ГЛАВА СЕДЬМАЯ.

Attempts at heresies in the Russian Church. The relationship of the Russian Church to Latinism and Latin propaganda between Russians and on Russian territory. The degree of tolerance of Russians towards other non-Orthodox and non-Orthodox people. During the pre-Mongol period, there were no heretical sects in the Russian Church, so during this first time of the introduction of Christianity among us, it was completely free from the unrest and unrest that sects usually produce through their appearance and existence. The whole matter in this regard was limited to very few attempts that did not have any success. According to the Nikon Chronicle, in the pre-Mongol period, two heretics appeared among us - one very short time after baptism, under St. Vladimir and under the first Metropolitan Leon, in 1004; another a century and twenty years after the first, under Vladimir Monomakh and under Metropolitan Nikita, in 1123. The chronicle writes about the first heretic in 1004: “That same summer, Metropolitan Leontes put the monk Andreyan the eunuch in prison; reproaching for this church laws and bishops and presbyters and monks; and little by little he corrected himself and came to repentance and knowledge of the truth, just as many marveled at his meekness and humility and tenderness.” About the second heretic, the chronicle writes in 1123: “That same summer, the Most Reverend Nikita, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Rus', in his city of Sinelitsa, locked up the evil heretic Dmitry in prison.” The above brief information does not answer the question: who were the heretics - natural Russians and preachers of new heresies that belonged to them, or newcomers and propagandists of heresies that existed in other countries. The first of these is the last thing to think about; it is more likely to think the same about the second, but it is possible that he was also a natural Russian. Heresies are a twofold path - theoretical and practical. The first is that theological thought is led astray from the right path, the second is that imaginary or real abuses in the church and extreme trends in society arouse protest against itself, which is not kept within proper limits. Theology is possible only under the condition of enlightenment; but we did not have it in the pre-Mongol period, nor for a long time after. Consequently, during this period, as well as for a long time after, heresies could not appear in our country through theoretical means. The second way, the practical one, can be heresies even without enlightenment; but the necessary condition for them in this case is time, for protests against abuses and excesses do not arise suddenly, and the latter in themselves are created only by time. We cannot say anything about the second heretic, who could have been a natural Russian, a reproach of some customs of the church, because no information is reported about his heresy. It is even quite possible that the word heretic, which was used among us in ancient times not only in its proper sense, does not mean, when applied to it, an actual heretic, but a person who is seriously criminal 1541. Regarding the first heretic, who was undoubtedly a newcomer, the question arises: where did he come from and what heresy did he preach among us? Since this latter is characterized very vaguely, the answer can only be given conjecturally. The most likely answer is the one that was given a long time ago and accepted by everyone, namely, that he was the Bulgarian Bogomil. The only other countries from which heretics could come to us were, of course, Greece and Bulgaria. But in Greece in the X-XI centuries there were no other heresies, except for the same Bogomilism, which spread from Bulgaria. The Bogomils were exactly the kind of heretics of that time who, not content with their homeland, sent missionaries to other countries, and between these countries, mainly to related Slavic ones (Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia). The vague signs that characterize heresy and the heretic, without directly saying that the latter was Bogomil, at least fully suit him. The Bogomils, in the organization of their sect, were like a monastic order and usually wore monastic dress. Disdaining marriage and marital cohabitation, they often accumulated themselves, and some among them even preached the doctrine of emasculation as universally obligatory. Rejecting true Christianity and the Christian church (which they did, despite the fact that in dress and morals they were, as it were, Christian monks), they actually reproached church laws, and bishops, and presbyters, and monks. The very rapid repentance of the heretic after he was put in prison suggests a pretense; and this goes specifically to the Bogomils: they were the greatest masters of pretense, and it was elevated to a dogma among them in 1542. What success both heretics had, if only the second was really a heretic, the news says nothing. The most likely thing is that it is not at all, because otherwise the students would have to end up in prison along with the teachers; in any case, it is necessary to think that it is very small and that neither one nor the other founded heretical sects in any lasting way, for there are absolutely no indications or hints about the existence of these latter in our country in the pre-Mongol period. Since the Bogomilov heresy did not contain anything attractive, but on the contrary was the personification of everything absurd and hateful, one cannot help but be glad that its cup, for one reason or another, passed us by, and that it did not manage to establish itself among us 1543. In our later written literature we find a greater or lesser number of apocrypha, borrowed by us from the Bulgarians and, due to their origin, perhaps not fully translated Greek, and partly independently Bulgarian. It is very possible that between these apocrypha there are some origins of Bogomil 1544. But the presence of Bogomil works in our writing may not necessarily mean that the Bogomil heresy ever existed in our country, but simply that our bookish people, due to their ignorance, were not able to distinguish lies from truth. And that in this irresponsible and not malicious ignorance they learned from the Bulgarians everything that came to us from them in books. In childhood, we heard from women stories about the creation of man very similar to the Bogomil teaching about the same (the devil, having created the human body, was not able to create souls, so he sent them to God, etc.) 1545. How to think about the similarity—whether it is accidental or not—remains unknown; if not accidental, then the Bogomil teaching could have come to us from books (for example, from the word of Kozma the presbyter, who denounces the Bogomil teaching, but at the same time conveys it). Or through our living communication with the Bulgarians, among whom Bogomil fables could spread among the mass of Orthodox Christians. Finally, it is a very acceptable and possible thing that the Bogomils themselves, without our success in founding their own society, were successful in spreading their nonsense. (In the first quarter of the Χ 5th ΙΙΙ century, under Peter the Great, a “Conciliar act against the heretic Armenin, against the monk Martin” appeared in our country, which says that this heretic Martin, an Armenian by birth, having arrived in Russia from Constantinople in 1149 and posing as a Greek relative of Patriarch Luke Chrysovergus, began to preach among us heresy, consisting of Armenianism, Latinism (which he became infected with in Rome) and our schismaticism (sweeping away the two-part cross, walking with salt, Jesus and not Jesus, hallelujah twice, folding the fingers for the sign of the cross and for the double-fingered blessing), that he was condemned at the council that took place in Kyiv in 1157, during the Great Prince Rostislav Mstislavich and Metropolitan Constantine, and then at the council that took place in Constantinople in the following 1158, under Patriarch Luke Chrysoverge, and that in the latter, for unrepentance in some points of his false teaching, he was doomed to execution by burning. This conciliar act is nothing more than a sadly unsuccessful (and extremely inept) invention of the famous missionary against schismatics under Peter the Great Pitirim, Archbishop of Nizhny Novgorod, with unknown assistants, made with the aim of attracting schismatics to Orthodoxy (and, unfortunately, allowed, if not more, by such a most reasonable person as Peter). Since 1718 to 1721 Having been printed several times as a separate book, in the last year the act was published as an appendix to Pitirim’s Sling (the pre-notification tells the imaginary story of its discovery, with which St. Demetrius of Rostov is rightly or unjustly woven in. The teachings of Metropolitans Michael and Theopemptus, to which the act refers, have existed as long as the act itself). After the division of churches, which took place in the middle of the 11th century, the Latins, that is, all Western European peoples, became for us people excommunicated and cut off from our Orthodox union. Without dwelling on the extreme deplorability in all respects of the very event of division of 1546, we will say here: firstly, how we looked at the wrong-headedness of the Latins and how we treated them; secondly, about their own attempts at propaganda among us. Maybe the reader knows, or maybe he doesn’t know, the sad and wonderful fact that the division of churches is of very important importance in our Russian church history. This division was accompanied by a strong arousal of personal passions on both sides, and as a result, extreme injustice on both sides in mutual accusations. We, the Russians, who were not personally involved in the case, apparently had to take on the role of becoming moderators of the passions and irritations of those involved, that is, the Greeks, in order to become judges of the guilty (Latins) as impartially as possible, in order to be restorers of discord in its true form. But, as is self-evident, we were not at all capable of such a role, and something completely different happened. Greek polemicists against the Latins, in their passion for hostility against them, falling into the most deplorable extreme, portray them as full of sins and guilt, heretics, bitter about all the ancient heretics and combining all the heresies of the latter. We have internalized this polemicist view of the Latins. But in later times we noticed that the Greeks looked at them and did not treat them as intolerantly and hostilely as would have been expected based on the teachings of the ancient Greeks about them - and we suspected the Greeks themselves of falling away from Orthodoxy to Latinism... Not limiting themselves to this, polemicists blame her for the individual and local abuses that existed in her, which were just as possible in the Greek Church itself, and which she condemned just as much as the latter condemned similar abuses in herself. Finally, not content with this, the polemicists, partly on the basis of false rumors, gossip and slander, and partly with the help of their own deliberate sophistry, accuse the Latin Church of completely unprecedented wines. Enmity with the Latins did not engulf the Greeks to such an extent that there were no prudent and moderate people among them who would be aware of such an extreme and protest against it. The thawed people were 1548; but they expressed their moderate thoughts mostly on random occasions, when they were asked for their opinions, and did not have the desire to write deliberate polemical works in which they would have to polemicize both with strangers and with their own, so the field of their own polemics almost exclusively belonged to people of extreme tendencies. The actual faults or sins of the Roman Church, which in no case deserved leniency and apology, but were subject to condemnation, as we know, are not particularly numerous (with which we do not at all want to say that they are not important). They were not numerous either, according to the judgment of moderate people in 1549. But among extreme people, as we said, they presented an extremely long list - in the second half of the 11th century, this list reached 28 items, and in the next 12th century even up to 32 and more than 1550. The Greek Church, having excommunicated the Latin Church from its communion and union for its sins, did not declare it a heretical society and assembly 1551. But according to the judgment of self-appointed judges, driven by blind jealousy, the Latins are heretics and, moreover, the most serious ones, differing little from the ancient Hellenes or pagans. Which of the Greek polemical works against the Latins, written in Greece itself, were translated into the Slavic language in the pre-Mongolian period and in the Slavic translation were at the disposal of our then ancestors, and whether any of them were then translated remains unknown. As for this kind of writings written here in Russia and specifically for us, they are: (An accusatory word) to the Latins of Metropolitan Leo, Controversy with the Latins of Metropolitan George, a letter to Antipope Clement of Metropolitan John 2, two letters to our princes of Metropolitan Nikephoros, A Word on the Peasant (Orthodox) and Latin Faith Theodosius (first half of the volume paragraph footnote 1576) and, finally, a denunciation of the Latins, placed in the chronicle, in the news of the baptism of Vladimir, and presented there as part of the teaching that the Bishop of Korsun taught to the newly baptized prince in 1552. Between these works, the message of Metropolitan John 2 was written not for the Russians, but in order to be sent to the pope; but, having at the same time been translated into the Slavic language and becoming the property of our literature (having entered its composition), as one of its monuments, it, as such, became for our ancestors one of the accusatory works against the Latins. Metropolitans Leo and John denounce the Latins for a few errors and sins, namely, the first denounces them: for unleavened bread, Saturday fasting, performing the full liturgy during Lent, celibacy of priests, eating strangled meat and the addition of the Filioque symbol; second: for Saturday fasting, non-observance of fasting in the first week of Pentecost, celibacy of priests, assimilation of the right to perform the sacrament of confirmation to only bishops, the addition of the same Filioque to the symbol. Metropolitans George and Nicephorus present in their writings against the Latins those very long lists of their deviations and faults, which were compiled by the most zealous of the Greek polemicists: the first counts these deviations 26 1553, the second - in one work (a letter to Vladimir Monomakh) 20, in another (a letter to Yaroslav Svyatopolkovich), 23. Monk Theodosius and the author of the teaching to St. Vladimir on behalf of the Bishop of Korsun, placed in the chronicle, like the two previous ones, belonging to the number of those who were for a possibly long list of apostasies of the Latins, does not reproduce the list in full, assuming it is known; content with a fragmentary indication of something from this long list, they mainly mean to give a general description of Latinity regarding its quality, or to pronounce a general judgment on it. This general judgment in the second of them is that the teaching and faith of the Latins were corrupted by a certain (mythical) heretic Peter of Gugniv, who came to Rome “with frost” after the 7th Ecumenical Council and captured the papal throne in 1554, and in the first, that “the corrupted faith (of the Latins) is full of destruction” - that “those who exist in it cannot see eternal life or parts with the saints” - that “whatever the Jews do, they (the Latins) do” and that “many of them enter into the Sauvellian heresy” 1555. Metropolitans Leo and John, listing only a few, real and more or less important errors of the Latins, do not say that this is the only reason for all their errors. Consequently, the Russian people had no reason to look at the lengthy lists of their errors, which Metropolitans George and Nicephorus presented in their writings, in such a way that in the latter many things were added to the actual errors that did not constitute errors. But they should have seen the lists in them as complete, making the assumption about Metropolitans Leo and John that out of many they speak only about a few. Thus, based on the writings of Metropolitans George and Nicephorus, the Russians had to imagine Latinism as full of many errors. The work of the monk Theodosius and the teaching placed in the chronicle, giving them a general answer regarding the quality of Latinism, taught them that Latinism is a corrupt and destructive faith. In accordance with the two views on the errors and apostasies of the Latins - moderate and extreme, the Greeks had two opinions regarding what relationship the Orthodox should have towards them. Moderate people, based on the position that the Latins are not heretics condemned by the church, and “that as they recognize the holiness of ours, and we recognize the holiness of their worship,” considered it permissible not only everyday communication with them, which, however, is not prohibited by the canons in relation to heretics, but also, to a very significant extent, church and prayer 1556. On the contrary, extreme people who considered the Latins to be heretics naturally had to apply to them the demands that existed in this case regarding the latter. These demands were partly canonical, partly not canonical, but were added to them by the later jealousy of the Greeks. The canonical requirements were, firstly, not to participate with heretics in prayer, either public or at home, and in relation to the former, not to allow them to enter their churches, but on the contrary, not to visit their public places of prayer 1557; secondly, so as not to marry them (if the heretical side does not join Orthodoxy) 1558. The requirement, which was not canonical, but later appeared in the Greek Church, was to not have communication with heretics in food and drink, that is, otherwise - not to have everyday communication with them 1559. The opinions of moderate people, in all likelihood, were not known to us at all. As for the opinion of the extreme people who were known among us, to which all belong to the above-mentioned Greeks who wrote against the Latins among us and deliberately for us, they are divided into two unequal halves. One opinion, a more moderate one, which has its only representative in the person of Metropolitan John 2, adheres strictly to the canons, while the non-canonical one does not prescribe, but only allows and, moreover, with caution; another opinion, belonging to Metropolitans George and Nicephorus and the monk Theodosius, requires everything that the later Greek Church demanded. Metropolitan John, in his Rule to the monk Jacob, writes: “Those who serve on unleavened bread and eat meat during cheese week, and also eat blood and strangled meat, should not communicate (communion) 1560 and concelebrate: but eating with them, in case of need, for the sake of Christ’s love, is not entirely reprehensible (οὐ πάνυ ἐστὶν ἀποτρόπαιον); if anyone wanted to avoid this, perhaps under the pretext of piety or weakness, let him avoid it; however, let him see that this does not lead to the temptation of great enmity and rancor; in every possible way one should prefer the lesser evil to the greater” 1561. And again: “As for noble princes giving their daughters in marriage to other countries, where they serve on unleavened bread and do not reject filthy eating, it is unworthy and very inappropriate to arrange such marriages for children; both divine and secular statutes command that marriages should take place between persons of the same pious faith” 1562. Metropolitan George writes: “It is not appropriate in Latin to kamkati, to take prayers, and to drink from a single cup, neither to eat nor to give them food” 1563. Metropolitan Nikephoros writes: “We Orthodox Christians do not deserve to drink or eat or kiss them with them (the Latins); but if the Orthodox happen to eat with them according to their needs, he will also provide them with a meal and their vessels” (i.e., let him set a special table for them and let them eat from special vessels). Monk Theodosius writes: “But the Latin faith (it is not proper) to adhere to their customs and to run away from their crumpling and not to listen to all their teachings and to disdain and abhor all their customs and habits; do not give your daughters for not taking them, nor fraternizing with them, nor bowing (to him), nor kissing him, nor eating and drinking with him in a single vessel, nor receiving them; Likewise, when we ask God to share food and drink, give them food and drink, but in their own vessels; “If they don’t have a vessel, let them pray in their own time and then wash it off.” Thus, the Greeks had two opinions regarding the relationship of the Orthodox to the Latins - moderate and extreme. If for them the latter did not even decisively prevail over the former, even if we were left to ourselves to choose one or the other; then it is more than likely that we would internalize an extreme opinion. For zeal for piety, which we had, not accompanied by enlightenment, which we did not have, naturally goes to extremes. But the decisively predominant opinion of the Greek Church, that is, of the Greek polemicists themselves, was an extreme opinion; it was precisely and exclusively that which was preached to us by our Greek teachers. Therefore, we had to internalize it for any and all reasons. In accordance with the extreme view of the doctrine of the Latins, we had to adopt an extreme view of what kind of relationship should be between us and them. We have internalized this latter in all its extremes, without that certain measure that Metropolitan John recommends, but in that complete immensity that the monk Theodosius prescribes. But nothing happens suddenly. And extreme views on the Latins had not yet reached in our pre-Mongol period that general and decisive dominance and the strength that we see later. We believe that in this case it is necessary to distinguish between the theoretical view of the heresy of the Latins and practical intolerance towards them. About the faith of the Latins, we preached the doctrine that it is filled with very many and serious heresies, that it is no better than Judaism and that there is no salvation in it. Of course, no one criticized the teaching or protested against it, that is, against its extremeness, because we did not have people capable of this at all, especially since the teaching was seen not as the opinions of private people, but as the teaching of itself and the entire Greek Church. If no one challenged or rejected the teaching, then it follows that everyone accepted it. In accordance with the theoretical view of the Latins, the practical attitude towards them should have consisted of their complete intolerance. But theory and practice, knowledge and execution do not necessarily go hand in hand: knowledge of the Divine commandments is not at the same time their fulfillment. This last one requires an appropriate feeling. Extreme intolerance towards the Latins implies a strong feeling of enmity towards them; а этим чувством вражды мы не могли воспылать тотчас же после того, как начали знать их за еретиков,– оно должно было постепенно вырасти и созреть. Consequently, intolerance towards the Latins, in any case, could not appear immediately, but could appear gradually. Meanwhile, the conditions of the pre-Mongol period were such that they should not have contributed to the development of intolerance, but, on the contrary, suppressed and delayed it. The division of churches, after which the peoples of Western Europe became grave heretics for us in theory, did not move us away from them to the east, so that in order to break our ties with them and remove us from their neighborhood, and in isolation from everyday relations with them (as was later in Moscow), the growing feeling of enmity would have been given all the scope. But even after it, we remained in the same living connection with them and in the same immediate neighborhood with them as before. And it is necessary to think that this everyday feeling of good acquaintance and proximity with them paralyzed the religious feeling of enmity during the pre-Mongol period. Just as the inhabitants of a locality of different faiths lose and forget the feeling of religious enmity due to incessant mutual relations, so, similarly, in our pre-Mongol period, the living everyday communication in which we were with all Western European peoples should have prevented the development of the feeling of this enmity towards the Latins. And especially with our immediate neighbors, the Poles and Hungarians. In general, regarding the pre-Mongol period, one must think that the extreme intolerance towards the Latins, which was determined by our views on their heresy and which our Greek teachers preached among us, had not yet completely penetrated the entire society, as it became later, but was limited to only a certain part of it. Exceptional and, so to speak, deliberate zealots of their Orthodox faith, which monastics should have been primarily, began to be imbued with it, as we have instructions, very early and it is very possible that they had already managed to assimilate it in that nec plus ultra form, as prescribed by the monk Theodosius 1564; but the majority of society and the entire secular part of it, with the princes at their head, had even more or less tolerance towards the Latins. During the pre-Mongol period, we had as neighbors not only the Catholic Poles and Hungarians, but also the pagan Cumans. Continuous everyday relations with these latter caused the worldly society (princes) to forget even about their pagan abomination and treat them with complete tolerance, without the slightest sign of disgust. It was all the more difficult for it to become imbued with intolerance towards the Latins. Subsequently, in Moscow, princes and kings have already grown up and risen to the point that, like the Byzantine emperors, they combine secular and spiritual representation in order to become not only sovereigns, but also the first zealots and champions of the faith; but the princes of the pre-Mongol period were still predominantly the first, they still predominantly represented the world and, as it were, still provided strict ecclesiastical zeal to people deliberately called to this. Throughout the entire period until its very end, our princes entered into marriage alliances with Western European sovereigns, not only bringing from them brides who accepted Orthodoxy from us, but also giving them their girls, who, in all likelihood, were supposed to accept Catholicism from them. The latter, of course, does not deserve special praise; but, in any case, it testifies to the tolerance of our princes towards the Latins. There is no doubt that in the pre-Mongol period, as well as after, there were very few cases of Latins joining our Orthodoxy. But before this, there could very often be cases where Russians married Catholic women: in addition to the princes, which we have already talked about, and following their example, boyars could do this, looking for profitable brides, if not throughout Europe, like the first, then at least in neighboring Hungary and Poland; Foreign Catholic merchants who traded in Russia, and many of the same artists and craftsmen who lived in Russia, could marry off their daughters to Russians; finally, border Russians could and, as we have evidence, actually entered into marriages with their foreign Latin neighbors in 1565. We have no positive evidence that the Catholic princesses who were married by our princes, as well as all Catholic women who married Russians, had to renounce Latin and join Orthodoxy); but this must be assumed according to those general canonical laws that an Orthodox man can only marry a heretic - and you took the Latins for heretics - as if the latter renounces heresy and joins the church 1566. To the question: how, during the pre-Mongol period, the Latins and Latin women were attached to Orthodoxy in our country), the evidence gives the answer that regarding this there was arbitrariness between two methods - rebaptism and confirmation. In the Greek Church for a very long time there was no deliberate legalization regarding the acceptance of the Latins in 1567, and, therefore, before it they should have been guided in this case by the legalizations regarding previously former heretics. These latter rules are divided into two categories, more severe and less severe, and prescribe that some should be received through rebaptism, others through confirmation 1568. Since the Latins were not classified by the Greek Church through its conciliar or generally legal definition as one or another heretics, this question, and with it the question of the method of acceptance, was left to private arbitrariness and private jealousy. It seems that among the Greeks and among us neither one nor the other method of acceptance decisively prevailed, but one or the other was used. (Cardinal Humbert, in his letter of excommunication against the Greeks in 1054, claims that they rebaptized the Latins even before the division of churches in 1569. At the beginning of the 12th century in the Greek Church, as must be concluded from the customs of the Serbian Church, rebaptism, if not a widespread custom, then, in any case, existed 1570. In the middle of the 12th century, our Niphon, Bishop of Novgorod, says that Latins were received in Constantinople through confirmation 1571, and at the same time one Catholic writer accuses the Greeks of rebaptizing the latter 1572. At the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century, Theodore Balsamon supposedly lets us know that Latins were received in Greece through anointing in 1573. Lateran Cathedral 1215 complains that the Greeks had previously rebaptized the Latins and that some did this in his time 1574. In the first quarter of the 3rd century, Demetrius Khomatin resolutely rebelled against the rebaptism of the Latins, letting them know that in his time it was in use in 1575. Regarding our Russian Church, the aforementioned Bishop Niphon for the half of the 12th century reports the same as about the Greek Church in 1576. But the contemporary Bishop of Krakow, Matthew, claims that the Russians rebaptized the Latins 1577. Popes Honorius III and Gregory IX in charters of 1222. and 1282 claim the same thing as their bishop) 1578. Claiming supreme dominance in the entire Christian Church, the popes made attempts to subjugate all Christian peoples who did not recognize their authority. If the attempts failed in relation to entire peoples, they resorted to attempts at private propaganda among them, in order, through private seduction, to pave the way for general subjugation. And here in Russia, in the pre-Mongol period, along with the first attempts, there were also second attempts. However, these last attempts, which generally began mainly from the time when monastic orders appeared in the Roman Church, specifically taking the matter of propaganda as their task, which was at the end of our pre-Mongol period, were very few as deliberate attempts, namely, only one. Then, there was another attempt, not deliberately, the occasion for which was given by the political circumstances of one of the Russian regions and in which it was not so much the popes who bothered, out of their direct interests, as our Catholic neighbors, out of political interests. The first or only deliberate attempt took place at the end of the pre-Mongol period and represented one of the first experiments in the activity of the newly founded order of Dominicans or Friars of Preachers (Fratres Praedicatores). Immediately after the founding of the order in 1216, its representatives appeared in our neighboring Poland, and in 1228. they were so numerous in it and managed to make themselves known so much that this year a special order province was established in it or from it. It was these Polish Dominicans who tried to conduct Catholic propaganda in Russia, and precisely in its capital, Kyiv. In what year they appeared last is not known, but it is most likely assumed that around 1228. 1579. We find them here at the Church of St. Mary (at the Church of the Mother of God, for Catholics call the Mother of God Sancta Maria), which, in all likelihood, was not built by them themselves, but existed before and was a church or (more likely) one of the churches of Italian-German merchants living in Kyiv. That is it should be assumed that the Dominicans did not appear in Kyiv openly for the purpose of propaganda, but under the guise of priests for the Latins living there, so that they settled there in an unnoticed way. In 1232 Pope Gregory IX, wishing to promote the success of their propaganda, gave them with his charter some special rights regarding indulgences in 1580. But next year 1233. The activities of the venerable fathers were noticed by the Russian government (the then Prince of Kyiv Vladimir Rurikovich), and they were expelled from Kyiv with a ban on returning to it again in 1581. That was the end of the matter. That the propaganda of the Dominicans in Kyiv was a success is evident from the fact that it attracted attention and that decisive measures were taken against them; but how great the success was, we cannot say anything about this due to lack of news. It is very likely that one should have the same ideas about it as about the later, in modern St. Petersburg times, attempts to propagandize Catholics in Russia, i.e., that they managed to seduce several noble families - that this caused a stir, and that then they were sent out. The attempt was unintentional and did not come from the pope and was in the Galician or Galicia region. In this region, neighboring Hungary, in the last half century of the pre-Mongol period, the princely throne was occupied by Hungarian princes five times: in 1188–89. Andrew son of Bela III, from 1214. to 1218 and then in 1219–20. Koloman, son of Andrew II (previous), in 1227. and then in 1231–1238. another son of the same Andrey Andrey. Naturally, the Hungarians, receiving Galicia into their hands, were fulfilled with the desire to keep it for themselves, and therefore it was natural for them to want to unite it with themselves in church terms. Four of the five sittings were so short and so fragile that they did not provide the time and opportunity to fulfill the desire by doing so. But in one seat, namely Kolomanovo from 1214 to 1218. an attempt was made to tear Galicia away from Orthodoxy. King Andrew, who was directly in charge of his young son, wanted to annex the region to the Roman Church through a union similar to the one that was introduced in Lithuanian Rus' much later. Therefore, he sent a message to Pope Innocent III, in which, subordinating the region to his authority, he asked the pope to allow its inhabitants to preserve their Greek rites. The king's request obviously means that he did not consider it possible to convert and did not hope to convert Galicia directly to Catholicism. The pope expressed their consent to the request. However, even through the union, the Galician Orthodox clergy did not want to join the Roman Church. Then the king resorted to violence - he expelled Orthodox bishops and priests from the churches and handed them over to his Catholic priests. Without any success, or perhaps having the success that some individuals (which could be especially in the upper class) abandoned Orthodoxy in order to soon return to it again, the attempt obviously represented something very sad, like temporary unrest. In 1238 those Preaching Fathers who in 1233 appeared in Galicia. were expelled from Kyiv. We will talk about their activities in it later. (Some people want to date the first attempt at Catholic propaganda in Russia back to the time of Vladimir, namely, they think to see an indication of it in Thietmar’s words about the Bishop of Kolobrezh Reinburn, whom we mentioned much above. Thietmar writes about the latter: “(King Vladimir of the Rus) had three sons and to one of them he brought into marriage the daughter of the Polish king and our (i.e., the Germans) enemy Boleslav, with whom Rainburn, the rector of Kolobrezh (presul Salsae Cholbergensis) was sent by the Poles. Born in a village called Hassegun (Hassegun) and being educated in the liberal sciences by wise mentors, he (Rainburn) ascended to the episcopal degree, as I hope, being worthy of it, how much he worked in the matter entrusted to him (in cura sibi commissa, to depict it) will not reach my ability and. eloquence. He destroyed and burned the churches of idols and, throwing into the lake, which was a place of honor for demons, four stones anointed with holy myrrh, and having cleansed it with holy water, he brought forth (to grow) for the almighty Lord a new branch on a barren tree, that is, the planting of the holy gospel among an extremely rude people.” 52). In these words of Thietmar, others want to see an indication of Rainburn’s Catholic propaganda among us. But, firstly, if this were so, then Rainburn’s activities would make very little sense: He would convert pagans to Catholicism (in fact, since there was no division of churches yet, to Christianity according to the Roman rite) and transfer them to Orthodox priests (Greek rite), because he did not have Catholic priests, and he could not appoint them from the converts themselves, since this required knowledge of the liturgical Latin language. Secondly, Thietmar makes it absolutely clear that he is talking about Rainburn’s activities not here in Russia, but in his bishopric of Kolobrezhskaya (in cura sibi commissa), which, as we said above, was in the pagan region. Kirik, in his Inquiry, reports that in his time, i.e., in the half of the 12th century, in Novgorod, some women carried children to prayer instead of Orthodox priests to the Varangian 1582, i.e., it is understood that they were located under the Latin churches that were in Novgorod (about which a little below). This, of course, should be understood not so that the Varangian priests conducted propaganda among women, but in such a way that the latter, in their simplicity, did not see the difference between one and other priests and preferred to go to strangers for some random reasons, for example, perhaps because the Varangian priests did not take or took less money for prayer). The history of Catholic propaganda in Russia includes to some extent the history of the conversion to Christianity by Latin missionaries of the Chud peoples of our current Baltic region - the Livs, Ests and Kurs. Some of these people, namely the Livs, were tributaries of the princes of Polotsk, but the latter claimed to extend their power over their entire territory. On this basis of the actual or merely pretended dependence of the aforementioned peoples on the Russian princes, some of our researchers look at their conversion to Catholicism by Latin missionaries as a theft committed by the Roman Church from our Orthodox Church. But in history, first of all, there is impartiality, and you need to have very little of this virtue in order to completely disagree with the accusers. Latin missionaries came to the people only in the last quarter of the 12th century, therefore, we had enough time to convert them to Orthodoxy: who prevented us from doing this? They say that we converted them to Christianity, but not with fire and sword, as the Catholics did, but peacefully, and therefore things went slowly. Alas, in reality it is not at all like that. That the Catholics accomplished their conversion by fire and sword is the actual truth; but as far as we are concerned, the truth is that we did not convert them in any way and did not care at all about converting them. The Latin missionaries began their preaching to the people with the permission of the Polotsk princes: it is clear that the Polotsk princes, providing them to the Latins, did not have the slightest desire to take care of their conversion to Christianity themselves, and it is clear that it would be completely unfair for a business begun with permission to be labeled as theft 1583. A brief history of the conversion of the aforementioned people to Catholicism (and the emergence of the German state among them) is as follows. In 1158 One Bremen ship, sailing to Novgorod or from Novgorod, accidentally fell into the mouth of the Western Dvina and was brought here by a storm. He made an experience of trading with the inhabitants of the newly discovered country, and since the experience turned out to be successful, the Bremen merchants, being glad of the newly opened market for their goods, established regular trade relations with them, for which purpose they founded, with their permission, a fort (Ikskul, not far from Riga up the Dvina) and in the latter a permanent office. The Archbishop of Bremen drew attention to the pagan country discovered by the merchants and decided to convert it to Christianity. With the permission of Pope Alexander III, he sent the Augustinian canon Meingard as a missionary, who arrived at the place and began preaching among the pagans, with the permission of the Prince of Polotsk, in 1186. Initially he had some success and built a church for the converts in the aforementioned prison (Ikskul); but when he went home to receive the episcopal rank (1188) and returned again, he found the natives hostile against him. He turned to the pope for help, and the latter organized a crusade against the pagans from the knights then wandering around Europe. The crusaders, arriving at the scene of action, did not find Meingard alive, who died in 1196, and waited for the arrival of a new bishop, ordained from the Cistercian monks Berthold von Loccum. Berthold at first exhorted the pagans to accept Christianity voluntarily, but when the exhortations did not work, he decided to force them to do so. A battle took place between the crusaders and the natives, and although Berthold fell in it (1198), cut down by the latter, the former won a decisive victory. As a result of this, the Livas, to whom all of the above applies, were forced to be baptized, and accepted priests, obliging themselves to provide them with maintenance. In Berthold's place, the famous Albert von Apeldern from the canons of Bremen was installed as bishop of Ikskul. For the residence of missionaries and merchants, instead of the former fort, he founded in 1200. at the mouth of the Dvina there is a real city, namely Riga. Not hoping for random help from the knights, he decided to found his own order, which, having been approved by the pope, appeared in 1202. under the name of the Order of the Sword (Orden der Schwertbrüder, Schwertorden). In general, Albert, during his 30-year stay at the episcopal see († 1229), firmly established Catholicism and the power of the Germans among the Chuds of the Baltic region. In 1218 Semigalli or Semgalli (Zimegol of our chronicles) were baptized and an episcopal see was opened for them in Selon. In 1219 with the help of the Danish king Waldemar II, Albert forced the Estovs to be baptized and established an episcopal see for them in Dorpat in 1584. The Kurs, who remained unbaptized for the longest time, warned of the need to be baptized involuntarily, decided to do it of their own free will in 1280, the next year after the death of Albert. The Princes of Polotsk, who voluntarily allowed German preachers into the country, subsequently saw their mistake and decided to expel them. But in the struggle that began, the Germans very soon gained a decisive victory over them. During the pre-Mongol period, Western Europe conducted more or less active trade with Russia: Sweden and Norway, Denmark, all of Germany from north to south and Italy had our country as their trade market in 1585. For this reason, in the large cities of Rus', such as the capital of the state Kyiv, then Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Polotsk, Vladimir Volynsky and probably Pereyaslavl Russian and Chernigov, one or another number of foreign Latins constantly lived during the period in the person of these Western European merchants. In relation to faith, these merchants or Latin guests enjoyed complete freedom with us throughout the period, having their own churches in the cities, which were given all the respect and all the protection of the laws” 1586. In addition to the Latins of Western Europe, other non-Orthodox and also non-Orthodox people came to Russia for trade: from Crimea; in which, as the focal point of Europe's trade with Asia, merchants of all faiths, first and last, were gathered, more or less numerous representatives of its many different faiths were supposed to come to us to trade 1587; Mohammedan merchants (such as the Kama Bulgarians were) came to us from Kama Bulgaria, mainly to the eastern part of the state or to the Suzdal region; from the Polovtsians, who, no doubt, lived not only by robberies, but also by trade, pagan merchants (such as the Polovtsians were) should have come to us. As for the freedom of public worship of all other non-Orthodox people after Catholics and before those of other faiths, we do not know whether this question had any practical application to any of them. That is, we do not know whether merchants of any of the subject faiths lived anywhere among us in such a large constant number that they could have the idea of ​​​​establishing public worship for themselves. Если – да, то с весьма большой вероятностью следует думать, что кому бы то ни было из них предоставлялась такая же свобода общественного богослужения, как и католикам. It is possible to think this on the basis of what seems probable to assume about non-Orthodox and non-Orthodox people who not only came to Russia for a while to trade, but also founded colonies with us for permanent residence. These latter non-Orthodox and non-Orthodox people are Armenians and Jews or Jews. It is known that the Armenians, who are, as it were, second Jews in relation to that basic character trait of setting a goal and seeing the meaning of life in trade and profit, in one or another exploitation of people, like these latter are scattered to all ends of the earth where trade can be carried out and where the field for profit opens up. The similarity of characters, in all likelihood, produced a similarity of fate. The saddest history of the beautiful homeland of the Armenians is that since ancient times it has constantly passed from the hands of some foreign conquerors to the hands of others, being subjected to all the disasters of devastation during the transition from one to another and all the disasters of oppression during its stay under the rule of one and the other. As a result of this, from very ancient times, Armenians began to leave their homeland and settle in foreign lands in order to establish a homeland in money among strangers. Among other countries, colonies were founded by Armenians and here in Russia. Where they came to us to settle is not entirely known: one must think that, on the one hand, from Taurida or Crimea, where the beginning of their trading colonies should be dated back to ancient times 1588. And on the other hand, from Bulgaria, to which they came, probably, following their relatives the Paulikians 1589, and in which we find more or less significant numbers of them in the second half of the 11th-12th centuries 1590. If you believe the Patericon of Pechersk, there was a certain Armenian colony in Kyiv already in the second half of the 11th century, during the reign of Grand Duke Vsevolod Yaroslavich: the Patericon tells that during the reign of Vsevolod there was a famous doctor in Kiev, originally from Armenians, - that he was put to shame by the ascetic of Pechersk, the Monk Agapit, a free doctor, and that in revenge for the shame he taught his fellow believers to poison Agapit with a potion in 1591. If you believe your own Armenian evidence, then the beginning of their settlements in Galicia dates back to an even earlier time than what is known about Kyiv, namely, to 1060. 1592. In any case, regarding Galicia and Volhynia, it is accepted that the later Armenian colonies that appeared in them date back to the 12th and 13th centuries, 1593. Jews or Jews first penetrated into Kyiv, probably even before the founding of our state, when southern Russia was ruled by the Khazars, with whom they (the Jews) had the Kagan or sovereign with the highest nobility as their proselytes. After the founding of the state, their colony, as one must think, was mainly supported by settlers from the Crimea, where there were a lot of them, and from the second half of the 11th century from Poland 1594. There is no detailed information about the Jewish or Jewish colony in Kyiv; but there is no doubt, firstly, that it was more or less great, for the special settlement (special quarter) in which they lived gave its name to one of the city gates in 1595, - secondly, that as bankers and moneylenders they played a very important role in the then trading world and in general in all Russian society 1596. In addition to Kyiv, one should with absolute probability assume Jewish colonies in other large cities 1597. If our princes allowed Armenians and Jews to settle with them, and if both of the latter found it possible and had the desire to settle with us, then it is clear that we allowed some tolerance towards both. To what extent this tolerance reached, we cannot say anything positive due to the lack of information and instructions. In the realm of probable, one must assume that it was more or less significant. That the civil power in the person of the princes, for its part and insofar as it depended on it, was ready to extend tolerance as broad and as complete as possible, this cannot be doubted. But even the representatives of the church authorities of the pre-Mongol period cannot assimilate the extreme intolerance that they practiced later in Moscow (as well as the representatives of the civil authorities with them). These representatives of the church authorities in the pre-Mongol period were Greeks. As such, they, of course, were guided in their behavior towards non-Orthodox and non-Orthodox people by the rules and customs that existed in Greece. And these rules and customs allowed for significant and, in an unpretentious sense, completely sufficient tolerance. John, Bishop of Kitras (the city of Kitras, located not far southwest of Thessalonica, which was and still constitutes the bishopric of the Metropolis of Thessalonica), who lived at the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century, in his responses to the Archbishop of Dyrrhachia Constantine Kavasile reports the following regarding the rules and customs that existed in Greece regarding behavior with heretics and infidels: “in Christian regions and cities Since ancient times, it was allowed for foreign-language and heterodox people to live, such as Jews, Armenians, Ishmaelites, Hagarians and others like that, but not together with Christians, but separately, which is why special places are set aside for each of these peoples, either inside cities or outside, so that they settle in these places and do not set up their dwellings outside them; in places designated for residence, the Armenians build (i.e., have permission to build) churches and perform heresies related to them (public worship) and remain inviolable. The same (right) belongs to the Jews and Ishmaelites living in Christian cities. If they step beyond the boundaries of their appointed habitat, then not only may they be prevented from doing so, but may their dwellings, whatever they may be, be destroyed” 1598. Thus, Armenians and Jews or Jews were given freedom of public worship under the condition of living in separate places and separate settlements. Setting aside today's exactingness and, so to speak, delicacy, which is offended by any distinction that imposes a kind of stigma, and which undoubtedly did not exist then, this will have to be recognized as perfect freedom. Regarding the attitude towards the Latins of certain people who were especially zealous in their faith, we know the rules that they should have considered obligatory to follow, but we have no indication of the behavior itself. On the issue of relations to other non-Orthodox people, and it is between them to the Armenians, and to the Gentiles, and precisely between these latter to the Jews, we have indications of the behavior itself. These indications are that people who were especially zealous in their faith treated one and the other with ardent intolerance). In the Patericon of Pechersk about the above-mentioned Venerable Agapit, it is told that once the aforementioned Armenian doctor came to him sick and felt his hand (pulse) and that the saint, when he accidentally learned from the doctor that he was an Armenian by birth, shouted at him: “how dare you enter (to me) and desecrate my cell and hold (me) by my sinful hand, get out of me, heterodox and wicked.” The Monk Theodosius of Pechersk extended his jealousy towards the Jews to the point that at night, secretly from everyone, he went to their settlement to reproach them and annoy them and to call them scoundrels and lawless people 1599. APPLICATION. The retreats and guilt of the Latins according to Metropolitans George and Nicephorus, according to the monk Theodosius and the teaching to Vladimir on behalf of the Bishop of Korsun, placed in the chronicle. The digressions and guilt of the Latins in the wide scope that they have among our polemicists (following the Greek polemicists of their time) cannot be presented in a systematic manner. For after a few deviations and faults, which really are such and have degrees of importance, everything else is very much indifferent - liturgical and ritual differences or customs, although reproachful, but not related to faith. We will present a list of deviations and faults in the order as it is set out by Metropolitan George, and then we will add that Metropolitan Nicephorus, the monk Theodosius and in the teaching have something extra against him. Metropolitan George has 26 points of deviations, Metropolitan Nikifor has 23 points, and Monk Theodosius has only a small number of points in his teaching. The last three have surpluses against the first in such a way that, while omitting some (Metropolitan Nikifor) or many (Monk Theodosius and teaching) points of the first, they at the same time add their own new ones. (From Metropolitan Nikephoros we have two writings against the Latins: an epistle to Vladimir Monomakh and an epistle to Yaroslav Svyatopolkovich; in the first epistle, Nikifor repeats, somewhat abbreviating, Metropolitan George, and new points against the latter are in the second epistle, to which what has now been said should be attributed). Our now named polemicists, as we said, reproduce the Greek polemicists of their time. This should be understood not in the particular sense that they necessarily took each individual point of deviations and faults of the Latins from the written works of Greek polemicists who were at their fingertips, but in the general sense that they belong to the side of Greek polemicists who want to recognize as deviations and faults of the Latins all their simple differences and all their simply special (good or bad) customs, or who in general were for a great many deviations and faults. wines of the Latins. As for individual points, they could take some of them not from written works, but also from their own information about the Latins, right or wrong, fair or wrong. Metropolitans George and Nicephorus and the monk Theodosius were Greeks and, therefore, could use Greek polemical works against the Latins in the original. What polemical works against the Latins, detailing their apostasies and faults, existed among the Greeks during the lifetime of each of the three 1600 remains reliably unknown. The first such work, that is, with a detailed presentation, was a letter from Patriarch Michael Cerularius of Constantinople to Patriarch Peter of Antioch in 1054. 1601. Metropolitan George, of course and undoubtedly, had it at hand. Whether he had anything else, we don’t know; but, as it seems, there was nothing that is known to us at the present time. Metropolitan Nikephoros, in addition to Patriarch Michael Kerularius, had at their disposal, unknown by whom and when, after Kerularius, an article compiled, which is inscribed: in the Slavic translation: “About Fryazekh and other Latins” and which in this latter is read in Nikon’s Helmsman (chap. 48, l. 400) 1602, and also, as one should think, the work of John Metropolitan of Claudiopolis (the city of Claudiopolis in Isauria - Bingham III, 489) 1603. In presenting the points of Metropolitan George, we will indicate which Patriarch Michael Kerularius (abbreviated as M.K.) has and what he does not have, and in presenting the new points of Metropolitan Nicephorus against George, we will make reference to the now mentioned two works (an article on the Franks or on the Fryazekhs and a treatise by John of Claudiopolis), in which we find almost all of his new points. List of digressions and wines of the Latins, read by Metropolitan George. 1. “They serve and eat (take communion) unleavened bread as they eat like a Jew” (M.K. has it) 1604. 2. “They cut their beards with a razor, which is cut off from the Mosaic Law and from the Gospel” (available from M.K.) 1605. 3. “In the holy liturgy, during communion, one from the servants (priests), eats unleavened bread, kisses others” (who do not receive communion and for whom this kiss serves instead of communion. M.K. has it). 4. “In the holy service (liturgy) the transfer does not go out to be either great or small (that is, they do not perform either a small or a great exit or entrance). And the service is not performed in the altar, but throughout the whole church, three (mass is sung) and four and five (in one church) in one day, and the coffins are in their altars” (Not in M.K.). If the words: “and the service of the church” are understood to mean that liturgies are celebrated not only in the altar, but throughout the entire church, then it will be said fairly. Catholics, in addition to the main altar, which is in the altar (mostly, and sometimes in the middle of the church), have many side altars, which are actually throughout the church - at its southern and northern walls. Metropolitan Nikifor (in his letter to Yaroslav), having said that in a single church it is evil to serve the Liturgy up to three times a day, adds: “in a single church, if there is one altar, then there is one liturgy to be performed and one liturgy to be sung according to the rite: for this reason, as Christ will be crucified as one, they will be crucified as one, and for this reason the priest should have one liturgy.” create during the day in the Church of the Saints.” In ancient times, the Greeks did not have side altars, as we have now, but only side churches, so that each church had only one altar. Therefore, Metropolitan Nikofor in the above words wants to say: in each church there is (should be) only one altar; а на одном престоле можно совершить (как это и у католиков) литургию однажды, потому что и пр. 5. In the Creed about the Holy Spirit they added: and from the Son (M.K. has it). 6. On St. Liturgy, the proclamation of the face: “One is holy, one is Lord” is pronounced with the addition: “with the Holy Spirit” (M.K. has it). 7. Changed the words of the ap. Paul: little kvass leaves the whole mixture (Gal. 5:9) in: “little kvass spoils the whole mixture” (available in M.K.) 1606. 8. They prohibit clerks who want to become priests from marrying, they do not appoint married priests as priests and do not receive communion from married priests (M.K. has instructions from the ancient Western Church on abstinence by priests and deacons from their wives - the Council of Carthage, rules 3, 4, 34 and 81; on the custom raised to the canon regarding this Roman Church - the Council of Trullo, rule 13). 9 . They allow a husband to marry two sisters - after the death of the first, the second (M.K. instead has another similar one: καὶ δύο ἀδελφὰς δύο, other ἀδελφοὶ, λαμβάνουσι, i.e. e. two sisters are married by two brothers). 10. Bishops wear rings on their hands, “as if the wife had taken the church with her by marriage,” that is, by making it known that this custom marks, as it were, the marriage of bishops with churches (M.K. has it) 1607. 11. Bishops and priests go to war and defile their hands with blood (M.K. has it) 1608. 12. “Their bishops get married, and their priests have concubines and wives (married women, women who were married to their husbands who divorced them); They also go every now and then and get married there (that is, moving from one place to another, they leave the women with whom they lived in the abandoned places and take new ones in new places) and they get children and serve without restrictions” (not in M.K. For the Latin bishops to get married in the proper sense of the word, not a single Greek polemicist has: the word “marry” used about bishops should probably be understood by George in the same sense in which he uses it about priests, i.e. about open cohabitation with concubines). 13. They fast on Saturdays, contrary to the apostolic and paternal rules (found in M.K.) 1609. 14. “In the first week of Great Lent, meat emptying and butter emptying (i.e., cheese emptying) are created together, and then the packs fast on Saturday, and during the week they eat eggs and cheese and milk.” (It should be understood this way: Not knowing the weeks of meat and cheese, in the first week of Lent, in which fasting begins on Wednesday 1610, they create both meat and cheese, and then during Lent they fast on Saturdays, and on Sundays they eat eggs, cheese and milk. M.K. has it, but the end reads differently: “on Wednesday they eat meat, on Friday cheese and eggs, and on Saturday all the time day they fast." About the Roman fast on Saturday of the Council of Trullo, rule 55; about eating cheese and eggs on Saturdays and Sundays of Pentecost cfr of the same council, rule 56) 1611. 15. They eat strangled meat and carrion contrary to the Mosaic Law and the Gospel and the rules of the Holy Fathers (M.K. has it). 16. They eat unclean forbidden animals, (by the way) they also eat unclean noodles (turtles), calling them kokosh (? in M.K., foul eating - τὸ μιαροφαγεῖν). 17. The Chernets eat them “pork fat, a hedgehog on the skin”; the bishops allow the monks to eat them and other meats (M.K. has the first half, which reads: ?? - and monks eat meat - they eat lard and all kinds of skin, even extending to the meat) 1612. 18. They eat bear and donkeys; Their priests eat beaver meat during Lent, saying that it comes from the water and is fish (not with M.K.). 19. They eat with the dogs from the same vessels: after they themselves have eaten, they give the remainder (in the same vessels) to the dogs and then eat again themselves (from the same vessels. Not with M.K.). 20. “Our fathers and teacher bishops do not accept the saints and great ones as saints: the Great, the River, Basil and Gregory the Theologian and Chrysostom, nor do they have their teachings, heights for their sake and cruel for the sake of their difficult and virtuous lives” 1613 (M.K. has it without “height - virtuous”). 21. In holy baptism they are baptized in one immersion (M.K. has a reservation: ὡ ς δέ τινες ἡμ ᾶ ς διεβεβαιώσαντο, - as some assured us). 22. They pour salt into the mouths of those being baptized and do not give names at baptism of a bishop or priest of a saint (of some kind) or saint, but whatever name the mother gives, they are baptized in that name (M.K. has something about salt, but not about names). 23. They don’t want to bow to the relics of saints; some of them do not bow to holy icons (M.K. has one). 24. “They paint holy icons of the imagination on marbles and on church platforms, not just me but they honor them, but they trample underfoot, not only for forgiveness, but also for the priests and their monks” (None of the other polemicists have this accusation against the Latins; it is likely that instead of “icons” we should read “crosses” and understand here the accusation of other polemicists that the Latins, entering the church, become on their knees and draw - the expression “write” is used - a cross on the floor to kiss it, and then standing up, they stand with their feet on the place where they drew the cross, and thus trample on the latter). 24. “They do not separate the saint from the unclean, nor do they honor the holy altar any more, as we have received and learned from the saints, but we have the sanctuary and the doorway in a different order, and we order children and wives to stand in it; liturgies only for bishops and priests and deacons and priests; but you have the holy altar like a worshiper,” that is, they do not honor the holy altar more (than the rest of the church), as we have accepted and learned from the saints. And (we) have a porch (pribozhnok) and the back part of the church, which is from the (entrance) doors (door). In a different rank (in a different honor) we order ordinary people and women to stand in them, and in the middle church we put honest people, and in the front part of the church we put the best and most honest..., but they (the Latins) have the holy altar in the same respect as the porch (not with M.K.). 26. Our monks are unfairly accused of eating eggs, saying that from them (the eggs) animals and birds are born; and our (Latin) Chernets eat lard, “it is a living and grassy color” (not in M.K.). Metropolitan Nikifor has an extra one against Metropolitan George: 1. Fasting on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday is not allowed if the Nativity of Christ, Epiphany or another Lord's holiday occurs on these days (there is in the article about Fryazekh, § 4, but it says about one day - Saturday, and John of Claudiopolis (I.K.), § 3, but it says about two days - Friday and Saturday. Since the Latins, fasting from Friday to Saturday, do not fast on Wednesday, - Seredinsky. About the worship of the Western Church. II, 75, then Wednesday is either his own mistake or a later erroneous addition). 2. Our Most Holy Lady Theotokos is not called the Mother of God, but only Saint Mary, which is the Nestorian heresy (in the article on Fryazekh § 10, in I.K. § 8) 1614. 3. There are no icons of saints in the church, but only one crucifix (in the article about Fryazekh § 8, I.K. does not have them). 4. During baptism, after it has been performed, they spit into the baptized person’s right hand, mix the saliva with a finger and smear it on the baptized person instead of the ointment (in the article on Fryazekh § 14, in I.K. § 11). 5. When the baptized person comes of age and falls into human sins, they do not heal him through repentance and confession, but anoint him with wooden oil for the remission of sins, and repentance is swept away (in the article about Fryazekh and I.K. §§ the same as above). 6. Those who are baptized are not given the names of saints, but animal names: lion, pardus and other animals (in the article about Fryazekh there is no, in I.K. § 12 and it reads: ματά τινων ἁ γ ί ων ἐπιτιθέατε , ἀλλ ’ ἄτοπά τινα καὶ ξενίζοντα ;). 7. They cross themselves with five fingers, and then “smear” their face with a finger (thumb) (in the article about Fryazekh § 16, in I.K. § 13; in Greek with a finger: μετὰ τοῦ ἀντίχειρος, smear: ἐπισφραγίζουσιν ). 8. From Wednesday of the first week of (Great) Lent they do not sing “Hallelujah” until St. Easter (in the article about Fryazekh § 17, in I.K. § 6). 9 . They say that it is not worthy to praise God in a language other than three - Hebrew, Greek and Roman (in the article about Fryazekh in the Greek original, § 19, Popov has p. 65 at the beginning, but in the Slavic translation for some reason it is incomprehensibly omitted; I.K. does not). 10. They do not bury their dying bishops on the same day, but keep them unburied until eight days, until the entire region of the deceased has gathered and whoever can do whatever they can to honor (him), and then they bury him. And their arms are not folded crosswise (on the chest), but extended lengthwise, like the Jews; and the eyes, nostrils and ears are plugged with wax; they do the same to the common people (in the article about Fryazekh - according to the Greek original § 20, Slavic translation § 19; I.K. does not have anything about bishops, but there is about stretching out hands and about silencing all feelings in general among the dying - § 18). 11. They allow (so to speak) exchange (“treason”) in marriages: the one who gave his daughter in marriage (to someone) takes the daughter back from the matchmaker for his son or brother or for (another) close relative (in the article about Fryazekh in the Greek original § 22, translation § 21; in I.K. § 15). 12. Their monks, when they become bishops, eat meat and do everything else (worldly) without fear, just like the laity; and all monks in general are allowed to eat meat when they are sick (in the article about Fryazekh in the Greek original § 23, Slavic translation § 22, in I.K. § 17). The monk Theodosius has an extra one against Metropolitans George and Nicephorus: 1. “For sins they do not ask for forgiveness from God, but the priest forgives them freely.” 2. “They lay their dead with their feet to the west and their heads to the east.” 3. “Those who marry among them (brothers) take two sisters” (two sisters - M.K. in Metropolitan George under § 9). In the teaching to Vladimir, placed in the chronicle, it is superfluous to the three preceding ones: 1. “When they get into the church, they will not bow to the icons, but while standing they will bow down and, having bowed, write a cross on the ground and kiss it, standing up and standing with their feet on it: let him lie down and kiss it, and standing up he will trample on it.” (In the article about Fryazekh, § 9: “When entering divine churches (they prostrate), they fall face down to the floor and whisper; then they depict a cross on it (the floor) with their finger and stand up, and thus end the prayer,” it is implied - more in the continuation of standing in the church, without bowing; in John of Claudiopolis § 7: “Why and entering churches in which saints are depicted icons, you don’t kiss them, but by depicting a cross on the floor and kissing it, you end the prayer?”) 2. “But the earth also speaks matter: and the earth is their mother, and heaven is their father.” [John Chrysostom calls the earth mother, ) Montfauq. IV, 16 and 80.] In ancient times, the word “heretic” was used among us mainly in the sense of a sorcerer, a sorcerer (first half of the volume, footnote 1170, footnote 962): this heretic in the improper sense could have been Dmitry. Bulgarian Bogomilism was a continuation of the heresy of the Armenian Paulikians, who were resettled from Armenia to Thrace (near Philippopolis), on the border with Bulgaria, by the Emperors of Constantinople Copronymus and Tzimiskes. The heresy got its name from the priest Jeremiah Bogomil, who lived in the second half of the 10th century and who was its main distributor in Bulgaria. The dogmatic teaching of the Bogomilovs was dualistic: the spiritual world was created by God, material, with the inclusion of the human body, by the fallen Satanael, and completely anti-Christian: the Old Testament and New Testament churches were from Satanael or the devil. The moral teaching was severely ascetic. Since the heresy was predominantly the heresy of uneducated people and did not tolerate education, its teaching contained many of the most absurd fables, and its interpreters, in their delivery, allowed themselves various extravagances. (For example, it is said about one heretic that he walked naked, wearing a pumpkin on his shameful ouds.) – About the Bogomils, see our book: A brief outline of the history of the Orthodox churches B.S. and R., and in the books indicated there. Despite the absurdity of its teaching, the heresy held very firmly in Bulgaria and in most of the other countries where it managed to take hold. But this firmness must be explained precisely by absurdity, for the absurd has a kind of attractiveness for the dark masses among whom the heresy was spreading. (And if in Bosnia heresy even rose to the level of a state religion, then the extraordinary thing here should be explained by the state circumstances of the country, in which the upper strata of society represented something very slightly superior to the dark masses). See our book indicated. Cfr in the Historical and Statistical Description of the Smolensk Diocese, p. 36 fin., that the folk beliefs of the peasants of the province represent the creation of the world in the form of a struggle between a good Supreme Being and an evil one. The final division of the churches took place in 1054, under the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius and Pope Leo IX, almost two centuries after the quarrel and schism of Patriarch Photius with Pope Nicholas I. Michael Cerularius, together with Archbishop Leo the Archbishop (who, before his installation as archbishop in an unknown year, was the chartophylax of the Patriarch of Constantinople and, perhaps, of Cerularius himself, who was installed as patriarch in 1043. For the attitude of his chartophylaxes to Cerularius, see the letter to him from Peter of Antioch, in Minya, in Patrology t. 120, p. 797 n. 3.) wrote a letter to John, Bishop of Trani (the city of Trani in southern Italy, on the shores of the Adriatic Sea, not far north of Bari), in which he denounced some of the apostasies of the Latins (unleavened bread, Saturday fasting, eating strangled meat, not singing the hallelujah song during Lent, so that these denunciations would be brought to the attention of all bishops and all Christians Westerners, and the pope himself. The message actually reached the attention and hands of the pope. Having exchanged several messages regarding it with Michael Cerularius and the Emperor of Constantinople (Constantine Monomachos), he (the pope) finally sent his legates to Constantinople. These latter (with Cardinal Humbert at their head) led the matter in such a way that on July 16, 1054, they placed on the throne of St. Sophia of Constantinople a letter of excommunication against the Greeks. From that day on, the final division of the churches began. The Patriarch Michael Cerularius himself should be placed at the head of the zealous accusers of the Latin Church, who, irritated by hostility against the Latins, after the division that occurred, and his pride was insulted by the extremely arrogant behavior of the papal ambassadors, was unable to maintain himself within the proper limits. See his letter to Patriarch Peter of Antioch, in the Patrology of Min t. 120, rub. 798 sqq., § 11 sqq. Patriarch of Antioch Peter, contemporary of Michael Cerularius , in Minya, in Patrology t. 120, p. 796), Bulgarian archbishops Theophylact and Dmitry Khomatin (first in Προσλαλία περὶ ὧ ν ἐγκαλοῦται Λατίνοι, in Minya, ibid. t. 126, p. 221, the second in the replies to Constantine Kavasila, in Ralli and P. V, 430) and Bishop John of Kitras (in the replies to the same Kavasila, in Ralli and P. ibid., p. 404). Patriarch Peter of Antioch considers the unforgivable sins of the Latins to be the application of symbols and the rejection of communion from married priests, and about other things he says: δοκεῖ, τοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας: λόγου μηδὲν ἐξ αὐτῶν καταβλαπτομένου (said essay § 18); Archbishop Theophylact and Dmitry Khomatin recognize the application in the symbol as such a sin of the Latins (the first mentioned work §§ 2, 13–14); Bishop John of Kitra posits two faults for the division between the Latins and the Orthodox: the first and greater one is the dogma of the Holy Spirit, the second, not the same as the first, that is, of lesser importance, is the use of unleavened bread. (On the fact that the dogmas of faith, which should be the same for everyone, are another matter, and another matter are the rituals and customs, ranks and sequences of services, regarding which there may be differences between individual churches, see, for example, Photius’ letter of justification to Pope Nicholas regarding the occupation of the patriarchal throne, - in Valletta, p. 153 sqq. Photius himself, in his district message, declares the faults of the Latins: fasting on Saturday and non-observance of fasting in the first week of Lent; rejection of married priests; non-recognition of the anointing performed by the priest and - what is most important - the application in the symbol “and from the Son”, ibid. p. 168). See A. S. Pavlova Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greek-Russian polemic against the Latins. St. Petersburg 1878, pp. 44–45. Homatin at Rally and P. ibid., p. 435 sub fin.: ο ὔ δ ’ αὐτοὶ (Latins) ώς αἰρεσιῶται ἀπ ό βλητοι δημοσί ᾳ γεγόναιν. The teaching that the story of Vladimir’s baptism, placed in the chronicle, puts into the mouth of the Bishop of Korsun, consists of three parts: a brief confession of faith; about the seven ecumenical councils; about the Latin faith (against which Vladimir warns). In the very work of Metropolitan George, there are 27 deviations; but the 26th apostasy - eating unleavened bread is one and the same with the 1st. Let us note here that after the Right Reverend Macarius, the Contest with Latin was reprinted from the manuscript by A. S. Pavlov in the study indicated slightly above (p. 191). In the second half of the 5th century there was Peter Gugnivy (i.e., a tongue-tied stutterer, Πέτρος Μογγός), Patriarch of Alexandria, who adhered to the Monophysite heresy, but there was no Pope Peter Gugnivy. Where did it come from from the Greek polemicists, from whom the compiler of our teaching takes it, this is still a question (for ingenious thoughts on this, see the Critical Experiments of Mr. Pavlov, p. 23 fin. - For the Greek sources of all our teaching, see him - Pavlov, p. 8 sqq. In the translation of the confession of faith by Michael Sinkell, which makes up the first part of the teaching, a mysterious feature is that the Greek ὁμοούσιος is translated: subsisting). [In Pidalion, in the note to canon 96 of the 6th ecumenical council, which deals with the barber shaving of the Latin clergy, Zakynthos edition p. 307 col. 2 sub fin., we read: “Meletius the Confessor (ύποθεσ . ζ . περὶ ὰζύμ .) says that a certain Pope Peter, for the sake of his atrocities, was captured by a king (it is not said which one) and that for dishonor (for shame) half of his beard was shaved off.” This Meletius confessor was a monk of Gal(l)isia (from the same monastery with Patriarch Joseph 1 of Constantinople, who renounced the throne in 1274) and lived during the reign of Emperor Michael Palaeologus († 1282, i.e. at the same time as Joseph) and he is called a confessor because the emperor, for his opposition to the union with the Latins, cut off his tongue (about him Archimandrite A. Dimithrakopoulos Ὀρθ ό δοξος Ἑ λλάς, page 60 beginning; Nicodemus mentions him in the Synaxarist under January 19, but refers to reading his life to Νέ about ν Ἐκλ ό γιον, and this last book is with us. not at hand). Some of what Meletius wrote against the Latins, according to Dimithrakopulos - ibidd., is printed in the book Ῥ αντισμοῦ Στηλίτευσις (about which see the Greek bibliography of Vreto - Νεοελληνικὴ Φιλολογία, I, no. 209); but we don’t have this book at hand either. In the manuscript of Meletius's work there is St. Athos Lavra. Athanasius, see Sata Μεσαιων. Βιβλιοθ. I, 274. Knowing only the little given above from the speeches of the Meletievs about Pope Peter, we cannot say anything about them. But we strongly suspect that the first one from whom we should look for Pope Peter is Nicholas of Idrunto (Idrunto - Otranto in southern Italy), who lived at the end of the 12th - beginning of the 13th century and who, among other things, wrote: Περὶ τοῦ μὴ ξυρ ᾱ σθαι τὸ γένειον (about him and about his unpublished works in Dimithrakopoulus ibid. p. 34).] For a complete list of the deviations of the Latins, which are given to us by Metropolitans George and Nicephorus, the monk Theodosius and the unknown compiler of the teaching read in the chronicle, see the appendix to this chapter. Dmitry Khomatin at Rally and P. V, 433 fin. and 435 (Orthodox may enter Latin churches to pray to God and give due worship and honor to the saints therein). Apostolic canons 10, 45, and 65, the Council of Laodicea, canons 6, 9 and 33 (according to Timothy of Alexandria, canon 9, heretics are allowed into the church, but at the liturgy they must leave it, when before the time of kissing it is proclaimed: those who are unacceptable to fellowship, leave). The 4th Ecumenical Council canon 15, the 6th Ecumenical Council canon 72, the Laodicean Council canons 10 and 31. (The Carthage Council canon 30 prescribes that the children of clergy should not have intercourse with heretics). Zonara and Balsamon in the interpretation of the 33rd rule of the Council of Laodicea, in Ralli and P. III, 198 and 199. In Greek συγκοινωνεῖν, which should be understood not in the sense of communication in general, but in the sense of communing together the Body and Blood of Christ. Greek original, from which Russian translation, in Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences, vol. XXII, book 2, appendices, p. 7. In the Belech Charter § 102 (first half of the volume paragraph footnote 798). The answer we have given from Metropolitan John to the monk Jacob makes it clear that even then we had people who did not want to have fellowship with the Latins, even in food and drink. The attitude towards the Latins of the exceptional zealots of their Orthodox faith from among the monastics can be inferred from their attitude towards the Armenians. And about these latter it is given in the Patericon that they were distinguished by complete intolerance - Polycarp’s story about Agapit the unpaid doctor (and the Armenian doctor). Historica Russiae Monimenta a Turgen., I, 31, In the Greek Church, Balsamon directly speaks of the need for this accession for the Latin side marrying the Orthodox - in the interpretation of Rule 14 of the 4th Ecumenical Council, in Ralli and P. II, 254 beginning. The conciliar legislation on the acceptance of Latins and precisely through anointing was established only in 1484, - in Ralli and P. V, 143 (and the current custom of the Greeks to rebaptize Latins comes from the council of 1756, - ​​ibid. p. 614). The 4th Ecumenical Council canon 7 and the 6th Ecumenical Council canon 95. Sicut Arriani rebaptizant in nomine S. Trinitatis baptizatos et maxime Latinos, – in Gieseler in KG. B. II, § 42, note 8. Stefan Nemanja, baptized first with Latin baptism, was then rebaptized in Orthodox - see our book: Brief sketch of the history of the Orthodox churches V.S. and R. p. 551, note 19. Kalaidovich has a beginning on page 176. Odo de Diogilo under 1147, see Pichler in Geschichte der Kirche. Trennung, I, 288, note. At Ralli and P. II, 253 sub. fin. and Ι V, 460. In Gieseler, V. II, § 95, note 9. In Leunclavius in Jus Graeco-Rom. I, 318 (Giseler ibidd., note 9 fin.). Letter 1130 to Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, with an invitation to engage in the conversion of Russians to Latinism. Turgen. Historica Russiae Monimenta, I, p. 12 and 31. See the article by I. I. Malyshevsky “The Dominican Jacek (Iakinf) Ondrovonzh, the imaginary apostle of the Russian land,” published in the Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy, 1867, vol. 2, pp. 47 and 70. Turgenev Historica Russiae Monimenta I, 35. Dlugosz around 1233 (Book VI, edition 1711, p. 649): Wladimirus Kioviensis Dux, veritus ritum suum Graecum per fratres Praedicatores, videlicet Martinum de Sandomiria Priorem Kioviensem et alios fratres ejus, utpote viros religiosos et exemplares, pessundari et confundi, praefatos fratres de ecclesia S. Maria in Kiow, ordini praefato consignata et circa quam habebant suum conventum, expelli, redeundi facultatem eis interminans. – That the attention of the Kyiv prince to the propaganda of the Dominicans could have been drawn from Vladimir, see the first half of the volume, paragraph footnote 1102. – Details in the specified article Malyshevsky. In Kalaidovich, p. 202, § 16. Remaining strictly fair, we will have to say and admit that it was not the Germans who created the so-called Baltic or Baltic question for us, but we ourselves. And besides, there are two more episcopal sees - in Virland and Revel. Solovyov Stories vol. 3, edition 4. p. 45 sqq., Pogodin Ancient Russian Stories vol. 2, p. 774 sqq. About the Latin churches that were in our cities in the pre-Mongol period, our information is random and, in all likelihood, incomplete. In Kyiv around 1233, in the history of the Dominicans, which we conveyed above, the church of St. Mary or Mother of God. But one must think that in Kyiv there was not one Latin church, but several: Latin merchants traded there not from one country, but from many; Concluding from the example of Novgorod and in general from the customs of that time, it should be assumed that the merchants of each country constituted a special partnership or society; and from this the probable conclusion is that the merchants of each country had their own special church. This is confirmed to some extent by the Novgorod Chronicle, which says that, during the capture and plunder of Kyiv in 1203 by Rurik Rostislavich with the Polovtsians, “foreigners of every language shut themselves up in churches, and gave them (Rurik and his allies) their bellies, and divided the goods into floors”: It is more likely to believe that the churches in which foreigners shut themselves up were their own, not Orthodox. There were two Latin churches in Novgorod: St. Olaf, which belonged to the society of Gothic or Gotlandic merchants, built sometime before 1152, and St. Petra, which belonged to the society of German merchants, built in 1184. (And the Church of St. Friday, built by overseas merchants in 1156, was not Latin, but Orthodox, that is, overseas merchants here do not mean foreign merchants who traded in Novgorod, but Novgorod merchants who carried out foreign trade. About the Latin churches in Novgorod, see the study by M. Berezhkov “On the trade of Rus' with the Hansa before the end of the 5th century,” which constitutes the III part of the Notes of the Historical and Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg University, St. Petersburg, 1878, p. 59 sqq. After Kyiv and Novgorod we find Latin churches in Ladoga (St. Nicholas) and in Smolensk (St. Virgin Mary, - Berezhkova ibid. pp. 58 and 96, and before it about all the churches from Karamzin). Then, with a very high probability, there should be Latin churches in at least two more cities, namely Polotsk and Pskov. In the Patericon of Pechersk it is reported that Prince Nikolai Svyatosha, who became a monk of the Pechersk Monastery in 1106, had in the world a doctor or house doctor from the Suryanyan (Syrian) family, that is, an Arab. The Arab doctor entered the service in Russia, of course, along the road laid by merchants. And if Arab merchants came to us to trade, then this gives reason to assume that many other eastern ones also came. Crimean Sugdeya or Sugdaya (present-day Sudak, - first half, volume footnote 89) was almost an Armenian colony. Greek chroniclers speak in the middle of the 6th century about some people of the Sugdaites (Σουγδα ί ται), who lived somewhere near the Caspian Sea, in the vicinity of the Medes (the north-eastern part of present-day Persia), the Persians and the Turks (by which, probably, should be understood the Khazars, who then lived between the Black and Caspian seas, from the north from Armenia), and who conducted a special trade in silk fabrics (Stritter Memorr. pp. III, 44 sqq.). This last sign applies equally to both the Armenians and Sugdai (first half of the volume, footnote 99). – Under the upper Sugdei, which monk Epiphanius speaks of, ibid. p. 14, perhaps we should understand our Sugdaits. About the Armenians in Crimea in later times, see Köppen’s Crimean Collection). About the resettlement of the Armenian Paulikians (of which the Bulgarian Bogomils) by the Greek emperors, see our book A Brief Essay on the History of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Russian Orthodox Churches, p. 155. Letters of Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria (in Patrology of Min t. 126), Life. Hilarion, Bishop of Meglin (Nikon Chronicle II, 45), cfr. F. Uspensky Formation of the second Bulgarian kingdom, p. 224 sqq. (Together with our Russia, the Armenians founded in our pre-Mongol period a colony in Hungary - Czoernig'a Ethnographie der Österreich. Monarchies, these last Armenians, of course, came from Bulgaria). Polycarp's story about Agapit. Ritter Erdkunde, X, 597 fin. Plyushard's Encyclopedic Lexicon, article: Armenia (part 3 p. 141 col. 2), Rudneva On heresies and schisms, p. 67 beginning. (In 1367, the Polish king Casimir, who had recently conquered Galicia, gave permission to the Armenian bishop Gregory to build a cathedral in Lviv and have a residence there, - Zubritsky Critical-historical tale of the bygone years of Chervonnaya or Galician Rus, p. 156; in 1634, Lviv Armenian bishop Nikolai Torosowicz accepted the union with the pope, - Garasevich Annales Ecclesiae Ruthenae, p. 74 beginning. Currently, there are up to 5 thousand Armenians in Austrian Galicia and Bukovina; they live in the cities of Lvov, Lysiec, Horodenka, Snyatyn, Kutny, Chernivtsi and Suceava, Chernigov). See the article by I. I. Malyshevsky: “Jews in southern Rus' and Kyiv in the X-XII centuries,” published in the Proceedings of the Kyiv Academy in 1878. That Jews appeared in Poland and, therefore, could move from it to Russia earlier than the second half of the 11th century, this is denied by Graetz in his Geschichte der Juden, declaring Jewish-Polish coins of the 12th century as augenscheinliche spuria, - VI, 69. The Jewish Gate, - Ipat Chronicle, 2nd edition, pp. 232 and 296, in “Yaroslavl city, the first from Zolotye in one direction or another (according to Zakrevsky Chronicle and description of the city of Kiev, present-day Lvov, to the north of Zolotye). In 1113, after the death of Svyatopolk Izyaslavich, the people of Kiev, among other people they hated, robbed the Jews (Ipat Chronicle), the reason for which is most likely assumed to be the terrible usury of the latter (Malyshevsky). The Old Russian word “bondage” (to give oneself a bondage - a bill of exchange, and to go into bondage - to heal the borrowed money) probably comes from the Hebrew word kabal, which means to seize, bind. (Since those who issued bills of exchange and generally borrowed money exposed themselves to the danger of arrest). Under 1288 The Jews are mentioned (but not seen as settled or only as temporary residents) in Vladimir Volynsky, - Ipatskaya Chronicle, 2nd edition, p. 605 (Under Andrei Bogolyubsky, the Jews, as the chronicle should be understood - Ipatskaya, 2nd edition, p. 401, did not live permanently in Vladimir Klyazemsky, but only came to trade there). Nestor in the Life, according to the edition of Bodyansky L. 24 sub. fin. It is not entirely clear what it means: secretly from everyone (“keep everyone away”); as if this should be understood in such a way that obvious reproaches to the Jews were prohibited. Metropolitan George, it is unknown from what year and for what he occupied the department, is mentioned under the years 1072 and 1073; Metropolitan Nikephoros I occupied the see from 1103 to 1123; monk Theodosius lived in the second and third quarters of the 12th century. Letter from Min in Patrology t 102 rub. 781; calculation of the apostasies of the Latins in it § 11 sqq. (written shortly after the death of Pope Leo IX, - § 3). The Greek original of the article (with a Slavic translation on the Helmsman of the second half of the 13th century of Novgorod and Ryazan) in A. N. Popov’s essay: Historical and literary review of ancient Russian polemical works against the Latins, M. 1875, p. 58. Extract from the work of John Claudiopolis by A. S. Pavlov in Critical Experiments, Appendix VIII, p. 189 (about him, p. 45 beginning). Unleavened bread, unleavened or unleavened bread, to put it simply: unleavened bread (baked without yeast), used by the Latins during the liturgy, is called by them oblates (oblata, oblatae, among the Poles oplatek, - tka, which is the actual name used by Metropolitan Nikephoros), which means the same thing as our (Greek) name for liturgical bread - prosphora, i.e. offering (oblata from the verb offerо, I bring). Both names - ours and the Latin - come from the fact that in ancient times, both with us and with them, the liturgy was celebrated not on bread made from (at) the church itself, but brought by the believers (and since their believers brought, of course, ordinary bread, and not unleavened bread, this clearly proves that unleavened bread is a later innovation among them) - Latin oblates or oblates are completely different in form from our prosphoras: they are very small and thin flat cakes (the size of our current two-kopeck piece, and the thickness of our silver patch and even thinner). When the custom of shaving the beard was introduced among the Western clergy remains unknown: Patriarch Photius speaks about it (justifying letter to Pope Nicholas, in Valletta, p. 155); until Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) it was not universal, but this latter prescribed it for general observance” (a letter on this subject from Ducange in Gloss. Latinit. under the word Barba); it was finally established no earlier than the 15th century (Müller-Mothes Dictionary under the word Bart). The cited verse. Paul in the ancient copies is read differently, in some: ζυμεῖ - leavened, in others: φθε ί ρει - tlit. The Greeks learned the first reading, and the Latins the second, and hence the reproach (suspecting intentional damage in the types of azimitism). On the rings worn by Western bishops, abbots and rectors of parish churches during divine services, see Seredinsky On the divine services of the Western Church, I, 34 fin. This was indeed the custom among Western bishops and priests. Catholics fast on Friday and Saturday, and their fast consists of abstaining from meat alone - Seredinsky On the worship of the Western Church, II. 75. See Seredinsky, ibid. page 79. On the current fast of Catholics on Pentecost, see Seredinsky, ibid. page 77. Regarding the accusations against the Latins that they are foul eaters and that their monks eat pork fat, Patriarch Peter of Antioch remarks to Michael Cerularius: “As for the fact that they are foul eaters and that their monks eat pork fat, then upon careful inquiry you will find that this happens to some of ours; The Bithynians, Thracians and Lydians eat crows, magpies, wild pigeons and ground urchins ὲχ ί νους), whose use the Fathers allowed as a matter of indifference,”.. Λόγος, καθ ’ ὅ ν καιρον, § 7. Does this not mean that the Western Church “prohibits the utterance of the saint’s name and his homeland in prayer?” (Seredinsky ibid. p. 65 fin.). The name of the Mother of God among Catholics is really not the Mother of God, but Saint Mary (sancta Maria; they do not have a word corresponding to the Greek Θεοτόκος or our Mother of God, and when it is necessary to express precisely that the matchmaker Mary is the Mother of God, they say: Mater Dei). You might be interested in: