On the need for a historical-dogmatic apology for the ninth member of the creed. Speech at the meeting of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy on December 11, 1912 before the defense of his master’s thesis on the topic “Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church”

Speech at the meeting of the Council of the Moscow Theological Academy on December 11, 1912 before the defense of his master’s thesis on the topic “Essays on the history of the dogma of the Church” Your Eminence, Your Reverence and the entire venerable assembly! Almost one and a half thousand years ago, in a monastic retreat on one of the islands of the Mediterranean Sea, the Monk Vincent of Lirinsky wrote in his “golden essay”: “If the gift of God has made you capable in mind, in education, in learning, then be the Veseliel of the spiritual tabernacle: polish the precious stones of Divine dogma, adjust their grain, distribute them wisely, give them brilliance, grace, charm. Try so that, as a result of your clearer presentation, they understand more clearly what they previously believed not so clearly. Achieve that posterity will consciously glorify what antiquity previously honored unconsciously. But teach what you have been taught, and, speaking in a new way, do not say something new. But perhaps someone will say: so, in the Church of Christ there should be no advancement of religion? Of course there must be, and, moreover, the greatest... Only this success must really be success, and not a change of faith. Progress is when this or that object improves on its own, and change is when something ceases to be what it is and turns into something else” 1 . These words by Rev. Vincent is not only a predestination of the future, but also a description of the past. According to his teaching, and always “the universal Church, prompted by the novelties of the heretics, through the definitions of its Councils did nothing else than precisely what it had previously received from its ancestors according to one tradition, later confirmed for posterity and with its own written certificate, concluding in a few lines a large number of objects and usually expressing for the clearest understanding with one or another new name not a new meaning of faith” 2 . From the Orthodox point of view, the history of any dogma is the history of how the spirit-bearing Beseliel of the spiritual tabernacle of the Church polished the precious and, in essence, always unchangeable stone of Divine dogma. Glorifying the great ecumenical teachers and saints on January 30, the Church sings about them that they “received wisdom from God, by the word of reason they formed dogmas,” but not some new ones, but those same ones, “who were formerly simple in words, deposed fishermen in reason by the power of the Spirit: for it is fitting that it is so simple for our faith to formulate acquisitions” (sedalen). Offered to your enlightened attention, my “Essays on the History of the Dogma of the Church” are devoted to a scientific study of the most important moments of the work of ancient Church theological thought to understand and reveal the dogma of the Church. We usually think about any truth when we hear objections to it, and ancient church theological thought focused the greatest share of attention on the question of the Church when it encountered false views of the Church of heretics and schismatics. In the first centuries of the historical existence of the Church, there was a whole series of heretical movements that deviated from the truth precisely in resolving the question of the essence and properties of the Church, such as Judeo-Christianity, Gnosticism, Montanism, Novatianism and Donatism. The literary and dogmatic struggle of church leaders against these anti-church phenomena undoubtedly constitutes the most important moments in the history of the dogma of the Church. Special treatises on the Church and writings, where a significant share of attention is paid to the issue of the Church, were written precisely in polemics with these anti-Church movements. During periods of struggle against these movements, the history of the dogma of the Church seemed to coincide with the history of the Church itself. These movements were different, but from the point of view of the history of the dogma of the Church, there is a direct historical continuity between many of them: what, for example, was not sufficiently revealed in the fight against Novatianism, was directly raised as the main subject of consideration in the polemic against the Donatists. That is why even Russian theological scholarly works devoted to the history of the dogma of the Church dwell primarily on the teaching about the Church of those church writers who conducted literary polemics with anti-Church errors, and these errors were even united from the point of view of the concept of the Church that was revealed in the struggle against them. Exactly forty years ago, the doctoral dissertation of Archimandrite (later bishop) Sylvester was published - “The Doctrine of the Church in the First Three Centuries of Christianity” (Kyiv, 1872). In 1888 and 1889 “Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers” was published, and then a separate study by the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy D. F. Kasitsyn was published under the title “The Schisms of the First Centuries of Christianity. Montanism, Novatianism, Donatism and their influence on the revelation of the doctrine of the Church" (Moscow, 1389). Thus, a choice of subject has already been made in Russian theological literature, which I discuss in my dissertation. In my opinion, this subject has long been awaiting new consideration and research. The works of Archimandrite I mentioned. Sylvester and D.F. Kasitsyn are now outdated; Yes, they did not quite correspond to the scientific level even of their time. Over the past two or three decades, a number of very important questions have been raised in science, concerning both basic facts and small details of the history of the dogma of the Church. Many scientific works have appeared, often very informative and interesting, devoted to the study or history of the dogma of the Church, or issues more or less closely related to this history. The current state of scientific research into the history of the dogma of the Church, when I became acquainted with it, convinced me of the need for Orthodox church science to focus its attention precisely on those moments in the history of the dogma of the Church, which I chose for my work. These very points have recently been the subject of many disputes, and in church-historical and historical-dogmatic works such a solution to various issues is very often given that involuntarily forces the Orthodox theologian to think deeply and persistently demands his own study of the subject. “Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche - The Origin of the Ancient Catholic Church” - this is the title of the famous work of Albrecht Ritschl, more than half a century ago (2-te Aufl. Bonn 1857) which, according to Rudolf Som 3, without exception, defined the now dominant views on church-historical and historical-dogmatic issues. And according to these views prevailing in Protestant science, the Church was not founded by Christ and the apostles, but “came into existence” for more than 200 years. The history of the Church for the first three centuries of our era is the history of how the Church gradually ceased to be what it was before and what it should have been according to the thoughts of Christ and the apostles. The history of the dogma about the Church is not the history of the advancement of ecclesiastical understanding of the always unchanged and always equal truth about the Church, but it is the history of a change in faith in the Church, so that at the end of such “development of dogma” the Church declared its previous concept of the Church an intolerable heresy. Initially, the Christian Church represented, as it were, a series of sectarian circles, with sharply expressed eschatological aspirations, with an abundance of extraordinary spiritual charisms. Neither Christ nor the apostles established any specific hierarchical system; The charismatic organization of the Church formed itself. Personal charisma, without any successive ordination, placed its owner at the head of the Christian community. The most important functions of church life—teaching and discipline—were in full and undivided possession of the charismatics. Hierarchical persons did not inherit any apostolic rights and powers; they celebrated the Eucharist and took charge of church affairs. Only when the initial enthusiasm waned, when vices and shortcomings began to penetrate among the charismatics, did the hierarchy acquire greater importance, gradually arrogating to itself the powers of the charismatics, these true successors of the apostles. Not immediately, but gradually and through a long struggle, a hierarchical organization was established in the Church instead of the charismatic organization. A number of traces of this alleged struggle between the hierarchy and the charismatics for apostolic power and dignity in the Church are indicated in ancient church literature. He who loves to excel, Diotrephes, does not accept the messages of the “elder” and even excommunicates him from the Church (3 John). This means that he shows independence, as during the ap. The bishops did not have Paul, and the “elder” with his message tries to prevent the newly created hierarchical organization, seeing in it only the ambition of an individual 4. Is there a dispute over ἐπισκοπή in Corinth in the 90s of the 1st century: this is a revolt of the charismatics against the hierarchy that was seizing their rights 5 . Writes St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, epistle to Corinth with an exhortation to obedience to the hierarchy - this means that the Roman Church for the first time outlines the principles of Catholicism. In Rome, in the words of E. Renan, they felt that the free Church, as Jesus conceived it, as Paul still imagined it, was an anarchic utopia from which nothing could come of it in the future 6 . The Church began to be in danger from the Gnosticism in the middle of the 2nd century; the need for more solid forms of organization was felt, and this circumstance contributed to the victory of the hierarchy over the charismatics - the hierarchy completely adopted the church magisterium. In the interests of establishing the hierarchical system in the 2nd century, falsely inscribed names of the apostle were compiled. Paul's so-called pastoral letters 7 or were significantly interpolated from the original letters of the apostle 8. In the fight against Gnosticism, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, defending the truth of the Church, resolutely referred to its apostolate and pointed out the sign of the true Church in the succession of the divinely established hierarchy 9. This dogmatic thought of the Holy Father was declared by representatives of science to be an innovation unknown to the Church. Ritschl directly states that if we accept Irenaeus’ theory of episcopacy, then we must abandon the scientific representation of the history of church development 10. The teaching of Irenaeus about the apostolate of the Church is based, according to Fr. Bohringer and Fr. Nitzsch’y, on historical fiction 11, his argument is pseudo-historical, as Fr. Loofs, because it refers to fictitious people, qui ab apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in ecclesiis 12. The apostolic institution of the episcopacy, according to Harnack, is only a legend, 13 and Irenaeus’ reference to the apostolic institution and succession of the episcopacy, if not a lie, is still an error - Das ist gewiss keine Luge; aber ebenso gewiss ist es ein Irrtum 14 . Having assimilated the apostolic right of teaching during the period of struggle against Gnosticism and created the theory of apostolic succession in the field of teaching, which was inconsistent with historical reality, the hierarchy began to take into its own hands the area of ​​discipline with the “power of the keys.” Initially, the Church thought of itself as a society of saints, from which all those who sinned mortally were excluded. If they were ever accepted into church communion, it was by the will of God, proclaimed through a charismatic prophet. In full accordance with the general secularization of the Church, the hierarchy lowered disciplinary requirements, declared the admission into church communion of those who had sinned mortally, along with the remission of sins, as its exclusive right, and waged a struggle for the “power of the keys” with the charismatics. The Church gradually became a hierarchically structured organization, intended for the moral perfection of its members and possessing for this purpose special, grace-filled powers supplied through the hierarchy. There are many traces of this new struggle of the new Church with the bearers of the supposed ancient church ideals. This is, first of all, a fight against Montanism, which was the reaction of ancient Christian piety against secularization, necessarily associated with the establishment of the Catholic Church. The rejection and condemnation of Montanism was, as it were, a condemnation by the Church of its own past 15, for now from an enthusiastic society of saints it becomes an educational institution 16. The change in church discipline shows a significant change in the very concept of the Church. If at the beginning of the 3rd century the Roman Bishop Callistus, in his edict on matters of discipline, definitely states: ego et moechiae et fornicationis delicta paenitentia functis dimitto 17, that is, I (the bishop) forgive mortal sins to those who repent, then this was a break not only with ancient church discipline, but also with the ancient concept of the holiness of the Church 18. This was precisely der Abfall von dem alten Kirchenbegriff 19 . When Tertullian, in his sharply Montanistic treatise “De pudicitia,” declares that the place of this episcopal edict is in ipsis libidinum ianuis, sub ipsis libidinum titulis 20 and that ecclesia quidem delicta donabit, sed ecclesia spiritus peralem hominem, non ecclesia numerus episcoporum – the Church will, of course, forgive sins, but the Church is spiritual, through a spiritual man, and not the Church of bishops 21 - he stands on the basis of the ancient church dogmatic tradition and preserves Reste enthusiastischer Verfassung - the remnants of an enthusiastic structure 22. The last vestiges of the enthusiastic structure and the ancient concept of the Church survived until the end of the 3rd century. The idea of ​​the Church as a society of saints was expressed by the Novatians, but Novatianism was also rejected by the hierarchical Church. Confessors took a close part in church discipline. It was, according to Harnack 23, an archaistic remnant of the charismatic organization, because antiquity looked upon the confessor as a charismatic. In the age of St. Cyprian, the church hierarchy destroyed this remnant of the ancient church way of thinking on the issue of the holiness of the Church, declaring the “power of the keys” the exclusive privilege of the hierarchy. The full implementation of the episcopal church system coincided with the introduction of the unlimited right of the hierarchy to forgive sins 24 . “The bearer of the church office – the bishop – defeated the bearer of the Spirit – the martyr” 25. However, as Harnack proves in a special article - Cyprian als Enthusiast, even Cyprian, who in dozens of places writes like a medieval pope, sometimes lets slip and reveals himself to be the heir of Tertullian and even more ancient era 26. Being the ideological heirs of the same era, the later Donatists demanded some certain holiness, at least from hierarchical persons, making the holiness of the Sacraments dependent on the moral qualities of their performers. In polemics with the Donatists, church writers Optatus Mileviisky and Blessed. Augustine brought the hierarchical concept of the Church to its logical conclusion, formulating the position: sacramenta per se sancta, non per homines - The Sacraments are holy in themselves, and not from people 27. These are the main provisions of the history of the dogma of the Church, as it is currently written in great detail and with remarkable harmony and consistency in detail in Protestant scientific works. It is clear that this whole story is nothing more than the story of a change in faith in the Church. Therefore, it is impossible to write a history of dogma about the Church without essentially touching on a view so widespread in science. That is why Catholic scholarship has recently, with full awareness of the importance of the issue and with an enviable understanding of the interests of its religion, subjected questions concerning the history of the dogma of the Church to its own detailed study, the results of which could be contrasted with the Protestant presentation of this history. Either in whole books or in separate articles, Catholics try to oppose Protestants on all, even the smallest, positions. Three years ago, in Theologische Literaturzeitung, reviewing the Catholic book dedicated to matri ecclesiae by Pierre Batiffolle - “L’eglise naissante et le catholicisme” (3rd ed. Paris 1909), Harnack notes that the author's research is conducted in the form of a conversation with him, a representative of Protestant science 28. Catholic science has already shaken some previously too decisively expressed positions of Protestant scientists, but Catholics strive at all costs to historically and historically dogmatically justify their religious prejudices, for example, the primacy of the Roman bishop. The situation I described in the history of the dogma about the Church in modern science forces, I think, Orthodox church science to focus its attention on those points in the history of this dogma where representatives of Protestant science see a change in faith in the Church. It is necessary to scientifically explore the progress of church truth and establish significant unity in the understanding of this truth throughout the first centuries. We haven't done any of this yet. In the ninth article of the Creed we call our Church Apostolic, but we are told that this is a later Church, replacing the Apostolic Church after the struggle with it and after its condemnation. The Apostolic Church ceased to exist along with the ancient charismatics, Montanists, and confessors. The ninth member of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which establishes the continuity of the Church from Christ and the Apostles to the present day, turns out to contradict the basic provisions of historical and dogmatic science. The very clear interest of the Church requires a scientific apology for the ninth member of the Creed. The experience of such an apology is what my book represents. That this experience is very far from perfect, I know this very well myself, but whether it is hopelessly bad or not, my respected opponents will now tell me and the entire assembly. Reminders 1.22–23. Russian translation by Associate Professor P. Ponomarev. Kazan, 1904. P. 39.40. Church system in the first centuries of Christianity. Transl. A. Petrovsky and P. Florensky. M., 1906. pp. 28–29 approx. A. Hamack. Ueber den dritten Johannesbrief. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, herausgeg. von Oscar von Gebhardt und Adolf Harnack. 15.3 b. Leipzig, 1897. SS. 21.24. Carl Weizsacker. Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche. 3-te Aufl. Tiibingen und Leipzig, 1902. S. 621. History of the first centuries of Christianity. T. 5. Gospels and the second generation of Christianity. Transl. E. A. Serebryakova. Ed. N. Glagoleva. SPb. P. 195. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann. Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Neue Testament 3-te Aufl. Freiburg i B. 1892. SS. 290–291. Adolf Jiilicher. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 5 and 6-te Aufl. Tiibingen, 1906. § 13.4. SS 166–169. Adolf Harnack. Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 1-er Bd. Leipzig 1897. SS. 480–485. Contra haer. IV 33. Migne, PG, T. 7. Col. 1077B. Cfr.: Ill, 2, 2; 3, 2; 3; IV, 26, 2–5. V, 20, 1.Col. 847A. 848B. 1053C. YuZbA-V. 1177A-B. Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. SS. 444–445. Friedrich Bohringer. Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zeugen oder die Kirchengeschichte in Biographieen. 2-te Aufl. 2-er Band Die alte Kirche. 2-ter Th.: Das 2-te Jahrhundert. Irenaus, der Bischof von Lugdunum, oder die Bildung der altkatholischen Kirche und Kirchenlehre im Kampfe mit dem Gnostizismus. Stuttgart 1873. SS. 424–425. Cfr.: Friedrich Nitzsch. Grundriss der christlichen Dogmengeschichte. I Th. Berlin, 1870. S. 255. Friedrich Loots. Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte. 4 te Aufl. Haile, 1906. § 19, 3. S. 135. A. Harnack. Chronology. I. S. 200. Johannes Leipoldt. Geschichte des neutestamentichen Kanons. 1-er Theil Leipzig, 1907. S. 161. F. Loots. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4. § 24.1. S. 172. Ernst Rolffs. Das Indulgenz-Edict des romischen Bischofs Kallist. Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristichen Literatur, herausgegeb. von Oscar von Gebhardt und Adolf Harnack. 11, 3. Leipzig, 1893. S. 10. Tertull. De pudic. Cap. 1. CSEL, Vol. 20.1, p. 220 5–6. A. Ritschl. Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche. S. 372. A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte. 4-te Aufl. 1-er Bd. Tubingen, 1909. S. 409. Cap. I. CSEL, Vol. 20.1. p. 220.7–8. De pudic. cap. 21. CSEL, vol. 20.1. p. 271.8–10. Tertullian. De paenitentia. De pudicitia. Herausgegeben von Lie. Eracin Preuschen. Freiburg. I. B. 1891. Einleitung. S. VIII. A. Harnack. Novatian. Realencyclopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, begrundet von J. J. Herzog, im dritten Auflage herausgegeben von Albert Hauck. Bd. 14. S. 229. A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 4.1. S. 444. S. I. Smirnov. Spiritual father in the ancient Eastern Church. Part 1. Sergiev Posad, 1906. P. 240. Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde des Urchristentums, herausgeg. von Erwin Preuschen. 1902.SS. 177. 182. Cfr.: F. Loofs. Leitfaden der Dogmengeschichte 4. § 29, 4. S. 259. A. Harnack. Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte 4.1. SS. 447–449. Optatus. De schism. Donat. V, 4. CSEL Vol. 26. p. 127.16. Cfr.: Augustin. Contra Cresconium IV, 16,19. Migne, P.L., T. 43. Col. 559. Theologische Literaturzeitung. 1909. No. 2, Sp. 33.