II. О церкви, как посреднице освящения человека

§ 124. The necessity of a divinely established visible medium for the sanctification of man. The concept of the church in a broad sense and the earthly church in particular The Church as a visible means given to us by the Savior for the salvation of people. – The meaning of the word “church”. - Use of this word. – The concept of “church” in a broad sense, the content of this concept. – The Church triumphant and the Church militant. I. The grace of God, which helps man to assimilate the salvation of Christ, is the invisible power of God. Nevertheless, if it is a real force, then it dwells somewhere; in this case, there is some repository of grace and at the same time a visible medium through which sanctifying grace would bring about the union of people, spiritual and sensory beings, with Christ and their eternal salvation. Equally, if the sanctification of a person and, in general, his achievement of his salvation is possible only under the condition of faith on his part, and at that a true and living one, then in this regard a visible mediator is necessary, in which the truth of Christ would be preserved in all its inviolability, and which would proclaim the pure truth of Christ. Such a visible means was given to us by Christ the Savior in the church He founded. II. The word "church" as a substitute for the Greek. ή ᾿εκκλησία (from έκκαλέω - I call to a meeting, Hebrew kahal), which generally means a meeting or society of those called, in the Christian sense, according to an exact translation, can mean a society of persons who heard the call of the Lord to salvation and followed this call and therefore constitute the chosen race (γένος έκκλεκτόν - 1 Peter 2:9), i.e., the society of the elect in the sense of those who believed in Christ the Savior (as opposed to those who did not believe in Him). The society of true believers in Jesus Christ, but only those who have a special nature, foundations and tasks of their life, is the church in the composition of its members. The word “church” is used in different, not equally broad, meanings. When this word is used in its broad and full meaning, the Church of Christ means the community of all rationally free beings who believe in Christ the Savior and are united with Him as His single head. In this sense, the composition of the church includes not only “all Orthodox Christians living on earth, but also all those who have died in true faith and holiness” (Katikh. 9 ch.), every single one, whenever they lived and wherever they were, living on earth and those who died, both those who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived and are living after His coming - and even not only people, but also angels, for they are more perfect than us in everything, more perfect than us and by faith in the God-Man. In this sense, the Church of Christ is understood by the apostle. Paul, when he says that God, in view of the fulfillment of the times, has appointed to preside over all things in Christ, both in heaven and on earth in Him..., having raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in those in heaven, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come, and put all things in subjection under His nose, and He has given Him the head above all the church, which is His body, the fulfillment of Him who fulfills all things in all (Eph. 1:10, 20–23; cf. Col. 1:18–20). Of the members of the Church of Christ, understood in this sense, some live on earth, in conditions characteristic of the inhabitants of the earth, others - in the abodes of the Heavenly Father, either as permanent inhabitants of heaven, such as the angels, or as those who moved to another world from the conditions of earthly life, such as all the saints and, in general, those who, having kept the faith on earth, have already received in heaven the crown of righteousness, which God has prepared for all who loved His appearing (2 Tim. 4, 8). But all those of the deceased who died in faith and repentance, who, although they did not receive heavenly rewards, have the hope of achieving eternal bliss through the intercession of the church, are not torn away from the body of the church. Only those of the dead who have alienated themselves from it during their lifetime, having completely lost or distorted their faith in Christ and died unrepentantly, have deprived themselves of even the prayers of the church, cease to belong to the church. The church, consisting of members on earth, is the visible (Earthly) church, and is called Wandering or Militant, and the church, consisting of angels, saints and all those who have fallen asleep in faith and repentance, is invisible and is called Heavenly or Triumphant. The visible, earthly Church, not having an abiding city here (Heb.13:14), is burdened with many labors, in illnesses (Rom.9:2; Gal.4:19), giving birth and raising her children; she wages war with many enemies, visible and invisible, and will wage war until the end of the world, until Christ puts the enemies under His feet. The Heavenly Church is triumphant, for it has already reached the fatherland, and, being in heaven, is free from warfare with enemies and from all dangers; she triumphs, participating in the glory and blessedness of Christ, the conqueror of death and hell, and in communion with hosts of angels (Heb. 12:22-23: 2 Tim 4, 7-8; Rev. 3:21; 12, 11-12; Last Pat. 10 ch.). The Triumphant Church is the fruit of the Church Wandering on earth, spiritually giving birth to perfecting its children through the means given to it by God, and then. to receive crowns, transporting them to heaven, to the city of the living God or heavenly Jerusalem. But in turn, the Heavenly Church will help the Earthly Church and its members in achieving salvation through their prayerful intercession for the Earthly Church before the throne of God and in other ways. This union of two parts of a single holy church is clearly depicted in our churches through St. icons, in the presence of members of the Earthly Church in the presence of the Heavenly Church. III. The Christian Church - Earthly or visible - is a society founded by our Lord I. Christ of those who truly believe in Him, forming (or joining in) the spiritual body of Christ, in which, through the teaching of faith, through the sacraments and through visible hierarchical leadership (hierarchy), through the invisible action of the Holy Spirit under the invisible head of I. Christ Himself, the same great work of enlightenment and sanctification continues and will continue until the end of the century people, which was accomplished by our Redeemer during His earthly life, and continues in order to lead all people on the path of salvation and reunification with God (into the kingdom of God). In St. The Scriptures assign various names to the Earthly Church to designate its various aspects and properties. Thus, I. Christ revealed the teaching about the church He was establishing primarily under the form of the teaching about the kingdom of God. Sometimes the Savior depicted the church as a society of believers, united into one whole, under the image of a building being created (Matthew 15:18), as well as a flock of sheep united under the leadership of one Shepherd (John 10:16; fn. Luke 12:32), a sheepfold (John 10 ch.). The apostles adopted churches and other names. They call the church the house of God (1 Pet 4:17; 1 Tim 3:15; Heb. 3:6; 10:21), in the sense that the believers who are part of the church constitute, as it were, the family of the Lord (Rom. 16:4; Col. 4:15), the essence of the dream of God (Eph. 2:19; fn. Gal. 6:10), the bride of Christ ( Eph.5:23; 2Cor.11:2; Rev.21:2; 22, 17) wife and mother of believers (Gal.4:26; Rev.19:7), the body of Christ (Col.1:24; Eph.1:22-23; 1Cor.12:12, 27). The church is the bride of Christ in the sense that He loved the church (Eph. 5:25), gave Himself up to make her an immaculate Bride, free from filth (25, 27). I. Christ Himself called Himself the Bridegroom (in the parable of the ten virgins - Matt. 15:1-12, as well as 9, 15; sn. John 3:29). The Church is the wife and mother of believers, for she, being in a mysterious union with Christ, the second Adam, gives birth to the human race restored by Him, gives birth to children of God through Christ in the Holy Spirit, just as ancient Adam, through the foremother Eve, gave birth to fallen humanity. The Church is the body of Christ, which He nourishes and warms, for we are members of His body, from His flesh and from His bones (Eph. 5:28–30; John 2:18–21), that is, the Church came from the flesh of Christ and from His bones (meaning the suffering of the cross, the piercing of the Savior’s ribs), like our foremother Eve from the rib of Adam, and is in the closest union with Him, according to in the likeness of the union of husband and wife, is one flesh with Him - for the birth of children of God, and the members of the church - in unity with each other, as members of the body. § 125. Foundation and purpose of the church The difference between Christian society and the Church. – The Church as a treasure of grace and truth. – The visible side of the Church of Christ. – The purpose of the Church is to seek and save the lost, all of humanity and each person individually. I. The Church is not of human origin. It was founded by the Lord I. Christ, not only by His divine power and will, but also by the fact that He Himself laid Himself at the foundation of the church and became its cornerstone. As a society of believers in Jesus Christ, the Founder of a new religion, or simply as a Christian religious society, the church has a natural basis for its origin. Religion has always been and is the property of not one, but many people, and people who share the same religion, in order to fulfill the requirements of religion and when there is a need and confidence in mutual assistance, united into one religious society or family. Moreover, the reverence and love of the true followers of Christ should have united them into one society, into one church. In this sense, the beginning of the Christian church was, one might say, the sermon of I. Christ on the mountain, which gathered around Him disciples and listeners into one society of followers, united by faith in Him and His teaching. But this laid only the foundation of the church in the sense of a naturally formed society of believers in Him. If the Church of Christ were only this society, then, no matter how large it was in the number of members, it would not differ significantly from other religious societies. Until the redemption of mankind was accomplished, she would not be a ship of salvation for mankind, for only on the cross did the Lord actually redeem us and reunite us with God. In this sense, Scripture says that the Lord acquired the church with His blood (Acts 20:28), and in church liturgical songs, He founded or established His church on the cross. But even after that, before the descent of the Holy Spirit, the church could not have assimilated the benefits of redemption to the human race, for it would not have divine powers, even for life and piety. The church could become what it is only with the descent of the Holy Spirit. This day was the day of the glorious discovery and appearance of the Church of Christ on earth. From the day the Holy Spirit infused it, the community of believers became a church in the proper sense, i.e. the body of Christ, invisibly headed by Christ and animated by the Holy Spirit, the mother who gives birth to children of God. But the Church of Christ, being on the inside a treasury of grace and truth, on the outside is a visible society of people on earth, existing and developing in earthly conditions and relationships. And on this side, the church is a divine institution. I. Christ Himself established a society of people, an external, visible society, to continue His work on earth. The main reason and, at the same time, the main proof of this thought follows from the very concept of the incarnation of the Son of God. In fact, if the Son of God, for the salvation of people, did not take the form of a servant and did not appear in human likeness, but directly descended into the heart of every person with His grace, then one could rightly agree with the Protestants that He founded a completely invisible, purely internal church. But the Word became flesh and moved into us. The work that He accomplished in a visible way was also supposed to continue in a visible way on earth, i.e. the visible Church of Christ was just as necessary for people to assimilate the merits of the Redeemer, just as it was necessary for the Lord to appear in a most visible way among people for their enlightenment and sanctification. Visible and perceptible to external senses, the descent of the Holy Spirit took place on the Church of Christ. And indeed, from the very beginning the Church of Christ appeared as a definite external society. When the Holy Spirit descended on the representatives and members of the nascent church, they were all united together and formed a single fraternal society; they were directly commanded to wait in Jerusalem for the descent of the Holy Spirit. Those who received the gospel of salvation from the apostles visibly (through baptism) joined the community of believers and themselves formed visible Christian societies or private churches. Having, according to the intention of its Founder, to be a visible society of believers, the church also received a certain visible structure from its Founder. Thus, He Himself established a visible hierarchy in His church and invested it with the power to teach, officiate and govern in the church, supplied for such service by the Spirit of God. He Himself established special visible external sacred rites (sacraments), which, both externally and internally, should unite the community of believers in Him, or form a church. II. No societies or unions are established without specific purposes. Likewise, the church, by the divine will of its Founder, has its own goal, a special goal, different from the goals of all natural unions. The purpose of founding the church is consistent with the purpose of the incarnation of the Son of God. Just as He was sent by the Father to seek and save the lost (Matthew 18:11; cf. John 10:28) - to bring everyone into the kingdom of God, so He founded the church for the same purpose, that is, so that in its depths everyone would find salvation through assimilation of the fruits of redemption until the goal is achieved. Hence, the highest task of the church, as the continuator of the work of Christ - the salvation of mankind, is precisely to bring about the enlightenment and revival of sinful people to a new, holy life, to reunite them with Christ and God and thus bring them into the kingdom of God. This goal of the church is clearly indicated by St. Paul: Christ, the apostle teaches, loved the church and gave it to Himself for its sake, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water in the verb, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church (i.e. all believers), having no filthiness, or vice, or anything from such, but let her be holy and blameless (Eph. 5:25; cf. Titus 2:14). Consequently, the holiness of its members is the goal that the church must achieve by the means given to it. The same apostle teaches: He, that is, Jesus Christ, gave us both apostles, and prophets, and evangelists, and shepherds and teachers, for the equipping of the saints, for the work of service, for the building up of the body of Christ, until we attain to the union of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, into a perfect man, to the measure of the age of the fulfillment of Christ ( Eph.4:11-13). According to these words, the goal to which the church should strive is its spread throughout the world, the full and true knowledge of the Son of God by its members, the spiritual perfection of man, and reunification with God. The fruit of this is eternal life. Such an extraordinary task requires emergency funds. In the church, in order for it to achieve its high goal of revival and enlightenment of man, there are not only human, but also divine powers: in it and through it all divine powers are given to us, even to life and piety, by the mind of Him who called us (2 Pet 1, 3-4). § 126. Head of the Church Christ the Savior and the Holy Spirit Paraclete The headship of our Lord Jesus Christ. – The Lord is the source of new, life-giving, holy life. – The Church is like the body of the Lord Jesus Christ. – Spreading new life throughout the body of Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit. – The difference between the actions of Christ the Savior and the Holy Spirit in the economy of salvation. The Lord I. Christ did not leave the church to itself in achieving the high goal indicated to it, but Himself with the Holy Spirit Paraclete is in internal unity with it, invisibly abides and will remain in it forever, as its invisible head. I. The headship of Christ in the church consists not only in the fact that He is the founder of the church and the religion of His name, but also in the fact that He is the source of a new, life-giving, holy life received from Him, as from the new Adam, the new ancestor, instead of the former sinful life received by inheritance from the fallen progenitor, the old Adam. This new, holy life flows from Him into the body of the church through the new birth of the children of God, through the putting off of the old man (sinful filth received from the old Adam) and the putting on of Him - the new Adam, and is grafted, developed and spreads in various ways and in many ways throughout the entire body of the church. I. Christ taught that the life of the entire body of the church and each member depends on Him alone; He is the Vine, and those who believe in Him are the branches; outside of Him, that is, without a new birth through the grafting of believers into Him, true life is just as impossible as the life and fruit-bearing of a branch separated from the trunk of a tree is impossible: without Me you can do nothing (John 15:1-6). He is the way, and the truth, and the life (John 14:6). Ap. Paul in these terms offers the doctrine of Christ the Savior as the head of the church, in the sense of the source of its life. Truly in love (i.e., having true love, or - containing the truth and abiding in love), let us grow into Him all things, of whom Christ is the head, and from Him the whole body is composed and put together in a decent way by every touch of giving, according to the action in the measure of each one part, the regeneration of the body creates itself into creation through love (Eph. 4:15-16). The meaning of this instruction is this. The Christian faith unites the faithful with Christ and thus makes up of all one body under the head of Christ; receiving everything from Him, and they must grow everything within themselves into Him, that is, become like Him. More specifically: the Lord harmoniously combines His body - the church (combined and put together decently), combining member by member with Himself and growing from Himself a body (church), the members of which unite with each other, just as in the human body, although there are many members and organs, each is in its place, with a special purpose, and all are harmoniously combined into one and make the body live. The words: with every touch of alms they show how the Lord creates a body for Himself. Almsgiving is the gift of the grace of the Holy Spirit - the grace of rebirth in baptism and grace as a gift for the needs of the church. The tactility of this alms means that grace is actually received tangibly and tangibly penetrates the person blessed. The words: according to the action in the measure of a single part, each part refers to the regeneration of the body that creates and shows how the body of Christ, composed of every touch of alms, continues to grow and be created. This is accomplished by action in the measure of a single part, when each member acts for the good of the church in the way that grace made him capable of acting, according to the measure of the gift, according to his own measure. This is how the material body grows, in which not a single member lives for itself, and so the spiritual body of the church grows, receiving everything for its growth from the head of Christ (Theophan ep. On Eph. 4:15–16). From the head of Christ, - teaches the same apostle, - the whole body, joints and joints are given and taken off (being united and fastened by joints and bonds), the growth of God grows (it grows with the age of God - Col. 2:19). Christ is the head of the church because He is the Savior of this body of His (Eph. 5:23), that is, He became the head through the salvation of the saved, and the saved became members of Him through salvation. He so loved His church that He gave it to Himself, nourishes and warms it with the life contained in Him, so that it would be holy and blameless, because the members are of His body, of His flesh and of His bones (Eph. 5:25-30 vv.). The attitude of I. Christ to the church, as the head to His body, ap. Paul also defines it this way: the God of Him (I. Christ) has given the head above all to the church, which is His body, the fulfillment of Him who fills (the fullness of Him who fills) all things in all (Eph. 1:22–23). Just as all the members of our body constitute a complete and living organism, led and controlled by the head, so the church is a spiritual organism in which there is no place where the divine powers of Christ do not act - in the church and Christians everything is Christ’s. “She is full of Christ... His is the light of the knowledge inherent in the church, with which He fills the knowers. His is holiness, with which He fulfills the zealots of holiness. His are the benefactors, for which He fills the benefactors with love. His are all other spiritual gifts visible in the church, for He fills with them those believers who are able to receive them. In the church there is everything and Christ in everyone” (Bishop Theophan. On Eph.). Christ the Savior, as the head, acts on the church, however, not from the outside, but Himself lives in it, as in His body. Before suffering on the cross, He Himself said to His confessors in the person of the apostles: I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you (John 14:18; fn. 28 v.); be in Me and I in you (15:4), and before you ascend into heaven: behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age (Matthew 28:20). In the promise of the Eucharist, He teaches: He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him (John 6:56). Therefore, he who partakes of His body in blood, following the example of the Apostle, can say: I live not for anyone, but Christ lives in me (Gal. 2:20). Ap. Paul expresses the idea of ​​the closest internal union of Christ with the church and His abiding in it, when he imagines it united with Him to bear children in the likeness of the marriage union of husband and wife (Eph. 5:31–32). According to Ap. John I. Christ Himself enters into fellowship with each of us: Behold, I stand at two doors and talk, and if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come down to him and sup with him, and he with Me (Rev. 3:20; cf. John 14:23). II. But although Christ the Lord is the source of life for the entire church and Himself always dwells in the church, this new life spreads throughout the entire body of the church from its head by the power of another Comforter, the Holy Spirit. Through Him, Christ, as the head, unites with Himself, as the source of life, His body - the church. The Holy Spirit carries in Himself and with Him the gifts of the life-giving life of Christ, attracts and then grafts the members of the church, like wild olives, to Christ, infuses Christ the Savior into them, and finally composes (however, not without the Lord the Savior) of them all one whole - the body of the church, penetrates everything into the church and directs all the movements in its body, as the soul controls the movements of the body, otherwise - is the direct ruler of the church, inseparable, however, with its head, the Lord Savior. The revelation provides sufficient reasons to represent the relationship of the Paraclete - the Holy Spirit - to the church in this way. About the actions of the Comforter, I. Christ teaches that He will receive from Him and glorify Him - through the continuation of His work - the work of building the church and through it - the salvation of people (John 14:16; 16, 14-15). These actions are actually performed in the church by the Holy Spirit, but, of course, with the complicity of its head. Thus, I. Christ speaks of a new birth in the kingdom of God, and this rebirth, although it comes from Him, must be and is accomplished through the Holy Spirit - by water and the Spirit (John 3:5). He (Christ) is the source of living water, that is, grace, and just as He Himself is full of grace and truth, so the church is filled with grace, but this grace is poured out through the Holy Spirit (John 7:37–39: if anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink). The apostles proclaimed St. Spirit, that He is the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9), that only through Him is faith in Christ possible, for no one can say the Lord Jesus except by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3), that only through Him does Christ dwell in us (Eph. 3:16-17), that the whole church, all believers are the church of God and the Spirit of God lives in them (1 Cor. 3:16) and that if Christ the Lord fills all in all, then the Holy Spirit is active and produces all things in everyone (1 Cor. 12:6; fn. 10 v.): He distributes to believers various extraordinary gifts (vv. 4 and 5), constantly brings His spiritual fruits to them - love, long-suffering, meekness, etc. (Gal. 5:22-23), appoints shepherds to shepherd the church of the Lord and God (Acts 20:28; fn. 2 Tim 1:14), descends on all believers in the sacraments of the church through the church hierarchy, that is, through the servants and messengers of Christ (2 Cor 5:20). III. This distinction between the actions of Christ the Savior, as the head of the church, and the actions of the Spirit of Christ, the Paraclete, in the economy of salvation in the church corresponds to the patristic ideas about the unequal participation of each of the persons of the Holy Trinity in the re-creation of man, as in the creation of the world. The period of time before the redemption of St. the fathers presented the kingdom primarily of the Father, together with the Son and the Holy Spirit, through whom, as if “with two hands,” in the words of St. Irenaeus, He accomplished everything both in creation and in providence for the world; the period of redemption - as the kingdom primarily of the Son, inseparable from the Father and the Holy Spirit; after redemption, in the church - as the kingdom primarily of the Holy Spirit, together with the Father and the Son. About this last period of St. Irenaeus says: “this is, according to the words of the elders and disciples of the apostles, the distribution and order of those who are saved, and through such gradualness they are perfected - through the Spirit they ascend to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, because the Son will then betray His work to the Father” (Prot. heresy. V book. 36 chapter; sn. 18 chapter). The ancient teachers called the Holy Spirit “life-giving.” This name most expressively testifies to the power of the Spirit, making our fallen nature, deadened by sin, receptive to the gifts of the life of Christ, instilling in us the seed of new life and uniting us with Christ, its source. And wanting to point out the main thing - the ruling action of the Spirit of the Holy Paraclete in the church, they called Him “ruling” or “ruling” (for example, St. I. Damascus). § 127. Properties of the true Church of Christ The concept of the essential properties of the Church. – Unity of the Church from the internal and external sides. – Holiness of the Church. - The infallibility of her teachings. – The Church as the way, truth and life. – Weak members of the Church. – Conciliarity (catholicity) of the Church. – The Church of Christ is the Apostolic Church. – Missionary activity of the Church. – Preservation of the grace of Christ and its transmission. - Management of the Church. The true Church of Christ is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. These names define in various respects the very essence of the church in terms of its properties or characteristics that distinguish the true church both from all human societies and from non-Orthodox churches. These properties are called the essential properties of the church, that is, those without which the church would not be a church. This nature of these properties is evidenced by their very presence in the creed, in which all members propose the teaching of the most essential, most important and necessary subjects. I. The true church of Christ is one church. I. Christ founded only one church on earth, in which salvation was offered to the entire human race: I will build My church - one, and not many, He said (Matthew 16:15). Depicting the church in parables, He also speaks of one flock under the leadership of one Shepherd - Christ and one sheepfold (John 10:16), one vine (John 15:1-7), one kingdom of God on earth (Matt. 13:24, 47, etc.), one main stone of the church (Matt. 16:18), and commanded to preach one doctrine (Matt. 16:18). Matthew 28:19–20), established one baptism and one communion (1 Cor. 10:17; Eph. 4:5). The unity of believers in Him was the subject of his last prayer, known as the high priestly prayer: that they all may be one (John 17:20–23). The apostles teach in the same way about only one church: Christ loved the church and gave Himself for His sake (Eph. 5:25 fn. 2, 21), about the unity of all in Christ: for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28; cf. 2, 14-15), about one body, the members of which are those who truly believe in Christ, and the head is Christ Himself (1 Cor. 12 ch.). Ap. Paul strongly condemned the divisions in the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 1:10–13). One can and should distinguish between the internal and external unity of the church. The deepest foundation of the internal unity of the church is the unity of the head of the church and the unity of the Holy Spirit animating the church. All believers are united by the Holy Spirit in Christ as their invisible head. This mysterious unification is most clearly manifested in the Eucharist (1 Cor. 10:17). United by the Holy Spirit in Christ, believers, for their part, are called to have the same faith in Christ, to remain in love for Him, and in His name for their neighbors, to become like Him, to live by the same Christ. Through the actions of the Spirit and the unity of faith and life in Christ, believers, many beings, are truly formed into a single, indivisible, like-minded and unanimous whole - they are one body in Christ (Rom. 25:5; cf. 1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:19; 3, 15, etc.). One body, one spirit, just as your calling is swift in the single hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:5–6). Uniting in Christ, as their invisible head, all believers are necessarily united with each other and apparently form one union, one church. This unity is externally manifested in the harmonious confession of faith (one symbol of faith), in the unity of worship and sacraments (one prayer), the unity of hierarchical succession (bishopric), and church structure (unity of church canons). Symbol, worship and church rules - this is the three-part fence that protects the church. In this enclosure, no matter how much it expands, no matter how many separate, independent local churches are formed, with special local rites and customs that do not concern the essence of faith and church structure, with a special liturgical language, all believers feel their unity: for everyone always remains in the communion of prayers and sacraments, everyone is united by the unity of the confession of faith and the head of the church, they observe the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 3:4). The church also does not lose its unity because Christian societies have existed and may exist next to the church, separated from the union of the Universal Church, or not admitted to it. If the church is one, then next to it there cannot be any other church, for there cannot be two truths, two kingdoms of God, mutually exclusive and at the same time equally true and equally valuable. The Church cannot be divided into itself or disintegrate—was Christ divided (1 Cor. 1:13)? the church is not only one, but also the only one. Any Christian society that is not part of a single church is not a church, but simply a Christian community, built not on the rock that is Christ, but on the sand of its own inventions (the church of the evil ones). Outside the true church, these societies, depending on the grounds on which they are separated from the union of the Universal Church, can only be heretical, or schismatic, or simply unauthorized gatherings (see Basil the Great I right). The unity of the church must be considered and understood not only as the unity of the Earthly, militant Church, but in conjunction with the Heavenly, triumphant Church - not only for a certain time of its existence, but also in the sequence of time, i.e. as historical unity. The Church is always one, throughout its existence, from the time of its foundation to the present day, and will be one from our days until the end of the world, for it lives according to the unchangeable principles laid down in its foundation, always has one head - Christ, lives His life and is animated by one Spirit. All the righteous who have departed are our brothers in Christ; They were people subservient to us, but they were saved by the same faith by which we are saved, they prayed the same prayers that we pray, with the same God-given and saving means that we have, and under the same conditions in which we are saved. II. The Church, as the great body of its head - the God-man, animated by the Holy Spirit, as the bride of Christ, is holy, that is, pure, immaculate, infallible in doctrine. The source and foundation of the holiness of the church is in its head - the Most Holy of Holies, and the invisible ruler - the Holy Spirit, from whom holiness and sanctification are mysteriously and constantly poured out on the entire body of the church. I. Christ gave Himself up to death for this purpose, in order to present the church as His bride, not having filth or vice or anything from such (Eph. 5:25-29), - to deliver us from all lawlessness, to purify Himself as a chosen people, zealous for good deeds (Tit. 2:14; fn. Col. 1:22). The Holy Spirit, always abiding in her with all the sanctifying gifts of grace, sanctifies her through the holy and sanctifying word of God (John 17:17-19), through the holy and sanctifying sacraments (Eph. 5, etc.) and through actions in the hearts encourages her to exploits of self-denial and holiness. But the church, holy by its foundation, by the dwelling in it of the source of holiness and sanctification of all believers, is also holy by its fruits. If the first fruit is holy, then so is the mixture; and if the root is holy, so are the branches (Rom. 11:16). On the cornerstone - Christ, the whole building, being put together harmoniously, grows into a holy church in the Lord, and believers are built into a dwelling place of God (Eph. 2:21-22). It consists of members that have been washed with the washing of water and sanctified (1 Cor. 6:11). Those who believe in Christ are the people of God, the chosen people, the holy people, the royal priesthood (ίεράτευμα - 1 Peter 2:9-10), churches of God and temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16; 9:19). The history of the Church of Christ confirms that in the true church there have always been people with the highest Christian purity and special gifts of grace - martyrs, virgins, ascetics, saints, saints, the righteous, the blessed, as well as manifestations of the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. It has an innumerable host of departed righteous people of all times and peoples, representatives for the earthly church, witnessed by many signs and wonders (Rev. 7:9). She always opposed dishonesty and untruth. As having the basis of its holiness in the head of the church in the Holy Spirit, and not in the members of the church themselves, and also having the goal of perfecting the saints, the church recognizes as its members not only the righteous, but also sinners (Post. Eastern Pat. 11 members). The opinion (of the Novatians, Donatists, Kafars, Protestants) that the church consists of only righteous people and saints must be rejected as contrary to the direct teaching of Christ the Savior and His Apostles. Thus, the Savior compared His church to a field in which wheat grows along with tares (Matthew 13ff.), to a net that brings out all kinds of fish (v. 47), to a supper in which the unworthy also take part (22:3, 13). In the church, He taught, there are good and bad slaves (18, 23 et seq. 25, 14 et seq.), there are wise virgins and holy fools (25, 1 et seq.), sheep and evil spirits (33 v.). According to Ap. Paul, in the church, as in a great house, there are not exactly vessels of gold and silver, but also wood and clay (2 Tim 2:20). Ananias and Sapphira belonged to the Apostolic Church (Acts ch. 5), in the Corinthian church there was an incestuous man, punished by excommunication, and other sinners, from communication with whom the apostle urges one to withdraw (1 Cor. 5 ch.). The holiness of all members of the church is still a goal that the church must achieve with the means given to it. But the presence in the church of weak and infirm members does not prevent the body of Christ from remaining free from defilement or vice, for each of its members individually does not constitute the church, nor is the church only a numerical multitude composed of individual units, but headed by the Lord Himself and consisting of those who believe in Him, the body of Christ, in which Christ the Savior and the Holy Spirit always abide with the fullness of sanctifying powers and means. Therefore, the presence of imperfect members in the church does not prevent it from flourishing in spiritual perfection. Those who are weak, but do not fall away from the church, as long as they are connected with it by confession of faith in Christ and communion in the sacraments, can little by little be revived, purified by grace-filled means and made more capable of participating in life, poured out from the root or head of the body by the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit. But if sinners do not accept grace-filled help and remain unrepentant, then they, “like dead members, are cut off from the body of the church either by the visible action of church authority, or by the invisible action of the judgment of God” (Cat. 9 ch.). Only sincere repentance can bring them back into the church, just as the repentant Corinthian sinner was received back into the church. Connected with the property of holiness is the infallibility of the church in its teaching. The infallibility of the church rests on its holiness; the church is infallible because it is holy. Revelation clearly expresses the truth of the infallibility of the church. The Savior, having promised to remain with His church until the end of the age, filled and fills the church with Himself. If the church is full of Christ, and He is the truth itself (John 14:6), then it cannot be that He allowed His entire church to deviate from the truth and sin. Such evasion could have occurred either without His knowledge, or with His knowledge and consent; but both are equally unthinkable. The Spirit of truth also abides and will remain with the church until the end of the world, and, therefore, the truth will abid from it, as the action of the Spirit of truth that does not depart from it. The Savior spoke directly about His church: I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). But if the church deviated from the truth in teaching, then this would entail deviation in sacred rites, in governance and in everything else, and all this would indisputably testify that the gates of hell have overcome the church and that it is no longer the Church of Christ, pure and holy. Ap. Paul teaches about the church: let him know how to live in the house of God, which is the living church of God, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), that is, the Church is the dwelling place of God and therefore is at the same time the pillar and foundation of Christian teaching, so that not only does it not fall away from the truth, but is able to support the truth in the minds and hearts of people. He (i.e. Christ) gave the apostles, the prophets,... the shepherds and teachers... for the work of service, for the building up of the body of Christ... so that we may not be infants, tossed about and tossed about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:11-14). According to these words, shepherds and teachers were given by the same One who gave the apostles, so that they, preserving the exact teaching of Christ, would resolve doubts about faith and save those who waver from falling, and the importance of the work entrusted to the teachers shows that the one who assigned them to this work will not leave them without His protection. The question of what constitutes the subject of the infallibility of the church is resolved in the Orthodox Church in the closest and strictest sense - in fact, in the sense of preserving the truth of Christ from the admixture of any lies, or infidelity, or one-sided exclusivity. This truth has been given to us as a guide to salvation, “so that we can rightly and savingly believe in God and worthily honor Him” (Catichos on Revelation), given to all people and for all times. Obviously, any admixture of lies and untruth as a result of some distortion will be reflected in faith in God and in the veneration of Him. Therefore, this truth must be preserved by the church in purity, integrity and completeness, without subtractions from it or additions to it. Hence, according to the Orthodox understanding, the subject of the infallibility of the church consists only of the truths of divine revelation. Otherwise, when we say that the teaching of the church is infallible, we do not affirm anything more than that it is unchangeable, the same as that which was handed down to her from the beginning, as the teaching of God (Posl. eastern patr. 1848, § 12). The preservation of the God-given truth in its integrity and purity belongs to the entire body of the church, “to all true believers” (Katikh. 9th). The Eastern Patriarchs express themselves on this subject: “for us, the guardian of piety is the body of the church itself, that is, the people themselves” (Posl. 1848, § 17). It is clear that in this regard there should not be a division of the church into two unequal halves - the teaching church and the listening church - as if the teachers of the church are obligated and consciously preserving the infallible teaching of the church, and the listening church (the laity) only through their unconditional obedience participates in the preservation of the truth (as Roman Catholicism teaches). The responsibility for preserving the truth lies with all the sons of the church - both the shepherds and the flock. All believers are obligated to strive for infallibility in faith, just as all are obligated to achieve holiness in life. Ecumenical Councils are ways for the Church to express its infallibility. These Councils, representing the entire Church of Christ, could not be deprived of the co-presence of the Lord Jesus Himself with the Holy One. Spirit, when He Himself gave the promise: where there are two or three gathered in My name, I am in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20). The Spirit will guide you into all truth (John 16:13). The co-presence at the Councils of the Head of the Church and the Holy Spirit was also professed by the Councils themselves (see, for example, III Ecumenical Council, 7th Ave.; IV Ecumenical Council, Ave. 1; VII Ecumenical Council, 1st Ave., etc.). III. The Church of Christ is the catholic church (καθολική έκκλησία), universal, or, according to the Slavic translation of the symbol, cathedral. This property belongs to the church in the sense that “it is not limited to any place, time, or people, but includes true believers of all places, times and peoples” (Katikh. 9 hours). The Church of Christ is not limited to any place or people, that is, it embraces heaven and earth, for not only people on earth belong to it, but also “all those who have died in true faith and holiness.” Consequently, the words of the symbol refer not to just the Earthly Church, but together to the Heavenly Church. But the Earthly Church also has the property of catholicity, for it also embraces everyone everywhere, no matter who they are, believers in Christ, “from all places and peoples.” She opens the “doors of heaven” for all those seeking salvation, without any distinction of nationality, rank or condition, and equally offers the treasures of truth and grace to everyone. The Savior clearly indicated such comprehensiveness of the church when he commanded the apostles to go preaching the gospel to all nations and even to the last of the earth, that is, to people of every country, every color, every language, every condition. For this reason, the apostles were given the gift of tongues, so that they could proclaim salvation to all nations. The apostles, fulfilling the command of the Lord, went out and preached everywhere (Mark 16:20); Their messages went out into all the earth, and their words into the ends of the world (Rom. 10:18). They taught that in the church of Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian and Scythian, slave and free (Col. 3:11), there is neither male nor female - all are one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). The universality of the church in this respect has not yet been realized to the intended extent. However, the Savior said about His grace-filled kingdom that it will not end until the Gospel of the kingdom is preached (κηρυχθήσεται - proclaimed) throughout the entire universe, as a testimony in every tongue, and then death will come (Matthew 24:14). To call the Church Universal does not require that it truly embrace the whole world and every single person. The Church spread and is spreading gradually. It is catholic in its purpose, according to God's will for the church, and not in the quantitative composition of its members. That is why the church was called catholic even in the time of the apostles and in general in the first three centuries, although it was not as extensive as it appeared in subsequent centuries. The Church of Christ is a catholic church also because “it is not limited by time,” that is, it extends in the past to the beginning of the existence of rationally free beings, angels and people (Heavenly Church), and in the future - into boundless eternity, just as the God-Man and the head of the church are eternal, uniting heaven and earth in Himself. In particular, the Earthly or visible church will exist until the end of the age and until the end of the age it will lead people of all places and nations to faith in Christ, until the kingdom of glory comes. It is possible in the future to reduce, for example, its limits, persecution from enemies, hatred of it, the appearance of traitors to the church, all sorts of violence against members of the church, just as Christ Himself endured persecution, death on the cross, had a traitor, but it is impossible that the time would ever come in which it would cease to exist on earth, that is, the grace of God dried up on it, it lost the true teaching, the continuous series in it was interrupted the hierarchy, the sacred rites for the bringing down of the gifts of God's grace ceased. In this sense, the church is called inexhaustible, insurmountable, i.e., the gates of hell. I. Christ said: I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. The meaning of this figurative saying (the image is taken from the custom of the ancients to hold meetings at the gates of the city) is that no evil plans and efforts of Satan are able to crush the Catholic Church. To defeat the church would mean to defeat Christ Himself, who promised to remain with it all the days, until the end of the age, whatever its external fate, who also sent down the Spirit of the Comforter to stay and act in the Earthly Church forever, i.e. until the time when the kingdom of glory comes and the Earthly Church changes into a triumphant, Heavenly one. Ap. Paul teaches that the sacrament of communion will be celebrated until the coming of the Lord: as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until it comes (1 Cor. 11:26). Consequently, until the coming of the Lord, the church in which this sacrament is performed will also remain. IV. The Church of Christ is the apostolic church. Such a church appears as the continuer of the work of human salvation accomplished by the Lord through the assimilation of the fruits of redemption to people. Just as God sent His Son ... that He might redeem those under the law (Gal. 4:4), so He Himself sent disciples, called apostles, to preach, so the church was founded and sent into the world and from itself sends its apostles to bring the world to Christ. But in order to fulfill its apostolic purpose, the church in its essence must be exactly what it was under the apostles themselves. And this is understandable. The apostles were special, extraordinary builders of the Church of Christ. Through the apostles, the church was planted and spread throughout the world with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Therefore, although the church has I. Christ Himself as its cornerstone, it was founded on and on the foundation of the apostles (Eph. 2:19–20), that is, it was created by the apostles. St. John, in the revelation of heavenly Jerusalem, saw that the city wall had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of twelve apostles of the Lamb (Rev. 21:14), that is, the seer saw that the Church of Christ was founded by twelve apostles. And the apostles themselves said: if we or an angel from heaven preach the good news to you, let him be accursed (Gal. 1:8). Therefore, any church that does not have the apostles at its foundation will not be the church of Christ. Hence, only that church is the apostolic church, which has from the apostles themselves the succession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit through sacred ordination, i.e. goes back to the apostles through the continuous succession from them of the divinely established hierarchy, more particularly the bishop, and which is faithful to the apostolic tradition - in teaching, in sacred rites and in the foundations of the church structure. If in any community of Christians the succession of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, accepted by ordination, has been interrupted, and the tradition that the apostles taught by word or epistle has not been preserved in its fullness and purity (2 Thess. 2:15), there is no church there. The Orthodox Eastern Church fully has such continuity and such fidelity to the apostolic tradition. That the apostolic succession through sacred ordination was truly preserved in her, no one ever doubted. She remained faithful to the apostolic tradition in teaching, prayer, and governance. All this is so true that the enemies of the Eastern Church do not reproach it for any innovations or deviations in dogmatic, liturgical and canonical terms. Therefore, she alone is a truly apostolic church and only she alone rightfully belongs to the name of the Orthodox Church (ορθόδοξος), as a right ('ρθως) or invariably preserving the teaching (δόξα) and in everything remaining faithful to those principles that were determined for her by her Founder I. Christ and His Apostles, Therefore, only to her alone, As a truly apostolic church, other properties of the church also belong: unity, holiness, catholicity. § 128. Composition of the Earthly Church. God-established hierarchy Structure of the earthly Church: church hierarchy and flock. – Teaching, priesthood and administration of the Church. – Divine establishment of the church hierarchy. I. The Earthly Church, like every visible well-ordered society, like the human body (1 Cor. 12:12-30), is composed of unequal members. Some in it teach in the name of God, others accept the teaching; some perform sacred rites in the name of God, others use the sacred rites performed with full faith; some rule in the name of God, others obey with full confidence in the salvation of leadership; the same and others together strengthen and perfect that spiritual body of which they are all members and the head of which is the Lord I. Christ. The former constitute the divinely established church hierarchy, the pastors of the church, the clergy, the latter – the flock. In the primal church, lay believers were usually called by the name of brethren. II. The hierarchy in the church, as a special class of persons invested with the power to teach, officiate and govern, is not an organ of church representation (as Protestants teach), but a divine institution. Just as in the Old Testament Church a hierarchy was established by God himself for serving at the church and performing all the rites of the lawful religion, so in the New Testament Church the hierarchy was initially established and continuously continued by I. Christ himself. Otherwise, it is impossible to imagine the origin of the hierarchy as a divine institution, in a society that was founded not by people, but by God, by the power and will of I. Christ, which has the goal of continuing His work. Only those invested with sacred authority can be His instruments and act with the authority entrusted to Him. Such instruments with the power to teach, perform sacred acts and govern were originally the self-seers and servants of the Word - His first and constant disciples, chosen by Him Himself, whom He and the apostles called (Luke 6:13). He appointed them to be fishers of men (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17), witnesses of His resurrection and works of redemption even to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:48; Acts 1:8, 22). “You did not choose Me,” He told them before His suffering, “but I chose you, that you should go and bear fruit, and your fruit should remain (John 15:16). After His resurrection, He gave them a command: Just as the Father sent Me, I send you (20-21); All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth: come and teach, etc. (Matthew 28:18–19). Receive the Holy Spirit: He will forgive their sins, they will be forgiven them, and they will hold it and hold it (John 20:21-23). Having received the apostleship, the disciples of the Lord Jesus at the same time assumed threefold authority: teaching, priesthood and administration of the church. As teachers, they were given the command to preach the Gospel with every tongue, that is, to be universal teachers of the faith. Equally, they received from the Lord the authority and power to perform the sacred rites established by Him to bring down the gifts of grace to believers, for example, the sacrament of baptism (Matthew 28:19), communion (Luke 22:19), laying on of hands (Acts 8:17; 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6), repentance (John 20:31–23). Finally, the apostles received directly from the head of the church the power to shepherd the church (John 21:15–17), that is, to govern the church, the power to bind and decide (Matt. 18:18) and in general the power of legislation in the church (Acts 15:28–29; 16, 4), the power to supervise the behavior of church members (1 Pet 5, 2), the power of the court with the right to subject the guilty to punishment (Matt. 16, 15–17; 2 Cor. 13:10; 10, 4, 6, etc.). The apostles actually used this threefold power, with the awareness of the authority to do so from the Lord I. Christ: so let man not feel (meaning) us, as the servants of Christ and the builders of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1). In the apostles, therefore, one should see as many extraordinary messengers of God as the hierarchs of the church, invested by I. Christ Himself with the power to officiate, teach and govern, so that the church achieves the goal for which the Lord founded it. The power entrusted by I. Christ to the apostles (and not to the entire community of believers) for the establishment and establishment of the church on earth, and together with the grace-filled power inherent in it, had to be preserved in the church even after the death of the apostles in its entirety, excluding their apostolic dignity as extraordinary messengers of God. Only under this condition could the church continue, with the assistance of grace, the work of assimilating to people the fruits of redemption in all the ends of the earth. And the Lord I. Christ expressed His will so that this power, successively from the apostles, would continue in the church until the end of the age. Investing the apostles with authority, He said to them: and lo, I am with you all the days, even to the end of the age. Obviously, these words cannot be applied only to the apostles, but also imply their successors and contain the promise of God’s assistance not only to the apostles, but also to their successors. Likewise, the words of promise addressed to the apostles about the Comforter Spirit, that He will be with you forever, extend not only to the apostles, but also to the successors of their ministry. Ap. Paul positively teaches that the Founder of the church gave the church not only apostles, prophets and evangelists, but also shepherds and teachers for the equipping of the saints, for the edification of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11-12; cf. 1 Cor. 12:28). In his farewell conversation with the elders of Ephesus, the same apostle told them: take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you bishops to shepherd the church of the Lord and God, which we have acquired with His blood (Acts 20:28). The apostles received their grace-filled powers and authority directly from I. Christ, and the hierarchy was granted grace-filled power and authority by I. Christ through the mediation of the apostles. The latter transferred their power and the grace-filled power of the priesthood to special persons and did so, without a doubt, not as a result of any natural necessity, but by divine command (although it was not written down in the form of a directly expressed commandment), for they, having the mind of Christ, organized the church, as they preached, according to the direct instructions of I. Christ and according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thus, through the laying on of hands, seven chosen men were appointed by the apostles to serve at meals (διακονία τραπέζαις), with whom the service at the Lord's table and in general at the sacraments was later united (Acts 6:1-6). So up. Paul and Barnabas for the Christians of Lystra, Iconium and Antioch ordained elders (χειροτονήσαντες πρεσβυτέρους) to each church (Acts 14:23; fn. 20, 28). By presbyters, although they are not called bishops, it is more correct to understand bishops, since these shepherds were ordained for each church, that is, for the church of each city (fn. Titus 1:5), and for each city church then bishops were installed, not presbyters. Of course, the same procedure was followed by other apostles in other places where they founded churches. Thus, special primates were appointed to the churches of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, to which all ap. Peter gave instructions on how to shepherd the flock of God (1 Pet 1:1; 5:1-3). Ap. Paul, having begged Timothy, his beloved child, co-worker and brother, to come to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), ordained him, giving him through his ordination the authority to ordain others and, in general, the fullness of pastoral authority (2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 5:22, etc.). To his other close child - Titus, left in Crete, ap. Paul also instructed that the unfinished work be completed in the building of the church on Fr. Crete and will appoint elders throughout the city (Titus 1:5). The epistles to Timothy and Titus also indicate the qualities of persons who may be worthy of ordination as a bishop (1 Tim 3:1–7; Titus 1:6–9), presbyter (Titus 2:2; cf. 1 Tim 5:1) and deacon (1 Tim 3:8–13). In his letter to the Philippians, St. Paul greets all the saints in Philippi, with bishops and deacons (1, 1). Ap. John speaks in his revelation about seven angels, calling so the leaders of the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev. 2–3 ch.). Christian antiquity has even preserved for us the names of many men whom the apostles recognized as worthy to shepherd the churches they founded and to be their bishops 59 . From later witnesses one can be convinced how the apostolic succession has continued and continues to this day in the true church. At local and Ecumenical councils, a number of decrees were legitimized to protect the correctness and validity of ordinations for sacred degrees, so that the apostolic succession in the church would not be interrupted. And this succession, both in ancient times, was recognized as so significant that the importance of the church was based on it, both the Apostolic Church, and today the Orthodox Church assimilates the same importance to it. § 129. Necessity of belonging to the church for salvation The question of those who have fallen away from the Church. The accomplisher of the work of our salvation, the Lord I. Christ, founded His church so that through it people could assimilate the fruits of redemption, and therefore made it a treasury of truth and grace and, in general, all the gifts necessary for salvation. It follows that it is necessary to belong to the church in order to be saved. More specifically, this necessity is revealed from the following. Revelation teaches that there is no other name under heaven given among men, by whom we must be saved, except the name of the God-man, our Redeemer (Acts 4:12). He is the way and the truth and the life (John 14:6). Only through Him, through union with Him, is the reunification of man with God possible and accomplished (John 15:1-7; 2 Pet 1, 4; Eph. 2:18, 22), and, consequently, salvation itself, for outside of unity with God there is and cannot be life and salvation. But outside the church, Christ abides as the Lord and Provider of creation, but only in the church He is for us the Redeemer, the Mediator of the reunification of people with God and the fullness of all blessings, for the church is His body, and He is its head. Therefore, only in the church can union with Christ and through this participation in the benefits of redemption be realized. The necessary means for union with Christ are concentrated in the church. She was granted all the divine powers for life and piety. The Spirit of God lives in her, acting in every way and uniting everyone with Christ, and through Christ leading to the Father. In it the true and pure teaching of Christ is preserved and proclaimed, as a result of which only in the church is the right saving faith in Christ possible, leading to union with Christ and God, in it are the true sacraments through which the Holy Spirit is brought down to believers, in it is the true guide to salvation. Outside the church, a person is left to his own strength, or better yet, to his own weakness in the search for God and His Christ. If it is so necessary to belong to the church for salvation, then it is clear that all apostates from the church deprive themselves of hope of salvation. If anyone disobeys the church, be like a pagan and a publican, the Savior taught (Matthew 18:17). The apostles call those who preach a teaching contrary to the church and thereby cut themselves off from the church (Gal. 1-9), lying teachers, who bring heresies of destruction..., bringing swift destruction to themselves (2 Peter 2:1), deceivers, for whom the darkness of darkness is reserved forever (Jude 13), people self-condemned (Titus 3:11). Moreover, those who completely rejected Christianity, became pagans, trampled on the Son of God, thought of defilement in the blood of the covenant, were sanctified by it, and reproached the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29) cannot have any hope of salvation. But besides those who fell away from the church through their own fault and deliberately, there are many people who were and are outside the church, apparently through no fault of their own, such as many of the pagan peoples who have not heard the preaching of Christ, Gentiles, from the day they were born, with their parents staying outside the true church and not having the opportunity, as they should, to become acquainted with the Orthodox Church, infants who died unbaptized. What awaits them? When asked about their fate, one can only say: the judgments of the Lord are inscrutable and only the Omniscient knows the final determination of the fate of all people. The following is revealed to us: God is the Savior of all men, and especially of the faithful (1 Tim. 4:10). He wants to be saved as a whole person and come into the mind of truth (2, 4). He is the God not only of the Jews, but also of the Gentiles (Rom. 29–30); With Him there is no partiality, and in every language fear Him and doing righteousness is acceptable to Him (Acts 10:34–35; cf. Rom. 10:6–15). He will reward everyone according to His deeds. It is permissible to assume that God, in ways known to Him alone, can introduce the worthy from every nation and tribe to the light of the gospel and the benefits of redemption in the afterlife, just as Christ, by His descent into hell and preaching there, introduced the souls of people who died before His coming to the benefits of redemption. § 130. Union between the Earthly and Heavenly Churches The unity of the life of the Church and the forms of this unity. The Church of Christ in a broad sense embraces heaven and earth. In this sense, not only Christians living on earth belong to the Church of Christ, but also those who have moved to another world, for this change in state is perceptible only in our eyes, and the Lord God is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all things live to Him (Luke 20:38). If believers in Christ - both the living and the dead under the headship of Christ - are united into one kingdom of Christ, constitute one body, then there must be mutual communication between the members of this mysterious body, communication of faith and love, mutual help and concelebration of salvation. The apostle says about the members of the body of Christ, by analogy with the relationship between the members of the human body. And if one oud suffers, all ouds suffer with it; If one ud is glorified, all uds rejoice with him (1 Cor. 12:26). And such communication between the council of the righteous triumphant in heaven with the angels and the members of the Earthly Church really exists. It consists of the following: the saints of the Heavenly Church, triumphant, together with the angels, prayerfully intercede before God for a member of the Earthly Church and, according to the will of God, act graciously and beneficially on believers living on earth, and the believing members of the Earthly Church, militant, those of their deceased members who are honored by God Himself with glorification in heaven, call in their prayers for help, venerate (religiously) both themselves and their remains (relics) and images, and for those who pass into another life with faith in achieving a blissful state, but are not glorified by God, they beg the Lord and Master for the remission of their sins and their repose in the blessed abodes of the Heavenly Father. § 131. Intercession of the saints for believers living on earth, and their prayerful invocation in the Earthly Church Holy Scripture about the prayerful presence and intercession of the heavenly Church and the help of the earthly Church. – Holy Scripture about the need for prayerful appeal of members of the earthly Church to the saints residing in heaven. – Prayerful intercession of the Mother of God and the saints. – The Reformation and its rejection of the prayerful intercession of the saints. I. Holy people who have departed from this life and have been worthy of heavenly glorification, together with the angels of God and the only intercessor - Jesus Christ, help members of the Earthly Church achieve salvation - especially by interceding for them in their prayers and petitions to the Redeemer and God. The intercession of the Mother of God has special strength and effectiveness due to Her great and exceptional closeness to the Son. But all the saints, as friends of God and Christ, are strong before God in their prayerful intercession for others and have from God the grace-filled power and ability to help us both in our spiritual needs and in the needs and misfortunes of external life, in general to promote our salvation (Post. Eastern Pat. 8 ch.). At the same time, the Orthodox Church believes that saints in a state of bliss offer prayers not only for the Earthly Church in general, or that in general they combine their prayers to God with the prayers of members of the Earthly Church (this is also recognized by Lutherans, who reject the prayers of saints for one or another member in particular), but that in them members of the Earthly Church have intercessors for various private and personal needs. The belief in the prayerful intercession of the deceased righteous for those living on earth existed even in the Old Testament Church. Thus, God Himself, who decided to give His unrepentant people over to disaster, said to St. Jeremiah: if Moses and Samuel stand before Me, My soul will not be brought to this people (Jer. 15:1). With these words, the Lord showed that under other circumstances, Moses and Samuel, who had already died then, could have interceded with Him on behalf of His people, and their petition could have been heard by Him. In one of the books of the Old Testament (though not canonical), there is also a case of such intercession before God by a righteous man for a sinner: Judas Maccabeus, before entering into battle with Nicanor, saw in a dream the former high priest Onias and others. Jeremiah, the dead, praying for the Jewish people. Jeremiah, giving Judah the golden sword, said: “Take this holy sword, a gift from God, with which you will crush your enemies.” About Jeremiah, Onyas revealed: this is a brotherly lover, who prays much for the people and for the holy city, Jeremiah, God's prophet (2 Mac 15, 12, 14). In the New Testament, the prayerful intercession of the saints in heaven for the Earthly Church is most directly attested to by the seer John. He was honored to see how the twenty and four elders fell before the Lamb, each having harps and vials (cups) of gold, full of incense, like the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8). Another time he saw an angel come and stand before the altar, having a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might give the prayers of all the saints to the golden altar that is before the throne. And incense smoke came out through the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God (Rev. 8:3-4). The conviction of the prayerful intercession of the saints for the Earthly Church is justified and presupposed by the general meaning and spirit of the revealed teaching. The saints, moved by love, prayed for others on earth and helped their neighbors in any way they could. They transfer this love for their earthly brothers into the afterlife, for love no longer disappears (1 Cor. 13:8); there their love for their neighbors becomes even purer and more sincere. Filled with this love, even in the afterlife they cannot help but take care of us and use everything they can do for our good, and the primary means for this can be their prayerful intercession before God for their earthly brothers. And if they prayed for them while still living on earth, then isn’t their prayer all the more fervent for the same brothers in heaven, where they, as friends of God and beloved by God, have from God even greater boldness to intercede for us and their prayer is even more effective? Moreover, their blissful state should naturally favor them. In a joyful state, we usually strive to share our joy with others: a good person in happiness tries, if possible, to do good and make others happy. It is clear that the inhabitants of heaven, themselves experiencing bliss, with perfect love for us, cannot help but desire and help us to become participants in this bliss, and first of all, of course, through prayer for our deliverance from disasters and sorrows, for our rise from our falls and our salvation. II. The intercession of the saints before God for the members of the militant church and their willingness and ability to help us in our needs serves as the basis and motivation for the members of the Earthly Church to call upon the saints in their prayers. We should call on the saints in prayers, of course, not instead of God and not as any gods who can, with their own power, help people in their needs, but as our representatives and intercessors close to God and strong before Him, who, by their intercession for us, can strengthen the meaning of our prayers before the Lord God and ask us for the benefits we need from God - the only Source and Creator of all gifts and mercies to creatures (James 1:17). Scripture, through direct instructions and examples, teaches us to turn to the intercession of the saints before God. Thus, God once commanded Abimelech to ask Abraham to pray to avert the destruction of him and his house for Abraham’s wife Sarah, and when Abraham prayed, not only did the destruction of Abimelech’s house pass, but God’s blessing was also sent down to him (Gen. 20:7-19). Job’s sinners, by command of God, had to ask this righteous man for prayers for themselves so as not to perish, and their sins were forgiven for Job’s sake (Job 42:8–9). The Jews, convinced of the validity of the prayers of the righteous, in difficult circumstances asked for the prayerful intercession of the righteous. Once, for example, being in danger from foreigners, they asked the prophet Samuel: “do not cease to cry for us to the Lord our God, so that He will save us from the hand of the Philistines,” and the prophet cried out to the Lord for Israel and the Lord listened to him (1 Samuel 7:8-10). Ave. David confesses: the Lord is good to all who call on Him in truth, but He especially listens to the requests of the righteous: He will do the will of those who fear Him and He will hear their prayer (Ps. 145:18–19). New Testament Scripture also constantly encourages us to pray for one another. Ap. James says: pray for one another...: the prayer of a righteous person can do much to help him, and as proof he gives an example of the power of the prayer of St. Elijah (James 5:16-18). Ap. Paul showed by his own example the power and importance of praying for one another; himself praying for all believers (Eph. 1:16; 2 Sol 1:11-12), and to them he repeatedly turned with requests: I pray you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of the spirit, make haste in your prayers for me to God (Rom. 15:30), or: brethren, pray for us (1 Sol 5:25; fn. Eph.6:18–19). True, this speaks of turning to the prayers of the saints while they are still here on earth. But if it is necessary and salutary to turn to the righteous while they are on earth, then shouldn’t it be even more so to turn in prayer to the saints who have departed and been glorified by God, when their intercession before God for people can be stronger and they actually intercede? But can the saints in heaven know the prayers, needs and conditions of the members of the Earthly Church? There are no sufficient grounds to deny the possibility of such emergency management. Even during their earthly life, the saints of God discovered a special gift of spiritual knowledge and insight. So, for example, ap. Peter saw the light in the heart of Ananias (Acts 5:3), St. Elisha learned about the act of Gehazi (2 Kings 4, 19-25) and revealed to the king of Israel the secret intentions of the Assyrian court (6, 12). If during their earthly life many of the saints possessed the high gift of clairvoyance and higher knowledge, then all the more, having stripped off their bodies and standing before the throne of God, they have this high gift and can see and know what is happening on earth, for in heaven their abilities, like every person, according to the word of the Apostle, develop and improve (1 Cor. 13:9-12). While still in a mortal body, the saints penetrated in spirit into the heavenly world, and some of them saw a host of angels, like the forefather Jacob (Gen. 32:1) and others Elisha (2 Kings 6:17), others were rewarded with contemplating God Himself, like others. Isaiah (6, 1–5) and Ezekiel (2, 1–8), others admired to the third heaven and heard there inexpressible verbs, like the apostle. Paul (2 Cor. 12:2–6). It is natural to think that upon entering the afterlife, they have the opportunity, having received even greater enlightenment of their powers, to penetrate back from heaven to earth, contemplate the affairs and events of the earthly world familiar to them, and comprehend what is happening among those living on earth. The saints in heaven are in close communication with the angels, who are sent to earth to serve for those who want to inherit salvation (Heb. 1:14), bring the prayers of the saints to heaven (Tov. 12:15), and they themselves pray and rejoice over every converted sinner (Luke 15:10). Why not allow that the saints can learn about our situations, about our needs and prayers to them through these heavenly messengers? Finally, and this is the most important thing, the saints in heaven stand together with the angels at the throne of the omniscient Lord. But “is it possible not to know (our conditions and needs) those who see Him who sees and knows everything?” - says St. Grigory Dvoeslov. “We believe and confess that the angels and saints, who have become as it were angels (according to the Savior’s words - they are equal to the angels - Luke 20:36), in the infinite light of God, see our needs” (Eastern Patr. 8). There is evidence that the saints, living in heaven, really know what is happening on earth. Thus, in the Savior’s parable about the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham is portrayed as knowing what is happening on earth when he says to the rich man: Let your brothers and sisters, who lived long after Abraham, listen to them (Luke 16:29). Moses and Elijah, having appeared to I. Christ during His transfiguration, talked with Him about His suffering and death (Matthew 17:3), which shows. that they knew about the work of saving people that had begun on earth through the incarnation of the Son of God (fn. Rev. 6:10–11). III. The Church of Christ, starting from the times of the apostles, recognized as undoubted the prayerful intercession of the Mother of God and St. saints of God for the brothers living on earth, and therefore, along with prayers to God, as the king of heaven and earth and the Giver of all blessings to creatures, she also addressed prayers to the saints (see the rites of the ancient liturgies). Against the iconoclasts, who revealed a negative attitude towards the universal custom of the church to call upon saints in prayers, the fathers of the VIII Ecumenical Council laid down: “if anyone does not confess that all the saints who have existed from all eternity and have pleased God, both before the law and under the law and under grace, are worthy before Him in soul and body, or does not ask for the prayers of the saints, as having permission to intercede for the world, Church tradition, anathema." This belief of the Ecumenical Church is invariably maintained by both the Orthodox Church, Eastern and Roman Catholicism, and is preserved to this day in the Christian societies that have separated from the Ecumenical Church since ancient times, such as the Nestorian, Abyssinian, Coptic and Armenian. IV. Reformation of the 16th century rebelled against the prayerful invocation of saints, so that Protestantism’s denial of this truth constituted one of its distinctive religious features. It seemed to Protestants that saints, called upon in prayers as intermediaries between God and man, would obscure the direct relationship of believers to their Redeemer. Having rejected on this basis the prayerful invocation of the saints, one part of the followers of the Reformation, namely the Lutherans, rejected only the relevance and benefit of our prayers to the saints for their intercession for us before God, but admit that angels and saints pray in general for us (Conf. aug. p. I, art. XXI; Apol. conf. ad. art. XXI), while other Reformed people reject both, i.e. not only the relevance and benefit our prayers to the saints, but also the intercession of the saints for us (Gallic. conf. art. XXIV). Views of the reformers of the 16th century. The Anglican Church (XXII members) has also accepted the calling of saints. Under the influence of Protestantism, many Russian sectarians (Dukhobors, Molokans, Stundists) hold the same views. It is objected to the prayerful invocation of saints that in Scripture there is no direct commandment about the invocation of saints who have passed away from this life. True, there is no direct commandment about this in Scripture, but it states that turning to the saints with prayer is in accordance with the will of God, that they themselves pray for us, that the prayer of a righteous person can achieve much, and this is sufficient reason to ask the departed saints to intercede for us before God. There is in St. Scriptures and an example for calling saints who have passed away from this life. Thus, St. David in his prayer: Lord God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, our father (1 Chronicles 29; 18: fn. Dan. 3:35; Ps. 131:10), remembers those who have passed away from this life, just as now the Orthodox Church calls on Christ, our true God, through the prayers of His Most Pure Mother and all the saints. They further point out that there is only one intercessor for God and men—Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 2:5; cf. 1 John 2:1; Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:22–25), and therefore to seek the prayerful intercession of the saints means to belittle the dignity of the intercessor I. Christ, to assume His intercession is insufficient. But the apostle, calling I. Christ the only intercessor (μεσίτης - mediator), immediately adds: who gave himself for the redemption of all (v. 6), i.e., that I. Christ is the one and only intercessor in the sense that He is the Redeemer of the human race from sin, curse and death; no atonement could be accomplished by man or angel. But the unity of such an intercessor-mediator does not exclude the intercession of the saints before the heavenly Father in the name of the One who intercedes for everyone with His blood, and before him Himself, just as the unity of the heavenly Father does not exclude the earthly fathers, the unity of Christ as a mentor and teacher - earthly mentors and teachers. They say that the saints are not omniscient, not omnipotent and not omnipresent, therefore, they cannot know our prayers pronounced in the heart, nor grant us what we ask of them, nor be in all the places where they will be called upon. True, omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence are the properties of God. But knowing what is happening on earth does not mean having omniscience; angels constantly serve our salvation and know what is happening on earth, but do not possess omniscience. In the same way, saints can know our needs and prayers, without being omniscient themselves, from the Omniscient. Saints do not possess omnipotence, but they can fulfill our requests and provide the necessary help not on their own, but according to the will of God and the power of divine grace living in them, just as during their earthly life they provided such help to their neighbors by the power of God that dwelt in them. Of course, saints are not omnipresent, but by the grace of God they can appear where they are needed. It happened that even during their earthly life, the righteous, not embarrassed by the conditions of space, miraculously appeared in places where their presence was needed (Acts 8:39–40; Dan.14:36); all the more can glorified saints who have renounced the bonds of the body come to help everywhere. The calling of saints, they further object, is supposedly an imitation of the pagans, who turned with prayers instead of one God to many gods. Just as the pagans asked one of their gods for bread, from another for wine, from a third for honey, etc., so it is as if they were idolaters, calling upon saints in prayers and asking one saint for a safe voyage (St. Nicholas), from another for the healing of illnesses (from St. Panteleimon and Anthony), from a third for deliverance from unexpected death (the Great Martyr Barbara), etc. But to equate the calling of saints with idolatry is to affirm a clear inconsistency. Pagan gods are imaginary gods, which is why all the pagans’ appeals to them were in vain. Christian saints are real beings, friends of God. The pagans asked for benefits from their gods, as independent rulers and givers of benefits, and Christians recognize the Creator and Provider of the world as the source and giver of benefits, while the saints pray to be only our intercessors and representatives before God, who through their intermediary prayers can ask for His divine help for us. Therefore, in the prayers themselves, appeals to God are expressed differently, and to the saints differently. As for the belief in the special grace-filled help of famous saints and hence the custom of asking for help from above in some cases from some saints, in others from others, then there is nothing pagan or generally reprehensible in this. In the plant kingdom, different herbs have different powers to heal different ailments. And in the kingdom of grace there is a division of gifts (1 Cor 12:4-11). This also applies to examples of receiving God’s help in some cases from some saints, in others from others. It can be assumed that the law of the kingdom of grace is in effect here, according to which the Lord Christ Himself suffered, He Himself was tempted, i.e. came into contact with our temptations, deeds, sufferings, so that he would help those who were tempted (Heb. 2:18), just as in our experience, the victim himself sympathizes and sympathizes with those who suffer all the more deeply, zealously and constantly practicing in a certain feat or virtue, he sympathizes more deeply and sympathizes with others in a similar feat. Contributed to the formation of belief in the gracious help of some saints in some cases, others in others, no doubt, and the stories of the lives of saints. These legends encouraged fervent prayer with faith and love in certain cases for famous saints; fervent prayer was accompanied by the fulfillment of what was asked through this saint, which affirmed and affirmed the very faith in various saints as helpers in certain needs. There is no need, they also say, to turn to the saints in prayer because Christians can offer their prayers directly to God, and I. Christ also gave a model of prayer (“Our Father”). But turning to God in prayer does not exclude the appropriateness of turning to the saints, so that they also pray to God for us, for God listens more to the saints than to those who remain in sin, just as prayer to God and, in general, prayers for each other do not exclude. The difference between the veneration of saints and the veneration of God. – Holy Scripture about the need to venerate the saints. – Preservation of this veneration by the Church. – Prayerful invocation of saints. The veneration of saints is expressed in the Orthodox Church in the reverent recollection of their exploits and deeds, with the aim of imitating them, in the glorification of their holiness, in festivals in their honor, in the construction of churches in the name of the saints, the lighting of lamps and burning incense in front of their images, etc. Calling for such veneration, the church teaches to venerate the saints not as any gods, but only as faithful ones servants and friends of God who became saints with the help of God’s grace, why this veneration is, on the one hand, the glorification of God, who is wondrous in His saints (Ps. 67:36), and on the other hand, the glorification of the saints themselves, as “living images of God.” Although such veneration of saints has a religious character, it is obviously not identical with the worship and service that should be rendered to the one Creator and Lord. This difference in the Greek language is expressed in the very names of both venerations: service befitting only the divine nature is denoted by the word λατρεία - divine worship, divine veneration, and the veneration of saints is called “venerable worship” (τίμητηχή προσκύνησις - in the creed of the VII Ecumenical Council; cf. Heb. 11:21), service (δουλεία). I. The veneration of the saints is presupposed by the general meaning and spirit of the teaching of the revelation of God. Saints are “living images of God” - His holiness and other perfections, to which likeness to God all people should strive. As a result, they are especially pleasing to God (Proverbs 11:20); they are friends of God (Ps. 139:17), friends of Christ (John 15:14). And if it is natural for a person to highly value the good and holy, then it is clear that the highest and perfect bearers and examples of holiness and goodness, worthy of glorification by God Himself, should be revered by those who belong to the same body of the Church of Christ as the saints glorified by God. Given in St. The Scriptures contain positive suggestions that the saints are worthy of our veneration, and examples of their veneration are also indicated, although it does not contain a directly expressed commandment to venerate the saints. In Old Testament times, pious people honored the righteous not only during their earthly life, for example, Ave. Nathan revered David (1 Kings 1:23), Obadiah bowed to Ave. Elijah (18:17), the sons of the prophets bowed to the ground to the faithful servant and friend of God Elisha (2 Kings 2:15), but also after their death. The righteous will be remembered forever (Ps. 111:6), David sang. The memory of the righteous will be blessed, the name of the wicked will be detested (Proverbs 10:7). And the Jews sacredly preserved the memory of their righteous, as can be seen from the fact that with special care they built the tombs of the prophets and decorated the monuments of the righteous (Matthew 23:29). The New Testament speaks of the veneration of saints in the same sense. The Savior said to the apostles: you are naturally my friends (John 15:14). Those who accept you, accept me; and those who accept Me, accept Him who sent Me (Matthew 10:40); sweep you away, Me is swept away; Discard Me, the one who sent Me will be rejected (Luke 10:16). He said about honoring prophets and righteous people: accept a prophet in the name of the prophet, he accepts the reward of the prophet; and he who receives the righteous in the name of the righteous, accepts the reward of the righteous (Matthew 10:41). Ap. Paul teaches: glory, honor and peace to everyone who does good (Rom. 2:10; cf. 2 Tim 5:17), and therefore commands: remember your teachers who spoke the word of God to you, and looking at the end of their lives, imitate their faith (Heb. 13:7). The Most Blessed Virgin Mary Herself spoke about the future glorification of Her by the Christian race: behold, from now on all generations will bless Me (Luke 1:48). To honor the saints, even if they have departed from this life, but who are alive and glorified by God, according to the meaning and spirit of revealed teaching, thus constitutes the sacred duty of believers living on earth. II. In the Christian Church, the veneration of saints, as the fulfillment of this sacred duty, has become a custom from the very first days of its existence. According to Ap. Paul, the New Testament church, beginning its existence, had its heavenly members, along with angels, and a countless host of Old Testament righteous people who had achieved perfection (Heb. 12:22–24). At the head of this triumphant council stood, so memorable to the first members of the church, the great John, the Forerunner of the Lord. Higher and brighter than all the saints, both angels and people, the glory of the blessed Virgin Mary shone in the church. After the Old Testament righteous patriarchs and prophets, the firstborn of the New Testament church appeared, whose names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20), - St. apostles. They preceded the numerous host of St. martyrs and martyrs. The seer John, who wrote the book of revelation after the other eleven apostles had already suffered martyrdom, saw before the throne and before the Lamb a great multitude of people in white robes and with palm branches in their hands, who washed their clothes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 7:9, 13-15), that is, they were clothed with angelic light. All these holy firstborns of the New Testament church - the apostles and martyrs, together with the Old Testament righteous, the Mother of the Lord and the great Forerunner, were unanimously recognized as saints and awarded the crown of glory in heaven, and therefore their glorification and veneration in the Earthly Church began very early. The glorification of the Mother of God was inextricably linked with the glorification of I. Christ Himself. Along with Her special remembrance in the most ancient liturgies there is also a reverent remembrance of the Forerunner. patriarchs, prophets and martyrs. Since ancient times, it has become a custom to venerate other deceased holy men and women - hierarchs or saints, whose lives, especially in the first centuries, were filled with special labors and dangers, ascetics, pious kings and queens, and in general all the deceased whom the church recognized as saints. III. Opponents of the prayerful invocation of saints also reject the religious veneration of saints. Protestants, in particular, instead of religious veneration of saints, kept for themselves, as useful, the so-called. civil honoring (cultus civilis) of saints as remarkable historical figures and figures. They argue that the saints should be spoken of with respect and reverence, their deeds and merits should be remembered with gratitude in order to imitate them, but there should be no religious honoring of them, church celebrations in honor of their festivals, the construction of churches in their name, etc. Religious veneration of saints is brought closer to them and is even directly called idolatry. Various arguments are presented to justify this view, but in fact they do not justify it. Religious veneration of saints, they say, is directly excluded and prohibited by the commandment; Let there be no gods for you except Me (Ex. 20:3). Fear the Lord your God, and serve Him alone (Deut. 6:13; fn. Is. 42:8; 1 Tim. 1:17). But the commandment of God was given to the Jews, who had already been and had relations with the pagans who deified the creation. With the commandment, God instilled in the Jews that they should confess Him alone as God, so that in the created realm of objects they should not have a single one who would be recognized as God and revered as God (in Deut. 5 - let there be no gods for you before Me). But the saints are not given divine worship, but only as the most worthy servants of God. They also point to the example of AP. Peter, who rejected Cornelian worship with the words: Arise, and I am man myself (Acts 10:25–26), and for the event described in the Apocalypse. Ev. John fell at the feet of the angel, who showed him the future, but the angel said: see, don’t do this; For I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who have the testimony of Jesus; Worship God (19, 10; 22, 8–9). Ho up. Peter rejected the worship of Cornelius because Cornelius the pagan fell at his feet, considering him to be a higher being, i.e., he wanted to offer divine worship. And the apostles Paul and Barnabas did not accept the divine honor that the pagans wanted to give them in Lystra, after healing the lame man by them, mistaking them for gods (Acts 14:6-18). John's rejection is explained by the humility of the angel, or, as others think, by the fact that John mistook the angel for the Lord Jesus and wanted to give him divine worship. On the contrary, the leader of the army of the Lord, who appeared to Joshua near Jericho, did not forbid him to worship to the ground, but ordered him to take off his sandals, for this place was sanctified by the presence of the messenger of God (Joshua 5:14–15). Finally, as for the general identification or rapprochement of religious veneration of saints with idolatry, this is blasphemy and slander against the church and the venerators of the saints. “The saints are venerable,” says I. Damascene, “not by their nature. We worship them because God glorified them and made them terrible for enemies and benefactors for those who come to them in faith; We worship them not as gods and benefactors by nature, but as servants and servants of God, who have boldness towards God, out of our love for Him: we worship them because the king himself respects himself when he sees that the person he loves is being revered, not as a king, but as an obedient servant and a friend well-disposed towards him” (Sk. 3 on icons). § 133. Veneration of the relics of St. saints of God Miracles revealed by holy relics. – Forms of veneration of holy relics. - Objections to those who reject the veneration of holy relics. I. Honoring the saints who have moved with their souls to heaven, the Orthodox Church at the same time honors their relics or bodies, if it pleases God to preserve them incorruption and glorify them with miracles. This veneration is expressed in the establishment of holidays on the days of the discovery of St. relics and transferring them from one city or region to another, reverently collecting and storing them, and building St. churches and altars and placement in the churches themselves, the use of antimensions with St. relics, lighting candles in front of them (the relics), burning incense, kissing and worshiping. The primary reason and motivation for reverently honoring the relics of St. God's saints are served by the visible action of God's power, manifested in the removal of the bodies of saints (sometimes more or less whole bodies, sometimes just bones) from the universal law of corruption. It is incongruous with the spirit and meaning of Christian teaching and in general to have a contemptuous attitude towards the body, not only of a living, but also of a dead Christian person. The bodies of Christians are not only organs for the soul, churches of the soul, but temples of the Holy Spirit, churches of the Lord I. Christ, members of Christ, becoming such through the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and communion. These bodies will rise and unite with souls on the day of the general resurrection of the dead. On this basis, the bodies of all deceased Christians are escorted to the grave with such honors. The bodies of saints, in particular, are vessels of the grace of the Holy Spirit, the flesh and blood of Christ, are sanctified and permeated with the power of Christ, just as a vessel in which a fragrant ointment is stored for a long time borrows from it the power of fragrance. With this power, during the saints’ own deeds, their bodies are cleansed from sin during their lifetime - the causes of death and corruption, and by this same power they are preserved from corruption after death. Hence, religious veneration of the incorruptible remains of saints is actually veneration of the power of Christ, manifested in the incorruption of bodies that are Christ’s. The new basis and motivation for honoring the remains of saints is God’s glorification of the relics of St. saints of God with miracles and signs. The history of the church presents many miracles performed at all times from the relics of St. saints of God, who are still being performed today. “The Lord Christ gave us the relics of the saints,” says St. I. Damascus, like saving springs that exude many different benefits... Through the relics of saints, demons are cast out, diseases are repelled, the weak are healed, the blind receive their sight, lepers are cleansed, temptations and sorrows cease, and every good gift from the Father of lights descends on those who ask with undoubted faith" (Exact. Ill. c. IV, 15. Sn. Cat. 9 members). Veneration of the relics of St. saints of God in the Christian Church - a testament of ancient times. From the very first times of the church, believers carefully preserved the remains of St. John the Baptist, the apostles, and during times of persecution the bodies and torn members of St. The martyrs were buried with honor and divine services, mainly the liturgy, were going to be performed at their graves. Hence the universal and most ancient custom of placing St. altars of the relics of the martyrs and the use of antimensions for the celebration of the Eucharist, which contain a particle of the relics. With the end of the persecution of Christians, from the 4th century. honoring St. the relics became open and received their own specific ecclesiastical character. When the relics were discovered, they were usually placed in churches, where they were given a place even under the altar on which a bloodless sacrifice was made. Churches (μαρτύρια, memoriae martyrum) were erected over the bodies and remains of the martyrs in cemeteries, which then served as a tomb for those who wished to lie near the martyrs. The opening and transfer of the relics was accompanied by special church ritual solemnity, and many conversations on the occasion of the transfer of the relics have been preserved from the fathers and teachers of the church - Chrysostom, Vasily V. and others. In the decrees of the VII Ecumenical Council there is such a definition of the veneration of St. relics: “Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the relics of the saints, as sources of salvation, pouring out blessings in various ways on the weak... Those who dared to reject... the relics of martyrs, about whom they knew that they were genuine and true: if they are bishops or clergy, let them be deposed, and if they are monks and laymen, let them be deprived of communion.” II. At all times there have been, and still are, opponents of the veneration of St. relics, mainly the same ones who rejected both prayerful veneration and invocation of saints. In particular, the denial of the veneration of relics is still a religious feature of Protestantism. Those who reject this veneration recognize it as contrary to Scripture, bring it closer to idolatry, call it superstition, a source of all kinds of abuses, etc., and according to some of them, the incorruption of relics itself is not a miracle, but a natural phenomenon. But all such reasoning and assumptions must be rejected as unfounded or outright false. They point out that in Scripture not only is the veneration of relics nowhere commanded, but there is also evidence unfavorable for such veneration, for example, that in the Old Testament the remains of people were always buried and were never taken out of the ground for veneration (Gen. 49:29; 50, 26), that God Himself, having given the body of Moses to burial, left his grave unknown ( Deut.34:6), that the Savior strongly reproached the Jewish scribes and Pharisees for their zeal to build tombs for the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous (Matthew 23:29), that Christians buried the body of the first martyr Stephen with great weeping, but without veneration (Acts 8:2). True, there is no direct commandment about the veneration of relics in Scripture, but it is commanded to honor God, and the veneration of St. relics are essentially a celebration of God Himself, whose omnipotent power was and is manifested in the visible remains of the saints. As for references to St. Scripture, it is not surprising that in Old Testament times all those who died were buried - such was the will of God for this (Gen. 3:19). In the Old Testament there was not a single righteous person in a state of glorification (Heb. 11:39–40), and there was no time to honor the remains of the saints, for the body of the Author and Finisher of faith Himself was not glorified through the resurrection (Heb. 12:2). In addition, the Jewish people were very prone to idolatry. To give him the opportunity to venerate the relics of saints and their other remains would mean giving him a reason to deify or deify them. This is also the reason that Moses was not brought into the land. the promised one and his burial place remained unknown. The Savior, in His accusatory speech against the scribes and Pharisees, denounced them not for the fact that they built tombs of the prophets and decorated the monuments of the righteous, but because they, by doing this and thereby condemning their fathers for killing the prophets and righteous people, were themselves heirs of the spirit of their fathers - the murderers of the prophets and righteous people, having, like them, in their thoughts to kill Him Himself. In the same way, if the remains of the first martyr Stephen were not given the veneration at his burial that was later given to them, then they did so because the will of God for the veneration of his remains was not yet given, as it was given later. The veneration and worship of relics, they say, is the honoring of soulless and insensitive objects, and this is useless and is even a special kind of idolatry. To this end, it is enough to note that the bones of St. Elisha, from the touch of which the dead man was resurrected (2 Kings 13, 21), and the mantle of St. Elijah, which he left for St. Elisha and divided the waters of the Jordan with his touch, so that the prophet crossed over the dry bottom (5, 14; sn. 8 v.), the handkerchief and apron of the apostle. Paul, who in his absence relied on the sick and demon-possessed and healed the sick and cast out evil spirits (Acts 19:12), were also soulless. The remains of saints are imbued with the grace-filled power of God. It is this power that performs various healings through St. relics, why the denial of veneration of relics is actually a denial of the coexistent and acting through them of the power of God. Opponents of the veneration of St. relics usually reject the very miraculousness of the incorruption of holy relics, explaining this phenomenon by natural causes. They think they can see confirmation of this in cases of long-term preservation from decay of bodies that were after death in favorable natural conditions that did not belong to saints (for example, the body of the Protestant Duke de Croix in Reval). But the church never recognized St. the power of the incorruptible human body only because it is incorruptible. Miracles serve as evidence of the holiness of the relics. Whether the body of the deceased is preserved due to favorable physical conditions, or is this a matter of special consideration of God, but unless there is confirmation by miracles and signs of the holiness of the remains, they are not holy. power. This is why the bodies of some of the deceased, who even bore the high priestly rank and died in faith and piety, although they are preserved incorruption, however, on this basis alone they are not canonized as saints 60 . It is also unfounded in itself to explain the incorruption of the bodies of saints by the action of natural forces and causes, known and unknown to us. The incorrupt bodies of God's saints were found in various places, often very favorable to decay, in moist air and earth, under the influence of heat, they were even found in rivers and seas. Supplied upon acquisition in churches, transferred from place to place, enduring frequent contact from reverent admirers, they, however, not only remain incorruptible for centuries and even millennia, but some of them retain their natural appearance so much that they are distinguished by the softness and flexibility of their members. One of the most remarkable phenomena of this kind is presented to us by the incorruptible relics of St. Spyridon, Bishop of Trimythous, preserved for more than 1500 years. Of those who are in Russia, St. relics one can especially point to the relics of St. Gleb Prince, son of Andrei Bogolyubsky, located in Vladimir. Finally, they point out that the veneration of relics opens the door to various abuses and deceptions. History, they say, testifies to cases of abuse of faith in the relics of saints and their other remains. To deny the possibility and reality of such abuses would, of course, be unfair. But people can abuse everything, not excluding the greatest shrine. They, for example, speak the same language, according to the apostle. James, they bless God and curse people created in the image of God (James 3:9). Does it follow from this that it is better to deprive people of this great gift? The abuse of relics and other remains must be punished and corrected, just as such abuses are punished by our laws; the relics themselves, no matter how much they are abused by ill-intentioned people, must always remain sacred to us. § 134. Veneration of St. icons An explanation of what veneration of holy icons means. – The gracious help revealed through them. – Images of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, angels and saints. – Reasons for their depiction. – Reverent honoring of holy icons. – Objections to opponents of icon veneration. Honoring the remains of saints, the church at the same time reverently uses and honors their sacred images or icons, along with images of the Lord and God Himself. The veneration of icons, as well as the relics of saints, is expressed in veneration before them, kissing them, lighting lamps before them, censing, special festivities on the days of the appearance and discovery of miraculous icons, etc. Of course, at the same time, the church teaches to venerate and honor not the substance from which they are made, and not the paints, but to attribute veneration to the persons depicted (Last. Eastern Patriarch. Appendix. Reply to question 3. Correct. III part. Answer to question 55). Sacred images constitute a necessary accessory of all Orthodox churches and, as a result, serve as a constant and understandable message for all visitors to Orthodox churches to preach to the church about the unity of the Heavenly Church with the Earthly Church. Their use in private homes is also a constant reminder for believers of living and close communication with those depicted on the icons. I. In the Orthodox Church of St. icons of two kinds: on some of them and the largest part of them are depicted the faces of St. angels and saints men of God, and on others the triune God or one of the persons of the Most Holy Trinity is depicted: Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit. In St. In the Scriptures, the basis for the use and reverent honoring of angels and holy men of God is given in examples of the use and honoring, at the command of God, of images of cherubim. Images of cherubim were placed by Moses in the tabernacle of meeting, or in a portable church, built in the image indicated by God to Moses on the mountain (Ex. 25:40; Heb. 8, 5). The main shrine in the Tabernacle of Testimony was the gold-bound Ark of the Covenant, located in the Holy of Holies (the same as the altar in a Christian church). On the top lid, made of pure gold, which covered the ark and was called the atonement, two cherubim of hammered gold were placed (along the edges of the lid) and strengthened. The Lord God revealed himself to Moses and spoke to him above the mercy seat among the two cherubim (Ex. 25:17–22; Heb. 9:1–5). On the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the sanctuary, images of cherubim were also made (Ex. 26:31). This curtain with cherubs corresponds to our iconostasis. The tabernacle, instead of a roof and walls, had four curtains, lying one on top of the other; On the fine linen inner curtain and on the inside there were also cherubim made of skillful work (Ex. 26:1; 36, 8). Their images correspond to the images of saints on the walls and domes of Christian churches. In Solomon's Temple there were even more images of cherubs. Christian images of the cohabitants of angels and holy men close to God also have exact similarities with these Old Testament sacred images. If the use of sacred images was displeasing to God, or inconsistent with the Christian religion, then, undoubtedly, I. Christ and the apostles would have mentioned this. Meanwhile, I. Christ never expressed His condemnation of either the church or its sacred belongings; on the contrary, He guarded the holiness of the church with its objects, as a house of prayer and the house of His Father (Luke 19, 46; John 2:16-17). Likewise, the apostles often went to church to preach and pray, and through this they declared in action that in Christian churches it is appropriate and permissible to use sacred images, images not only of cherubim, but also of angels and holy men in general, standing with the angels at the throne of the Lamb. Images of the Divine are used in the Christian Church with images of angels and holy people. God the Father is depicted in the form of the Old Testament (Dan.7:9; cf. Rev.4:2-3), the Son of God - in human form, as a baby, a youth and a man of mature age, the Holy Spirit - in the form of a dove, and His spiritual gifts - in the form of tongues of fire. In the Old Testament there were no images of the Godhead like Christian images. God did not reveal himself to the entire Jewish people, due to the tendency of this people to idolatry, in any bodily form, and therefore the image of the Divine was impossible. The mystery of the Holy Trinity has also not been revealed in clear light. During the legislation at Sinai, God revealed His presence to this people not in a specific form, but in flame, smoke, thunder and lightning, so that the people retreated from the mountain in fear and stood afar off (Ex. 19:16-17; Deut. 4:10-16). Instead of an image of the face of God, the Jews were given an image of the name of God (Ex. 28:36–38). But in the face of I. Christ, God appeared in the flesh and we saw His glory, glory as the Only Begotten of the Father. Being the radiance of glory and the image of the Father’s hypostasis, He showed in Himself the image of the Father, the invisible God. Seeing Me, in the form of the Father, He said (John 14:8). Likewise, the Holy Spirit was revealed when it descended on I. Christ during baptism in a bodily form, like a dove (Luke 3:22), and on the apostles - in the form of tongues of fire (Acts 2:3). Such revelations and appearances of God to people in the New Testament actually showed that the time had come and people were mature enough to honor Him through icons. While forbidding the Jewish people to depict God in a certain image, so that they would not compare Him with the pagan gods, the Old Testament, however, prepared people for the introduction of images of the Divine into the temples of God. Thus, in the Old Testament, at the command of God, Moses made a material image or prototype of the Son of God, I. Christ, who was hanging on the tree of the cross (John 3:14–15). It was the brass serpent in the desert (Numbers 21:4–9). This showed that the commandment of the Old Testament about not making images of the Divine had an unconditional meaning for the Jews and was subject to change (Heb. 7:12). There was also a special kind of image of God in general in the Old Testament. Thus, the ark of the covenant was nothing more than a visible image of the presence of the invisible God. When they lifted the ark on its way, Moses (addressing the ark) said: Arise, Lord, and Your enemies will scatter, and those who hate You will flee from Your face! And when the ark stopped, he said: Return, O Lord, to the thousands and thousands of Israel! (Numbers 10:35–36). I will dance before the Lord... “I will play and dance before the Lord,” said David in response to the reproach of Saul’s daughter Michal for dancing in front of the ark of the covenant (2 Kings 6:21; cf. Josh. 6:5–7; 2 Kings 18:22, etc.). Before the ark of the covenant, as an image of the presence of God, the Jews worshiped: lift up the Lord our God and worship His footstool, that is, the ark of the covenant of the Lord, as it is holy, said St. David (Ps. 98:5; sn. 1 Chron. 28, 2), as they generally worshiped the church of the Lord with its shrines and images ( 2 Kings 12, 20; Ps.5:8). Likewise, at the command of the Lord, incense was burned and lamps were lit over the ark (Exodus 30:7–8; fn. 40:5). In the Christian Church, the use and veneration of icons began in ancient times. Thus, according to ancient church tradition, the first Christian icon was a miraculous image of the Savior, imprinted directly by I. Christ Himself on a rug or towel, and sent by him to the Ephesian augar (prince). A similar legend considers one of the first icon painters to be St. Luke, who wrote and left icons of the Mother of God, which were handed down with reverence from generation to generation (in our case, the Vladimir icon). Among Christians, sacred images thus began to come into use in the apostolic age. There is no doubt that these images were used in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, despite the persecution of Christians. In view of these persecutions, the use and veneration of icons, of course, could not then be widely developed. Fears of exposing themselves and their icons to the pagans forced Christians to replace direct and clear images with conventional ones - symbolic and allegorical, as evidenced by the monuments of church painting found in the catacombs. The most common of these images were images of the Savior in the guise of a good shepherd, carrying a sheep on His shoulders, in the guise of a fish (ίχθύς), the metal image of which was worn around the neck instead of a cross, in the guise of a lamb, for He took upon Himself the sins of the world, as well as an anchor (a symbol of Christian hope, see Heb. 6:18–19), a peacock (a symbol of immortality), a dove (a symbol of the Holy Spirit who descended on Jesus Christ at baptism), a phoenix, as well as monograms meaning both Christ and the cross on which He was crucified. But besides such images, found in the catacombs (on the walls, on tombs and other objects) preserved from the 2nd and 3rd centuries are other, clear, non-symbolic sacred images of the Savior and events from His earthly life, images of the Mother of God with the baby Jesus and the star above and the Magi worshiping Him, the image of the Annunciation of the Mother of God, as well as images of the Old Testament righteous and events, for example, Abraham bringing the sacrifice of Isaac, Moses pouring out water from a rock, St. Elijah, Jonah spewed out of a whale’s belly, etc. All such images undoubtedly had religious significance among ancient Christians, since they were located in places where leading Christians gathered to perform worship, to make a bloodless sacrifice. From the 4th century already openly everywhere, not only in churches and Christian homes, but also in some remarkable places, sacred images of both the Lord and His saints began to appear in significant numbers. Newly built churches were carefully decorated with sacred images. The fathers of the VIIth Ecumenical Council drew up the following, mandatory for church members of all times, definition of faith on the veneration of St. icons: “without introducing anything new, we inviolably preserve all church traditions, approved in writing or not in writing... Following the divine teaching of our holy fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church... we determine that St. and honest icons were offered (for veneration) in the same way as the image of an honest life-giving cross, whether they would be painted with paints, or made of mosaics, or some other substance, and whether they would be in the holy. Churches of God on consecrated vessels and garments, on walls and on tablets, or in houses and along roads, and equally whether these will be icons of the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Lady Theotokos, or honest angels and all saints and righteous men.” The same council determined: “those who call sacred icons idols are anathema.” Icon veneration, therefore, has solid foundations both in the teaching of the word of God and in the teaching and example of the Universal Church. To the reverent honor of St. icons motivate Christians and miracles performed by God Himself through St. icons. If the veneration of St. icons were contrary to the will of God, then, of course, the Lord would not perform signs and wonders through them. Some icons of Christ the Savior, His Most Pure Mother, St. Nicholas and other saints of God, due to the abundance of miracles performed by them, have been known since ancient times as miraculous. Finally, the naturalness and beneficial nature of the use and veneration of icons is clear from the following simple considerations. If, by the natural inclination of the heart, it is common for a person to desire to have images of loved ones and respected persons due to the impossibility of seeing them in person, then is it not natural for Christians to have images of the Lord, His Mother, angels and holy people and to give them proper honor, rising in thought from the image to the prototype? At the same time, icons remind us of the countless blessings of the Lord and His saints to us, of those high deeds that we need to imitate. Hence, the veneration of icons can excite and cultivate in us feelings of faith, hope and love. In this regard, the ancient teachers rightly likened icons to books, publicly accessible and understandable to everyone, written instead of letters with faces and things. II. Icon veneration had opponents in ancient times, and it still has them today. In the 8th century, the Greek iconoclast emperors even launched a cruel persecution against the worshipers of St. icons From the time of the restoration of icon veneration under Empress Theodora and until the advent of the reformation of the 16th century. Only sectarians who had fallen away from the church (Petrobrusians, Kafars, Paulicians, Bogomils and Wyclefites) rebelled against icon veneration. But in Protestantism, the denial of the veneration of icons still constitutes its distinctive feature from other Christian confessions. The use of sacred images in churches and private homes to decorate them, to remind them of the events of sacred and church history, according to Protestants, may be permissible and may be useful, but there should be no religious veneration of icons. Various kinds of sectarians (Stundists, Doukhobors, Molokans, etc.) reject the appropriateness of such use of icons. In their justification, both ancient and modern opponents of icon veneration pointed out and point out mainly that the use and veneration of icons is prohibited by the second commandment of the Mosaic Decalogue (Ex. 20:4). But understanding this commandment in the sense of prohibiting the veneration of icons, while identifying icons with idols, is incorrect. True, according to the meaning of this commandment, read as part of the speech, Jehovah, the God of covenant and revelation, should not be represented or depicted in the form of an idol, statue (glorified idol, Hebrew phesel - sculptured idol, graven image; in the LXX - εϊδωλον) and under other forms and images ("every likeness" Heb. temuna - image, appearance, LXX - ομοίωμα; sn. Deut.4:15; Ps.16:15), which are a reproduction of the heavenly lights (in the heavens), people, cattle, birds, creeping things (in the waters under the earth). No. The prohibition to make images of Jehovah in the Old Testament was based on the fact that He is invisible, that when giving commandments to the Jewish people on the mountain, He did not appear to them in any visible form, so that the Jews, prone to sensuality and idolatry, would not liken Him to pagan gods and would instead begin to imagine Him as a corporeal and limited being 61 . But in the New Testament, in the face of I. Christ, all the fullness of the physical Divinity was revealed; there were revelations of the triune God on the Jordan, on Tabor, on the day of Pentecost, in the visions of John the Theologian (Ap 4 and 5 ch.). As for the identification of icons with idols or idols, this is deliberate blasphemy against St. icons. Idols or idols are images of pagan deities, but the gods of the pagans are not gods, but inventions of a person who deified the creature instead of the Creator. Icons are images of the true God, in the form in which He deigned to reveal Himself to people (the appearance of the Divine, but not His essence) and His saints, who at one time lived on earth and now live in heaven. Paganism is condemned not for the use of images of the Divine in general, but for the depiction of imaginary or false gods. Not only that, in the ancient pagan world, at least in some part of it, soulless gold, silver and stone images of idols were not only called “gods” in themselves, but were often completely recognized as gods (Prem Sol 13, 10; 14, 8; 15, 15; Isa.44:15-17; Dan.14:3-6), so that when worshiping them, they said, for example, to a tree: “You are my father,” and to a stone, “You gave birth to me” (Jer. 2:27). Veneration of icons in the same sense would, of course, also be a kind of idolatry, but it has a different meaning. From here it is clear that the second commandment of the Law of Moses about the non-image of the Divine should not be attributed in the New Testament to images of the Trinitarian God, but should be understood in the sense that Christians, firstly, should not worship pagan idols as images of false gods, and secondly, images of the true God should not be revered as the Divinity itself (Catichos 2). Opponents of icon veneration further point out that in the New Testament there is no commandment about the veneration of icons, and the Old Testament laws regarding cherubim have no meaning, for the tabernacle was abolished (Heb. 9: 8–10), and the Jewish church was destroyed. True, there is no commandment in the New Testament to venerate icons, but there is no prohibition in it either. The will of God regarding the veneration of icons is sufficiently expressed in the command to depict cherubim. About what has been abolished and not abolished from the Old Testament institutions, one must ask the Universal Church of Christ, which is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), and not rely on one’s own considerations. The tabernacle, as the church of God, was not abolished in the New Testament, just as the commandment about the image of cherubim could not be abolished, for cherubim still serve as the throne of God’s glory in heaven. Finally, opponents of icon veneration are stubborn non-believers and in relation to those performed by St. icons of miraculous healings and signs. If it is possible and there are miraculous icons, then, they say, why is not every icon miraculous? Why do icons, if sacred, deteriorate over time? Why are even miraculous icons destroyed? But if you believe in miracles in general, there is no reason to doubt the possibility of miracles through icons. According to the testimony of revelation, material objects more than once served as conductors of miraculous power, for example, the ark of the covenant during the passage of the Jews through the Jordan (Joshua 3 and 4) and during their stay in the land of the Philistines (1 Samuel 4–6), the copper serpent during the bite of the Jews by poisonous snakes in the desert (Numbers 21:8–9), the mantle of St. Elijah, dividing the waters of the Jordan, the leaders and Ubrists of the ap. Paul and even the shadow of St. Petra. Why can’t St. and God be such conductors of the miraculous power of God? icons? Not all icons have miraculous power because, of course, this is the will of God. The Lord works miracles where He wants and where He finds it useful. They say that if icons are sacred, then why are they subject to damage and even destruction, not excluding even miraculous ones? But the law of destruction operates the same throughout the entire earthly space and can only be changed by the One who established it. Miracle-working icons may also be destroyed. We must not forget that Christ the Savior Himself was strangled and spat on, crucified and pierced with a spear. § 135. The nature of the Catholic teaching on the church. Dogmas on the primacy of the pope and his infallibility Distortion of the teaching about the properties of the Church by Roman Catholics. - Their teaching about the visible head of the Church - the Pope. - The doctrine of his infallibility. – The essence of these teachings and their exposure. I. Western Christendom, having separated from the living union with the one Catholic Church, ceased to be a church in the strict sense and therefore lost a true understanding of the essence and life of the church. First of all, this was expressed in the Catholic teaching about the church. The basis of the Roman Catholic teaching about the church is a one-sided, purely human view of the church as a worldwide earthly church monarchy, in which the highest human power is covered by divine authority or authority. The church here primarily means only the members of the church living on earth and its visible rulers, headed by a single monarch of the church - the pope, who supposedly possesses exceptional powers of grace and even the gift of infallibility. Here the earthly church is deliberately and immoderately isolated from the Heavenly one - the thought of heaven and eternity, of angels and deceased brethren in Christ is pushed into the background, and although the primacy of Christ in the church is not rejected, more is said about the earthly head of the church - in order to justify the doctrine of the need for the Earthly church to have a special visible head - the pope, for which (the visible church) it is dissatisfied with one head - Christ, which is sufficient for the Church of Heaven. The view of the church as an ecclesiastical monarchy, with a monarch at the head, is reflected in the entire visible structure of the Western Church, in church discipline and in the entire structure and structure of the spiritual life of believers in Christ. Thus, the main and most important error of Latinism, which determines all the features of the Roman Catholic teaching about the church, is the doctrine of the primacy of the Roman bishop - the pope and his personal infallibility. II. The visible church, Catholicism teaches, needs a visible head, just as an earthly state needs a supreme monarch, and since the church is an eternal divine institution, the church monarch must also be invested with higher, divine powers. Such a monarch, the head of the church with divine powers, is the Pope. This idea is revealed and justified as follows. The Lord I. Christ, who during His earthly life was the visible head of the church He founded, after His ascension to heaven remains forever its invisible head. But so that the church would not remain without a visible head after His ascension into heaven, He appointed the apostle as His vicar. Peter and entrusted to him the fullness of His power over the church. As the Vicar of Christ, St. Peter, after the ascension of I. Christ into heaven, remained the supreme ruler of the church, with authority not only over the entire church, but also over the apostles, and was the only ordinary (ordinarius) guide for the church, according to Christ, of all the grace-filled gifts and rights necessary for it. And how Christ handed over the fullness of His power to the apostle before ascending to heaven. Petru, and ap. Peter transferred the same power to his successor. Such a successor was the supreme high priest (pontifex maximus) of the Roman Church, since the ap. Peter, having chosen Rome as his residence, allegedly served as a bishop here for 25 years and died here. Hence, the Bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ (vicarius Christi) with all the fullness of His power, or, as the popes themselves put it, the vicar of God on earth (Pope Innocent III). Thus, the vicegerency of Christ, or the vicegerency of God, continues successively on earth. The Pope is not only a servant of God, not a steward of the mysteries of God, but, as it were, Christ Himself. He, in the words of Cardinal Bellarmine, is the “vice Deus” on earth. In relation to the church, he is its head with all the fullness of power, the sovereign administrator and dispenser of grace that accomplishes the salvation of believers - the only, exclusive instrument of action of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God acts in the church only through the pope. Only the pope is a bishop in the proper sense (episcopus ecclesiae universalis) and has his power directly from Jesus Christ; all hierarchical persons, not excluding the “princes of the church” - the cardinals who elect the pope himself, are only viceroys, vicars or delegates of the pope. Therefore, the pope is above all councils, even ecumenical ones. The resolutions of the councils receive the force of laws only after their approval by the pope. Without his permission, a council should not be convened, no law should be issued. The power of the pope extends not only to the Earthly Church, but also to the afterlife. He holds the keys of hell, purgatory and heaven; through indulgences, he compensates sinful people for their shortcomings in good deeds, shortens the period of their posthumous purgatory in purgatory and introduces them to paradise. Briefly, in the absence of Christ the Savior, he is the sovereign ruler of His church, and “the church is the slave of the pope” (Cajetan). The falsity and strangeness of the dogma of papal supremacy is obvious to sound Christian reasoning from the simplest considerations. For the church, which has as its head I. Christ Himself, always abiding with it, animated and governed by the Holy Spirit, there is no need for any other head. Christ Himself stands at the door of the heart of every believer, present where two or three are gathered in His name. None of the mortal people can stand, as it were, alongside the Conqueror of death - not only as another independent head of the church, but also as His visible representative or vicegerent, just as no man can be the representative or vicegerent of the omnipotent and all-perfect God in the management of the entire world of God. The Church is the divine body; it cannot have a human head. The Church is holy and immaculate; it cannot have a head, the source of its life, a head subject to weaknesses and vices, and popes have been people not only sinners, but even notorious sinners. The Church is eternal and will endure throughout all generations and centuries (Eph.3:21); it cannot have a mortal man as its head. The Church embraces believers of all centuries, living and dead - the greatest righteous people, apostles, martyrs, high ascetics and teachers of the Christian world. Can its head be a mere mortal, who in intelligence and moral qualities is not superior to the highest holy teachers and Christian ascetics? All the highest, most holy Christians are nothing more than members of the church; the apostles called themselves ministers (διάκονος) of the church (Col. 1:25). Thus, the Catholic Catholics, calling the pope the head of the church, attribute to him the power and honor befitting God alone, that is, they deify a mere mortal man (of course, not realizing all the lies and blasphemy contained in such ideas). The groundlessness of the doctrine of papal supremacy is also revealed from the following. If the pope, as the head of the church, has extraordinary powers, then, the question arises, from whom does he receive these powers? If from the church, then it means that the latter is superior to the pope, who depends on it and, therefore, may be subject to its judgment. But with the recognition of this, the whole doctrine of papal supremacy falls and is destroyed. If we assume that the pope receives his power over the church directly from Christ Himself, then this requires some kind of special sacrament that would gracefully impart this supreme and, one might say, divine power and at the same time serve as confirmation that this power was really transferred by the Savior to the pope. Meanwhile, the church does not know any sacrament that imparts papal power. Papal supremacy is recognized by the Roman Church as a divine institution. Defenders of papism justify this belief on the fact that popes are the successors of the ap. Peter, and Peter was supposedly appointed by I. Christ Himself as His vicar, the head of the church. But the position that ap. Peter was the head of the church, it is not true, and the statement that the popes in their rank of bishops of Rome are the successors of the ap. Petra, not proven. To justify the idea of ​​​​Peter's primacy and his power over the other apostles, they refer to some passages from the Gospel and evidence from the history of the Apostolic Church. The first and most important place is the words of the Savior spoken to Simon, son of Jonah, in response to his confession of Jesus Christ and the Son of the living God: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church... (Matthew 16:16-18). Catholicism invariably understands this metaphor (foundations and buildings) in the sense of the promise to Peter of primacy (principatum) over the entire church, and namely: St. Peter is the rock, the unshakable foundation on which the church is built; the foundation in a building is the same as the head in the body; in the kingdom the sovereign, and, consequently, the apostle. Peter in the spiritual building, that is, the Church, is the supreme prince with full authority over the church. But the words of the Savior do not and cannot have such a meaning. The cornerstone on which this building is established, as well as the single head crowning it, can be called and is solely and exclusively I. Christ Himself (Matt. 21:42–45; Eph. 1:22; 2, 20–22; 1 Pet 2:6–7; 1 Cor. 3:11). The apostles are also called foundations or stones, but secondary foundations, which themselves are established in Christ (Eph. 2:20; Ap. 21:14). As such a secondary basis, ap. Peter is no different from the other apostles and prophets, no higher than them, equal to them. And since Scripture cannot contradict itself, then under the stone in the words of the Savior to St. What Peter should understand is not what the defenders of papal supremacy understand. Of the ancient teachers, most did not mean the ap himself by this stone. Peter, and the confession of Peter - faith in Christ as the Son of God, which became in humanity the solid stone on which the Christian Church was founded, stands to this day and will stand forever. This understanding is consistent with the manner in which the Savior's promise is expressed in the gospel; It does not say: “You are Peter, and on you,” but “You are Peter, (Πέτρος - stone, from πέτρα - stone, rock), and on this stone (επί ταύτη τή πέτρα) I will build My church.” Others of the ancient fathers mean by stone that truth, unshakable, like a rock, which the apostle confessed. Peter, i.e. Christ the Savior Himself. Finally, some attributed the Lord’s saying to Peter, but not as an ordinary person with his weaknesses and limitations (see. Matthew 16:23, where Peter is even called Satan), but as an organ of divine revelation, a firm confessor and witness of Christ. But even calling Peter a stone, they did not assert that Peter constitutes the unshakable foundation of the church, nor did they forget about the other apostles, as the same stones in the building of the Church of Christ, but most of all they remembered Christ Himself. Finally, the words of the Savior speak of the building of the church, and not of the supreme administration of the church, but Christ takes the building of the church to himself (I will build my church), and not to Peter. In the further promise of the Savior: and I will give (δώσω) to you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and even if he is bound on earth, he will be bound in heaven; and even if you have allowed it on earth, it will be allowed in heaven (Article 19), Catholic Catholics also see evidence of the supreme power of the apostle. Peter over the other apostles and the church. Ap. Peter, they reason, was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, that is, the Church. Keys are the power to bind and decide; they are a sign or symbol of the supreme authority over the church, just as the keys of a house or city, given to someone, serve as a symbol of authority over the house or city. Therefore, ap. Peter is the supreme prince of the church; other apostles and shepherds use the same keys that were given to Peter and with his supreme permission. But such an interpretation is unfair. By keys one cannot understand any special power separate from the power to knit and decide. But the same promise about the granting of the power of the keys, which was given to Peter, I. Christ soon after this gave to all the apostles, without distinguishing Peter from the others (Matthew 18:18). In fact, this power was granted after the resurrection of Christ, given to all the apostles to the same extent, without distinguishing the person of Peter from the other apostles, and was given to all of them by the Lord Himself, and not by Peter and not through Peter, precisely when the Lord said to them: receive the Holy Spirit: He will forgive their sins... (John 20:22-23). Further, they deduce the primacy of Peter from the words addressed by the Savior to Peter at the Last Supper: Simone, Simone: behold, Satan asks you, that he may sow you like wheat. I have prayed for you, so that your faith will not fail; and you, once converted, strengthen your brethren (Luke 22:31–32). With these words, they say, the Lord gave a special advantage to the apostle. Peter - to be the leader in faith and the apostles' thoughts of Christians, as the head of the church, endowed with the gift of infallibility. But from the connection of the speech it is clear that there is no thought here about any advantages promised by the apostle. Peter, but there is only a sad warning and prediction about the temptation that awaits him more than the other apostles and about his threefold denial (vv. 33-34), why he needs divine help more than the other disciples, who are also tempted, but to a lesser extent. Finally, in proof of Petrov’s primacy over the other apostles, they refer to the words of the Lord to Peter during the appearance to His disciples after the resurrection on Lake Tiberias: feed My lambs, feed My sheep, feed My sheep (John 21:15-17). The Lord said this after turning to Peter three times with the question: Simone Jonas, do you love Me? They say that the primacy promised to Peter was actually granted to him in these words: he was given supreme power over the entire church, and over the lambs - the simple believers, and over the sheep - over the apostles and their successors; from him the pastors of the church have grace-filled gifts. But such an understanding is completely arbitrary. The Lord’s conversation about tending lambs and sheep has a direct relationship with His conversation at the Last Supper about the temptations awaiting His disciples and about prayer for Peter. The Lord asks Peter three times (calling him by his former name - Simon, and not Peter, as he did not show firmness in the fight against temptation) about love for Himself, so that with a threefold testimony of this love he would atone for the sin of threefold renunciation, and asks (for the first time) about love more than these, that is, the apostles. This question is directly related to Peter’s exaltation over the other apostles: even if everyone is offended because of You, I will never be offended (Matthew 26:33), which is why Simon, having heard the third: Do you love Me, was offended and saddened. And hence, the command to feed the lambs and sheep has the meaning of restoring Peter to apostolic dignity, from which he fell away by threefold renunciation, but which is returned to him as a result of threefold confession. Thus, in the gospel history there is no confirmation that I. Christ gave the apostle. Peter had preferential authority over the church compared to the other apostles. On the contrary, I. Christ strongly rebuked and warned His disciples precisely against the spirit of exaltation, against the desire for advantages (Matthew 20:25–28; John 13:13–15). After the Gospel, Roman theologians in apostolic history try to find confirmation of the view that St. After I. Christ's ascension into heaven, Peter remained the supreme ruler of the church. To prove this, they refer mainly to the first chapters of the book “Acts of the Apostle,” where in other cases the personality of the Apostle. Peter stands out more than the personalities of the other apostles. Peter, for example, is the first to propose electing the 12th apostle to replace the fallen Judas; the first begins the sermon after the descent of the Holy Spirit; the first converts the pagan Cornelius to Christianity; the first speaks at the Apostolic Council. But from the fact that in the first half of the book. “Acts” speaks more about St. Peter, and in the second even more about St. Paul, it does not at all follow that this or that apostle had any superior authority over the others. In fact, all the apostles were equal to each other; questions that arose in the apostolic society were resolved by the unanimous opinion of all of them (chap. 1, 6 and 15). From some cases it is clear that ap. Peter not only did not command, but he himself obeyed the other apostles and was subject to responsibility before them. Thus, he was sent by them to Samaria to lay hands on those who had been baptized (8:14-17); gave an account to the assembly of the apostles and elders that he had baptized the pagan centurion Cornelius; His opinions were not accepted for some time: I argued with him (11, 2). Ap. Paul considered himself, called to apostolic service after the descent of the Holy Spirit, no lower than the other apostles and in a certain case found it necessary to argue with the apostle. Peter and reprove him (Gal. 2:11–16; 1 Cor. 9 ch.). But even if it were proven that the ap. Peter was the head of the apostles and the entire church, how could this relate to the claims of the popes? The papists respond to this with a number of incorrect or untenable propositions. They claim exactly the following. Ap. Peter founded the Roman Church. But neither in the “Acts” nor in the “Epistle” of the Apostles is there even a hint that St. Peter founded the Roman Church. On the contrary, they contain indications, although not clear, that it is not Peter, but the disciples and co-workers of the apostle. Paul founded the Roman Church (Acts 28:15; Rom. 1:9; 15 and 16 chapters), but not the apostle himself. Paul (Rom. 15:20–22). When ap. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, there was no apostolic foot in Rome yet, and yet in Rome there was already a church in full order and various grace-filled gifts were operating (12, 6-8), brought down by the legal hierarchy. Ap. Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years, arriving in Rome after a miraculous release from prison, in which he was imprisoned by Herod (Acts 12:3.9), in 43 AD. But such a calculation of time has no basis. There is no doubt that there was no apostle in Rome. Peter, when it was written by St. Paul's letter to the Romans. Narration of the book. "Acts ap." Paul’s arrival in Rome and his activities during the first two years after his arrival gives reason to think that Peter was not in Rome even in the early sixties, 3-4 years before his death. Completely silent about Peter’s stay in Rome, Prince. “Acts,” on the contrary, speaks in detail about Peter’s preaching of the gospel in Jerusalem and Antioch, and generally in the east. Apparently, he, as the apostle of the circumcision (Gal. 2:7), preached in the east for a very long time, almost his entire life. It is more likely that he arrived in Rome in the last years of his life and after the first bonds of St. Pavel. Ho up. Not only was Peter not Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, he was not Bishop of Rome for a short time either. The first Bishop of Rome was Linus, and the ap took more part in installing him as a bishop during the lifetime of the supreme apostles. Paul rather than Peter. Ap. Paul also appointed the second Bishop of Rome - Anacletus, Apostle. Tradition, and even then not entirely reliable, ascribes to Peter only the installation of the third Bishop of Rome - Clement. But even if all three first bishops of Rome were ordained by Peter and Paul, or even by Peter alone, then why should they be considered the successors to the exclusive powers of the Petrovs? Except Rome, ap. Peter or Peter and Paul together, churches were built in many other places. Thus, both supreme apostles took part in the establishment of the Antioch Church no less than in the establishment of the Roman Church. The Alexandria Church was also founded by St. Peter, and the first bishop was Peter’s favorite disciple, Ev. Mark. However, no one ascribed primacy over the church to either the Patriarch of Antioch or the Patriarch of Alexandria. Ap. Peter, the head of the church, died in Rome, the defenders of papism argue, and therefore the Pope of Rome must be recognized as the successor to his dignity. – But personal dignity always remains personal and no place can appropriate it to itself without violating justice; otherwise, each city would have become a capital, in which the sovereign, visiting his regions, would have ended his life. In addition, if we judge and conclude as the Catholic Catholics judge and conclude, then it should be said that the leadership in the church should belong to the Patriarch of Jerusalem, because the true head of the church, J. Christ, died in Jerusalem, and where, according to legend, James, the brother of the Lord, was appointed the first bishop by order of the Lord Himself. So, the Roman bishop cannot be considered either the successor of Peter’s episcopal power, for Peter was not a bishop, much less the successor of any supreme rights over the church, which the apostle himself did not have. Peter. And it’s strange to assume that after death the ap. Peter, the Roman bishops were considered the supreme rulers of the church when some of the apostles were still alive and, in particular, it was unacceptable that John the Theologian, after the death of the apostle. Peter, who lived on earth for more than 35 years, was subordinate to the Roman bishop as the head of the church. The history of the Christian church after the times of the apostles also does not confirm papal supremacy. The assurances of the defenders of papism that the Roman high priest, as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, East and West obeyed equally from the first centuries of Christianity until Patr. Photius, that even after the division of the churches “at the councils of Lyons and Florence, the supreme power of the Roman pontiffs, both the Latins and the Greeks, without difficulty and unanimously recognized as a dogma” (Encyclical paragraph of Leo XIII, 1894 on the union of churches), has no basis. The bishop of Rome was not recognized as the head of the church, nor was he, in fact, in the first nine centuries of Christianity. Moreover, supremacy over the entire church at that time could not belong to the popes. The structure and method of government of the ancient Ecumenical Church were such that there was no room left for any bishop, not excluding the Roman one, to rule the church. Decisive evidence of this are two essential properties of the church structure and management: the complete independence of private churches from each other in their internal governance and in internal affairs (see, for example, 35 ap. pr.; 1 Vs. 6 pr.; II Vs. 2 pr.; Carth. pr. 37, 139, etc., as well as the last Carth. collection to the village of Celestine) and conciliarity in the structure and management both the entire Universal Church and its individual parts. As for the statement regarding the Greeks and the Eastern Church in general, that at the Councils of Lyon and Florence it recognized papal supremacy as a dogma, both of these councils were at one time rejected and condemned by the Greek-Eastern Church. In general, regarding the evidence of papal supremacy, it should be noted that all of them are of later origin, appearing gradually, as the rise of the papacy took place. The papacy first emerged as a historical phenomenon. In ancient times, the Bishop of Rome was considered “the first among equals,” the oldest among the bishops of the West, “of honor for the sake of the reigning city.” Random, temporary historical circumstances contributed to the popes becoming stronger than other bishops. Over time, the popes acquired not only wide and strong spiritual influence over the Western European peoples, but also secular power (8th century). This predisposed some of the popes to the idea of ​​seeking power over the entire church and consolidating their accidental rights and advantages acquired by them as a result of temporary historical circumstances with unshakable religious foundations for eternity, otherwise, laying canonical and dogmatic foundations under them. Experiments began to appear to justify in various ways and methods the claims of the popes to world domination, which had already become custom and practice. And since it was impossible to justify the idea of ​​papal supremacy as a false, non-Christian idea, inherited by papism from ancient pagan Rome with its aspirations to subjugate the whole world, neither by the true teaching of St. The Scriptures about power in the church, nor the voice of the tradition of the Universal Church, and meanwhile the belief, elevated to dogma, must be based on revelation and tradition of the church, then the evidence of the divine establishment of the papacy was necessarily a perversion of the true meaning of the passages borrowed from Scripture in defense of this teaching, and the events of church history. Not only this, since every lie gives rise to new lies and feeds on lies, to substantiate the idea of papal supremacy they even resorted to forgeries and fabrications (for example, the so-called False Isidore’s decretals, Liber pontificalis, the deed of gift of Constantine the Great to the popes, acts of the unprecedented Council of Sinues, etc.), to distortion of the text of genuine conciliar acts (for example, distortion 6 rights 1st Ecumenical Council) and the works of the patrists (interpolations). Such is the value of proof of papal supremacy. III. A direct conclusion from the dogma of papal supremacy was the doctrine of papal infallibility in the Roman Church. As the head of the church, the pope cannot be deprived of what the church undoubtedly possesses. And if the church is infallible, then the pope, as the head of the church, is infallible. The doctrine of papal infallibility is, therefore, implicit in the doctrine of papal supremacy in the church. Without infallibility, obviously, the idea of ​​papacy lacked integrity and completeness. The doctrine of papal infallibility developed gradually, in connection with the idea of ​​papal supremacy. At first, the question of infallibility and in the affirmative sense was resolved by the papacy practically - by issuing many decrees on behalf of the Apostolic See in Rome with the assimilation of binding force, and especially the assimilation of the right to supplement the Ecumenical Symbol (Filioque), and then theoretical discussions about the infallibility of the popes appeared among canonists and theologians (Gracian, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, etc.). However, for a long time the doctrine of papal infallibility existed as a mere theological opinion. This opinion received the significance of dogma at the Vatican Council under Pope Pius IX. By a special decree adopted at this council, Pope Pius IX announced (July 18, 1870) to the Catholic world: “firmly adhering to the tradition that has come down to us from the beginning of the Christian faith (more precisely, the tradition of the Latin Church), we (i.e., Pope Pius IX) with the consent of the sacred council (sancto approbante consilio), for the glory of God our Savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of Christian peoples, we teach and declare as a religious definition revealed by God (when and to whom?): when the Roman high priest speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, fulfilling his ministry as the shepherd and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his apostolic authority, he defines a teaching binding on the entire church faith and piety, then, with the divine, promised to him in the person of St. Peter, help, he possesses that infallibility (ineffallibilitate - infallibility, from fallo - deceive, mislead), which the Divine Savior was pleased to endow with His church, regarding the determination of subjects relating to faith and morals. Therefore, such determinations of the Roman high priest cannot be subject to change on their own, and not as a result of the consent of the church. If anyone, God forbid, has the audacity to contradict this, let him be anathema (4th chapter, 4th chapter). Thus, the Roman Catholic world was enriched with a new dogma. Infallibility is acquired by the pope when he teaches ex cathedra, in the broad sense. It extends, according to the explanation of the catechisms, to everything that relates to the revealed teaching of faith and morals, namely: “to the teachings derived from revelation and standing in connection with it - to the resolution of doubts and disputes on subjects of faith and morals, to the denunciation of heretical errors and, finally, in general to the establishment and definition of everything related to the salvation of believers” (Catech. Dr. Wappler). Infallibility is thus understood in the sense of the infallible ecclesiastical magisterium of the pope in the field of matters of faith and morals. Such a broad understanding of the subject of infallibility, inconsistent with the truth, has been adopted in order to justify all those Latin dogmas that are not in revelation, but which are supposedly deduced from it by inference, or rather, fictitious. Christian consciousness cannot reconcile with the assimilation of infallibility to the popes. When the papacy was still preparing to proclaim a new dogma, this teaching seemed strange and unacceptable to many of the Latins themselves, so that even many of the bishops refused to sign the decree of the Vatican Council. The proclamation of this dogma entailed the fall away from the Roman Church of entire societies of Roman Catholics, who were called Old Catholics. Although this teaching is called a “divinely revealed” dogma in the decree on infallibility, in fact the Ultramontanes themselves cannot point to a single direct evidence of the word of God about papal infallibility (except perhaps Luke 22:31–32). And it’s understandable. Sinfulness and imperfection are characteristic of the actions and manifestations of all the powers of the human spirit, and therefore also in man’s relationship to the truth, and therefore Scripture does not and cannot assimilate infallibility or infallibility to any of the mortal and sinful people. The history of the papacy decisively refutes the doctrine of papal infallibility. “Do not deceive yourself,” said the famous Catholic hierarch, I. Yu. Strossmayer, to the members of the Vatican Council at the Vatican Council (see his speech in the Russian translation in “Church Veda.” 1905, Nos. 30 and 31). “If you sign the dogma of papal infallibility, then our enemies, the Protestants, will protest all the more boldly because they have history on their side, while we have only our own denial against them. What will we tell them when they bring before us all the bishops of Rome - up to His Holiness Pius IX? If you determine the infallibility of the present Roman bishop, then you must recognize the infallibility of all his predecessors, without any exception. But can you do this and prove that self-interested, incestuous, murderers, holy merchants - popes were the vicars of I. Christ”, and, therefore, had the gift of infallibility? The defenders of papal infallibility themselves feel the shamefulness of the behavior of many popes. However, they do not find this incompatible with papal infallibility. The authority and infallibility of papal definitions on matters of faith and morals is based, they say, on the influence of the Holy Spirit, under whose gracious guidance the pope is, as the head of the church. Therefore, a vicious pope can also be an infallible teacher of the church. But religious feeling protests uncontrollably when theory obliges us to recognize all popes without exception as infallible lamps of faith and piety, and history condemns the actions and opinions of many of them as an insult to religion and morality. It is impossible to imagine the co-presence or influence of the Spirit of God on a person often in an external (mechanical) way, to think of a person only as a trumpet of the Holy Spirit. Speech about divine objects cannot be understood by an unbeliever, the morally sick, the spiritually blind and the deaf. This is certainly true of the biblical writers. This is how it should be and is in the Church of Christ. Its infallibility rests on its holiness. History exposes the doctrine of papal infallibility and examples of instability in the right faith of the Roman bishops. Many of the popes revealed unsteadiness and unsteadiness of convictions in relation to dogmas, sometimes patronizing heretics, sometimes even directly sharing a heretical way of thinking, sometimes issuing self-contradictory bulls and decrees. Thus, P. Honorius adhered to monothelitism. For this, along with other heretics, he was condemned by the VIth Ecumenical. Council (the judgment was repeated by the VII Ecumenical Council). Pope Vigilius was excommunicated from communion with the church on the Vth Ecumenical. Council for approving the heretical writings of the Nestorians, who rejected the divine humanity of Christ the Savior. Pope Zosima was attracted by the Pelagians to their side. The Council of Basel certifies that Pope Eugene IV “was guilty of simony; allowed himself perjured, apostate and heretical opinions and renounced the faith.” There were atheist popes. Thus, John XXII openly preached “at the suggestion of the “devil”” that there is no eternal life and the soul is destroyed along with the body, as Fr. Cathedral of Constance. Pope Leo X called the entire Gospel of Christ “a profitable fable about Christ.” This also includes those decrees by which the popes abolished and condemned what was decreed and approved by the authority of the Roman See. Defenders of the papacy find it possible to reconcile such cases with papal infallibility, assimilating them to the pope as a private theologian. As a private teacher, as a private theologian, they say that the Pope can and does make mistakes, but he is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. But such a difference between cathedral and non-cathedral definitions in the opinions of the same person is strange in itself. Is such duality even possible in the beliefs and views of a person with a sound mind - and, moreover, in relation to Christian truth? But even if it were possible, the question arises: when does the pope speak ex cathedra and when does he pronounce a private judgment? There have been many debates on this issue in Catholicism and solutions have been proposed, but the question remains hitherto unresolved, precisely because papal infallibility cannot be reconciled with the evidence of history. To the question: when is the Pope infallible? They usually answer: when he pronounces his definitions ex cathedra, but to the question: when does the pope speak ex cathedra? explain that the pope must be thought of as teaching the faithful from the height of the apostolic throne only in those cases when he does not make mistakes in his definitions. Universal human thinking condemns such whirling thoughts. § 136. Protestant teaching about the church as a spiritual, invisible society The doctrine of justifying faith and, as a consequence, of the invisible Church. – Anglican doctrine of the Church. Protestantism in its teaching about the church, in contrast to Catholicism, which turned the church into a secular kingdom with the pope at its head, completely rejected the necessity and significance of the entire visible, human side of the church, rejected not only the papacy, but also the divinely established hierarchy, rejected the very concept of the church as a divinely established visible medium in the matter of teaching and guiding believers to salvation and the distribution of grace-filled gifts in the sacraments through the hierarchy. Instead of the rejected doctrine, it proposed the doctrine of the church as a spiritual, invisible society of believers or justified (saints). More specifically, the features of the Protestant teaching about the church are clarified from the principle underlying the Protestant religious system - the doctrine of justifying faith. A person is justified by a single personal faith in the Redeemer. Through faith he is united directly and immediately to Christ and the Spirit of grace; The Holy Spirit directly teaches a person the truth (through Scripture and independently of it), so that the believer has no need for special external teachers; The gifts of justifying and saving grace are also directly poured into the soul of the believer, which is why there is no need for either special intermediaries (hierarchy) or intermediary sacred rites (sacraments) to communicate the gifts of grace. It is clear from this that the entire external structure of the church, the visible side of the church, was unnecessary and could not have the meaning that was assigned to it by the will of the Founder of the church. If a hierarchy in the church with the power to teach, officiate and govern exists in the church, it exists jure humano, for the sake of order, and not jure divino. The sacraments cannot and do not have the inherent meaning of being conductors of grace; they are not absolutely necessary for salvation - there are not as many of them as they are recognized. Having rejected the essential (dogmatic) meaning behind the appearance of the church, Protestantism did not generally reject the existence of the church on earth. The true church exists, only it is a spiritual, invisible society. It is formed and includes all those who truly believe and have the Holy Spirit. According to the definition of the symbolic books of Lutheranism, the church is “the assembly of saints and the right of believers” (congregatio sanctorum et vere credentium), having within themselves the Holy Spirit, who renews their hearts, sanctifies them and governs them Conf. art. VII et VIII), and even more briefly, simply “communion of saints” (communionem sanctorum, - “Bol. catich.” II part III, 47). But since it is impossible to know which of the believers living on earth is holy and who is not holy - God knows His elect, then the true church is invisible (esclesia invisibilis). This invisible church is the true church, the holy church. True, in real life, members of the church, that is, “true believers and those who have the Holy Spirit,” are mixed with sinners who are in external communion with the former. But these imaginary Christians, “hypocritical and evil people,” are not made members of the true church through such communication—they are “only dead members of the church,” and not truly members of it. In fact, only the justified, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, scattered among sinners, belong to it, which is why it is necessary to say about the true church, which is so manifested in the world, that it is “hidden under the crowd” of wicked people belonging to a certain confession. Obviously, such a concept of a church, not subject to any external observation, is essentially equivalent to a denial of the church - the church is something dreamy, imaginary. If the church really exists, then there must be some visible signs of the church. In response to such an objection and bewilderment against the doctrine of the invisible church in Protestantism, the following definition of the invisible church appeared: “the church is the assembly of saints, in which the gospel is correctly preached and the sacraments are correctly performed” (Conf. aug. p. I, VII, 1). Based on these signs, Protestants teach, one can guess or not doubt the existence of the true church on earth, as a society of saints: where the word of God is preached purely and the sacraments are performed in accordance with this word, there probably is a church. But since the word of God always has some fruit (Isa. 55:10-11), and the pure preaching of the gospel can be among the papists and in general wherever the gospel is brought, then there can be a true church everywhere, even if in such places believers did not have the opportunity to begin the sacraments. But where there is no this sermon, there can be no believers, there can be no sacraments, and therefore there is no true church. In general, the main sign of a true church is the correct preaching of the gospel. As for the sacraments, as a sign of the true church, they constitute a less essential sign compared to the word. Preaching the word and believing in it can exist outside of Christian society, where there is no celebration of the sacraments - outside the visible church, why the church of true believers can exist outside the true church. The true church is thus located in the visible church and outside it, just as the soul lives in the body and outside the body. The entire Protestant (symbolic) doctrine of the church rests on a false principle - on the doctrine of justifying faith, in connection with which it stands and falls. And in itself it contains inconsistencies and contradictions with revelation. First of all, the division of the Earthly Church into two different societies - a visible society and an invisible society - is an arbitrary division; one can and must distinguish the Heavenly Church from the Earthly Church, of which one is truly visible and the other invisible; one can talk about the visible and invisible sides of the one Earthly Church, but one cannot think of it as either only visible or invisible without self-contradiction. Further, the Protestant denial of the essential meaning behind the appearance of the church is completely unfounded. The Church was founded to bring spiritual-bodily beings to Christ, and not disembodied spirits. The Son of God accomplished the work of saving people in a visible way, and apparently the Holy Spirit also descended on the church to remain in it until the end of the age. Hence, if the work of saving people must be continued, then it must be continued visibly, and if it is continued by the church, then its visibility must be of significant importance. I. Christ established a truly visible church, a visible apostolate and a visible hierarchy successive from them, visible sacred rites (sacraments) for communicating invisible grace in visible signs. The teaching of the Savior and the Apostles clearly shows the significance of the visible side of the church for salvation - the significance is so significant that visible belonging to the church, visible confession of faith, visible participation in the sacraments constitute the conditions for a person’s salvation and his reconciliation with God. The denial of such significance behind the appearance of the church, the assertion that salvation is achievable without belonging to the visible church and without the use of the sacraments, therefore, is a bold condemnation of the work of Christ, a condemnation of God Himself. It consistently can and does lead to direct hostility towards the appearance of the church in general and any outwardly manifested churchliness, or to religious indifference and even unbelief. Finally, the existence on earth of such a church, which consists of an invisible society of only saints, with the exclusion of sinful people from it, is pointless. I. Christ came to earth to save the lost, and the church was founded by Him to sanctify and generally lead sinners to salvation. Where and how could there be righteous people without the church? Therefore, the church is a society of those who are sanctified (Heb. 2:11), and not of saints. That is why the church, as long as the real world exists, contains and will contain members of sinners with their imperfections and shortcomings. The Church has long rejected the error of the Novatists and Donatists in the doctrine of the church, repeated by Protestantism. Anglican doctrine of the church. – The doctrine of the church of the German reformers of the 16th century. influenced the teaching on the same subject in the Anglican Church, which, however, did not have the necessary certainty. Thus, in the XIth member of the Anglican faith, the following concept of the church is given: “the visible church of Christ is the assembly of the faithful, in which the word of God is preached in purity and the sacraments are performed properly, that is, in accordance with the institution of Christ in all that is necessary for them.” This definition of church is borrowed from Augsb. confession" (VIIth chapter). Pointing out only two general Protestant signs of the church, it is silent about whether the divinely established hierarchy constitutes a necessary and essential sign of the visible church. True, the Anglican Church has three degrees of church hierarchy, but in its beliefs there is no precisely and clearly expressed teaching about the establishment of God and the sacramental nature of hierarchical service. But where there is no divinely established legal hierarchy, and its unconditional necessity is not recognized, there is no church. Further, the cited member of the Anglican Confession speaks only of the “visible” (visibilis) church, which is defined as the society of the faithful (fadelium), but without explaining whether by them we mean “Saints and true believers,” or together with “hypocritical and evil ones.” The members of the faith do not explain what is meant by the invisible church, the existence of which is presupposed by the fact that there is a church called visible. Finally, Anglicanism shares the common Protestant teaching about the all-sufficiency in the matter of faith of St. Scriptures. The members say: “St. Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation; but what is not said in it, or what cannot be proved on the basis of it, cannot be prescribed to anyone as a member of faith, or as something necessary for blessedness” (VI ch.). “The church cannot legitimize anything that is contrary to the written word of God... Just as she should not determine anything in spite of him, so, in addition to him, she should not force her to believe in anything as necessary for salvation” (XX ch.). The Church, therefore, is not the final judge, but there is someone else who can judge the correctness of its decisions and their agreement with the word of God. This final judge is the personal conviction of the believer. It is clear that if the Universal Church can fall into conflict with St. Scripture, then it cannot be assimilated, and Anglicanism does not assimilate, the properties of infallibility (XIX ch.). Regarding the Ecumenical Councils, one of the members of the faith states that “The Ecumenical Councils, since they are all composed of people who are not all guided by the Spirit and the word of God, can and have indeed erred, even in matters pertaining to faith. Therefore, what they define as necessary for salvation has neither force nor authority, unless it can be shown that these definitions are borrowed from St. Scriptures" (XXI part.). It should be noted, however, that in fact the Anglican Church has always recognized and recognizes the first four, or even six Ecumenical Councils as the true exponents of the teachings of the Universal Church; it does not assimilate infallible authority only to the VIIth Omni. To the cathedral. Thus, Jacob, called the brother of the Lord, was made bishop of the Jerusalem church by the ap. Peter, James and John, Lin - ap. Peter and Paul. Anacletus – ap. Paul as bishop of the Roman Church, Clement as bishop of the Roman Church. Peter, Evodius - he is also the Bishop of Rome. Evodius, the first bishop of the Antiochian Church, was also ordained by the ap. Peter, and Ignatius the God-Bearer, successor of Euodius, is ap. Peter and Paul. Polycarp, a disciple of John the Theologian, was ordained bishop of the Smyrna church by him. Papias of Hierapolis was probably ordained bishop by the same apostle. Dionysius the Areopagite, converted to Christianity by the ap. Paul (Acts 17:34), was the first bishop of Athens and ap. Paul was probably ordained. The same apostle is given the appointment of Epaphroditus as Bishop of Philippi. So, for example, the body of St. Pavel Konyuskevich, the former Metropolitan of Tobolsk (retired in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra in 1770), openly rests incorrupt in the crypt under the great Lavra Church, but it is not recognized by the Church of St. relics. The body of the valiant Patriarch Hermogenes, who for his zeal for Orthodoxy and his suffering death can even be called a hieromartyr, rests incorruption, but only now the hour of his glorification has come. The bishop’s body openly rests incorrupt. Belgorod Joasaph Gorlenko (d. 1754), but the canonization of the saint and the recognition of his body as St. relics were performed only in 1911. Moses, reminding the Jews of this appearance of God, told them: keep it firmly in your souls that you did not see any image on the day when the Lord spoke to you on Mount Horeb from the midst of the fire, lest you make for yourself graven images, images of any idol representing a man or a woman (Deut. 4:15-16), that is, lest at all they begin to represent Him as like a man. You might be interested in: