Reply to Nicholas the Latin

Shortly before this, you asked us when and how the excommunication of the Latins from the Greeks and from the holy Church of God took place, and how they invented a new law for themselves, according to which they sacrifice unleavened bread during the service, and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and earnestly asked us to put this in writing. In the name of the Lord God Almighty, I will lovingly try to write to you about this, as I comprehend my mind, although you have placed a heavy burden on my shoulders. First, I will describe how you understood the excommunication before, then we will write about your excommunication. Preparing to fight for the truth of the Gospel and arming myself to destroy lies, being inflamed by the fire of zeal for the truth, I will say at the right time what David said: Sons of mankind, how long will it be hard-hearted? Do you love vanity and seek lies? (Ps. 4:3). Truly, those who are hard-hearted are seekers of vanity and lies, and those who do not obey the apostolic, prophetic and paternal commands are darkened by deep darkness. Willingly and with great love I will undertake this feat, as I said before, placing my hope in the heroic God, Christ the Savior, and I will try through spiritual enlightenment and fatherly teaching to disperse the nasty Egyptian darkness, contrasting it with the bright word of the apostolic truth. In truth, tangible darkness and deep darkness are all that do not agree with the God-inspired Gospel and with the teaching of the God-bearing fathers who spoke by the Holy Spirit. This should rather be recognized and called not a doctrine, but a gathering of chaff. Isn’t that what doctors usually do: when they are dealing with the onset of an illness, they prescribe moderation and moderation in life, established by previous teachers, warning patients that if they follow these rules, they can have some hope of recovery, and if they violate them, they may find themselves close to death. In the latter case, when the illness intensifies, they arm themselves against it with fire and iron and various medicines. Therefore, let no one reproach me, who imitates them; on the contrary, with all zeal and strong attention let them accept the words, not as mine, but as those spoken by those blessed men, for I proclaim their words. Also, let them listen not in order to argue, but let them banish all their opinions and evil intentions from their minds, and thus, with zeal and love for the truth, let them hear what is said. But it is time to direct the word towards the knowledge of piety, and not as the philosophers, the followers of Aristotle, boast, but we will offer venerable dogmas and simple truths, alien to false fictions and geometric figures, from which those who were guided by them did not benefit, but got lost and became far from the truth. I'll start like this. Let it be known to those who are in Rome itself, that leader of a different teaching, and to those who live throughout Italy and in the countries located beyond the Alpine and Pyrenees mountains, as far as Gadir; Let them hear the apostolic voice and the fatherly teaching and the strictly bequeathed confession of the conciliar and apostolic immaculate faith, which is louder than any trumpet and more harmonious than any sage. It consists of the following: “I believe in One God, the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, visible to all and invisible. And in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only Begotten, who was born of the Father before all ages: Light from Light, true God, from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, in Whom all things were: For our sake man, and for our salvation, who came down from heaven, and became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man: Crucified for we are under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried: and rose again on the third day, according to the Scripture: And ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father: And again he who comes with glory will judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giving, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke the prophets. Into one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I hope for the resurrection of the dead: and the life of the next century. Amen." - “This prophetic faith, this apostolic faith, this fatherly faith, this Orthodox faith, this faith establish the universe.” This is the faith of your ancient ancestors, from which those who teach contrary to the sayings of the Lord and transgress the institution of the blessed fathers deviated in vain, claiming that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which none of the holy fathers said. For in these words lies a great rapids and a deep abyss. They have become so damaged in their minds that they not only consider themselves to have the right to change the words of the Master and transgress the paternal institutions, without thinking of being subjected to any misfortune through this, but they are not afraid to erect a lie against the Evangelist John, attributing to him the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit equally from the Father and the Son. They, the accursed ones, do not know that the Holy Gospel of John was written many years after the descent of the Comforter on the blessed apostles. But the Latins, when the Orthodox ask them why they came up with the addition about the procession of the Holy Spirit “and from the Son,” answer that they do this prudently. And since the Latins, as the basis of their theology, consider in the form of two proofs the two donations of the Holy Spirit to the holy apostles that were before the divine Pentecost, and thereby strengthen to convince those who read the Holy Scripture in the simplicity of their hearts to believe that from the Son the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally by hypostasis, then we should begin from here, and then expose the rest of their proofs. What the Latins invented on their own, contrary to the apostolic truth, no matter how much you search, you will not find anywhere that it was found or said by any of the ancient theologians and teachers, whose glory swept to all ends of the universe; on the contrary, you will find that they object to this and, as alien, reject it. For who, having once read the interpretations of the holy fathers on the Holy Gospel, will not clearly understand that both the power given by the Savior to His holy disciples before the saving sufferings, and the grace of the Spirit inspired by Him after the resurrection, were private gifts, and together guarantees of the perfect grace of the Comforter that had to descend upon them? That the gifts given to them then were private, this is clear from what the Lord said then: Behold, I give you power to tread on the serpent and the scorpion and all the power of the enemy (Luke 10:19). And again: Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons (Matthew 10:8). And in another place: Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you forgive, their sins will be forgiven, and so on (John 20:22–23). Here is the gift of the Holy Spirit, in one case giving the power to forgive sins, and in another giving the power to cast out demons. That these were private gifts, flowing from the fullness of the Savior and imparting a certain effect in their time, and not signifying the hypostatic emission of the Spirit from the Son, as the Latins want to prove, is clear from many things, and more from the fact that, as is known, until that time they did not forgive sins to anyone, but on the contrary, they ran and hid themselves in fear for the sake of the Jews, since they were not yet fully endowed with power from above. Therefore, some of them again began to catch fish, as if forgetting for a while the commands of the Savior. After the descent of the Divine Paraclete, nothing of the kind happened to them, but, fully clothed in His invincible power, they boldly, like lions relying on their inherent strength, or like winged eagles, rushed into the entire universe to preach piety. Therefore, is it pious to say, or, what is the same, to think that the gift of the Spirit given to him earlier through a breath serves as an indication that the Holy Spirit essentially, that is, according to hypostasis, also proceeds from the Son? Those who are wise must affirm one of two things: either the disciples then received half of the Spirit, or the whole, but not the omnipotent one. To think of both, let alone to say, is equally wicked. For the Holy Spirit, both in essence and in power, is always in Himself inseparable and equivalent, like God, true and in everything equal to the Father and the Son, except for His characteristic procession from the Father, and not from the Son. Moreover, it turns out that they and something else, more inappropriate, are philosophizing. For if they recognize that the essence of the Spirit, and not the power, was then conveyed by a sensual breath, so that the breath served only as a visible sign of action, then, without noticing it themselves, they recognize the Holy Spirit as subject to outline, as pouring out through the corporeal sensual lips of the incarnate God the Word, as if through some kind of pipe. What could be more evil than this? For everything that is subject to external outline is subordinate to the beginning and is temporary, and does not differ at all, or differs very little, from ministering spirits. Is it not the Macedonian heresy that is emerging again? That the Spirit given then to the disciples through a breath was a certain spiritual gift, communicated through a breath from the fullness of Jesus, and does not mean a hypostatic procession, as the Latins philosophize, is clear from the 87th conversation of the divine John Chrysostom’s interpretations of the Holy Gospel of John, where he says this: “Some say that Christ did not then communicate the Spirit to the disciples, but only through a breath made them capable of His acceptance. After all, if Daniel, at the sight of the angel, was horrified (Dan. 8:17), then what would not the disciples have experienced if they had accepted this ineffable grace without being prepared for it in advance? Therefore, they say, Christ did not say: you have received the Holy Spirit, but - receive. But the one who says that even then the disciples received some spiritual power and grace will not be mistaken, but not to raise the dead and perform miracles, but to forgive sins, since the gifts of the Spirit are different. That is why Christ added: to whom you release, they will be released, showing what kind of grace-filled power is granted to them. Subsequently, after forty days, they received the power of working miracles, which is why Christ says: You will receive the power that the Holy Spirit has brought upon you, and you will be My witnesses (Acts 1:8); and they became witnesses through miracles. For the grace of the Spirit is inexpressible and His gifts are manifold.” This is what the divine Chrysostom says about the power communicated through the breath, following the blessed Paul, who says: Divisions of gifts are, and the same is the Spirit, and divisions of ministries are, and the same is the Lord, and so on (1 Cor. 12: 4-5). But the Latins again say that if the Son did not have the Spirit in Him, He could not have given Him. If, having Him essentially, he bestows Him on those who are worthy, therefore, he emits Him eternally. Objecting to this, we answer them: the Son has in Himself the whole Spirit, but in the sense of essence and natural appropriation, and not as the reason for His hypostatic procession. All theological teaching generally recognizes this property as belonging to the Father alone, just like the property of begetting the Son, and the property of the Spirit to proceed. Moreover, if you search, you will find that all the holy theologians preach that the whole Father is in the whole Son, and the whole Son is in the Father. But for this reason we cannot say that the Father is born from the Son, since everything is in Him. In the same way the Son is completely in the whole Spirit and is believed. But for this reason, while we are in our right mind, we cannot say that the Son is born of the Spirit. If it is impious to invent something like this about the Father and the Son because They are essentially in each other, then it is just as impious and blasphemous to think about the Spirit that He comes from the Son, since the Son has Him entirely in Himself! The Latins, who, due to their pride, were daring in everything, not only imagined themselves to have the power to change the word of the Master, but also renounced the agreed definition of the ecumenical councils, by which our pious Orthodox Christian faith was experimentally taught and received confirmation in the truth. These councils are the seven pillars of the Wisdom of God, on which the Holy Spirit perfectly built His House. With those holy councils, all the popes, who worthily maintained the throne of St. Peter, were in agreement and of one mind, and not like your current popes, who sell the priesthood for gold and the teaching for silver. At the first council Sylvester, the most honorable Pope of Rome, at the second - Dimas, at the third - Celestine, at the fourth council blessed Leo, who was called the pillar and foundation of Orthodoxy, at the fifth council Vigilius, at the sixth the most sacred Agathon, who was a wise man in divine affairs, at the seventh council the most holy Pope Adrian - all these (and then former) sacred hierarchs boldly rushed with all ends of the universe and united into one assembly to help Orthodoxy and, like lions relying on their inherent strength, like winged eagles soaring high, they thundered from the heights of piety and pronounced a confession of pious faith and confirmed it with rules and the strictest oaths. To this they added: “If anyone changes any of the dogmas of the holy and divinely inspired fathers, then this should not be recognized as prudence, but should be recognized as a crime, a renunciation of dogmas and impiety against God.” This briefly ends the first article. And as we briefly spoke about the confession of the Orthodox faith, now the second feat lies ahead of us: fasting on Saturday. Tell us: on what basis do you fast on Saturdays, and also fast on Saturdays during the Holy Pentecost? The Apostolic canons strictly forbid this to the Holy Church, for in the 64th canon of St. The Apostles say: “If anyone from the clergy is found fasting on the Lord’s Day or on Saturday, except one Great Saturday, let him be cast out; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.” Following this, the fathers of the holy council, which was presided over by Agathon, Pope of Rome, and Gregory, Bishop of Acragantium, agreed to define such a law, saying: “Since we have learned that those who live in the city of Rome, on Holy Pentecost, fast on Saturday, contrary to the faithful church observance, then the holy council is pleased, and in the Roman Church the rule is inviolably observed, saying: if whoever from the clergy is found to be fasting on the Lord's holy day or on Saturday, except for one thing, shall be expelled, and if he is a layman, shall he be excommunicated,” except in those cases where bodily illness prevents him from eating food. We perform divine services at the 3rd hour of the day (at 9 am), at which it is established to offer a bloodless sacrifice, and you observe fasting until the 9th hour (3rd in the afternoon), violating the apostolic and paternal rules. Let us also remind you, according to the question you proposed, tell us without any argument: who gave you the law to forbid or dissolve the marriage of priests? If someone is ordained to the priesthood before marriage and then wants to get married, it is lawful for him to be prohibited from doing so. If the person ordained to the priesthood has previously entered into marriage and leads a pure and chaste life, then by annulling his marriage, you commit lawlessness and are convicted by the commandments of the holy apostles as having sinned in this. In the sixth book written by Clement, Pope of Rome, in the seventeenth chapter, it is said that the apostles said this: “We have determined to appoint bishops and deacons and presbyters to those who are single-married, if their wives are alive. If they have died, they should not, if they did not enter into marriage before the ordination, enter into it after the ordination, or, having married, take another, but should be content with those they had when starting the ordination.” In the fifth canon, the holy apostles said this: “A bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, do not cast out his wife under the pretense of reverence. If he expels him, he will be excommunicated from church communion; and remaining adamant, let him be expelled from the sacred rank.” What can you say about the Sixth Holy Council? Is it against your Pope, Most Holy Agathon (would you bring the accusation), who, as we have said many times, presided over the council of one hundred and seventy saints under Constantine, the grandson of Heraclius? He did not legally object to the council, which issued commands against the iniquities that you now maintain. Since the fathers of the council recognized these traditions as alien and rejected by the apostolic teaching, then Saint Agathon, together with all the fathers of the Holy Sixth Council, laid down the law both on unleavened bread and on fasting on Saturday, and on the sacred sacrifice during Great Lent, and on priestly marriage, saying in the 13th canon: “Before we learned that in Roman The Church, in the form of a rule, has been given that those who are to be ordained deacons or presbyters undertake to no longer communicate with their wives, then we, following the ancient rule of apostolic order and order, deign that the cohabitation of clergy according to the law will continue to remain inviolable, without at all dissolving their union with their wives and not depriving them of mutual relations at appropriate times. connections." Although the Romans command those appointed to the diaconate and presbytery to divorce their wives, we command that the cohabitation of clergy will continue to remain unbreakable, “and if anyone turns out to be worthy of ordination to the deacon or presbyterate, let him not be an obstacle to being elevated to that level by cohabitation with his lawful wife.”... “If anyone, acting contrary to the apostolic rules, he dares to deprive any of the sacred ones of union and communion with his lawful wife, and may he be cast out.” Let's talk about the unleavened bread service. Where did the service on unleavened bread, that is, on unleavened bread, begin? Since our Lord God, Jesus Christ, called His Body leaven bread, as the Gospel story shows, where it is said that Jesus Christ said to the Jews: I am the bread of life that came down from heaven: if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, and so on (John 6:51). Likewise, at the Last Supper, he took bread and broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying: Take, eat: this is My Body, which was broken for you for the remission of sins. So also the cup at supper, saying, drink of it, all of you: this is My Blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:26; 1 Cor. 11:24; Luke 22:20; Matt. 26:28). Now it is clear that under the guise of wine and water we partake of the Blood of the Lord, for from the holy side of the Lord came blood and water; By partaking of this, we believe that this is His very Blood, according to His divine will. We also believe that this bread is the very Body of our Lord Jesus Christ - a body that has a soul and a mind, and not soulless, like unleavened bread. The use of unleavened bread during sacrifice is a Jewish matter, and not one of the Orthodox Churches or holy patriarchates - neither Constantinople, nor Alexandria, nor Antioch, nor Jerusalem - allows unleavened bread during the service. Only the Jews and the damned Armenians use unleavened bread, from whom the Latins later adopted it, imitating them. Canon 70 of the Holy Supreme Apostles commands as follows: “If anyone, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or generally from among the clergy, fasts with the Jews, or celebrates with them, or eats their unleavened bread, or does anything similar, let him be erupted; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated.” And canon 11 of the Fifth Council of Laodicea says this: “Let no one from the sacred rank or from the laity eat Jewish unleavened bread. The one who allowed himself to do this, if he is a priest, let him erupt, and if he is a layman, let him excommunicate.” And in general, all the divine rules do not at all allow unleavened bread, but, on the contrary, prohibit it and, like the Jews, reject it. It is also clear that just as the divine apostles, coming from Jerusalem, sifted throughout the whole world and served leavened bread everywhere, so they taught it to all nations. Paul, a teacher of languages, writes to the Corinthians: Brethren, I received from the Lord, and gave it unto you, as the Lord Jesus, in the night, when I was in pain, I received bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and said, Take, eat (1 Cor. 11:23), and did not say, Let us take unleavened bread, but bread. And to this day in Jerusalem the service is performed on leavened bread. And the Supreme Apostle Peter, coming from Jerusalem to Antioch, preached in it and maintained the throne there, and then from there he came to Rome. In Antioch, he installed Evoda as the first patriarch, which is why to this day the throne of Antioch is called Peter’s. And if the Supreme Apostle Peter had served on unleavened bread, then they would have done the same in Antioch. On the contrary, we find that neither in Rome, nor in Antioch, nor in any of the countries of the East did any of the apostles serve on unleavened bread, but all the apostles committed to all nations to perform divine and bloodless service (on leavened bread). Brother of God James and Cleopas in Jerusalem, Mark in Alexandria, Thaddeus in Syria, Thomas in Persia and India, Evangelist John in Ephesus, Bartholomew in Cyprus, Philip in Nicomedia, Simon the Canaanite in Arabia and others from among the twelve apostles and the remaining seventy-two dispersed throughout the universe and, preaching the mystery of divine communion, committed it to perfect leavened bread. All the other peoples of the kingdoms of the East and North, West and South, and all four patriarchs - Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and the ecumenical throne of Constantinople, from the very beginning to this time serve on leavened bread, excluding only the Pope of Rome and those who are under his authority; consequently, the Latins alone have recently invented it. They learned this from the damned Armenians, these first heretics: Apollinaris taught this to the Armenians. But the evidence certified by many, containing the tradition from the beginning, should be considered more reliable and truer than the custom recently invented by the Latins alone. And why talk a lot when even a little can stop the mouths of those who speak against the truth? After all, it was not established yesterday or the third day (this sacrament), and it was not performed in a corner somewhere or in a dark place. Was it not in ancient Rome and in the reigning city itself (Constantinople) that all this took place in the presence of autocrats, bishops and teachers, when both of these famous cities fully flourished not only with divinely inspired philosophy and all external wisdom, but also shone with holiness and chaste life, meekness of spirit and the fullness of sacred and civil laws? For the apostles, having agreed among themselves, taught throughout the entire universe to perform a bloodless sacrifice on sour bread, just as the miracles that Christ had previously performed on five and seven loaves were performed on sour bread, and not on unleavened bread. The use of unleavened bread, as is clear from the writings of contemporary writers, originated from the Apollinarian heresy. May God save us from such charm! But why do I labor so much on this subject, writing about the divine law? After all, I am not a prophet or a preacher sent to stiff-necked people! They have the law and the prophets; after all, all Scripture from the beginning to this time cries out about the divine Christian law and loudly preaches with praise and extols the pious and God-loving institution. If corrupt people deviate from these paths, err from the teaching of the scriptures and do not direct their ears to their holy reminder, then all the more will they reject my scripture. Therefore, I find it unnecessary to cite here many proofs from Scripture and divine books about the beautiful and gracious legalization and leave them to my own conscience. Everyone is given the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and the more one enjoys and is carried away, so will it follow. For all human nature, according to Scripture, as it turns out, from infancy is more prone to evil than to good. Therefore, for those who leave peace and love, many temptations and heresies must follow. But woe to the man through whom they come! Whoever firmly holds on to his false opinion and, with a conviction in his conscience about the truth and correctness of his error, strongly objects, without any hope of conversion, is a heretic. If he acts this way out of ignorance, then he is recognized as erring and not a heretic. The Holy Martyr Justin Philosopher says about himself: “I may get lost, but I will not be a heretic.” You should know that if someone thinks about himself that he understands better than others and is strongly attached to his own opinion, or, being jealous of others who are better than him, creates discord in society and constitutes a schism or heresy, such heretics should be rejected, for communication with such is very sticky, like communication with lepers. Scripture testifies that for many reasons it is necessary to have heresies; However, according to the first and second conviction, we must reject such a person, as stated in the letter of the Apostle Paul to Titus (chapter 3), knowing that such a person has become corrupted, and with such, the apostle writes, we should not even eat food. After everything that has been said, I finish the word and put the seal of silence on my lips, for this message is growing and, as it seems, exceeds measure. It is only necessary to mention your other questions, about which you diligently ask me, a little learned person, that is, about the separation of the Latins from the Greeks. With love and with all zeal, with complete meekness and perfect good morals, putting aside all negligence, I will write about this for the benefit and benefit of those who want to know the truth. I will say the following. The division occurred during the reign of the pious kings Constantine and his mother Irina. I have already told you many times how and for what reason the Latins separated from the Greeks, and what they were attached to: but I did not talk about all the justifications of the Latins, but for the sake of brevity I kept silent, and I only recalled a little of some of the divine laws about the reason for the separation. It was not I who said this, as you read in the Scripture: For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you (Matthew 10:20). For if teaching does not come from the Holy Spirit working within, then the tongue of the speaker labors in vain. You read, after all, what the psalmist said: The Lord will give the word to those who preach the gospel with much power (Ps. 67:12). Although I, the most damned of all mortal sinners, am not an evangelist, and I do not claim that I have this power, yet I fear the word of the Lord spoken to Ezekiel: If you do not agree with the wicked, let him turn from his way, his blood will be out of your hand. I will exact it (Ezek. 3:18). To avoid this threatening punishment, I was forced to express the above. Whoever fears God and obeys Him, according to the prophecy of Malachi, the sun of righteousness will rise (Mal. 4:2) and much peace (Ps. 37:11), and he will have peace in the power of the Lord (Ps. 122:7). Isaiah in the 6th chapter of his prophecy says: woe is me, for I have kept silent. Therefore, I considered it fair not to remain silent about the above, but to write openly to you, my friend. Read this patiently and joyfully, and if you find anything insufficient, then I will correct it for you with complete clarity. The imam has many more things to say to you, speaking, as is his custom, in the words of the Gospel, but you cannot bear it now (John 16:12). When you are enlightened by reason, you will ask the lord and teacher Daniel, Metropolitan of All Russia, about this, he will guide you to all truth. For I wrote to you unlearned, in a rude and stale style, but he will enlighten and enlighten you with his learning. Then you will openly see that as much as the sun differs in its light from the stars, so it differs from us in grace and light. Then, leaving the moon, you will follow the sun, like Andrew, the brother of Peter, a disciple of John the Baptist, this lamp who preceded Christ, when he heard John praising Christ, then, leaving the lamp, that is, John, he became the first disciple of the Sun-Christ. Thus, I believe that you will do the same. When you see a learned holy metropolitan, gifted to an excellent degree and in abundance with the understanding of Christ's law and experience, you will listen to him with love. Forgive me, most honest friend, for the brevity of my foolish writing, in which I briefly outlined what was previously silent, and did not write as much as your bookish mind required. Wait until another, more convenient time, and now accept from me what I could do. For it is impossible for me to fulfill this now, as I said earlier. This is a great matter, truly great and incomprehensible, for they are not afraid of the ever-present origin of the Divine Paraclete, and they are very bold in thinking and speaking. The errors of the Latins, which serve as a barrier between them and us, are so great, and their destructive teaching and wisdom are such and so far removed from the teaching of the Church that only God alone can correct them. Take heart!