Comments on the theological works of A. S. Khomyakov

The following printed comments by A.V. Gorsky on the theological works of A.S. Khomyakov were found in his academic archive, on separate sheets of notepaper, and written in pencil, in the hand of A.V. Some of them are integral in nature and are related in content; others are only fragmentary thoughts, put down on paper quickly, in passing, in the immediate form as they arose for some random reason. Most of the comments relate to A. S. Khomyakov’s views on the Church, developed in his “Experience of a catechetical presentation of the doctrine of the Church 1.” This group of them contains a fairly detailed and consistent analysis of the said work by Khomyakov in the order of its presentation, divided by A.V. himself into paragraphs; it was revised more than once by A.V. Gorsky, corrected and supplemented. We mainly offer these comments on “The Experience of Catechetical Teaching on the Church” below to the readers, but from the others we take only what has been preserved in a more or less complete form. The time and circumstances of the origin of the proposed comments are not precisely known. There is no doubt that A.V. was very interested in the theological teachings of Khomyakov, although he did not share his views and, as Prof. testifies to him in his memoirs. A.P. Lebedev 2 victoriously refuted it at lectures on dogmatics. The sheets found in the archive make it possible to see that he diligently studied Khomyakov’s theological works, wrote out and noted for himself their most remarkable passages; on some of the issues raised by Khomyakov, he collected scientific certificates; so eg one sheet contains a whole historical-critical apparatus on the question of why in the 9th member of the symbol of faith we have the word: χαθολιχηι᾿ ( έχχλησίαν ) translated: (in) cathedral (church): here is collected an extensive series of quotations indicating the use of this word in Greek, ecclesiastical and secular literature and in ancient Slavic translations. There is somewhat more information regarding the above-mentioned comments on “An Experience in a Catechetical Presentation of the Doctrine of the Church." In the sheets containing an analysis of this work, there were two letters that partly explain their origin. One of these letters, although it has neither a signature, nor an address, nor a date, undoubtedly belongs to P. S. Kazansky, whose original handwriting cannot be confused with any other, and is assigned to A. V. Gorsky. It speaks specifically about these comments on "Experience", compiled by A. V-chem. Here is the letter: "This is what I think needs to be noted. You are talking about the sacraments, but did not mention confirmation 3, in the teaching of which Khomyakov especially sins, giving it the meaning, so to speak, of the grace of the priesthood for all Christians. This teaching of his is revealed in polemical articles against Lutherans and Catholics. The presentation of this teaching and its refutation serves to clarify Khomyakov’s concepts of the Church. Paragraphs The 2nd, 3rd, 4th require revision. In order to see Khomyakov’s thoughts more clearly, one should re-read all his articles. The key to them is given by the philosophy of revelation of Schelling and Schopenhauer. I remember that he has a place where they are not averse to including pagans and Mohammedans into the Church, at least they do not exclude them from among those who are being saved. There seems to be nothing to object to the fact that he includes Angels in the Church, 4 for the Orthodox Church also includes them in one composition, distinguishing them by the name triumphant. During the liturgy, prayers are offered for the Most Holy One. The Lady and the entire heavenly Church. Therefore, there is part of truth in this thought. It is necessary to renounce everything from our concepts about the Church in order to take Khomyakov’s point of view. Grace is given, that is, it is offered either in the teaching of the word of life or in the natural law or in the direct action of the Holy Spirit to all rational creatures, both Angels and men. This broad, universal action of the Spirit of God is the Church that Khomyakov accepts. It seems that before a particular analysis, one should point out this concept of it. In a narrow sense, he calls the Church those who participate in grace in their souls. Therefore, for him, the visible Church, i.e., the society of Christians proper, is defined (as) the Spirit of God and the grace of the sacraments. Expression: The earthly and visible Church is not yet the fullness of the entire Church, 5 that is, its fullness also includes the invisible Church that exists among non-Christians. Expression: at the final judgment of creation, of all creation, 6 there is, of course, a universal judgment, and therefore, is not your objection about the impoverishment of faith before the end of the world unnecessary? In the second line on the 1st sheet there was a verb 7, somehow this Slavicism comes across; It would be better to say: spoke. If you do not find the teaching about the Church that I attribute to Khomyakov, it would still not be superfluous to assume it is possible and say a few words against such an understanding of the Church. Then it will be safer to stipulate that you will break down the teaching from the Orthodox point of understanding - break it down the way you break it. But don’t omit to talk about confirmation – in my opinion, this is an essential point in Khomyakov’s opinions. I am very glad that you decided to compare sound teaching with the teaching of fantasy. If you do not intend to persecute Khomyakov’s further works, then from his letter to Bunsen, it would be necessary to cite in order to explain his concepts of Holy Scripture the review that Khomyakov makes - it is he who rejects any dignity of the letter of the text, admits the mistakes and inaccuracies of God-inspired writers, and assimilates to the Church, or more precisely to its meaning, the right to understand and interpret Scripture as it pleases.” Another letter belongs to A.V. Gorsky; it was preserved in a rough copy, written by Gorsky, was not completed and does not have any chronological markings. Its content is as follows: “I am returning to you, my dear Pyotr Simonovich, 8 Natalia Petrovna’s letter 9 with an attachment. What can we say about the notes on the book by Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov? It indicates (sic) some very prominent places, but not many, and not all equally important, and not rarely, or better, almost everywhere, without evidence. What's the use of printing like this? Wouldn't this show that the defenders of Orthodoxy are unable to say anything more important against the wisdom of Khomyakov? I read his book; It didn’t seem to me that Khomyakov wanted to be a herald of some philosophical theory under the guise of Christianity. This is not expressed either in the articles he published or in the intimate letters published after his death, although, of course, by choice. In his theological philosophy, one feeling is most clearly reflected - freedom. Neither power, nor law, nor symbol - nothing hinder him. Love, he freely wants to submit to the Gospel, but even in this submission he does not cease to feel and consider himself free.” It is difficult to decide what relationship these two letters have to each other. It is possible to think that the last letter cited now was sent by A.V. Gorsky to P.S. Kazansky along with notes on Khomyakov’s book, which are understood under the name “appendices”, while Kazansky’s letter was a response to Gorsky, compiled after reading his notes. But the phrase in Kazansky’s letter does not agree with this: “I am very glad that you decided to compare sound teaching with the teaching of fantasy" - compare, of course, for printing 10 - while Gorsky resolutely declared that he did not find it useful to print notes “in this form." Obviously, there was nothing to rejoice at. Nothing prevents us from accepting the reverse order, and then the matter should be imagined apparently like this: P. S. Kazansky, having learned about the existence of A. V. Gorsky’s notes on Khomyakov’s works, wished to familiarize himself with them in order to encourage the latter to publish them, and expressed his opinion about the notes in a letter to him, but A. Finally, finding the notes insufficient, I decided not to print them and, perhaps, in the intention of giving them a more thorough treatment, put them aside for the time being. In any case, both letters are interesting, since they express the judgments about Khomyakov of two remarkable theologians of their time and testify to the interest that Khomyakov’s teaching aroused in them. Khomyakov's theological views, despite their originality and fairly widespread popularity among the reading public, have not yet been sufficiently appreciated in our literature, especially from the point of view of strictly Orthodox teaching about the Church. Therefore, we think that the comments offered below on these views, written by an outstanding Russian scientific theologian-historian and deeply Orthodox Christian, despite their incompleteness and fragmentation, will be accepted with due attention 11. My teaching is not Mine, but the one who sent Me (John 7:16), - said Christ the Savior, pointing to the only source from which He Himself drew the truths He proclaimed. And about His Spirit, whom He promised to send to His disciples as the only Teacher who would guide them into all truth, He announced: He will receive of Mine (John 16:13.14), thereby indicating the unity of the Gospel teaching in its beginning and further development through the Apostles. The word of Christ, the word of the Holy Spirit, spoken by the Apostles and reaching us in writing and tradition, is thus the only evidence of truth on which the Church of all times has relied and relies. The word of the Church, the word of the Fathers of the Church is also the word of Christ in explanation. Hence, the simplest and most convenient way to ascertain whether any teaching is true is to compare it with the indicated undoubted evidence of truth. With this thought in mind, we propose to consider some theological articles belonging to A. S. Khomyakov. In Khomyakov's theological articles under review, the words of Scripture or the words of the Church Fathers are very rarely quoted exactly. There is no doubt that he owes his deep view of the objects of the Christian faith to a very extensive, lengthy and conscientious study of the Word of God and the writings of the Fathers, and not only this, but also the internal practical assimilation of the truth of Christ in his heart and life. Nevertheless, we must agree that in the presentation of the author’s thoughts, the power of his own reasoning, which processed, changed everything in a unique way and, under the influence of philosophy, was carried away by some of his ideas, also took a significant part. Let's experiment with testing some of the author's provisions 12. 1) The article entitled: “The Experience of a Catechetical Presentation of the Doctrine of the Church” at its very beginning (§ 1) gives the following concept of the Church: “The Church is not a multitude of persons in their personal individuality, but the unity of God’s grace living in the multitude of rational creatures submitting to grace 13.” In order to see more clearly the characteristic features of such a concept of the Church, let us contrast it with the definition of the Church given by the Orthodox catechism: “The Church is an established society of people from God, united by the Orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy and the sacraments.” From the first time it is impossible not to see that in the Experience of Catechetical Teaching the main and almost exclusive attention is paid to the internal, animating and animating principle of the Church, Divine grace, and its visible organic structure is omitted. “The Church is not a multitude of persons.” Of course it is; however, even without many persons there cannot be a Church. Until the “Unity of Grace” passed from the Holy Spirit into the Many Persons, it could not form itself into a Church. Grace belongs to the Holy Spirit; (but) the Holy Spirit is not the Church, and conversely the Church is not the Holy Spirit. Or will this be an inaccurate, not strictly apostolic teaching about the Church, similar to the teaching of the Montanist Tertullian: Ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus? non numerus episcoporum 14. Further in the Experience, the Divine principle of church life is called by the name of grace; consequently, what is meant is a predominantly sanctifying power acting through the sacrament. But this does not embrace the fullness of Divine life active in the Church. Christ the Savior, just as in His life on earth revealed Himself not only as a sacrifice and High Priest, but also as a Prophet and King, so in His Church He continues to act both by His word and by His Divine authority. Therefore, in the concept of the Church, communicated in the Orthodox catechism, the Orthodox faith, the law of God and the hierarchy are mentioned as necessary accessories of the Church. In the Experience, the human side of the Church is not completely eliminated; This speaks of a multitude of intelligent creatures submitting to grace. But “multitude” does not give the concept of the correct, organic structure of a known collection of persons. According to the teachings of the Orthodox catechism, the Church is not only a multitude, but also a properly organized society, a God-established society, a society with its own hierarchy. This concept of the Church is based in all its features on the teaching of Christ the Savior and the Apostles. From this comparison of two definitions of the Church one can see how much is missing for an accurate and complete concept of the Church in Experience. This shortcoming is not accidental, but largely depends on the fundamental view of the Church, which runs through the entire article. 2) In the presented concept of the Church, having mentioned the multitude of rational creatures that submit to grace, the author of the Experience continues: “Grace is given to those who are disobedient and who do not use it (those who bury talent), but they are not in the Church 15.” What does the author want to say by this? Apparently, all those who do not submit to grace do not belong to the composition of the Church. They accepted grace, but did not obey its requirements; received talent, but did not use it according to Divine purpose. With decisive resistance to the spirit of grace, they actually leave the Church and are cut off from the Church, and therefore become outside the Church, in accordance with the word of the Savior: if the Church disobeys, you will be like a pagan and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:17) But, firstly, why is it said that grace is given to such? What is this doctrine based on? and how is grace given to them outside the Church? Secondly, if the author here means not actually rejected members of the Church, but weak sinners who fall, often betraying grace, then of course it is true that grace is still given to them; but why does the author place them outside the Church? True, they do not belong to the essence of the Church and do not constitute healthy members of the true body of Christ, but through the long-suffering of God they still remain part of the true Church, and in this way they can even become living members of it again. Christ the Savior, according to the parable of the Gospel (Matthew, 13, 24 ff.), tolerates tares in His field until the harvest. This field is the Kingdom of God, i.e. the Church. 3) In the concept of the Church communicated in Experience, we cannot help but notice that what is being said here is not about people, but about rational creatures in general. And further the author adds Angels to the number of members of the Church, saying: “whoever lives on earth, who has completed the earthly path, who was not created for the earthly path (like the Angels), who has not yet begun the earthly path (future generations), are all united in one Church - in one grace of God.” 16. 4) “Only in relation to man,” says Experience, “can one recognize the division of the Church into visible and invisible” 17. What he means by the visible Church is not explained here; Let us cite other places where the author touches on the same subject. In § 2 he says: “The visible or earthly Church lives in perfect communion and unity with the entire body of the Church, the head of which is Christ.” 18. Apparently, here the visible Church is the Church existing on earth, which has not yet reached the heavenly fatherland, and by the name of the entire body of the Church we mean this and that Church together with the angelic world. In § 8 it is said: “The visible Church is not a visible society of Christians, but the Spirit of God and the grace of the sacraments living in this society” 19. – We revealed the one-sidedness of this concept of the Church above. There is no need to be more spiritual than the spiritual Word of God. The Church, it says, is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:23). This body, by the grace of God, is all those who have been redeemed by Jesus Christ; We are many and one body in Christ (Rom. 12:5). Thus, the earthly Church or existing on earth is a part of the body of Christ, which embraces the entire pure world of spiritual beings on earth, purified with the help of grace. What will the invisible Church be like? The experience of catechistic teaching does not provide an answer to this. But it would be fair to honor the same Church both visible and invisible, only in different respects 20 . 5) “The earthly and visible Church is not yet the fullness and perfection of the entire Church, which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation” 21. If, as the author puts it, the visible Church is the Spirit of God and the grace of the sacraments, then it is not clear on what basis he asserts that the fullness and perfection of the Church, i.e., the Spirit of God and the grace of the sacraments, should be revealed only at the end of the world? Gospel (not?) 22 presents to us the last time of the world as the most abundant outpouring of the Spirit of God. 6) “The earthly and visible Church... creates and knows only within its own limits, without judging the rest of humanity” 23. That is, to those who are in the unbelief of paganism, Judaism and Mohammedanism? Of course it is; She does not carry out her judgment on those standing outside her fence, but she knows the judgment of God: he who does not believe, that is, he who rejects her preaching is already condemned (John 3:18). 7) The earthly Church is recognized as existing since the creation of the world and its signs are internal holiness and external immutability 24. The name of holiness means not only moral purity and spiritual perfection, but also the general absence of any lie. What is meant by the name of external immutability and how to assert the external immutability of the Church during its transition from the Old Testament to New Testament events is not clear, especially since after a few lines an external change in the rite is allowed not only during the transition of the Old Testament Church to the New Testament, but also in the New Testament Church itself. 8) “The signs of the Church, holiness and immutability, are known only by itself and by those whom grace calls to be its members. For strangers and uncalled, they are incomprehensible 25.” - But wasn’t the holiness of life of the members of the Church noticeable and not affecting the pagans during the struggle of Christianity with Greco-Roman paganism? Doesn’t the Apostle say: let them slander you, like evildoers, and they who slander your good life in Christ will be ashamed (1 Peter 3:16)? Didn’t the Savior Himself say: a city cannot hide at the top of a standing mountain (Matthew 5:14)? Of course, the Divine dignity of the Church can only be comprehended by those who are full participants in its spiritual benefits: the spiritual is shared with the spiritual. But the Church, pouring its inner light outward, involuntarily attracts the gaze of those standing outside it; moreover, it itself cannot help but try to be known more and more by those who still remain ignorant of the true God and His grace. Thus let your light shine before men (Matthew 5:16). – It also talks about aliens and uncalled. Who is not called by grace into the depths of the Church? – The question arises: are the indicated signs sufficient to distinguish the true Church from the erring one? No, because, according to the author, they are invisible to outsiders. In this case, why are they indicated? – The lack of a precise definition of the Church and a strict delimitation of particular concepts about the various states and relations of the Church does much harm to the clear understanding of the provisions expressed by the author. 9) “In the Church, that is, in its members, false teachings arise, but then the infected members fall away, constituting a heresy or schism and no longer desecrating the holiness of the Church 26.” – But does the error of members of the Church always constitute a heresy or schism? How can we ignore the fact that those who are in the depths of the Church are not free from various errors or from the infection of sin, but are in the Church as in a doctor’s office? – The condemnation of Pope Honorius, or, as the author puts it, the declaration of an error in his teaching, is unfairly attributed to the Council of Chalcedon 27. 10) Although two signs of the Church were indicated above: internal holiness and external immutability, § 4 again speaks of four properties that distinguish the Society of the Church from any other human society, as they are expressed in the Creed 28. At the same time, in explaining the name of the Apostolic Church, it is noted that “in the writings and teachings of the Apostles the whole fullness of her faith, her hopes and her love is contained.” But below, in § 5, it is said: “there are no limits to Scripture, for every Scripture that the Church recognizes as its own is Holy Scripture...; there was Holy Scripture before our time and, if God wills, there will still be Holy Scripture 29 “If by the name of Scripture we mean exactly what should be understood, i.e., inspired writings, then recognizing the completeness of the writings of the Apostles, why else should we expect new inspired writings? And on what basis? Equating the inspired books of the Apostles with the actual works of the Church, somehow with symbols, the author seems to forget that all... she accepted 30... reliable and undoubted truths are already based on the words of the Apostolic writings. 11) "Not a single community and not a single shepherd can be recognized as the guardians of the entire Faith 31 ''. - It was noted above that the writings and teachings of the Apostles contain the entire fullness of the faith of the church, its hopes and its love. In the second century, the Church already had the Apostolic writings in full, and preserved their tradition. From the second century, the Church of the third century inherited both, etc. Why is it not possible at the present time recognize that the Church retains within itself the entire Apostolic faith 32? 12) “Every Christian community, without arrogating to itself the right of dogmatic interpretation or teaching, has the full right to change its rituals, introduce new ones, without leading other communities into temptation 33,” - It seems that here both thoughts are expressed in an unsatisfying way, and both are unsubstantiated. Why can no community be taught dogmatically on the basis of the Word of God and tradition? And the whole Church is not allowed to teach on the basis of the Word of God and tradition. – On what basis is every community given the right to change rituals without any restrictions? What kind of order and decorum will this be that the Apostles were so concerned about? Rituals are also part of the sacraments. And here is freedom, and for every community? And why is this right granted to the community, and not to the bishop, while it is known that the Apostle left the arrangement of all orders in the Church of Ephesus not to the church itself, but to Bishop Timothy? The author himself further says: “every Christian should cherish the unity of church rituals.” 13) “The Spirit of God, living in the Church, ruling her and making her wise, appears in her in many ways: in Scripture, tradition and in deeds, for the Church that creates the works of God is the same Church that preserves tradition and wrote Scripture 34. - Why does the entire Church assimilate the writing of holy books, when we know, for example, that the Apostle Navel wrote according to the wisdom given to him, as well as others The apostles not on behalf of one or another church, but according to the authority given to them by Jesus Christ? Why does the author agree to say that the Church keeps the tradition, therefore, accepted it; but agrees to say that it also accepted the Scripture - “It is not individuals and not a multitude of persons in the Church who keep the tradition and write, but the Spirit of God, living in the totality of the Church 35.” Everywhere the author destroys the personal activities of Church members. But the Spirit of God does not directly write directly and not through the entire body of the Church, but through selected persons who are endowed with special gifts of the Spirit for the benefit of the Church. Food are all the Apostles, food are all the prophets, food are all the teachers? This is the Apostolic language. 14) “Therefore, one cannot and should not seek justification for Scripture and tradition either in Scripture, or in tradition for the evidence of Scripture, or in deeds to seek justification for Scripture and tradition.” Why isn't it so? If everything is from one Spirit, then one thing must necessarily be proven by another. The unity of the beginning, the unity of spirit and strength should serve as a sure guarantee of the truth of this or that or the third. 15) “Neither Scripture, nor tradition, nor deeds are incomprehensible to anyone living outside the Church 37.” The aphorism is not precisely expressed. Otherwise, if this is accepted unconditionally, then all Bible societies, all missionaries and Bible translators for the pagans are working in vain to spread the Word of God. – And the Apostle speaks about the present state in the Church: we understand in part, we prophesy in part. So, even those who live in the Church (like the Apostles) do not yet understand everything. But even for those living outside the Church, not everything is incomprehensible in Scripture, in tradition, in practice. Which pagan who has read the Gospel will say that there is nothing comprehensible to him here? 16) “Anyone who seeks evidence of Church truth thereby either shows his doubt and excludes himself from the Church or gives himself the appearance of doubting 38.” - Rejecting all methods of verifying Church truth, as showing doubt and calling for the participation of reason 39, the author expresses the idea that from tradition alone, from Scripture, or from deeds, a person can only draw external and incomplete knowledge, and therefore necessary false. The author says: “The Church does not ask: which Scripture is true, which tradition is true, which council is true, and which work pleases God? 40.” How are the scriptures of the New Testament and the Old Testament accepted? without testing? without research? No; just as the Evangelists verified some stories by others and conveyed in their books only what they had experimentally researched (Luke 1:3), so the Church, either by the testimony of the Apostles, or by other historical means, made sure that this or that scripture was true, and accepted it. - You will say that you are talking about the Church in its essence: for the Spirit of God living in the Church, if you mean it under the name of the Church, as you said above, - of course there is no need to find out which scripture is true, etc. But why, when speaking about what is not subject to any question, do you say nothing about the actual Church? What significance does Scripture, tradition, and deeds have for her? And how can she be sure of both and the third? Who will tell her this? Why do you avoid talking about hierarchy? "Holy Scripture is the name given to the collection of Old Testament and New Testament books that the Church has recognized as its own. But there are no limits to Scripture: for every scripture that the Church recognizes as its own is Holy Scripture. These are, predominantly, the confessions of the councils and especially the Nicene-Constantinople. Therefore, before our time there was Holy Scripture and, if God wills, there will still be Holy Scripture 41." – Is it permissible for an Orthodox theologian to mix the inspired writings of the Old and New Testaments with the works of the Church proper? Symbolic statements of church doctrine are themselves based on scripture. This is the symbol of Nicene-Constantinople, chosen according to a word from Holy Scripture. - “There will be more Scripture." Is the author prophesying a new revelation for us? The Church has never expressed such a hope. If there are new Scriptures, then there will be new dogmas? Why then not justify the addition of the filioque and other newly invented dogmas of idle Catholicism? Doesn’t G. Khomyakov transfer to the entire Church the mystical state that some people experience in special circumstances? But is it fair? Paul, caught up to the third heaven, who heard unspeakable verbs there and, therefore, did not and could not communicate them to anyone, imagine himself in the same position with other members of the Church 42? 17) “Not everyone has one faith or one hope or one love; for you can love the flesh, hope for the world and confess a lie; you can also love, hope and believe not completely, but partly; and the Church calls your hope hope, your love love, your faith faith; for you call them that and she will not argue with you about words 43.” – Doesn’t this mean preaching a complete denial of true faith, hope and love? And how can the Church not argue? Did the Apostles argue little about the true meaning of faith with the Judaizers? were they content with their half-belief? etc. If you adhere strictly to this view, then there is nothing to argue with either Catholicism and Protestantism, or even with anyone else more alien to the Orthodox Church; then the author’s own disputes about the Church are incomprehensible. 18) “This confession (Nicene-Constantinople) is comprehensible, like the whole life of the Spirit, only to a believer and a member of the Church 44.” Isn’t it said a lot: comprehensible? The Mystery of St. Is the Trinity comprehensible? Is the mystery of the incarnation comprehensible? Is the whole life of the Spirit comprehensible? The Apostles, who proclaimed them in their writings through the revelation of the Holy Spirit, did not boast of comprehending such mysteries. 19) “Christian communities, having broken away from the Holy Church, could no longer confess the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone, in the Divinity itself; but they had to confess only the external message of the Spirit into all creation, a message carried out not only from the Father, but also through the Son 45.” -But 1) The Roman Church, after it and other communities, not only confess the so-called external message of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son, but also recognize the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father; they do not limit themselves to him alone, contrary to the words of the Savior. 2) It is not clear how the violation of brotherly love by the autocratic addition of a new dogma to the general confession, without communication with other, eastern, brethren, should have led the Roman Church precisely to damage to this point of doctrine? Why couldn’t she correctly confess only the procession of the Holy Spirit? 3) And how can we consider this false wisdom to be a consequence of a violation of the spirit of love, when it originated in the spirit of Roman theology even earlier than this violation and, with the help of conceit, led to the rupture of the fraternal union? “They (that is, the Roman Church and others) have lost the grace of God, both in confession and in life 46.” - Above, the author spoke with extreme caution about the pagans and did not recognize the Church’s right to pronounce judgment on them. And here, in addition to the church court, he pronounces a decisive verdict on all of Western Christianity. “We have lost grace in confession and life.” However, the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacrament of baptism in the Roman Church, does not repeat confirmation, does not ordain those ordained in it, etc. So? Is this really only an outward concession, and is there no basis in the idea that the grace of the Holy Spirit has not yet completely retreated from Western Christianity? 20) According to the author, there are 47: 1) an invisible church, 2) a visible church, that is, the Spirit of God and the grace of the sacraments, and 3) a visible society bearing the name Christians. He does not even honor the latter with the name of church, although he himself is aware that in this visible society the Church invisibly abides on earth. No. The Word of God and the true teaching of the Orthodox Church do not treat the latter so strictly as to deprive him of the name of the Church. In the revelation of John we read the revelation of Jesus Christ to the seven churches; The court of the head of the Church finds most of these churches subject to reproof, therefore, it makes it clear that not all members of these churches are members of the true body of Christ, and yet does not deprive these societies of the name of the Church. The Apostle Paul denounces the Galatian Christians for important deviations from the purity of the faith, and yet he writes his letter to the Galatian churches, and not to society. And the Orthodox Church, demanding purity and holiness of life from everyone, at the same time does not cast out from its bosom those who are erring through stubbornness, and sinners who are not unrepentant, in the hope of correcting them with the help of the grace of God and the love of the brethren. 21) Having said: “confessing one baptism as the beginning of all sacraments, we do not reject the others,” after listing the other six sacraments, he adds: “There are many other sacraments; for every deed performed in Faith, Love and Hope is inspired in a person by the Spirit of God and calls on invisible grace 48.” - So, the author does not recognize the essential difference between baptism or other sacraments and any other grace-filled a person's business? Of course not: he recognizes this difference. Why confuse concepts, unnecessarily expanding the concept of the sacraments not according to the instructions of the church. “The seven sacraments are performed not by any one person worthy of God’s mercy, but by the whole Church in one person, albeit unworthy 49.” And further, speaking about ordination, the author adds: “the sacrament gives the ordained one the great significance that, although unworthy, in the performance of his sacramental (?) ministry he no longer acts on his own behalf, but on the part of the whole Church, i.e., from Christ living in it. Moreover, the author speaks, of course, about actual members of the true Church. No, the whole Church elects the celebrant of the sacraments, but not the whole Church performs the sacraments. To perform the sacraments, a message of special grace is needed, taught from Christ through the Church. Otherwise, if the whole Church performs the sacraments, then there is no need for special ordination and the imparting of special grace to the one elected as a minister of the sacraments. Or the ordination will have to turn into a simple rite, meaning only the guarantee of the office, and not the invocation of grace that heals the weak and replenishes the impoverished. The Church is a living organism, enlivened by the Holy Spirit. Each organ in it has its own purpose and service. If the whole body is an eye, where is the hearing, and if all the hearing is, where is the breath (I Cor. 12, 17 and further see 19)? If everyone were one member, where would the body be? 22) “No Spirit, except God, can be completely called incorporeal” 51. This is stated, but not proven. 23) “Ordination contains in itself all the fullness of grace given by Christ to his Church 52.” Not all, but each is taught in its own measure. Those who have not been ordained may also be blessed with certain gifts of the Holy Spirit more than those who have received the Holy Spirit at ordination, although those who have not received the sacraments of ordination do not allow themselves to perform the actions granted to those ordained to serve the altar. “The Church itself, imparting to its members the fullness of spiritual gifts, has appointed, by virtue of its God-given freedom, differences in degrees of ordination 53.” -What is this teaching based on? The apostles received the fullness of spiritual gifts, but not from the Church, but from Christ himself, who chose them and appointed them to serve and then sent down the Holy Spirit to them. And the Apostle Paul says: He gave you two apostles, you were prophets, you were evangelists, you were shepherds and teachers. You see, pastors and teachers do not receive their rights and gifts from the Church. In another case, the Apostle says to the bishops: The Holy Spirit has appointed you to shepherd the flock of Christ. If the difference of degrees did not come from the Holy Spirit, how could the Church itself limit its outpouring to the lower degrees or expand it to the higher? Bishops, presbyters and deacons are also presented to us by the Apostolic Church. The action of the Apostles in the distribution of these degrees cannot be called strictly ecclesiastical. They gave laws to the Church. It is obvious how little satisfactory these words about hierarchy contain. And yet this is the only place in the doctrine of the one Church where the establishment of a hierarchy is spoken of. But here, too, the members of the hierarchy are spoken of only as the perfections of the sacraments, and not as teachers of the faith and rulers of the Church. 24) Discussing the sacrament of marriage, the author says: “the great Teachers of the Church-Apostles recognize the sacrament of marriage even among pagans, for, prohibiting concubinage, they affirm marriage between pagans and Christians, saying that the husband is sanctified by a faithful wife, and the wife by a faithful husband 54.” -Here 1) it is strange that marriage is called a sacrament even among pagans, while the sacrament can only be in the Church and for Churches, as the author himself also stated above. 2) The Apostle does not approve the marriage between a newly converted Christian and a pagan, but only tolerates it for the time being, under the condition of the disposition of the unbelieving party to remain in the marriage as before. This does not mean affirming marriage. If an unbeliever, the Apostle continues (1 Cor. 7:12-16), wants to get a divorce: let him get a divorce; the brother or sister (i.e. the Christian side of the marriage) is then unrelated. If the Apostle had approved marriage with pagans, he would not have allowed the union to be dissolved so easily; if he had approved marriage among pagans, he would have allowed marriage with pagans, but the Church, on the basis of the Apostolic Tradition (1 Cor. 7:33), did not allow this at all. 3) As for the words of the Apostle: the husband is unfaithful about his faithful wife, they do not refer to the Christian sacrament, of which there is no talk here, but to the fact that a pagan, despite his difference of faith, wants to live in marriage with a Christian, and by this voluntary cohabitation he already shows an inclination to draw closer to Christianity and the hope of fully becoming a member of the Holy Church. society of the Church. 25) Speaking about the sacrament of repentance, the author expresses the idea that “the Church alone has the power of justification 55.” – The Lord God Himself forgives our sins when we repent. We are justified, according to the teaching of the Apostle, by the grace of Jesus Christ. Christ and the Church are not the same thing. The Church without Christ is nothing, Christ without the Church is God the Word. The author often merges the Divine and the human in the concept of the Church. Speaking about the sacrament of consecration of oil, the author noticeably adheres to the Catholic teaching about this sacrament as a pre-death consecration; “In it,” he says, “the blessing of all the feats accomplished by man on earth and the entire path he has traversed in faith and humility takes place 56.” Neither the words of the Apostle James nor the teaching of the Orthodox Church limit the use of this sacrament only in view of impending death. "The Church lives even on earth not by an earthly human life, but by a Divine and grace-filled life. For this reason, not only each of its members, but all of it solemnly calls itself Holy."57 The Church is undoubtedly holy, but not every member of it is holy, although each of them shares the title of saint. "She does not recognize anyone's power over herself except her own."58 - The head of the Church, visible and invisible, is Christ. Christ is not a member of the Church, so that the Church could consider his power as her own. - If the author thinks in his own words to reflect the claims to the autocratic rule of the popes in the Church, then we will not argue about this; with all that, we would like the author’s thought to be expressed closer to the Apostolic teaching. Where did any Apostle say that the Church does not recognize over himself to any authority other than his own? On the contrary, he says: the Church obeys Christ (Eph. 5:24). "The Church did not ordain (to baptize, anoint and give communion to infants) in order to condemn unbaptized infants, whom Angels always see the face of God; but she ordained this according to the spirit of love that lives in her."59 - The question of the fate of infants who were not worthy of baptism has not been developed in the Church's way. Therefore, we do not touch on it here. But the idea that all infants have their own seems doubtful to us Angels. When the Lord speaks of infants that their Angels see the face of the Heavenly Father, does he not mean the sons of the covenant, and not the pagans? And the church, using a spell before baptism, makes it clear that the unbaptized is under another watch, and not the good angels, and only after the spell prays: associate with his belly an angel of light, delivering him from all slander that lies against him (prayer). fourth). “When we worship and glorify the saints, we ask that God may glorify them.” -What is this idea based on? Here’s the point: “Whoever forbids us to ask, may He glorify His Saints.”60 Such a basis is not satisfactory for everyone. “We do not pray for those who are not elect, just as Christ did not pray for the whole world, but for those whom the Lord has given Him" 61 (b. Father). Since we cannot determine by our judgment who is chosen and who is not chosen, we have no reason not to pray for anyone. There are indications in the writings of the Apostles of sins leading to death and sins not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death, says John the Theologian, that’s not what I’m talking about, so that he prayed (I John, 5, 16). Here, the basis for not praying is the visible sin or sinful state, and not the judgment of God hidden from us. As for pointing to the example of the Gospel, in the present case he does not go to the point. True, in the high priestly prayer He Himself says: I pray for these, not for the whole world (John 17, 9), but This limitation applies only to a certain part of His prayer. Later He also prays for those who believe in Him (from among the world) according to the word of the Apostles 62. Khomyakov claims that it is not the hierarchy that protects the Church from errors, but the people, and cites the words of the charter of the patriarchs 63. It's not fair. He imagines that after the ecumenical councils there were some other discussions among those who were not present at the councils about whether this or that dogmatic question was correctly resolved, and only after consideration and unanimous approval were these definitions adopted 64 . This is fiction. No one made such judgments again, least of all the laity. If, after some councils that called themselves ecumenical, there was a refutation of them, as after the iconoclastic or Florentine council, then it was not only the laity who raised it, but with them the rest of the hierarchs, who were not present at the council or who suffered violence at the council. As for the words of literacy, it means only external protection, and not the development and clarification of the teaching. During times of persecution of Orthodoxy, many Orthodox Christians naturally had to defend their shepherds, who were ready to stand for Orthodoxy, and the emperors were afraid to touch them, for example. Valens – Basil the Great. On the other hand, of course, the shepherds were sometimes afraid of their people when they wanted to change the truth in some way. In this sense, it is said that our schism contributed no little to the preservation of our church in its ancient position. But this does not yet give the right to explain the infallibility of the Church by the world, that is, by the society of the laity, in addition to the hierarchy: without teachers of the faith, what would this flock be? On pages 338 and 339 65 Khomyakov, clarifying his concept of the Church in contrast not only to the teachings of Catholics and Protestants, but also in contrast to Orthodox theologians, who allegedly have not freed themselves from the influence of Western science, refers to the message of the Eastern patriarchs. The 66 words of the message quoted from memory in response to the pope’s invitation to an alliance are not conveyed accurately. According to the translation of the message placed in Christ. Thurs. 1849 67, this is how the indicated place is stated. The Pope, reproaching the Eastern for various shortcomings, wrote among other things: the unity of teaching and sacred government could not be preserved among you. Answering this, the letter says: “with us, Orthodoxy has preserved the conciliar (καθολικήν) church as an immaculate bride to her Bridegroom, although we have no secular supervision ( ἀστυνομἰαν κοσμικὴν) or, as His Beatitude says, sacred administration 68 (ίεράν επιστασίαν), but are only united by a union of love and zeal for a common mother, in the unity of faith, sealed with the seven seals of the Spirit that is, seven ecumenical councils, and in obedience to the truth" 69. This translation gives rise to a strange idea, as if the patriarchs, themselves the hierarchs of the Eastern Church, admit that they do not have sacred governance. Or that's not what they want to say. Reflecting the accusation of a lack of unity of government, they agree that they do not have that secular city government (ἀοτυνομἰαν), i.e., secular dominion, which the pope appropriated to himself under the specious name of “sacred government,” but all the patriarchs are united among themselves by a common love for their Church, unity of faith and obedience to the truth. This union of love, faith and obedience is sufficient to preserve the truth in purity and the church in continuity. So, the point is not at all about denying the hierarchy and its obligation to teach and preserve the truth of the confession. By the name ίεράν έπιοτασίαν, which they deny, they mean not their own power, but papal power. Further, the patriarchal letter adds (§ 17): “neither the patriarchs nor the councils could introduce anything new, because the guardian of piety for us is the very body of the Church, that is, the people themselves, who always want to keep their faith unchanged and in agreement with the faith of their fathers, as many of the popes and Latinizing patriarchs experienced, since the time of division they were not at all successful in their attempts against it.” 70 Here we are not talking about teaching itself, and teaching is not attributed to the people or to each of the members of the Church, and neither the right nor the duty of the hierarchy to teach is denied, but it is only indicated what service the simplest people in the East have provided and are providing in the Church with their loyalty to Orthodoxy, in order to thereby reflect the papal invitation to union addressed to the patriarchs. What participation in teaching and preserving the truths of Orthodoxy the eastern hierarchs of the hierarchy themselves assimilate can be seen from the same message (§ 21). “Our holy and Divine Fathers and predecessors, continuously succeeding each other, starting from the Apostles and, appointed by the Apostles, their successors even to the present time, forming one unbroken chain and joining hand in hand, form a sacred fence, the door of which is Christ, where the entire Orthodox flock grazes in the fertile fields of the mysterious Eden” 71. Extending the right of teaching to everyone, Khomyakov says 72 “in the true Church there is no Church that teaches.” He does not propose the very concept of teaching in its strict dogmatic meaning: “every word,” he says further, “inspired by a feeling of truly Christian love of living faith or hope, is teaching” 73. But there is no right to abandon the concept of teaching in its strict sense. The teaching of faith contains secrets that are not accessible to everyone; because Ap. Paul commands Timothy to pass on the teaching received from him to other faithful, who will be able to teach others. That is why the bishop was required to be a teacher. We do not stand for the phrase: the teaching church as opposed to the teaching church; We do not assign the name of church to the hierarchy in any exclusive sense. All shepherds and flocks, those who teach and are instructed, are members of the one Church. But on the other hand, it is strange to hear from the lips of an Orthodox the following words: “Whoever turns teaching into someone else’s exclusive privilege falls into madness; whoever associates teaching with any position, assuming that the divine gift of teaching is inseparably linked with it, falls into heresy 74.” The Orthodox believe that the duty of teaching in the Church lies primarily with the bishop and then, on his instructions, with the altar servers subordinate to him, that for these degrees a teaching member of the Church is first sought and the consecration of this gift is asked for him. And to the rest it is said: do not be too many teachers, or: it is not proper for a woman to teach. Thoroughly, but not completely, Khomyakov himself speaks in another about bishops and “priests”: “a bishop and a priest are not ministers of a private community, but servants of Christ in the universal community; through them the earthly Church, in the descent of centuries, joins its Divine Founder and through them she feels herself constantly ascending to the One whose hand set the Apostles, and further 75 “. Here Khomyakov recognizes teaching 76 as the primary responsibility of bishops, recognizes this right as being connected with a hierarchical position, recognizes it as not being in any way dependent on the internal life of those invested in these positions 77 . On this we agree with him. But Khomyakov 1) says that the Church grants bishops “the right and honor to announce its dogmatic decisions 78.” The question arises: who makes these dogmatic decisions? Of course, not just one person, for example. Pope, and the Church itself. Where? no doubt at the councils. Through whom? through whom else but through bishops? Only here, in making decisions, do they all take part, and the bishops then each declare in their own area the teaching approved at the council, not as their own decree, but as a dogmatic definition and rule of the Church. 2) Khomyakov says that the Church "reserves the right to judge whether its faith and its tradition are correctly attested 79". This is deduced from the history of some councils, even those that had a claim to the title of ecumenical, which, however, were later rejected by the Church, for example, the Council of Florence. But what? who denied it? who condemned it? The people, but not just one people. But formally condemned its patriarchs and bishops who were not in Florence are patriarchs who gave their authority to the locums who represented them at the council, and who then could and even were obliged to believe the actions of their representatives at the council. 3) Khomyakov says that the Church “does not deprive any of its members of the high right to teach the word of God 80.” That is, he wants to say that a layman can also enjoy the right to teach in the Church. Rule 64 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not say this: it is not proper for a layman to pronounce a word or teach before the people, and thus take upon himself the dignity of a teacher, but to obey the order handed down from the Lord (τάξιν) - to open the ear of those who have received the grace of the teacher’s word and to learn from them the Divine. Outlining the foundations of this commandment, the council continues: for in one Church God created different members, according to the word of the Apostle (1 Cor. 12:25), which, when Gregory the Theologian explains, clearly shows the order found in them, saying: this, brethren, let us honor this order, let us preserve this. Let this one be an ear, and that one a tongue; this hand, and the other with something else; let this one teach, the same one learn. And after a few words, he further says: let the student be obedient, the one who distributes, let him distribute with joy, the one who serves, let him serve with zeal. Let us not all be tongues, and this is what is closest, neither all apostles, nor all prophets, nor all interpreters. – Having given this instruction, the council decided to subject a layman to forty-day excommunication from Church communion for violating this rule. So, it cannot be said that the Church recognizes the right of teaching for each of its members. Khomyakov clearly reveals that there cannot be a union or union between the Churches, but there must be unity 81. These are not political bodies, not states, but the one body of Christ. But it is impossible to restore such unity on the basis of one common life of the Church before the church division of the 9th century. We ourselves have outgrown this age, we did not remain with what we knew in the 9th century (the doctrine of grace and the sacraments, of Scripture and tradition). Old Catholics even more so. It is impossible for them to refuse everything, starting from the 11th century. Khomyakov is credited with the fact that in his writings he was the first to denounce the Catholic Church for rationalism, as well as Protestantism. But isn’t this the most ancient explanation of the origin of all divisions and heresies from reason? The mind is exuberant and creative. See Complete Works of A. S. Khomyakov. T. 2nd: theological works. Prague, 1867. 1–22 pp. This publication was also used by A.V. See journal. Faith and Church, 1900, VIII, 436. See below, in the comments of A.V. Gorsky, § 21–25. Wed. below, comments, § 3. See the beginning of the comments of A.V. Gorsky That is Kazansky mentioned above. Of course, without a doubt N.P. Kireevskaya. That we are talking about preparing notes specifically for publication is evidenced by the entire letter of P. S. Kazansky. In the following, all notices are those of the publisher except two where appropriate acknowledgment is made. This introduction to the analysis of the theological works of A. Khomyakov came on a special piece of paper in a reduced format. Further comments on the “experience of catechetical presentation of the doctrine of the Church” are written on identical sheets of paper, numbered. Op. A. S. Khomyakova, II, 3 1, p. 3. De pudicitia. With. 21. Note A. V. Gorsky. Sochin. A. S. Khomyakova, P, 3, § 1. Op. A. S. Khomyakova, P, p. 3, § 1. Sochin. A. S. Khomyakova, P, pp. 10. 11. The last phrases, starting with the words: “Thus...”, are crossed out in the original. Op. Khomyakova, II, p. 4. In our opinion, the meaning of the speech requires negation here, but it is not in the original. In approx. on page 5. - This condemnation was pronounced at the VIth All. Cathedral. Op. Khomyakova, II, §. 4, page 5. Op. Khomyakova, II, § 5, p. 8. This passage, which cannot be deciphered in the original, was reproduced by guesswork. Op. Khomyakova, P, § 4, p. 6. Perhaps in Khomyakov’s words the critic discerns the idea that the custodian of the entire Faith is the Church in the totality of its entire existence, and not the church of a given historical moment. Op. Khomyak., II, § 4, p. 6. The further words of A. S. Khomyakov are understood: (everyone seeking evidence of Church truth) ... retains the hope of proving the truth and reaching it with his own power of reason; but the powers of reason do not reach the truth of God and human powerlessness becomes obvious in the powerlessness of evidence. Op. Khomyakova, II, § 5, p. 7. The last phrase, starting with the words: “G. Khomyakov... etc., is crossed out in the original.” Khomyakov, Op. II, § 6, p. 8. Op. Khomyak., II, § 7, p. 10. This refers to § 8, page 10. 11. Op. Khomyakova, II, p. 12. Here ends the comments of A. V. Gorsky on “The Experience of Catechetical Presentation of the Doctrine of the Church” by A. S. Khomyakov. Of course, a charter from the council of four Eastern Patriarchs and 29 bishops, issued in 1818 in response to the message of Pope Pius IX to the Eastern “on the union of the Churches.” See page Works of Khomyakov, II 44–45. 89. 64. 65 and many more. etc. See Letter V of Khomyakov to Palmer, op. A. S. Khomyakova. P, 336–341. Khomyakov writes: I don’t have the message at hand and I’m writing it as a keepsake. District message of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church to all Orthodox Christians. Chr. Thurs. 1849, 11, 163–172. Pay attention to whether the division that followed brought you any benefit, as a result of which you, not only with the Western churches, but also among yourself, could not preserve the ancient unity both in teaching and in sacred administration (Latin words of the pope in Pichler. Gesch. d. kirchl. Trenn. 1 p. 534). Note A. V. Gorsky. Christ. Thu., 1849, p. 160. 161. Christ. Thu., 1849, pp. 162. 163. Sochin. A. S. Khomyakova, P, 55. This refers to Khomyakov’s further words: “It (the church) primarily imposes on bishops the ministry of the word of God and the obligation to teach the word.” Ibid. “All these rights,” says Khomyakov, “are consistent with hierarchical positions and are not in any way dependent on the internal life of the persons invested in these positions.” Ibid.