of generally binding truths, which until that time were either not known to the church, or were only unestablished and therefore not generally binding opinions, so that every religious definition of the council constituted a new dogma. In fact, the councils declared only that dogma that had previously been the general belief of the church and, therefore, dealt with ready-made truth. “This is the apostolic faith! This is fatherly faith! This is a universal faith! - this is how the fathers of the councils exclaimed, pronouncing their creeds. In their content in the conciliar definitions, the dogmas remained the same as they were before the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils; Only their verbal expression acquired greater accuracy and completeness. This was not caused by the fact that the identified revealed truths were still in an undeveloped, embryonic state until that time, or that they were not recognized, but by heretical errors. In this way, in the very content of the doctrine there was no development or enrichment of it with new truths. Hence, in the ancient church, revealed truths were considered dogmas of universally binding force, both after and before their determination by the Ecumenical Councils; in the same way, heresy was considered heresy even before it was condemned by the church. That this is so is especially evident from the church’s anathematization of heretics who died before the conciliar definitions of certain dogmas that were distorted by them, for, according to the word of the Savior, the unbeliever is already condemned (John 3:18; cf. Titus 3:11), for example, the condemnation at the V Ecumenical Council (553) of Theodore of Mopsuet (d. 429 d) for “not preserving or preaching the right dogmas of the faith,” more directly, for the teaching for which Fyodor’s disciple Nestorius was anathematized at the Third Ecumenical Council (431). This revelation of dogmas that are unchanged in their essence in the Orthodox Church continued in all subsequent times, after the era of the Ecumenical Councils, and continues to this day, on the occasion of newly emerging and emerging errors, for example, against Roman and then Protestant errors, as well as against various kinds of anti-Christian teachings, and will not stop until errors against dogmas, and in general, cease. the need, in relation to the circumstances of the time, to define and explain one’s dogmas in the preservation of Orthodoxy. Note. It is clear from what has been said how one should look at the theory of the so-called existing in Catholic theology (adopted by Protestantism). dogmatic development of the church, which recognizes the possibility of both a qualitative change in dogmas and their quantitative increase in the church. It is impossible to admit that the church, to which the image of sound words was then transferred (2 Tim. 1:13), in order to be a pillar and affirmation of the truth, which (the truth) is eternal and unchangeable, could preach the teaching of the faith by which a Christian is saved, to some centuries and generations with such completeness, and to others with another, so that some generations were saved by one faith, and others by another. The true church preached the teaching given by I. Christ once and forever in all centuries and throughout the world equally. And in the Roman Catholic Church itself, the theory of dogmatic development appeared relatively recently (in the half of the 19th century), although in practice it has been used by the Western Church for a long time. Such a theory was invented solely to justify the dogmatic innovations of the Roman Church, unknown to the ancient Ecumenical Church, such as, for example, the dogmas of Filoque, the primacy and infallibility of the pope ex cathedra, the immaculate conception of the Mother of God, and many others. § 6. The importance and meaning of dogmas. Refutation of opinions that deny the meaning of dogmatic truths in Christianity Religion as the union of God and humanity, the importance of knowing God and divinely revealed means for the salvation of the human race. – The importance of dogmas in this process of cognition and activity. – Satisfying the needs of the human mind. – Their influence on human life and activity. – Importance for Christian spiritual and religious life. – Refutation of adogmatism, which reduces spiritual and religious life to morality (Kantianism) or to a religious and moral mood (Schleiermacher, A. Ritschl and others). I. The dogmas of faith, containing the doctrine of God and the economy of human salvation, express and define the very essence of the Christian religion, as the union of God with man restored by the incarnate Son of God; all other Christian truths - moral, liturgical, canonical - have meaning for a Christian depending on the recognition of dogmas, in which they have a fulcrum. From this it is clear that the tenets of faith are of paramount importance in the Christian religion. This meaning is acquired by him both by revelation and by the church. Thus, the Lord I. Christ, having appeared to be the Light of the world (John 1:9; 12, 46) and testified of Himself: For this I was born and for this I came into the world, that I may bear witness to the truth (18, 37), taught: Behold, there is an eternal life, that they may know Thee the one true God (Whom the pagan polytheists did not know as one), and His and You sent Jesus Christ (rejected by Judaism)… I have revealed Your name as a man (John 17:3, 6). He who has seen Me sees the Father,... for I am in the Father and the Father is in Me (14:7-11). Believe in God and believe in Me (14:1). Commanding the apostles, when sending them out for worldwide preaching, to teach the peoples faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, He said: whoever has faith and is baptized will be saved, and whoever does not have faith will be condemned (Mark 16; 15-16; cf. Matt. 28:19). In accordance with this, the apostles teach: We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us (light and) understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ: this is the true God and the eternal life (1 John 5:20). Without faith it is impossible to please God (it is impossible, for example, to love God, to hope in Him, to pray to Him, etc.); It is fitting for one who comes to God to believe, for He is also a rewarder of those who seek Him (Heb. 11:6; cf. Rom. 10:9-11). They convince believers to continue in the teaching that they heard from them, that is, in the truth preached by the apostles (1 John 2:21-24), to grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior I. Christ (2 Pet 3:18; cf. Col. 1:9-10; Eph. 3:18; 4, 13), to be always ready for everyone who demands an account of hope, give an answer with meekness and reverence (1 Pet 3:15). About those who reject the main dogma of Christianity - about the God-manhood of Christ the Savior, St. John says: every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God, and this is the Antichrist (1 John 4:3). This is how the church has always looked at the meaning of dogmas. Receiving new members into its bosom, it certainly requires from them preliminary knowledge of the dogmas and confession of their faith, and while it tolerates sinners against the commandments in its bosom, it excommunicates from itself, according to the instructions of the Savior (Matthew 10:32-33; 18, 17), all those who stubbornly resist or distort its dogmas, as dead and rotten members. The martyrs and confessors she blessed preferred to endure cruel suffering and death rather than renounce faith in dogmas, with their blood, thus testifying to the importance of dogmas. The assimilation by revelation and the church of the paramount importance of the dogmas of faith, among other Christian truths, is fully justified by their great vital significance for man. The dogmas of faith, first of all, satisfy the needs of the human mind to the highest degree. History and experience testify that there is not a single person who would not ask the question: how should one imagine the unconditional Being, which is itself presupposed behind the conditional and finite? To whom or what does everything that exists owe its original origin? What higher power maintains the existence of the universe and controls it? Why does this world exist? What is the position of man in it? Where and how did man appear on earth? What is its purpose? What is his final fate? Where does evil come from in the world? etc. And these questions are not questions of simple curiosity; they have occupied and are occupying everyone with irresistible force and require their solution to calm our entire being. Christianity answers all these persistent and important questions in its dogmas, and the answer is so complete and perfect that no other religion or philosophy can or does not give. Determining the worldview of a Christian, Christian dogmas thereby have a powerful and beneficial influence on his entire life and activity, and in particular his religious and moral life depends on them. According to history, the religious worldview has a decisive influence on human life in all its various manifestations and relationships - on the life of not only individuals, but also entire nations. We can say that it is the leader of peoples on the path of life, leading them to perfection or fall, depending on what ideals and goals of life it introduces into the people's consciousness. And the higher and more perfect it is, the more beneficial its influence. But what could be higher and more perfect than the worldview that Christianity offers in its dogmas, and, therefore, more beneficial? And indeed, history shows that in terms of the strength and quality of its influence on people’s lives, Christianity is incomparable with any other system of religion. Having revived pre-Christian humanity in all respects upon its appearance to a new life, and reviving every believer in subsequent times, it has always been and still remains the main source of progress in humanity. It exerts its beneficial influence on all areas of thought and life, on philosophy, experimental sciences, art, poetry, on international relations, etc. And Christianity produces such an influence, albeit through the totality of the truths it contains, but, first of all, precisely through its speculative truths, because especially these truths indicate the path along which a person’s spiritual improvement should be directed, and give incentives to steadily follow it. As for the significance of dogmas in particular for Christian spiritual and religious life, in relation to it they are those inner and most intimate rational foundations on which it is built, at the same time receiving from them its proper character and direction. In fact, how can a fallen man have the desire to enter the path of Christian salvation and the readiness and determination to follow it if he does not have faith in God the Father, Creator and Provider, and His only begotten Son, the Savior of the world, and the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier? What can incline him to selflessly follow the calling voice of Christ: come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28), without conviction: Lord, the words of eternal life (John 6:68)? A Christian life, filled with good fruits, according to the Savior, is only possible under the condition of faith and living communion with Christ, the Son of the Living God. “I am the vine, you are the birth,” He said; “Whoever is in Me, and I in him, will produce much fruit, for without Me you can do nothing (John 15:5). I am the way and the truth and the life; no one will come to the Father except by Me (14:6). II. It is clear from this how one should look at those teachings that deny the importance and significance of dogmatic truths in Christianity (so-called adogmatism). These teachings reduce the entire essence of Christianity to its moral and practical side, some - mainly to that sublime moral teaching that Christ the Savior proclaimed, others - to the area of ​​religious feelings and experiences, to a religious and moral “mood”. 1. With the greatest clarity, the view that rejects the significance of dogmas in Christianity in the name of morality was expressed by Kant, although it was proclaimed before him (for example, by pietists and deists). True morality, he argued, is “autonomous”: moral duties must be fulfilled only when required by moral duty. To look at them, as religions teach, not simply as demands of moral duty, but as divine commandments, and to fulfill them, excited by ideas about God as the Punisher of iniquities and the all-good Rewarder of virtue - this supposedly constitutes the main delusion of religions in general and Christian religion in particular. There are quite a few people who sympathize with this kind of views even today. And now many argue that the whole strength of Christianity lies in the gospel commandments, especially in the commandment of love, that I. Christ Himself was simply a brilliant moralist and did not teach metaphysics, that morality does not need dogmas, etc. But such views cannot be considered correct. History testifies that moral teaching has always been in religions, standing not only in external connection with the doctrine, but a direct logical conclusion from the concepts of God, so that the idea of ​​the nature and properties of God is fully consistent with the idea of ​​the nature and properties of moral life. Without the thought of God and religious foundations in general, stable morality is impossible. In fact, if there is no faith in a personal God, an all-holy, all-knowing, all-righteous and all-powerful Rewarder, faith in the divine government of the world and moral world order, faith in an afterlife, then why lead a moral life? Why refrain from evil and vice, when human nature itself, damaged by sin, is often drawn to them (Rom. 7:14–24), when vicious and criminal people often prosper, and people of relatively high morality suffer undeserved disasters? Finally, in moral life we ​​encounter many obstacles both from external nature and from our own body (injuries, illnesses and suffering of the body). What can support and strengthen courage in a person in pursuing a moral task in the face of these obstacles, if he does not have faith in an all-wise and all-good God, who purposefully directs the course of external (physical) nature and arranges human destinies in such a way that they serve for the good of man? In particular, it is one-sided to assert that the essence of Christianity is exhausted by its moral teaching. It is true that in the teachings of I. Christ and the apostles, the fulfillment of the commandments is understood as a necessary condition for entering the kingdom of God (Matthew 7:21; James 2:14–26 and many others); The meaning of the commandments, as practical truths, and therefore constantly implemented in life, in comparison with dogmas and speculative truths, is both clearer and more obvious. But this does not provide grounds for denying the importance of dogmas. If they did not matter, then there would be no need to teach people the truths of the knowledge of God. In fact, all Christian teaching about morality is based on dogmas. The latter cannot be separated from the doctrine; it is impossible because the Founder of the Christian religion Himself is not just a religious genius, a teacher of morality, but also the only begotten Son of God, the path, the truth and the life for those seeking moral perfection. The dogmatic foundations of Christian morality are partly common with the teachings of other religions, rooted in ideas about God and His relationship to the world and man, in beliefs in the immortality of the soul and future reward. But in Christian moral teaching there are also features that distinguish it from all other types of moral teachings, and these features depend entirely on the features of Christian doctrine. Thus, Christianity, and it alone, together and in agreement with other moral requirements, points to the search for the kingdom of God and its righteousness as the highest good and goal of a person’s moral aspirations (Matthew 6:33). From those who want to enter this kingdom and be worthy members of it, it requires repentance and faith in the Gospel, inseparable from each other, and in general special moral qualities (the Beatitudes - Matt. 5:1-10), self-sacrifice (Mark 8:34) and love (Matthew 22:37-39; Mark 8:35; John 15:13), defeating the old man and investment in the new. (Eph.4:22–24). All such features of the Christian teaching about moral life can be understood only with faith in the mystery of the economy of human salvation, in particular in the dogmas of original sin, incarnation, atonement, and sanctification. One can easily see the connection between doctrine and moral teaching in Christianity and when considering the relationship between private dogmatic and moral truths. This connection is indicated by the New Testament Scripture itself. It says, for example: The Spirit is God, and whoever worships Him is worthy to worship in spirit and truth (John 4:24), and, consequently, everything spiritual - truth, goodness, justice, humility, self-sacrifice, etc. - should be placed by a Christian above and in front of the sensory-material. God is loving (1 John 4:8, 16), and therefore love must constitute the highest law for our moral being. God is all-perfect and merciful, and therefore Christ teaches those who believe in Him: become perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48); Be merciful, as your Father is merciful (Luke 6:36). Even more obvious is the dependence of Christian moral teaching on such dogmas as the dogmas about creation, about the providence of God, about good and evil spirits, about future judgment and retribution, about the resurrection of the dead, etc. In particular, the opinion that the dogmas of faith do not have special importance and meaning is one-sided because the essence of Christianity lies in the teaching of love. True, the commandment of love is the main commandment of Christian moral teaching, but it is entirely based on Christian teaching. So, as for the love of God, it is impossible if we deny the importance of dogmas, because we can only love someone whom we know and have the motivation to love, and whom we don’t know, we have no motivation and cannot love. In the dogmas, such knowledge of God is given to us and together the motivation is indicated to love God, first of all, and, moreover, with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our thought (Matthew 22:37). They reveal that in relation to man, God is the Creator and Provider, the most loving Father, who sent His only begotten Son and then the Holy Spirit to save fallen man - that He, surrounding us with so many and great blessings in earthly life, will not leave us after death, but will resurrect us someday, will unfeignedly reward for our deeds at the last judgment and will honor those who love Him with such glory that we will not condition and imagine their future glorification. If God is like this in relation to man, then it is natural that man should respond to God’s love with the most devoted and most grateful love for God. The dogmas indicate the grounds and motivations for loving one's neighbors as oneself (Matthew 22:39; Luke 10:27; Gal.5:14). Dogmas teach that all people come from one couple, why they are brothers with each other in the carnal sense - that all of them, in the person of their forefathers, sinned and fell under the same condemnation, and then they were all redeemed by the Son, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and from the children of the wrath of God they became children of God, and therefore became brothers with each other in the spiritual sense - what awaits all faithful Christians in the future and the same fate, etc. From such provisions, the duty of love for one’s neighbors follows by itself. The commandment to love one’s neighbors, as a commandment of God, is inextricably linked with love for God, being its fruit or consequence, for, as the Savior said, if anyone loves Me, he will keep My word (John 14:23; fn. 21 v.; 1 John 4:20–21). Having such grounds for itself, the Christian commandment to love people is understandable and natural and does not arouse any confusion. But with the denial of its dogmatic foundations, it loses its support. Christian love, in contrast to natural love (as well as the so-called. humanism and altruism), must be comprehensive, extending even to enemies (Matthew 5:43–47), and be ready for forgiveness and self-sacrifice for the good of others (John 15:12–13; 1 Cor.13:1–7). Such properties of Christian love cannot be understood apart from the dogma of redemption, for they are entirely based on love revealed in the mystery of redemption. Finally, only in the light of dogmatic teaching, namely the teaching about the creation of man in the image of God, can love for oneself be correctly understood and implemented. Without the thought of oneself as a bearer of the image of God, there will be nothing left of normal love for oneself - love of the image of God in oneself; the nature of self-love will most likely be expressed in the form of gross pride (egoism). 2. Those opinions (Schleiermacher, partly A. Ritschl, mystics of ancient and modern times and others) by which the essence of Christianity is reduced to the area of ​​religious feelings and experiences, to a religious and moral “mood” are also one-sided and extreme. The dogmas of faith with such views even seem harmful to religious life, capable only of weakening and distorting the religious movements and sentiments of the heart. Feelings in religious and moral life are truly important. But the existence and development of religious feeling without such or other ideas about God is possible only in the imagination, and not in reality. A feeling is not something independent; the occurrence of feelings and their particular character, as well as moods, depend on the thoughts or ideas that cause and accompany them, or any external influences on a person. In itself, a feeling and a mood in general cannot be either religious or non-religious, but they are one or the other according to the idea or thought that is accompanied by the feeling. The emergence of religious feeling is also possible, that is, through the action of the Divine on a person’s soul, or through the idea of ​​God; otherwise it is impossible, just as a feeling of fear or joy is impossible if there is no object that causes them. This explains, by the way, why religious feeling and the religious life flowing from it was and is formed differently in a Jew, differently in a pagan, differently in a Mohammedan, differently in a Christian. Such is the dependence of religious feeling on religious ideas: the higher and more perfect the religious ideas, on the one hand, and on the other, the more they govern the movements of religious feeling, the higher and more perfect the religious life itself. In those cases when the movements of religious feeling are not controlled by sound religious concepts, but on the contrary, it itself becomes the main guiding principle of religious life, subordinating the flow and formation of religious ideas (among various kinds of sectarians), more or less harmful extremes are inevitable in religious life. § 7. The creeds of the ancient Church of the Ecumenical and the symbolic books of the Eastern Greek-Russian Church The task of preserving the truths of divine revelation and protecting against errors. – Brief and extensive statements of faith. – Expositions adopted from the ancient Church: Ecumenical Councils, the rules of the holy apostles, holy fathers and local councils, the creeds of St. Gregory of Neocaesarea and St. Athanasius of Alexandria. – Beliefs of the Western Church and Christian Societies. – Creeds of later centuries (symbolic books): Orthodox confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East. – Message of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox-Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith. – Long Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church. – Special confessions contained in liturgical books. All Christian dogmas are given in divine revelation, accessible to all who seek knowledge of the truth of God. But ever since people began to assimilate the dogmas taught in revelation, these truths inevitably began to diversify in the concepts of different persons, as happens with any truth that becomes the property of people; Different opinions regarding the dogmas, even distortions of them, were inevitably bound to appear. In order to protect believers from errors in the matter of faith and to show what exactly they should believe on the basis of revelation, the church offered them from the very beginning models of faith and confession, which served as an expression of the voice of the Universal Church and, containing undoubted Christian truth, were obligatory for every believer. All statements of faith contained by the Orthodox Eastern Church - brief and extensive - can be divided into two types: I) into statements received by it from the ancient Ecumenical Church, infallible, and therefore having an irrespective dignity and II) statements of its own, which appeared in subsequent times, or the so-called. symbolic books, which have their dignity already from agreement with the first, just as it itself has its importance from agreement with the ancient Universal Church. I. Statements of the first kind include: 1) Statements of Faith compiled at the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. At the first Ecumenical Council (in Nicaea in 325), a statement of faith was drawn up, known as the “symbol of the 318 fathers,” or simply the Nicene symbol. The Second Ecumenical Council (in Constantinople 381), confirming the Nicene confession of faith (II Ecclesiastical Council 1 Ave.), leaving the very text of the Nicene Symbol generally untouched, made some private changes and corrections in it and supplemented it with a statement of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and other members found in each baptismal confession of faith, which were then used in all local churches. The symbol drawn up at this council, known as the “symbol of the 150 fathers,” or simply the symbol of Constantinople, received in the church the meaning of a universal symbol, an immutable model of faith for the entire Christian world and for all times. It is accepted by all Christian denominations, despite all the diversity of their beliefs. The same symbol is the symbol of Constantinople, called by the name of both first Ecumenical Councils, i.e. Niceno-Constantinople, replaced all the previous symbols of private churches that were used in the first three centuries and formed its basis 10. 2. Dogmatic definitions of subsequent Ecumenical Councils, for example, the dogma of the IV Ecumenical Council on two natures, the VI - on two wills and actions in Jesus Christ, and in general the decisions of all Ecumenical Councils, as they relate to Christian doctrine. 3. Dogmatic teaching found in the Rules of St. apostle, St. fathers (twelve) and local councils: Ancyra (c. 314), Neocaesarea (between 314–319), Gangra (between 361–370), Antioch (341), Laodicea (c. 363–364), Sardicia (347), Carthage (419), Constantinople (394) and Carthage under Cyprian (c. 256), for the rules of these nine Councils were considered and adopted at the VI Ecumenical. Council (2 rights) and the Seventh (1 right), as well as in the rules adopted by the church of the two Councils of Constantinople, which were under Patr. Photias, precisely - the so-called. Double (861), which was in the church of St. Apostles, and the Cathedral, which was in the Church of St. Sofia (879–80). 4. Creed of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea (III century), written by him according to a special revelation of God and containing the most definite and accurate teaching about the persons of the Holy Trinity. This symbol, in addition to enjoying special respect from the Neocaesarian Church, was approved by the Ecumenical Church for the VI Ecumenical. Cathedral (2nd right). 5. Symbol of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (Quicunque). In it, one might say, with classical clarity, definiteness and distinctness, the doctrine of the difference and consubstantiality of the three persons in the Godhead is set forth, as well as the image of the union of two natures in Jesus Christ. But it does not belong to St. Athanasius, nor his century. Its content, directed against the false teachings of the Nestorian and Monophysite (in the second half of the symbol), indicates the possibility of its appearance no earlier than the 5th century. II. In addition to the indicated ecumenical statements of faith, which are of absolute importance for the knowledge of Christian truth, private statements of faith, accepted in one or another local Church, have long been used in the church. Particular significance has been given to particular religious beliefs since the fall away from the Eastern Church of the Western (Roman) Church and the separation from this latter of various Protestant societies and sects. Each of the isolated Christian societies, for one reason or another, began to compile more or less lengthy statements of their faith, in which, together with the general Christian truths of faith, the provisions of faith accepted only by this society were usually revealed in particularly extensive detail, and which, together with the universal statements of faith (insofar as they were accepted by the society), constituted its symbolic books (libri symbolici). The meaning of symbolic books in each of the Christian religious societies that have them is as follows: every member or wishing to be a member of the society undertakes to contain the religious teaching contained in the symbolic books of this society. The private statements of faith or symbolic books in the Eastern Greek-Russian Church are as follows: 1. Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East. It was compiled by the Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mogila or with his blessing and with his participation. Considered and adopted first at the Councils of Kiev (1640) and Iasi (1643), and then approved by all four Eastern patriarchs, it was unanimously accepted by the entire Greek Church as “a right and pure confession, not having the slightest admixture of the novelties of any other confessions.” For the Russian Church it was approved and approved by Patriarchs Joachim (in 1685) and Adrian (in 1696) and then by the All-Russian Synod. The “Confession” was compiled mainly to protect the purity of Orthodoxy from the opinions of the Roman Catholics and therefore a polemical element is noticeable in it. The form of presentation is question-and-answer. 2. Confession of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church, compiled by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheos, considered and recognized as an expression of the true Orthodox faith at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. The conformity with the true faith, the purity of this presentation, were attested by all the Eastern Patriarchs and other numerous archpastors of the Greek-Eastern Church when they sent it from themselves in 1723 to the British Christians as a true exposition of the Orthodox faith. At the same time, the eastern high priests sent it to the Russian Holy Synod along with their letters of approval. Accepted by our Holy Synod as an accurate presentation of the Orthodox faith, this presentation was later (in 1838) published by the Holy Synod in Russian under the title that we still have today: “Message of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox-Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith.” The message is distinguished by its polemical character (against Protestants); the teaching of the Orthodox faith contained in it is set out in 18 parts. 3. A lengthy Christian catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church Philaret, Met. Moscow It provides a positive, precise, distinct and concise presentation of Orthodox teaching, along with clarity and intelligibility in terms of questions and answers. After careful consideration, this catechism received the approval of the Holy Synod. It has a symbolic meaning only in the Russian Orthodox Church. Note. The expression of the teachings of the Orthodox Church and its distinctive features can also be found in some special confessions compiled and contained by the church in liturgical books for special cases. These are: 1) The rite of confession and promise of the bishop, which is an example of a brief, but accurate and thorough statement of faith; 2) Dogmatic questions proposed to those coming to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church from the Jews and from the Saracens (i.e. Mohammedans); 3) The Confession of Faith, pronounced by those converting to the Orthodox Church from other Christian denominations, and 4) The 12-member excommunication formula, pronounced during the Orthodox week. § 8. R.-Catholic and Protestant creeds and symbolic books I. Apostolic symbol. Nikeo-Tsaregradsky and Afanasievsky. – II. Symbolic books of the Roman Catholic Church. – III. Lutheran symbolic books. Doctrine books of Reformation and Anglicanism. Western Christian confessions partly contain beliefs inherited from the ancient Ecumenical Church, and partly each have their own, i.e. so-called. symbolic books. I. The first include the symbols: Apostolic, Niceno-Constantinopolitan and Athanasiev. These symbols are contained both by the Roman Catholic Church and by all Protestant denominations. Apostolic symbol. This symbol is called so not in the sense that it was compiled by the apostles themselves, although such a tradition was held for a long time in the Roman Church, but in the same sense in which all other forms of symbols of private churches have apostolic origin, representing in a somewhat more extensive presentation one and the same rule of the same faith in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit preached by the apostles. “We do not have and we do not know any apostolic symbol,” that is, compiled by the apostles, said Mark, Met., at the Florence Council (1489). Ephesian. Among Western Christians, this symbol is especially respected. It does not contain religious features. Symbols of Niceno-Constantinograd, etc. Athanasievsky are contained with the insertion of the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit “and from the Son” (Filioque) that appeared in both symbols at a later time. Protestant symbols with this insertion were inherited from the Roman Catholic Church. II. The features that distinguish each of the Western confessions from other confessions are set forth in the symbolic books of these confessions. Each of them has its own special symbolic books. 1. The symbolic books of the Roman Catholic Church are the following: a) Canones et decreta concilii tridentini, i.e., the definitions of the Council of Trent (1545–1563), expressed partly in the form of decrees, partly in the form of canons; the decrees more or less extensively set out the positive teaching of the Roman Church; the canons anathematize anti-Catholic teachings, especially Protestant ones. The Council of Trent is recognized in the Roman Church as Ecumenical (according to the XXth) and its decrees are considered especially important. At this Council (in 25 sessions), the Roman Church revised and defined almost the entire system of its dogma, contrasting its confession with the spreading Protestantism. In view of the disputes that arose at the council between theologians of the Roman Church on issues of doctrine, many of the council’s definitions were deliberately expressed insufficiently definitely and clearly. In addition to dogmatic decrees, the Council also compiled the so-called. "decreta de reformatione", which concerned mainly church order and church discipline. b) Confessio fidei tridentini. This “Confession” owes its origin to the desire of the Roman Church to protect the purity of doctrine among the representatives of the church and in general among the teaching church. At the Council of Trent (14th session) the idea was expressed about the need to have a short confession of faith, which would necessarily be pronounced in certain cases. To satisfy this need, under Pope Pius IV, a commission of learned theologians compiled the “Confession of the Tridentine Faith.” It contains first the Nicene-Constantinopolitan symbol, then, in the eleventh chapter, a brief extract from the Trentine definitions regarding the provisions controversial between Catholics and Protestants, with the addition at the end of the obligation to accept “and everything else, St. the canons and the Ecumenical Councils, and especially the sacred Council of Trent, committed, defined and proclaimed.” At the Vatican Council, which confessed its faith according to this “Professio,” it also included recognition of the Vatican Council and its definitions, “especially regarding the primacy and infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.” In the practice of the Roman Church, the Professio has wide application: all those applying for church positions, all universities and their masters and doctors, all turning to the Roman Church from heretical societies, mainly from Protestantism, must pronounce, as an oath, and sign the Professio” 11. c) Catechismus romanus. It was also compiled on behalf of the Council of Trent, in order to meet the need for guidance for instructing the laity in the faith. Under Pope Pius IV, a commission of learned theologians of his time worked on its compilation. After careful review and corrections by the new commission and approval by Pope Pius V, the catechism was published in 1566. The catechism was compiled in relation to the definitions of the Council of Trent, but some provisions are set out in it more fully than in the definitions of Trent, and, in addition, it contains some teachings that the Council omitted (for example, about the scope of papal power, about the “limbus patrum”). d) Decreta concilu vaticani. At the Vatican Council (1869–1870), recognized in the West as Ecumenical (according to the XXIIIth), the papist system was completed: the Council declared it a dogma of faith that the Roman high priest has the gift of infallibility when he teaches about faith and morality ex cathedra. As a result, the meaning of infallibility belongs not only to future definitions ex cathedra, but also to those issued by popes in the past, and thus papal definitions are also the source of Catholic teaching. According to their external form, these definitions or charters (litterae apostolicae) are divided into bulls and breves. The decrees of the Councils of Trent and the Vatican belong to the most important sources for Catholic teaching. But the same sources are the definitions of all other Ecumenical Councils recognized by the Roman Church, although they have less dogmatic content. The Roman Church recognizes up to fifteen such Councils after the VIIth Ecumenical Council (between them, in addition to those mentioned, Lyon and Florence), and with the Ecumenical Councils - even more than twenty councils. Secondary sources of Roman Catholic teaching include the liturgical books of this church. 2. Lutheranism recognizes the following as its symbolic books: a) Augsburg Confession (Contessio augustana). The compiler of this confession was Melanchthon. It was presented by Lutherans to the Diet of Augsburg, convened by Emperor Charles V (in 1530), which is why it received the name “Augburg” (“Augusta” is the former Latin name of Augsburg). The purpose of the confession was to show that Lutheran teaching does not contain anything contrary to Scripture and the teaching of the Universal Church. The first part sets out the main provisions of the Lutheran doctrine (1–21 parts), the second (22–28 parts) refutes the main religious features of Latinism. b) Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Apologia confessionis augustanae). Roman Catholic theologians who were at the Augsburg Diet wrote a refutation (“Confutatio confessionis augustanae”) of the Lutherans’ presentation of their doctrine in the “Augsburg Confession,” in defense of which Melanchthon wrote the “Apology” of this confession. In it (chap. XIV) the R-Catholic objections are consistently examined and the Lutheran doctrine is defended. c) Shmalkaldic members (Arttculi smalcaldici). These “members” were compiled by Luther, and, presented to the Diet in Schmalkalden (in 1537), here, upon examination, were signed by the assembled German theologians. They speak about the objects of faith in accordance with “Augsb. confession" and in opposition to Catholicism, but often in harsh and even rude terms, especially about the papacy. d) Luther's Large and Small Catechisms. Both of these catechisms contain an explanation of the Ten Commandments, the Creed (Apostolic) and the Lord's Prayer, the doctrine of the sacraments of baptism, confession of sins and the Eucharist, with the addition of prayers for various occasions. The Small Catechism is intended for the people and primary schools, and the Large Catechism for public teachers and preachers. e) Formula of consent (Formula concordiae). In Lutheranism, almost from the very beginning of its emergence, divisions and disputes appeared, different sects, and finally the followers of Zwingli and Calvin emerged as a separate religion. It was necessary to protect Lutheranism from alien errors and, in order to eliminate internal disagreements, to reduce all the various views on controversial issues to one norm. For this purpose, German theologians compiled the “Formula of Concord” (1580), which mainly resolves the issues that aroused disputes among Lutheranism, and indicates the features of the Lutheran doctrine from the Reformed, Anabaptist, etc. 3. The doctrine of another branch of Protestantism - Reformation - is in basic agreement with Lutheranism, expressed in the symbolic books of the latter. The distinctive features of Reformation from Lutheranism and other Christian confessions are mainly the doctrine of unconditional predestination and the Eucharist. The Reformed doctrine is expressed in most detail in Calvin’s main work: “Instructions in the Christian Faith” (Institutiones religionis christianae). An extract from the Institutes formed the symbolic book of the Reformation, the Geneva Catechism (Catechismus ecclesiae Genevensis), compiled by Calvin to provide guidance “for the education of children in the doctrine of Christ.” Other, quite numerous Reformed symbolic statements of faith are: the “Tigurin agreement” (Consensus Tigurinus), or “Mutual agreement in the matter of the sacraments (especially the sacrament of communion) of the primates of the Tigurin (Zurich) church and I. Calvin” (1549). “Resolutions of the Council of Dortrecht” (Canones synodi dordrechtanae) mainly on the issue of predestination (1618–1619), “Catechisms” of the Reformed of different countries, of which the “Palatinate or Heidelberg Catechism” (“Catechisis Palatina sive”) is especially widespread in translations into national languages (Dutch, Czech, Polish, French and others) Heidelbergensis"), and, finally, the "Confessions" of the Reformed in those countries where Reformation spread 12. 4. The distinctive features of the Anglican Episcopal Church are expressed in the statement of faith, which received its final form (after revisions and corrections at various times) and was published under Queen Elizabeth (in 1572) under the name of the "XXXIX members" of the faith of the Church of England. They remain in force to this day. The teaching they contain is, together with the exposition of general Christian beliefs, a mixture of Lutheranism, Reformedness and some remnants of Catholicism. Many provisions are set out in them literally in the words of members of the Augsburg Confession. In general, the presentation of the Anglican faith in the “Members” in many cases lacks due clarity and certainty, despite the obvious predominance of general Protestant principles in them. The teachings set out in them are supplemented by The Book of Common Prayer, with the order for the installation of bishops, presbyters and deacons (its last revised edition was in 1662). All Episcopal Anglicans also accept the Church Catechism. § 9. The task of the science of dogma. The Relation of Reason to Revealed Truths Revealing the content of the truths of faith. - The connection between them. – The history of understanding the dogmas themselves and the connections between them. – The need for this clarification and its possibility. I. The task of Dogmatic Theology as a science is determined by the very concept of dogma as its subject. Since the dogmas of faith are all given in revelation, defined and explained by the Universal Church, Dogmatic Theology cannot have the task of progressive discovery of new truths, which is possible, for example, in the experimental or historical sciences. It should do no more than teach exactly those dogmas that the church contains, on the basis of revelation, teach everything it contains, without subtracting or adding anything to what it confesses, teach exactly as the church contains them, and, finally, teach them in a strict system, that is, present them with strict consistency, possible completeness, clarity and thoroughness. The exact fulfillment of the first requirements gives Dogmatic Theology the character of strictly Orthodox theology, and the latter makes it a science, which (i.e. scientific nature) distinguishes it from the Catechism, where the same dogmas are proposed, but only in general and brief terms, as “the original teaching about the Orthodox Christian faith, necessary for every Christian.” In relation to each dogma separately, it must show its position in the general system of Christian doctrine, reveal its inner essence, as it is understood and taught on the basis of Holy Scripture by the Church, indicate the grounds on which it is affirmed, its relationship to modern scientific concepts and views, introduce into understanding what needs and demands of the human spirit these or other dogmatic truths meet, which explain the mysteries of existence and life, etc., with the goal, as far as possible, of promote the rational and vital assimilation of dogmas. Since the most accurate understanding of some dogmas and church definitions about them is possible only in connection with the errors and heresies that have arisen regarding them, then in relation to such dogmas, Dogmatic Theology, not limiting itself to elucidating the revealed teaching about them in the spirit of the Orthodox Church, must also present the history of their revelation by the church. The existence even now in the understanding of some dogmas of the faith of differences between Christian confessions and directly anti-Christian teachings, as well as bewilderment and objections often expressed about the dogmas, make it necessary, in addition to fulfilling the indicated positive tasks, to keep in mind apologetic and polemical goals. In order to protect Orthodox truth in the minds of members of the Orthodox Church, it must, in certain cases, make comparisons of Orthodox truth with non-Orthodox truth, in order to show the wrongness of the latter, protect Christian truth from unbelief, and generally give an answer to the “spirit of doubt and word-questioning.” II. The nature of the scientific activity of reason in the field of this science and the very position of reason in Dogmatics and Christian theology in general are consistent with the characteristics of the subject and tasks of the science of dogma. In revealing the dogmas of faith, he must be based on divine revelation given in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, and be guided by the samples and confessions of her faith compiled by the church, as an expression of her catholic and, therefore, infallible voice. But it cannot be the original beginning of dogmas, so that one can derive them from it alone and affirm them on it alone; nor can it be a guiding principle, much less the supreme judge of the truths drawn from revelation, so as to bring or adapt them to its principles. All this would be incompatible neither with his limitations, and especially with his damage in his present state, nor with the dignity and purpose of revelation; revelation, as a product of the infinite mind of God, is higher than the human mind, and was not given to people for that reason. in order to satisfy the claims of reason and be subject to its judgment, but in order to capture him himself into the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5) and provide him with the necessary help. He must therefore be in a subordinate and servile relationship to revelation. And in this position for him there is nothing humiliating or restricting his freedom and independence: there is nothing humiliating, for the mind of a finite being in this case is subordinate to the divine mind, which has the right to complete trust in itself; there is nothing restricting his independence and freedom, for his position in this case is not purely slavish and passive, since in order to assimilate the truths of faith, his free attitude towards them is required, while the very truths of revelation cannot contain ideas that are not perceived by the mind as contrary to it. From this side, the relationship of reason to faith can be compared with the relationship of the will to the moral law. Revelation actually restricts not the freedom of reason, but its freedom. It goes without saying that this does not exclude the appropriateness of using, when revealing dogmas, everything that reason and secular science (for example, philosophy, history, natural science, etc.) provide to prove and explain the truths of faith. According to history, the church, in the person of its fathers and teachers, has never shunned the secular science developing alongside it; on the contrary, reflecting what was contrary to Christian truth in her, she willingly used everything that was related to her in her. Possession of secular learning was recognized by ancient teachers as not only useful, but even necessary for a Christian theologian 13 . To prove or explain the truths of faith, they themselves turned to the help of dialectics, philosophy, history, natural science and other sciences. In certain cases, it is even necessary to use all this, especially when refuting misconceptions and objections of unbelief, which in modern times tries to rely on the data of philosophical and experimental sciences, which (objections and perplexities) can therefore only be refuted with the help of reason and the data of the same sciences. § 10. Division of Dogmatics The doctrine of God in Himself. – The doctrine of God in His relation to the world and man, or about the works of God in relation to creatures. – Particular divisions of these two parts. The dogmas of faith contain: some are the teaching about God in Himself, others are the teaching about God in His external activity - in relation to the world and especially to man. From here the two main parts of Dogmatic Theology are determined by themselves: I) the doctrine of God in Himself and II) the doctrine of God in His relation to the world and man, or about the works of God in relation to creatures. The dogmas about God in Himself contain the doctrine that God is one in essence and threefold in persons. In the dogmas about the relationship of God to creatures: some contain the doctrine of God as “Creator of heaven and earth, visible to all and invisible,” others contain the doctrine of God as “Almighty” or Provider, and still others contain the doctrine of God as Judge and Rewarder (in other words, as the Executor of His determinations about the world, who has to lead it to the destination He has determined for it). In relation to man in particular, in dogmas of this kind, God is portrayed as having not only the same general relationship that He has, as the Creator and Provider, to all other creatures of the world, but also a special relationship, the essence of which is indicated both in Holy Scripture (Eph. 3:9 according to the subtext) and among the church fathers (when used in a narrow sense) by the word οικονομία - the sacrament of redemption, house building The special actions of God in relation to the human race are precisely all His actions as the Accomplisher of our salvation - the incarnation of the Son of God, redemption, sanctification by the grace of the Holy One. Spirit, and having to be accomplished at the end of the world. Hence, the entire content of Dogmatic Theology, in its division into parts and the most important departments, can be represented in the following system: I. About God, one in essence. II. About the Trinity God in persons. About God in His relationship to creatures. I. About God as the Creator of everything visible and invisible. II. About God as the Provider of the world. III. About God the Savior and His special relationship to the human race (about the incarnation of the Son of God, redemption and sanctification by the grace of the Holy Spirit). IV. About God as Judge and Rewarder (eschatology). Orthodox - ορθόδοξος, in word production (from ορθώς δοκέω - I think correctly) and in word usage in the Christian world, means the same as someone who thinks correctly about the objects of faith, a correct believer, a true believer, as opposed to the word έτεροδοξος (from έτέρως δοκέω - I think differently) - someone who thinks incorrectly about faith, an unbeliever, non-Orthodox or heterodox, as our ancestors sometimes expressed it. The meaning of an unsettled opinion, assumption, or undecided decision of the will is given by words that come from the same verb, but from its future form - δόξω, for example, δόξα - glory, rumor, fluctuating between doubt and weak confidence, δόκησις - assumption, δοκιμάζω - I test, I demand evidence, etc. In Posl. Col.2 says about I. Christ that He destroyed the handwriting of teachings against us - χειρόγραφον τοίς δόγμασιν, which was contrary to us, and in Eph.2:15, that He is the law of commandments by teaching - τον νόμον των έντολών έν δόγμασι - having abolished. The canonical books of the Old Testament, according to the Hebrew reckoning, which involves combining several books into one, are as follows: the laws (Hebrew tora) - 1) Genesis, 2) Exodus, 3) Leviticus, 4) Numbers and 5) Deuteronomy; historical: 6) Joshua, 7) Judges and Ruth, 8) 1 and 2 Kings, 9) 3 and 4 Kings, 10) 1 and 2 Chronicles, 11) 1 Ezra and Nehemiah, 12) Esther; teaching: 13) Job, 14) Psalms, 15) Proverbs of Solomon, 16) Ecclesiastes, 17) Song of Songs; prophetic: 18) Isaiah, 19) Jeremiah with his Lamentations and book. Baruch, 20) Ezekiel, 21) Daniel and 22) Twelve Minor Prophets. The inspiration of Holy Scripture lies in the fact that the sacred writers, whatever they wrote, wrote according to the direct inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, so that they were not only protected by Him from errors, but also positively received the revelation of the truth of God, however, without violence to their natural abilities; on the contrary, they were organs of communication of divine revelation with full preservation of all their powers and their active manifestation, for example, in the way of understanding and representing things, in terms of their works in the choice of words and expressions for thought, etc. The non-canonical books of the Old Testament are as follows. 1) Tobit, 2) Judith, 3) Wisdom of Solomon, 4) Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, 5-6) second and third books of Ezra and 7-9) all three books of Maccabees. In addition, the following sections in the canonical books are also considered non-canonical: the prayer of King Manasseh at the end of 2 Chronicles, parts of the book. Esther, not marked verses, the last Psalm (after 150), the song of the three youths in chapter 3. book Ave. Daniel and in the same book the story of Susanna (chap. 13) and Bel and the dragon (chap. 14). The so-called should not be confused with non-canonical books. apocryphal (hidden, from απόκρυφος - hidden). Second and third books. Ezra and the third Maccabees are not included in the canon of the Roman Church, but are considered apocryphal. “We believe, confess and teach,” says the Lutheran “Formula of Concord,” “that the only rule and standard by which all dogmas and all teachers should be judged and evaluated is none other than the prophetic and apostolic writings of both the Old and New Testaments (Ps. 119:105; Gal. 1:8). The rest of the writings, whether they are patristic or modern, no matter what name they appear under, should in no way be equated with Holy Scripture, but they must be accepted as witnesses that show in which countries of the world after the time of the apostles the teaching of the prophets and apostles was preserved intact” (Epit. art. l et 2). This same view of Holy Tradition is accepted by both the Reformed Church (Conf. Helv. I and others) and the Anglican Church (VI and XXI members of the faith). Of the ancient teachers, this position is revealed in particular detail by a church writer of the 5th century. Vikenty Lirinsky in “Reminders” (Commonitorium). In ancient times, almost every church had its own symbol. The ancient symbols of the Churches were preserved in the patristic works: Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Caesarea-Palestine, Cyprus and the Churches of Asia Minor. In spirit they are all similar to each other, differing only in letter. Mainly, these differences depended on the errors that arose in one or another Church, about which it was necessary to make additions to the symbols directed against heretics. See prof. I. V. Cheltsova, Ancient forms of symbols. St. Petersburg 1862 For Greeks converting to the Roman Church, Pope Gregory XIII issued a special formula in 1575, compiled from the definition of the Florence Council on union and Professio fidei tridentinae, under the title: Professio ortodoxae fidei a graecis emittenda. These are: Confessio fidei Gallicana - Confession of Faith of the French Reformed, Scotiana confessio fidei - Confession of the Reformed in England, especially Scotland, Confessio Belgica - Confession of the Dutch, Confessio Helvetica - Swiss Confession, Confessio Crengerica - Confession of the Reformed communities in Hungary, Confessio Tetrapolitana - Confession of immigrants from Holland who settled in Transvaal and Orange, Confessio Bohemica - Confession of the Bohemians. St. Gregory the Theologian, in his funeral homily for Vasily V., credits him with a special merit for having perfectly mastered the entirety of contemporary education, and at the same time strongly denounces the ignorance of those who thought that external (non-Christian) learning was unnecessary and even dangerous for Christians (Sk. 43). At St. Basil the Great, among his creations, there is a special, remarkable “Conversation to young men on how to use pagan writings.” You might be interested in: