Orthodoxy at its essence

The question of what Orthodoxy is, in its essence, does not have a dogmatically approved answer and, in its comprehensiveness, allows for a variety of illumination, and in relation to the heterodox West, it seems, without risking indelicacy, it can be argued that they know it the least, even if it is considered the oldest Christian confession. Therefore, it is appropriate for the Orthodox theologian as a private individual to clarify this subject in its essential content and to eliminate prejudices, which are too abundant in this area everywhere, especially in the West. Regarding worship - where the life of believers through communion in Christ Jesus is manifested - liberal Protestantism, through the mouth of the famous professor Adolphe Harnack (in "Das Wesen des Christentums" ["The Essence of Christianity"]) said that there is only a simple muttering (murmeln) of stereotypical exclamations and prayers. Others see in Orthodoxy a kind of Catholic ritualism, while Catholics persistently suspect that the Orthodox do not venerate the Mother of God at all, even along with the saints. Orthodox doctrine comes down to the immovable preservation of various traditional dogmatic formulas, symbols and creeds, which have not received rational disclosure and have only [perhaps] imitative scholastic processing, and in practice superstition allegedly reigns in almost all layers. Private institutions are no less reinterpreted - and we still hear (from Rev. T.A. Lacey. Marriage in Chruch and State [Lacey T.A. Marriage in Church and State]. London, 1912) that according to Catholicism, marriage in Orthodoxy is indissoluble and divorce is allowed only by dispensation [permission granted in exceptional cases], so that the new marriage union of divorced people is actually bigamy itself. The church structure is depicted either by papistic hierocratism (in the Greek Church of Constantinople), or by obvious Caesarism with the despotism of secular power (through the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in Russia). The religious propaganda of Count L. Tolstoy has greatly contributed to the intensification of such misunderstandings and perversions in recent times. People in the West tend to think about him that - positively or negatively - he was a product of Russian Orthodoxy, which is judged accordingly. At the same time, he was taught all the worst in Tolstoyism, emphasizing for his best sides that Orthodoxy as such itself rejected them, excommunicating Count Tolstoy from the Church. In fact, everything here is wrong, and the Orthodox can rightly apply to Tolstoy the words of St. John the Theologian (I Epistle 2, 19) 1 in such a variation that he “did not come from us and was not ours,” for he did not know Orthodoxy in history and reality and did not experience it with inner penetration and heartfelt submission, and he nourished his religious quests with crudely popular critical liberalism and based them on the principles of autonomous rationalism. All elements in Tolstoy are alien to Orthodoxy and do not reflect it in the least. However, in the aspect of Tolstoyanism, the West is accustomed to looking at Orthodoxy, treating it with suspicion or disdain, sometimes with outright condemnation, as a kingdom of religious darkness and intolerant tyranny. I. The described situation is aggravated by the fact that for many reasons it turns out to be extremely difficult for the West to directly study Orthodoxy, which is not at all attracted to by its bad reputation. For orientation, they usually look for – on a Western scale – “Orthodox symbolic books,” but from this point of view, Orthodox dogmatic monuments are too loose in their dogmatic community and do not provide precise definitions of the very nature of Orthodoxy. The latter does not have developed and sanctioned formulas expressing its distinctive essence in itself and in comparison with other Christian confessions. Therefore, various current maxims are accepted and utilized to characterize Orthodoxy, used and sometimes defended by the Orthodox themselves. In fact, this introduces new misunderstandings, where the internal is suppressed by the external and distorted by such violence. This is the most widespread belief that Orthodoxy is a well-known nationalist form of Christianity, which receives in it both national restriction and nationalistic exclusivity when, closing itself within the framework of its nationality, it acquires special rights of preferential possession and the necessary mediation in the receipt and distribution of Christian goods. The basis for this understanding is the generally accepted – even among Orthodox – names “Greek-Eastern Orthodoxy” or “Eastern Greek-Russian Church”. Here epithets mark the distinctive properties of an object, and a judgment is acquired about it that Orthodoxy represents something “Greek-Eastern” or “Eastern-Greek-Russian”. And it is indisputable that in this combination the nationalist moment turns out to be, if not the only one, then the dominant one. And it cannot be denied that historical justifications and factual reinforcements are being sought for this view. The Greek Byzantine-Constantinople Church has the greatest merit [in that] it has successively preserved Orthodoxy in all its typicality and saved it from destruction and absorption. We owe it to her that, despite the difficult and terrible vicissitudes of history, Orthodoxy did not perish under the yoke of Islam and did not succumb to the pressure of heterodox propaganda - especially from Catholicism, which has long and strenuously strived for complete dominion in the East. Greek nationalism historically merged with Orthodoxy and protected it with its very self-preservation, in turn finding in it a spiritual basis for its identity. Orthodoxy and Hellenism united in close reciprocity, which is why the first began to be classified as the second. And Christian Hellenism carried out and developed this union precisely in a nationalistic spirit. The religious moment was a factor in national aspirations, was subordinate to them, and not only among the Phanariots 2 was turned to the service of pan-Hellenic dreams. The latter were deeply woven into the religious-Orthodox element and imparted their own flavor to it, endowing the dignity and rights of an ethnarch 3 for all Christian peoples of the East precisely with the Byzantine patriarch, who was revered as a living and animate image of Christ (Matthew Blastari, XIV century in “Syntagma”, π 8). As a result, it turned out that all spiritual Christian superiority belongs to Hellenism and can only be secondarily perceived by others from it. For Orthodoxy this meant that it was entirely contained in Hellenism and distributed by it under its domination and control. In this regard, the enlightened Gregory of Byzantios (or Byzantine, according to his place of birth - in Constantinople; from 1860, Metropolitan of Chios; † [died Metropolitan] of Irakli in 1888) categorically testified that “the mission of Hellenism is Divine and universal.” Hence the primordial and ongoing claims to the exclusive supremacy in Orthodoxy of Hellenism itself as its owner and dispenser. According to the first answer (from May 1576) to the Tübingen theologians of the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah II (†1595), who spoke as “the successor (διάδοχος) of Christ” (introduction), - the Greek “Holy Church of God is the mother of Churches and, by the grace of God, preeminent in knowledge, immaculately boasts of the purity of the apostolic and paternal decrees and, being new, old in Orthodoxy and placed at the head”, why “every Christian Church should celebrate the liturgy in the same way as it” - the Church of Greece and Constantinople (chapter 13). In Constantinople, tendencies towards church absolutism in Orthodoxy were always detected and did not at all favor the development of national-autonomous churches, not easily recognizing them even with hierarchical equality. In the eastern patriarchates, Byzantine-Constantinople Hellenism does not in the least contribute to national Christian identity and in every possible way defends its governmental-hierarchical hegemony, fighting against the national independence of Damascus (Antioch) and Jerusalem. In Constantinople, they did not readily agree (at the end of the 16th century) to the independence of the Russian Church and did not completely reconcile with the autocephaly of Greece (from the middle of the 19th century), and in relation to the Bulgarian Church they extended nationalist intolerance to the point of ecclesiastical rupture, declaring it (in 1872) - in its entirety - “under schism.” It is worthy of great surprise that the champions of extreme nationalism in the church sphere at the same time (in 1872) recognized the national-ecclesiastical aspirations of others as unacceptable and even proclaimed them a newly invented heresy under the name of “phyletism”!.. In the form outlined in the most general strokes, Hellenic nationalism almost directly covers Orthodoxy, and the latter will be, as it were, a nationalist confession. Orthodoxy is presented as nationalistic as a confession of the Eastern or - more particularly - Greek-Russian. But the described phenomenon is purely historical and conditional: it does not exhaust Orthodoxy, but only adapts it to known national-historical forms. This testifies that in its essence Orthodoxy is above all external combinations, although it does not destroy them violently, but spiritualizes and transforms them internally. Even Byzantine ecclesiastical Hellenism itself always loudly proclaimed this, because it fundamentally justified its ecclesiastical dominion by obligatory care for the good dispensation and normal development of the Local National Churches. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, whose head since the time of John IV the Faster (582–595) bears the title of Ecumenical (οικουμενικός), in favor of its supremacy directly refers only to its maternal care for its younger sisters and young daughters, without putting forward its nationalist prerogatives, even if the latter actually dominated or entirely. Orthodoxy penetrates and inspires Christian Hellenism, but does not belong to it on the basis of property with exclusive rights. Therefore, other Orthodox peoples did not see an indissoluble union there, where both sides are inseparable and suffer together to the same extent. Thus, on the occasion of the correction of Slavic liturgical books according to Greek models, the old Russian church people, who later formed a schism, did not hesitate (in the 18th century) to repeat that Orthodoxy among the Greeks had “gone wild” and become “motley”, but much later (in the 40s of the 19th century) they were the ones who looked for an archpastor for the formation of their “Belokrinitsa hierarchy”. The conclusion is now clear: by its nature, Orthodoxy is not covered by nationalism and does not merge with it. It transcends nationalist divisions and, settling among them, becomes a reconciling element. A new view is developing in this direction, which is all the more remarkable because in it the end has gone far from its beginning. The ideological creators and best exponents of this worldview in Orthodox Russia were the so-called Slavophiles. Ardent, sincere and enlightened champions of the entire Russian identity, in the present case they started from the doctrines of Hegelian philosophy about the dominance of antinomian bifurcation, united in the third principle. And if this law operates in world history in general, then its influence is also obligatory in the religious-Christian sphere. From this point of view, the entire position of Christianity is further illuminated. Something fundamental, conquering peoples, gradually differentiates nationalistically, until in the West it finally forms into two grandiose Christian groups - Catholicism and Protestantism. Here are two mutually denying and opposing poles, in which integral Christianity is refracted in nationalist forms and bifurcates according to their typical development. This discord of confrontation is caused not by the single subject itself, but by its narrow nationalistic perception and therefore cannot remain unreconciled, since otherwise one would have to admit duality in the most fundamentally positive factor, which is absolutely not allowed by the all-perfect Divinity of Christianity. For the antinomy of Catholicism and Protestantism, it is Orthodoxy that is declared to unite and absorb them. In this dignity it should be thought of as non-national or supra-national. This is how it is in theory. However, then Orthodoxy will be a pure abstraction, while in history only concrete forces create and move. Therefore, Orthodoxy can be a historical factor only in a certain specific incarnation, but it is always, everywhere and certainly national, being realized in a certain people who serve as the bearer of its spirit and the disseminator of its action. The nation turns out to be the receptacle of Orthodoxy in its entire content. In the “District Epistle of the One, Holy, Catholic (Catholic) and Apostolic Church to all Orthodox Christians,” published under Patriarch Anthima VI of Constantinople in May 1848 (in response to the encyclical of Pope Pius IX of January 6, 1848 with an appeal to Eastern Christians) and adopted in Russia, it is directly stated (in §17) on behalf of Orthodoxy that “the guardian of piety... we have the very body of the Church, that is, the people itself” 4. But in order to fulfill such a mission, the latter must not be a mechanical conglomerate ready to disintegrate, but an integral complex with a ruling center and a unifying Head. Orthodoxy here enters into an alliance with the national kingdom and is established on it. Hence the old Russian formula that the first Rome changed, the second, or new (Constantinople), fell, but it was succeeded by the third - Moscow, but there will not be a fourth. The kingdom is unthinkable without a king, who protects and symbolizes it on all sides, including, of course, Orthodoxy. This was the case in Byzantium, where the emperors were actually the planters and guardians of orthodoxy and fundamentally assimilated the Divine origin and church-hierarchical dignity of their very power. The same is true for Russia. Here - according to the “Spiritual Regulations”, which normalize the church structure from Peter the Great, from the 20s of the 18th century, and according to the Basic Laws (Article 42): “The Emperor, as a Christian Sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the dominant faith and the guardian of orthodoxy and all deanery in the Holy Church.” Under Paul I (1796–1800), there were even some claims to church supremacy for the emperor. The unity here is the closest, for it was forged by historical life and welded in it to the point of monolithicity: the Orthodox Church historically created the Orthodox Tsar in Russia and provided him with autocracy, and the Tsar patronized and protected it, delivering internal domination and external greatness. Orthodoxy merged with the people in the autocratic Anointed One. So, as a result of the whole process, on the basis of Slavophil idealistic concepts, a more concrete thesis grew up and in practice, professed by many until now. This is the famous triad: “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality.” In this formula, the dominant one is the religious moment, which penetrates both others, because it religiously sanctions and makes secular power inviolable, imparting to the nation a universal destiny in its Orthodox Christian mission throughout the earth. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy, by its very influence, is actually mediated by nationality and assisted by secular authorities. Of course, this actually applies to Orthodoxy in its historical position, as is true for Catholicism and Protestantism, if the first bears a clear imprint of Latinity in its Romanesque nature and physiognomy, and the second is testified (by Eduard von Hartmann) that in its “Germanism” (Germanentum) it even surpasses Christianity itself. But such intimate rapprochements always threaten identification. An irresistible example of this is before everyone’s eyes in later Judaism, where nationalism so prevailed in religion itself that here one must first (by blood) join the Jewish people (through circumcision) in order to then participate in its faith and promises. Something similar is undeniable for the above triad, although it has never been expressed historically on a full scale and with perfect typical clarity. In it, nationality is not completely equated with Orthodoxy, but still serves as a support and container for the latter, which is why it acts and is perceived under its forms. Here there is an obvious nationalistic limitation, which is all the more sharp and narrow because Orthodoxy is predominantly associated with one type of government, and in this direction, authoritative scientific-hierarchical attempts at dogmatic justification on the basis of the truth of the Holy Trinity were recently made in Russia, although others were based on this in favor of a limited monarchy and even democracy. In any case, the doctrines in question were either resolved by theoretical abstraction or fell into a narrow nationalization. The first was completely vague and did not represent what was most necessary, for it only spoke about Orthodoxy, but did not show or define it as a concrete vital force. The second sinned the opposite, which put forward only a known factual discovery and obscured or distorted the natural essence, squeezing it into a national framework. Neither here nor here the most important thing was achieved in order to clarify in Orthodoxy its inner, essential nature, which manifests itself “in many parts and in many ways,” never changing in its depth and never being exhausted in its completeness. Instead, what was offered was, in fact, a simple description of the historical pictures of the understanding or application of Orthodoxy, but there was no definition of it as such. This also includes the third formula. It is the most superficial, but requires mention due to its popularity and prevalence, although the latter are acquired, in fact, by its primitiveness. We understand the current maxim that Orthodoxy is the golden mean, or the royal path, between Catholicism and Protestantism. There is no need to argue that this thesis is not suitable even from a purely external point of view, for in comparison with the extremes being reconciled, the moment that mediates them must necessarily be later, yet it is revered and necessarily thought of as earlier and independent, and here the only important question arises: what was Orthodoxy then - without correlation with these non-existent opposites? If this formula offers a visual and comparative description of Orthodoxy, then it leads to its depersonalization and, perhaps, to its destruction. Let us try to take away from Catholicism everything that Protestantism denies in it, making all the Catholic subtractions from [Protestantism], and in the end we will have almost nothing left for Orthodoxy. It turns out that the latter does not share these confessional extremes because it does not have its own content, turning into a pointless function. But ideologically and in fact, Orthodoxy claims to be autonomous, and therefore it must necessarily have a doctrinal originality that provides it with distinctive independence. II. From the previous review, it is obvious that Orthodoxy equally exceeds the framework of all historical nationalism and the characteristics of all confessional varieties. Based on these properties, it seems that, being outside the historical movement of real life and concrete thought, Orthodoxy will be some kind of extreme abstraction, close to ephemerality. But in fact, it always declares and acts as a living element in the Christian historical process, where it always acts in a creative way, not being limited to specific forms of national embodiment and confessional identification. This is not at all an ideal, but an entirely real force, which has been functioning since the very emergence of Christian development, holds it by itself and serves as a life-giving regulator of a consistent process. No other point of view is applicable except that Orthodoxy feels and appears to be a living and vital principle with a strict individuality. Now we need to find the characteristic features of this latter. But the general description contains all the data for particular definitions. First of all, Orthodoxy is, of course, independent of all historical and national implementations, but on the contrary - these feed and live on it, without exhausting it in the least and only preparing the basis for better and broader applications. Orthodoxy from this side is inexhaustible Christian energy, coming from the beginning with continuity and never changing or weakening. It is clear that by these qualities it merges with Christianity itself as a grace-divine life factor. But in world history, the Christian movement gradually divided into many streams, sometimes so distant from each other that they completely forgot about their common source. Orthodoxy opposes itself to all these isolations in the dignity of a central unity, integral in its essence and immutable in all historical vicissitudes. This contrast with Christian confessions decisively asserts that they contain only partial reflections of Christianity, while Orthodoxy assimilates its entirety in being and content. However, in the first case, partial perception is considered the historical embodiment of the whole and actually realizes it. Naturally, here the whole is reduced to the particular and assessed by this narrow standard, which is not at all identical to it. The whole is not captured in its entire breadth, but is comprehended in partial limitations and for this reason is depicted inappropriately to its natural greatness or incorrectly in an objective sense. An object is revealed only in part of itself and, being absorbed in it, is revealed one-sidedly and incorrectly. This is an understanding that is “wrong” in its partiality, which is necessarily a limitation and even a distortion of the whole when it tries to replace it, being at a certain historical moment the only factual representative of the entire Christian wholeness. On the contrary, Orthodoxy wants to be a complete revelation of Christianity, so that the latter is expressed in it adequately and, therefore, correctly. In this sense, Orthodoxy is a “right confession” - ορθοδοξία - because it reproduces in itself the entire intelligible object, sees itself and shows it to others in the “correct opinion” in all its objective richness and with all its features. Orthodoxy satisfies its “right” norm precisely because it coincides throughout its entire scope with its subject, as it is given in fact and exists independently. But such is the true and original Christianity of the Lord Savior and His Apostles - and Orthodoxy, by succession, preserves and accommodates it, applying and revealing it among different historical conditions. So we get that, in its inner hope, Orthodoxy thinks of itself as Christianity in its original fullness and intact integrity. It is fundamentally differentiated from other Christian confessions not as truth from error, but, in fact, as a whole compared to parts. The latter are already separated from it and, in order to justify and ensure their autonomy, are forced to insist on direct separation with a sharp highlight of their distinctive properties and such dissimilarity that excludes mixing and transmission. By its very integrity, Orthodoxy does not feel an internal need for this, for it carries within itself all the parts and has neither the need nor the desire to differentiate from them. This is its special nature, that Orthodoxy contains everything in itself and is implemented to the close harmonious unity of all organs of the church body. Then, for him, only the function of internal unity of all parts with the dominance of transformative centripetal force and the suppression of all deviations and falling away is normal for him. There is no objective division here, and therefore it is not located subjectively, or in religious self-determination itself. From this point of view, in Orthodoxy it is natural to have a general creed with the revelation of its true apostolic content, but not at all with the fragmentation of different elements in it. After all, the whole can never and nowhere be resisted or opposed by certain parts, and such adversativity [opposition] is conceivable only among them or from their side in relation to the whole. They diverge from each other precisely because of their partiality and, in order to justify the very separation from the whole, they are typically isolated from it. In contrast to this, the whole does not have the slightest reason or internal need to deliberately distinguish itself from its parts - by the most immediate evidence of this fact for all sighted people. From time immemorial, the whole was before the parts and always remains greater than them, for which no evidence is needed, which, naturally, is not given on one’s own initiative for the sake of one’s self-determination. This property contains the source of a peculiar phenomenon, insufficiently understood and appreciated in Western heterodoxy. The latter seeks accurate “symbolic books” from Orthodoxy and even tries to help it by collecting and publishing them. But this conceals a big misunderstanding, which practically turns into delusion. In fact, Orthodoxy does not have “symbolic books” in the technical sense, and all speeches of this kind are conducted only extremely conditionally and adaptively to Western confessional schemes, contrary to the nature and history of Orthodoxy. It considers itself to be right, or the genuine teaching of Christ in all its originality and integrity, and then - what special distinctive doctrine can it have, other than the Gospel of Christ?! And the Orthodox Church itself still does not use special “symbolic books”, being content with general traditional documents of a religious nature. We see this during episcopal consecration, where the person being consecrated reads only the most ancient symbols as evidence of his orthodoxy. But this feature is revealed even more decisively and clearly in the “Rite of Orthodoxy”, which is still performed at liturgy in cathedrals on the Sunday of Orthodoxy (η κυριακη, or η εορτη της Ορθοδοξίας), that is, on the first Sunday Great Lent, in memory of the Triumph of Orthodoxy (February 19, 842) 5 under the Byzantine Empress Theodora (842–845). During this priestly service, false heretical opinions are only rejected and condemned - with prayer for the conversion and salvation of erring sinners, and the confession of the Orthodox faith is the ancient church creed. “Following the saving Revelation” of God is expressed here by the generally accepted Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol, and precisely in relation to it it is loudly proclaimed: “This apostolic faith, this paternal faith, this Orthodox faith, this faith establish the universe.” Further it is added: “We also accept and approve the councils of the holy fathers, and their traditions and writings, in agreement with Divine Revelation. […] For those who captivate their minds into obedience to the Divine Revelation and labored for it, we please and praise them, so those who resist this truth, even if they did not repent to the Lord who awaited their conversion and repentance, follow the Holy Scriptures and adhere to the primacy of the Church traditions, we excommunicate and anathematize” 6 . Orthodoxy appeals to old, primordially Christian norms and does not indicate for itself special “symbolic books”, because it has nothing symbolically new in dogmatic terms compared to the era before the conclusion of the seven Ecumenical Councils. This shows that Orthodoxy preserves and continues the original apostolic Christianity through direct and continuous succession. In the historical flow of Christianity throughout the universe, this is the central flow, coming from the very source of living water 7 and not deviating throughout its entire length until the end of the world. Here is the root and explanation of all other fundamental properties of Orthodoxy. If it confesses the dignity of genuine Christianity in accordance with its original, then this quality is produced and ensured by the fact that the closest continuity with the latter is always maintained - with the liberation of its own action, which forms Orthodoxy in its historical existence. Primordial Christianity in Orthodoxy is drawn, delivered and guaranteed through successive perception, when the new acquires the authority of Christian primordiality, and in its very antiquity it reveals an incessant renewing vitality. Material perfection is combined with the formal principle of traditional continuity, which contributes to the fact that the historical movement of Orthodoxy at all stages comes into contact with its fundamental principle. So, according to his inner consciousness and conviction, Orthodoxy is genuine apostolic Christianity by direct inheritance, at least in certain historical forms, which - in the spirit of its era and conditions - were not alien to early Christian times. But on this side, depersonalized by its coincidence with early Christianity, Orthodoxy apparently does not differ from other faiths and some of the latest scientific and theological movements, sometimes even clearly rationalistic. After all, Catholicism by its very name (from καθολικός) speaks of its Divine universalism, characteristic of the Gospel of Christ. And Protestantism was motivated at its inception and is still proud, in fact, by the fact that, seeing in Catholicism undoubted distortions of the First Apostolic Christianity, it wanted to return precisely to the latter and eliminate all later layers and side deviations. In its idea, Protestantism should be and be presented as a restoration of its perversions [i.e. Chief Apostolic Christianity]. Moreover, in fact, Anglicanism was also directed through its Protestant renewal in Catholicism, fundamentally linking its fate with Protestantism. And if the success of this attempt is not recognized by all Anglicans, then the same driving goal is not lost among these skeptics, which penetrates their criticism and inspires their aspirations. There is no need to dwell on this, for everyone knows how often, loudly and energetically the decisive calls were heard in Anglicanism: “Back to Jesus,” even over the corpse of the Apostle Paul (From Paul!). Protestant science has long and diligently cultivated this idea, trying to rationally find true Christianity and return religious attention to it, which is supposedly everywhere clouded by the fog of church-historical modifications and additions. Everywhere the renewal and perception of true early Christianity in its true integrity is preached. This is apparently quite similar to the self-determination of Orthodoxy, but hides the deepest difference. Not at all for criticism, which is inappropriate here and not at all kind to us, but simply to clarify the matter, let us remind ourselves that Protestantism was born with the active assistance of scientific knowledge and powerfully contributed to its tremendous progress. Scientific Western theology is a product of Protestantism and therefore can serve as its most obvious characteristic. And in this regard, it is essential that Protestant rational science does not find more or less accurate embodiments of primitive Christianity either in the entire modern church life or in the previous church-historical development. It supposedly immediately got lost somewhere and never had adequate expression. In the historical process there are only fragmentary fragments with incomplete and impure refractions of genuine Christian rays. We are faced with only scattered Christian materials, from which we must recreate the original whole. It is clear that this requires the work of scientific and rational creativity in order to discern the true face of Christ from the foggy outlines through the darkness of centuries and sketch it with realistic vitality. For our purposes, we get from this that the creative factor here is the scientific mind, acting by a rational method. And we know well how far one can go along this path from the sad lessons of recent Protestant criticism. In its extreme factions, it does not accept a single authentic image of the Lord the Redeemer and assimilates everything to the mysterious impersonal process of the gradual formation of Christian traditions deposited in the New Testament books. Private individualities did not play a constitutive role here and are not at all needed for business, and science, like life, does not tolerate anything superfluous. But what is true for the continuation of the process must be no less true in relation to the beginning, that for it there is just as little need for the individual factor, which is now directly eliminated by the latest “religious-historical” knowledge from any participation in consistent development, where only the general laws of forward movement with differentiations, interweavings, new formations, etc. operate. In the end, with the emergence of Christianity, there is a complete void, where there is no Christ, no Paul, no apostles. This conclusion, of course, is not at all generally accepted in Protestant science, but it is not at all monstrous for it, for it represents only an extreme application of its basic principles. Then it is irresistible to us that in them the principle of Christian restoration is based, if not on direct rationalism, then certainly on pure rationality. And under such conditions, it is clear to everyone without any argument that here we have the sharpest contrast with Orthodoxy. It is decisively and exclusively based on the traditional continuity of direct perception and complete preservation 8 . According to Orthodox self-awareness, true Christianity is dogmatically compulsory in itself, but historically it represents something actually given and really operating precisely in Orthodoxy. But what is sought cannot be something that exists. There is nothing to open it, but one must only preserve it in sacred reverence, which is obligatory for that which is revealed from above from God through the Son in the Holy Spirit. The moment of the rationality of Christianity for Orthodoxy is secondary as a reasonable comprehension and scientific justification of a fact that may be beyond human limitations and, in its Divine essence, will always remain irrational for it (see, for example: 1 Cor. 1:18,27-31; 2:11-16). Orthodoxy professes with the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 4:13): Having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written: We have believed, we have spoken the same things, and we believe and we have spoken the same things. Orthodoxy is only a proclamation of primordial Christianity by perception, and not justification, by faith, and not by reason. The latter knows precisely by faith (Heb. 11:3: πίστει νοουμεν [by faith we know]) and in the most rational comprehension of Christianity, he completely submits to its actual supremacy, only trying to comprehend for himself with his own insufficient means. Christianity is depicted as a living reality, independent in existence and properties from human understanding. Of course, doctrinal precision is also required here, but it is created by the action of the object itself and is therefore traditionally transmitted along with it. From here it is obvious that for Orthodoxy Christianity is not a teaching, but a life of mysterious communion with God in Christ and grace-filled renewal from the Holy Spirit in the whole brotherhood of believers, when all of them, through the unity of faith with the Son of God, are adopted in Him by the Heavenly Father and then naturally become brothers among themselves by grace. That is why the blessed Sacraments dominate in Orthodoxy, embracing the entire human existence on all sides. They are not an external symbol here, not a ritual accessory, arranged, expanded and contracted at discretion, but a necessary element of the very life-giving life of Christianity, provided by the hierarchical priesthood in direct succession from the Lord the Savior. But it is indisputable that one cannot really join life through theoretical admission through simple rational recognition of it. It is imperative to join by actually immersing yourself in it, just as the communication of a separated stream is restored only by merging with the central flow. Orthodoxy guarantees itself genuine original Christianity by a successive perception that ensures a continuous flow, and does not allow for the possibility of other paths and connections for anyone. A rational restitution [restoration] of genuine Christianity is fundamentally unacceptable for Orthodoxy, which fundamentally disagrees with such premises. In them, Christianity is presented primarily as a doctrine, even if Divine, but still more rational as a special religious concept, even if revealed by God. In this it has a perfect analogy with all other religious and philosophical schools and teachings. And in relation to them, it is in every possible way possible that one can come to the initial conclusions and contemplations completely independently, which is why it is conceivable, for example, that the Pythagoreans, by conviction, did not know Pythagoras at all and his system for studying them. It is even easier to assimilate well-known religious and philosophical views from books and become their confessor, without being in actual relations with the creators themselves. Essentially, this is how both rational Protestantism and scientific rationalism look at Christianity, for which it would not be strange to accept as a Christian, for example, the late Lihunchan 9, who allegedly read the New Testament, if this “Chinese Bismarck” accepted the latter, but limited himself to theoretical agreement with it, without entering into actual unity with any Christian Church. Orthodoxy certainly rejects this method both in its very basis and in its softened modifications. In the first respect, it is assumed that some pagan, having studied the New Testament books, would assimilate Christian truths and thereby become a real Christian - this is both inevitable and normal according to rationalistic logic. The type of the second kind would be such a case that this or that heretical community renounces its errors and by this act eo ipso [thereby] restores its truly Christian dignity. A similar phenomenon is again probable according to rationalistic views and is in fact sufficiently illustrated by Old Catholicism. The latter, proving and testifying to its fidelity to the dogmas and canons of the Ancient Undivided Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, desires and seeks from Orthodoxy direct church recognition in addition to and without joining any of the existing Orthodox Churches. What is proposed and required is not actual reunification, as was the case, for example, in 1898 in Russia with the Syrochaldean Nestorians (Isors), who joined in St. Petersburg (March 25) in the person of their head, the late Bishop of Supurgan Mar-Jonah, but only mutual communication, so inappropriately practiced in the West (in all intercommunions [inter- or mutual relations of religious communities with mutual acceptance of each other's Sacraments and participation in them]). Hitherto these Old Catholic claims had not been successful and quite rightly met with a decisive refusal. And on the part of Orthodoxy there was and is neither arrogance nor caprice, for this is caused by the very essence of the matter - and the Old Catholics, seeking a completely different attitude, clearly demonstrate that they have not yet penetrated vitally into the depths of Orthodoxy and have not merged with it in spirit in their Christian mood, which continues to remain rational-Western for them. It is unthinkable to receive water from an inaccessible source without turning to the river flowing from it, and without its mediation it is impossible to enter into unity with it. Orthodoxy is a grace-filled Christian life - and the benefits of the latter can actually be taken advantage of not at all by theoretical knowledge or abstract enrollment, but exclusively by a living real union, when one first joins it and then draws all the benefits from it. What is necessary is equally obligatory for everyone and does not serve to dominate or humiliate anyone. In this regard, Orthodoxy presents only what is characteristic of its nature, which determines its relationship to all Christian confessions. By direct apostolic succession it appears to be traditionally received and preserved intact by Christianity in its original vital integrity. Confessional groups highlight particular aspects of it and develop it systematically, but they draw their strength precisely from the productive whole and draw closer to each other through it. Orthodoxy in no way denies this family connection with itself and therefore does not at all encroach on their Christian dignity. Its difference lies not in a peculiar isolation that requires adaptation to itself, but in an all-embracing being, according to which it, being Christian Divine and universal, is catholic (καθολικός), or universal (οικουμενικός). Due to these qualities, Orthodoxy does not displace other confessions, seizing their proper places, but only dissolves them in itself insofar as, along with them, it itself is absorbed in the Divine ocean of the regenerating, saving and life-giving grace of Christ. Therefore, Orthodoxy, rich in the exploits of apostolic missionary work, is alien to proselytizing propaganda and has never been energetically active in this slippery field. It rose above other confessions not out of arrogance to subjugate everyone under its feet, but precisely because of the consciousness inherent in its nature of the relationship of the basic whole to the derivative parts. Orthodoxy calls for unity with itself only for the sake of unity with Christ in the successively preserved, undamaged content and graciously operating Divine truth. And on his banner these holy words alone shine: “This is the apostolic faith, this is the fatherly faith, this is the Orthodox faith, this is the faith that establishes the universe!” They left us, but they were not ours: for if they were ours, they would have remained with us; but they came out, and through this it was revealed that they were not all ours. – Ed. . Phanariots - inhabitants of the Greek Christian quarter in Istanbul; in a narrower sense - supporters of the views of the Church of Constantinople and the Patriarchate. – Ed. Ethnarch - chief, ruler, leader of the people. – Ed. See: Dogmatic messages of Orthodox hierarchs of the 18th-19th centuries about the Orthodox faith. [Sergiev Posad], 1995. P.233. – Ed. This date, which was very common before, aroused serious objections at the end of the last [XIX] century (see about this: Vasiliev A. Byzantium and the Arabs. Political relations of Byzantium and the Arabs during the Amorian dynasty. St. Petersburg, 1900. Appendixes. pp. 142–146: About the year of the restoration of Orthodoxy; Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia / Edited by A. Lopukhin . T.III. Pg., 1902. Col. 394–395), and the event “The Triumph of Orthodoxy” is now quite reasonably dated to March 11, 843 (see note by A. Brilliantov on p. 578 of the fourth volume of “Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church” by Prof. V. Bolotov. Pg., 1918). – Ed. Follow-up on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. St. Petersburg, 1904. P.22,25,26. – Ed. Here it is appropriate to recall the words of the famous philosopher - Professor V. Karpov (†12/2/1867), who, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, testified that “it has not taken a single step from the treasury of revealed teaching, that this lamp of Orthodox truth, during its fifty years of illumination, has not been moved from its place by any force of hostile ideas of superstition or other faiths, but firmly stands on the unshakable stone of his confession. And on this day [Tuesday, February 17, 1859. – Ed. ] The Academy erects a banner of triumph not in the name of progress, but, on the contrary, in the name of its persistent presence in the bosom of the Orthodox Church, guarding the apostolic and paternal creeds.” See in the collection: Fiftieth anniversary of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy of St. Petersburg, 1859. P.36. Lihongchang, or Li Hong-chang (1823–1901) was a Chinese statesman who, in particular, pursued a policy of “imitation of the West.” – Ed. This treatise was written specifically for the American magazine “The Constructive Quarterly” […] and published there (Vol.I, No.2: June 1913. P.282–305) in the English translation by Nikolai Vasilyevich Orlov, Master of Theology, Professor of the Royal College in London, and here [in the journal of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy “Christian Reading”: 1914. January. P.3–22. Separate publication: Glubokovsky N. Orthodoxy according to its essence. St. Petersburg, 1914. 23 p. – Ed. ] is printed with only a slight change at the beginning... You might be interested in: