Книги символические вообще и в русской православной церкви в частности

Books are symbolic in general and in the Russian Orthodox Church in particular. Symbolic books represent a phenomenon in the Christian church that can be better understood when it is illuminated from two points of view: a) economic and b) historical. The economic point of view affirms the possibility of the existence of monuments in the church as verbal examples of the presentation of Christian teaching. Just as God deigned to communicate the knowledge of Himself through the Logos, so the Logos Himself, in the days of His humiliation, taught the gospel not in some invisible way, but through the articulate human word. This divine economic example is followed by the Church of Christ, spreading the Word of God partly through the oral word of man, partly through the written word of man. Along this path, symbols or creeds appeared as models for guidance in the confession of truth, corresponding to the present condition of a person in need of such guidance. But if symbols are legitimate in the Christian church, as short statements of faith, then it seems that symbolic books, as common statements of confession, are also possible; if there were the confessions of Archbishop Cyril of Alexandria (about the unity of the hypostasis in Jesus Christ), Pope Leo (about two natures in Christ), Pope Agathon (about two wills in Jesus Christ), then, it seems, the expositions of the confession of Metropolitan. Peter Mogila, Patriarch of Jerusalem Dosifei, Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret. This means, from an economic point of view, the existence of symbolic books, as verbal examples of the presentation of Christian teaching, like symbols of faith, is acceptable in the Christian church. However, based on a historical point of view, it must be said that from this side, symbolic books are not the main, but a random phenomenon in the Christian church, historically associated not with the property of the unity of the indivisible universal church, but with the isolated confessionalism of church communities that have lost unity among themselves. The fact is that the ancient universal church knew the creeds or statements of dogma, knowing them, canonized them, but did not have symbolic books. Symbolic books, as such, first appeared in the West in the 16th century, during the era of the Reformation, owing their origin mainly to Lutheranism. Lutheranism was the first to publish them. Following this, symbolic books began to appear in other confessions - Reformation, Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism. In terms of their content, the symbolic books presented a presentation of the confessions of famous church communities, on the one hand, to confirm their confessional isolation, and on the other, as norms for the correct understanding of the confessions of these communities. Already from this concept of the historical origin of symbolic books in the West, one can judge why the ancient Ecumenical Church, knowing the symbols, did not, however, have symbolic books. After all, the appearance of symbolic books in the 16th century in the West marked the confessional division of the church into separate communities, with each of them claiming true confession. The ancient church tradition was not recognized by these communities as a mandatory criterion for determining their truth or falsity. Meanwhile, the establishment of the symbol in the ancient Ecumenical Church rested on the property of the unity of the church, outwardly expressed in the universal confession of the same faith. And since the universal church is characterized not by the first, but by the second property, then it naturally had the expression of the unity of the church, but did not have the expression of the confessional fragmentation of the church. Perhaps the ancient Ecumenical Church did not have symbolic books also because it was guided in its activities by the principle: in necesariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus autem caritas. Symbolic books, meanwhile, for the most part pursue the task of establishing uniformity in matters not only of faith and morality, but also in matters of church practice, in a word, on all points of the religious and moral life of a certain confession. The latter is appropriate only in a local church or a separate church community, but not in the universal society of believers. And most importantly, the ancient ecumenical church did not need symbolic books on the grounds that it tested its Orthodoxy not so much in a bookish, but in a living way, through ecumenical councils that authorized the very symbols or statements of dogmas, where a religious monument received significance not in itself, but by the power of its canonization by an ecumenical council. Therefore, if it were possible to convene an ecumenical council in the Orthodox Church today, then, undoubtedly, it would, first of all, base its activities on its living church-universal self-consciousness, which finds its identity in the ancient ecumenical tradition. And then, following the example of the ancient ecumenical councils, if necessary, to determine the value of the so-called symbolic books, he himself would begin to test their merit from the point of agreement or disagreement with the ecumenical teaching, just as, for example, at the Third Ecumenical Council the dogmatic letter of Cyril to Nestorius was tested before making it the criterion of ecumenical truth. This is the explanation of why the universal church, now and formerly professing the same faith, knew symbols, but did not, however, have symbolic books. According to their historical construction, the symbol and symbolic books, it turns out, do not coincide to the point of complete identity. As a result, the historical point of view on the subject limits the economic one in the sense that it states the presence of symbolic books in individual church communities, but not in the universal church. Having not found an example for themselves in the practice of the universal church, nevertheless, in the 17th century, the local Russian and Jerusalem churches showed a desire to compile widespread models of confession in the East, which in this case found approval in other Orthodox churches. This fact follows. look, firstly, as a fact that happened precisely in local churches, which have the right to introduce uniformity not only in matters of faith and morality, but also in matters of church practice, and secondly, as a fact that has happened. for motives of a purely economic nature, out of need: to give the necessary guidance to the knowledge of the objects of one’s confession for the purpose of protection. believers from the influence of other faiths. And most importantly, you need to look at it as a fact, fundamentally subordinate to the principle of the unchanging preservation of ancient universal Orthodoxy. By virtue of this principle, monuments of this kind do not cross out the obligatory nature of the universal creeds, as the Reformation does, but, on the contrary, try to place themselves in the closest dependence on the latter, on a certain agreement with them, acquiring their authority. Hence, these monuments, if they can be called symbolic books, then, of course, not in the natural sense of the word, since above the church always puts the expression of the voice of the ecumenical council 1. In the Russian Church, the category of so-called symbolic books consists of: 1) the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, 2) the message of the patriarchs of the Orthodox Catholic Church on the Orthodox faith, and 3) the lengthy Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church. In scholarship, the question of the origin of the expression of faith, subsequently known under the name "Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East", revolves around three speeches that the author of the book was either the Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mohyla, or his associate Isaiah Trofimovich, or both together. So (Mr. A. Bolkhovsky), compiler of the judgment “On the book called the Orthodox Confession,” ed. in St. Petersburg 1844, based on the words of the Jerusalem Council of 1672, as well as the words of Patr. Adriana in the preface to the publication “Prav. confession in the Slavic language of 1696, directly names (pp. 12–13) the author of this book precisely the Kyiv Metropolitan Peter Mogila (see “Christ. Reading” 1844, part II, p. 232), although Mr. Bolkhovsky asserts this not without some, invisible to himself, limitation indicated in favor of the collective author of “Rights.” Confessions" in its final edition ("Christ. Reading" 1844, part II, 243–246). The author of the article “Peter Mogila” in “Encycl. Dictionary" of Brockhaus and Efron, vol. XLVI. Metropolitan of Kiev Eugene (Bolkhovitinov), who first made known the work of the Uniate Archimandrite Jan Dubovich about the Kiev Council of 1640, published in 1641, at which the Catechism was read, probably based on the information from this work, first in the “Description of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral,” ed. 1825, p. 176, then in his “Dictionary of Writers of the Clerical Order,” ed. 1827, part II, p. 159, on the contrary, claims that the Catechism, later known as the “Orthodox Confession,” was written by Isaiah Trofimovich Kozlovsky, although Metropolitan says this. Eugene, not without renouncing his previous opinion about Peter Mogila, as the author of the exposition of faith († Archbishop Filaret, Review of Russian Spiritual Literature, Part I, p. 188–189 in article 170: Peter Mogila). Based on the research of Metropolitan. Evgenia Bolkhovitinov, without new research, calls Isaiah Trofimovich the compiler of the book: “Right. Confession" is also the author of "History of the Kyiv Academy", ed. in 1843, p. 80 (“Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers,” year IV, Moscow 1846, pp. 62–63, approx.). A conciliatory opinion between the two previous ones about the authorship of the “Orthodox Confession” is expressed by the competent prof. Art. T. Golubev in his remark: “hardly at the present time... it may be doubtful that the Catechism presented by the Metropolitan for discussion at the Kyiv Council of 1640 was compiled with the most active assistance of Isaiah Trofimovich Kozlovsky” (Prof. St. T. Golubev, Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mogila and his associates, vol. II, Kyiv 1898, p. 360). In history, the question about the author of “Orthodox. Confessions" is clarified by reviewing data of two kinds: on the one hand, reports on the consideration of the Catechism at the Kiev Council of 1640 (Prof. St. T. Golubev, Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mogila, appendix LXIX, p. 187) or, according to another source, reports on the conciliar compilation of the statement of faith, on the other hand, reports on the consideration of this statement at the council Yassy 1643 (letter of Patriarch Jerusalem. Nektarios 1662 with the “Orthodox Confession”). The fact of the conciliar compilation of the statement of faith of Patr. Nectary transmits to such. way. “Having thought well about his work (i.e., about planting pure teaching in the flock and about eradicating new false opinions), he (Peter Mogila) immediately began to carry out (this). He called men from his diocese to the metropolis who were famous for their enlightenment, and even before that he called three bishops under his control... They discussed a lot, and finally, with general advice and agreement, they decided: to write a brief statement of their faith, and present the most accurate consideration of it to the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople, which they initially followed, obeying it as the head of the Greek Orthodox faith, and turning to it as a faithful Judge, so that those points of teaching that it would approve could be retained by them; and on the contrary, those that she rejects, they too will reject as false.” And the exposition of faith, indeed, was compiled under the name: “Exposition of the Russian Faith” (᾿’Εκθεδις τῆς τῶν ῾Ρω’σων πι’στεως). Speaking then about the consideration of this presentation at the Council of Iasi in 1643, Patr. Nektary continues: “Thus, having compiled a book and given it the name: Exposition of the Russian Faith, they asked the great Church of Constantinople to send attorneys from the Synod and patriarchal exarchs to Moldavia, where, on their part, they promised to send people in order to first consider the stated points of their faith, whether they agree or disagree with the Orthodox teaching of the Eastern Church, and after such consideration, and attach them to it popularly. As a result of this, the Most Reverend Metropolitan of Nicea Porfiry and Meletius Sirig, teacher of the great church, were sent from the Holy Synod... Representing at this time the person of the patriarch, with authorized authority from the entire Holy Synod, he arrived in Moldavia... with Porfiry. They also arrived from the Russians: Isaiah Trofimovich (Kozlovsky), Kononovich (Joseph) and Ksenovich (Ignatius), men truly worthy of wonder and adorned with all wisdom and knowledge. Having made their leader in the true teaching the Director of all knowledge of God, after much research and careful reading of the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures have successfully completed this book, completely clearing it of all incorrect thoughts and from every admixture of new teachings” (J. Michalcescu, Θησαυρος νης ορθοδοξιας, Lpzg 1904, S. 26–28). Thus a book appeared called the “Orthodox Confession of the Greeks” (᾿Ορθο’δοξος’ ὀμολομι’α τῶν Γραικῶν), - “a right and pure confession, not having in itself the slightest admixture of novelties some other confessions." Although in the narration of Patr. Nektary there are no detailed instructions either about the form of the original compilation of the “Exposition of the Russian Faith”, or about the method of correcting it, which resulted in “Orthodox. Confession”, nevertheless, the idea of ​​​​collective editing of the monument in question appears quite clearly here and there; in the latter case, in relation to “Orthodox. Confession”, it even has a good effect in its very content, in the phrase “we” found in it, which encourages us to see here an indication of several compilers. But, on the other hand, the initiatory activity of Metropolitan is not denied here. Peter's Mogila. Considering all this, we think that regarding the “Confession of the Russian Faith” (Catechism) the formula that Prof. Art. T. Golubev speaks out on the issue of the author of Lifos, another work assimilated by P. Mogila, i.e., the Confession of the Russian Faith “was compiled on the initiative of the Kyiv Metropolitan. P. Mogila and his active participation by one or more persons who belonged to the scientific Mogila circle, located in Kyiv; but this collective participation in the said scientific and literary work, not unknown to those close to the Metropolitan, could even be ignored by them due to the outstanding role in this case of the Metropolitan himself. As for the persons who stood at a distance from Peter Mogila and were less familiar with the course of the matter, for them such assignment of authorship to one metropolitan was even more natural” (Prof. St. T. Golubev, Kiev Metropolitan P. Mogila, p. 361). This formula about the authorship of the “Exposition of the Russian Faith” is all the more possible since it finds some confirmation in the work of Ioannikiy Golyatovsky: The Righteous Messiah, 1669 (p. 321) - in his narrative about the Kiev Cathedral of 1640 (“Appendix to the works of the Holy Fathers,” year IV, p. 61, note). Regarding the “Orthodox Confession” itself, there should be such an opinion that this is a statement of confession, woven by members of the Council of Jassy in 1643 on the basis of the Kiev-Mogila Catechism, but under the predominant influence of representatives of the Greek church, why, according to the narration of Patriarch Nektary, it naturally turned from the “Exposition of the Russian Faith” into the “Orthodox Confession” Greeks." The fact of the influence of representatives of the Greek Church in the Cathedral of Iasi in 1643 in the editorship of the “Exposition” (Confession), indicated in the letter of Patr. Nektarios, is further confirmed, firstly, by the information that at the Iasi Council it was not the Russians who taught the Greeks, but the Russian Greeks (†Archbishop Filaret, Review of Russian Spiritual Literature I, p. 189), and secondly, by the words of the Jerusalem Council of 1672, that the “Exposition of the Russian Faith” at the Iasi Council “explained and corrected where the need required it, by order cathedral" namely the Greek Meletius Sirig ("Christ. Reading" 1844, II, p. 232 note); thirdly, it is partially confirmed by the very content of “Orthodox. Confessions”, containing a fair number of references to the Greek fathers. On the other hand, the fact of the transformation of the “Exposition of the Russian Faith” into the “Orthodox Confession of the Greeks,” in our opinion, is not at all offensive to the Russian church (although the Kievans of that time, according to some information, allegedly reacted to it differently: †Archbishop Philaret, Review of Russian Spiritual Literature I, p. 189), is remarkable in this regard, that in the “Prav. Confession” encourages us to see the confession of the Greek rather than the Russian church of that era. What the Mohyla Catechism or “Exposition of the Russian Faith” was, in the Kyiv edition of 1640, is difficult to say anything definite about this, in the absence of a monument in science. But what the “Orthodox Confession” is in the edition of the Iasi Council of 1643 can be judged from the printed edition by its translator Panagiot in 1662, who, according to the testimony of the Jerusalem Council of 1672, “printed it without adding or subtracting anything, but in everything in accordance with the original” (“Christ. Read.” 1844, II, p. 232 note; cf. Patr. And at the same time, of course, one can judge from all the publications of Pravosl. Confessions”, which is a reproduction of Panagiota’s edition. True, we have at hand the Short Catechism of P. Mogila of 1645 (otherwise called “The Science of Faith”), published first in Polish and then in the Western Russian dialect (Prof. St. T. Golubev, Kiev Metropolitan P. Mogila, appendix, pp. 358–469), which is in the document of Patr. Nektaria is mistakenly identified with the “Orthodox Confession”. But there is no reason to see in it the original edition of the Catechism of 1640. Some similarities between the Short Catechism and the Orthodox Church. Confession” rather suggests that the former is a reduction of the latter, made, however, not without some features of difference at the discretion of P. Mogila himself (perhaps really under the influence of the desire to show his Russian independence, allegedly somewhat humiliated by the Greeks at the Council of Iasi in 1643: Archbishop Philaret, Review of Russian Spiritual Literature I, p. 189). The similarity is that both essays have almost the same questions and answers, going in almost the same order. The difference between the one and the other presentation is: 1) that in the Shorter Catechism the answers are stated more briefly than in the Orthodox Church. Confession" (without detailed explanations of the Greek fathers), and 2) that the Shorter Catechism lacks questions: about the properties of God, about the universality of original sin, about predestination, about freedom, about the origin of the soul and about the difference between predestination, foreknowledge and providence, what do the words mean: "Light from Light" - which are set out in detail in “Orthodox. Confession" (in sections of Part I on questions: 11–13, 24, 26–27, 28, 30, 36); There is also a lack of questions about private judgment, about the degrees of bliss and torment in the future life, about the average state between those being saved and those who are perishing, about prayer for the dead, about purgatory, about the location of the blessed and the condemned, as set out in “Orthodox. Confession”, part I, issue. 61–68 (“Addition to the works of the Holy Fathers,” year IV, pp. 63–64). Finally, in 3, the difference between the Shorter Catechism of 1645 and the Orthodox. Confession" of 1643 is seen in the answer to the question about the moment of the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ: while "Orthodox. Confession” relates this moment to the utterance of the famous words: send down Your Holy Spirit... (Part I, question-answer. 107), Short Catechism - to pronounce the words of the Savior: This is My Body and This is My Blood, not without some, however, limitation of this thought in favor of Orthodoxy (Prof. St. T. Golubev, Kiev Metropolitan P. Mogila, appendix, p. 114). The reason for the compilation of the Catechism, later “Orthodox. Confessions”, according to a certain legend of Patr. Nektary, Peter Mohyla’s concern was to give his flock, which, upon entering the Kyiv metropolitanate, “... infected with some new opinions of the unbelievers... completely contrary to the right, ancient teaching,” guidance for a systematic acquaintance with pure Orthodox teaching. There is an assumption that when compiling “Orthodox. Confessions” exclusively meant Patr. Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople with the (thoroughly) assimilated Confession from Chapter XVIII, in the spirit of Calvinism (“Enc.” X, 329–348). But, taken in such a formula, it is not confirmed by either external or internal data borrowed from the content of “Orthodox. Confessions." One also cannot think that Orthodox. The Confession is directed exclusively against the papists. Contents “Orthodox. Confession” testifies that it is, first of all, a positive presentation of Orthodox teaching, and then indirectly, “nameless” rejection as papist errors (for example, opinions about purgatory, part I, 66 questions and answers); the doctrine of the Filioque by asserting that the Holy Spirit proceeds from one Father, ἐκ μο’νου τοῦ Πατρο’ς part I, 71 questions and answers; teachings about consensus, as the final moment of marriage, by explaining that for marriage the mutual consent of the bride and groom is not enough, but a priestly blessing is also necessary (Part I, 115 questions and answers, etc.), and new opinions of the Reformation (in speech, for example, about two sources of Christian knowledge: Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, about predestination, about the seven sacraments of the church... (Part I, question-answer 4, 30, 98). The language in which “Orthodox” was written. Confession” was in Greek and Latin (Certificate of Patriarch Constantine, Parthenia, 1645: cf. Charter of Patriarch Nektarios, 1662). But it is possible that the Catechism was compiled at the Kiev Council in 1640, actually in the Russian dialect: it was more natural for Russian people to interpret it in Russian within their own limits; and then, for consideration by the Greeks, it was presented in Greek and Latin. Be that as it may, one thing is beyond doubt that the Orthodox Church itself. Confession" appeared in Greek and Latin. In addition to the final editing at the Council in Iasi in 1643, the attitude towards “Orthodox. The Confession" of the Greek, and with it the entire Eastern, Church was expressed: a) in its approval, in 1645, without any changes in the edition of 1643, by a council of bishops and clergy: the most holy ecumenical patriarchs - Parthenius of Constantinople, Ioannikios of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch, Paisius of Jerusalem and 22 others who were with them by the hierarchs, b) in the view of it as a “right and pure confession” by the patriarch. Nektarios of Jerusalem, expressed in the preface to the Panagiot edition of 1662, and c) in the testimony of Dositheus about him, Patr. Jerusalem, together with other hierarchs who were at the Jerusalem Council in 1672, as a book “both before and in his (Dositheus’s) time” accepted by the entire Eastern Church. The most important of these judgments about Orthodoxy. Confession,” of course, is the judgment of the Council of Constantinople with the indicated hierarchs. “We have found,” they say, “that this book is ἀποστολικῆσ ἐκκλησι’ας τοῦ Χριστοῦ : Michacescu, Θηασυρος της ορθοδο_κιας, S. 28) is in everything consistent with the dogmas of the Church of Christ and the sacred canons and there is nothing in it that is contrary to the church. And by the general opinion of the council we determine: every pious and Orthodox Christian, member of the Eastern Apostolic Church, should read this book and not reject it” (Gram. Patr. Parthenia at the “Right. Confession”). Relation to "Orthodox" Confession” of the Russian Church, in addition to communicating its basis in the form of the Catechism of 1640, “can be seen a) from the review” of the book “Pat. Adrian, who calls her divinely inspired" (according to the remark of M. Macarius, of course, not in the proper sense) “and exhorts everyone to read it with full faith”; b) from the Spiritual Regulations, where it is included among such books, which contain everything that is sufficient for popular instruction; c) from the orders of the Holy Synod, which in 1837, recognizing it as useful and necessary that all churches be supplied with this book, ordered the printing of it in sufficient quantities (30,000) copies to supply all the churches of the empire with it; d) from the rules given to the manual for Seminaries by the former Commission of Theological Schools of 1838, June 28, where mentors were obliged, when teaching dogmatic and moral theology, to check the details of this teaching. Confession; finally, f) from the use of this book by our most famous theologians, who in the most important points of the teaching of the Orthodox Eastern Church refer to it as a symbolic book (“Christ. Reading” 1844, II, pp. 264–265; cf. Makariy, Introduction to Orthodox Theology,” St. Petersburg 1847, § 149, or p. 589–590). In the above-mentioned relation to Pravosl. Confession" of the Eastern and Russian churches is observed: first, that while the Eastern Church respected the "Orthodox. Confession" since 1645, the Russian Church, for 53 years, did not yet have it in use either in Russian or even in the Slavic language, in the translation of which "Orthodox. Confession” first appeared in 1685–1696; second, that the special attention of the Russian Church to “Orthodox. confession" falls in the 30-40s of the 19th century, from which time the special interpretation of it in Russia actually began in the works of Russian learned theologians (though not in all). The principle underlying the “Orthodox Confession” by its compilers is to copy their explanations from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture (Grammar Patr. Nektarios). In the part about faith, this principle is, moreover, noticeably strengthened by the introduction here of the explanations of the Greek fathers. According to the content “Orthodox. Confession,” according to the three theological virtues, is divided into three parts: about faith, hope and love (or - according to the charter of Patriarch Parthenius - about faith, love and hope). The form of presentation is question-and-answer (catechetical). The first part, preceded by a general judgment about faith, in 126 questions and answers sets out the truths of faith in the order of the Nicene-Constantinople symbol, namely: about God, about angels, about I. Christ, about man, about the Fall, about the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, about the nine commandments of the church, the seven sacraments and eschatology. The second part, in 63 questions and answers, contains the teaching of prayer in general, the Lord's Prayer (Our Father) in particular, and the nine beatitudes. The third part, with 72 questions and answers, talks about good deeds, different types of sin and, finally, the decalogue. Thus, in terms of its content, “Orthodox. Confession" is not a book expounding exclusively the tenets of faith. In addition to dogmatic subjects, as can be seen, there are also subjects related to the field of morality or church discipline. Since when compiling “Orthodox. Confessions” was meant to give the flock guidance for its entire religious and moral life, then inclusion in “Orthodox. Confession” not only of objects of faith, but also of objects of hope and love is a completely natural matter, although the attitude of the compilers of “Orthodox. Confessions” to the area of ​​faith and church discipline are not the same. In addition, in judgments about faith one can distinguish between a) dogmas in the proper sense of the word and b) so-called “theological opinions.” The latter may include, for example, the question (I, 25): if God knew that Adam would sin, then why did He create him? – the doctrine of the origin of the soul among the descendants of Adam in the sense of creationism ex nihilo, i.e., that “the soul is given from God at the time when the body is formed” (I, 28 rep.); Apparently, the complete identification of the inspired activity of the Holy Spirit in the writers of sacred books with His activity in the Holy Spirit. fathers, participants in the councils (I, 72), although in this case we may be dealing with ambiguity or, more accurately, with a rather strong expression directed against the deniers of any authority behind the holy fathers... Some justifications of “Orthodox” also border on theological opinions. Confessions”, carried out to prove certain truths, for example, the statement (I, 104 questions and answers) that the sacrament of anointing “received its beginning from the time the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles” (Acts 2:3 in the form of tongues of fire), “sealing them with his divine grace,” or that the divine establishment of the sacrament of anointing can be seen from the words of Mark 6:13 ... Partly the principle underlying the “Orthodox. Confessions": comparison of human explanations with the Holy. Scripture, partly inclusion in “Orthodox. Confession of theological opinions that coexist with the dogmas of faith, but do not go against them, ensures that the presence of theologumens does not violate Orthodoxy. Confessions." As a feature of “Orthodox. Confession, it must also be pointed out that in the Slavic version its 4th member of the creed is read without the part (Crucified) but (for us). There is an opinion that “Orthodox. Confession” in its very content bears clear traces of the influence of Roman Catholic doctrine. This opinion is fair when it is expressed in relation to the Catechism of 1640, “since it is known that this Catechism at the Council of Jassy in 1643 underwent significant corrections by cleansing it “from all incorrect thoughts and from every admixture of new teaching” (Grammar Patr. Nektaria). But it requires a critical attitude when it means “Orthodox. Confession”, like the confession of the Greeks. What do they want to see as the substantive influence of Roman Catholic doctrine? In a speech about the 9 commandments of the church. But, referring to this, they do not point out that in their content the church commandments express the practice of the Greek, but not the Roman church and, what is especially important, they reject, among other things, the custom of the Latins to fast on Saturday (I, 88 questions and answers). One can see the influence of medieval theological doctrine in Orthodox. Confession,” but not in its content, but in the formal processing of dogmatic material. Not to mention the general scheme of “Orthodox. Confessions,” - such figures of speech or words as: “to inherit eternal life, a Christian must have right faith and good deeds” (Q&A 1), “transubstantiation” (I, 56, 107 Q&A), definitions: the general concept of the sacrament (1, 99–100), foreknowledge and predestination (I, 30), the presence of Christ in the Eucharist “truly and actually and truly” (I, 106), the characterization of the nature of primitive man mainly under the form of the concept of “the state of innocence” (I, 23), or the possession of “righteousness” (1, 103), the scheme of the four main virtues: wisdom, justice, courage and temperance (Part III, Q&A 10), can indeed find parallels in the Latin dogma of that time; but it is still difficult to establish this influence beyond formulas. One should not be surprised by this circumstance: - for the influence of the Latin theological scheme on the Eastern one, conditions then existed not only in relation to Russians, but also to Greeks, such as, for example, the Greek College in Rome, where, as is known, Meletius Sirig himself received his theological education, a person closely connected with the history of the origin of the final edition of “Orthodox. Confessions." II) The author of the book, later known under the name: “Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith,” according to the generally accepted opinion of scientists, is considered to be the Jerusalem Patriarch Dositheos. Hence, in the acts of the Jerusalem Council of 1672, which was presided over by this patriarch, it is rightly called the “Confession of Dositheus”: ῾Ομολοδι’α Δοσιθε’ου or Συ’ντομος ῾Ομολοδι’ας ... J. Michalcescu, Θησαυρος της οπθοδοξιας ... S. 123–125. 160 [and from the Catholic side, see about this P. A. Palmieri, Dositeo patriarca greco di Gerusalemme, Firenze 1909, chapter 2, and in Slavorum litterae theclogicae VI (1910), 1, p. 44 sqq. 99]. The reason for drawing up a statement of faith was the need to contrast the ideas of the Reformation that were then spreading in the East with a true confession of faith, and at the same time to justify the Orthodox Church from the criticism leveled at it for being infected by these ideas. In this case, what was meant most closely was the rejection of the ideas of Calvinism contained in the “Confession”, assimilated by Patr. Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople (“Enc.” X, 329–348). This is supported by both external and internal evidence, borrowed from the very content of the Confession. External proof is the very diagram of Dositheus’s “Confession,” which indisputably sets out Orthodoxy in 18 members (ὁ’ρα) and four questions and answers against the 18 chapters and four questions of the confession of Cyril Lucaris, moreover. each member of the Confession of Dositheus appears clearly directed against the corresponding member of the Confession of Cyril (Michalcescu, op. cit, S. 124. Kimmel, Libri symbolici ecclesiae orientalis, Jenae 1843, pp. 24–44: Cyrilli Lucaris Confessio; pag. 425: Dosithei Confessio). Internal evidence consists mainly of those parts of Dositheus’s “Confession” where the speech is clearly directed against the ideas of the Reformation in general and Calvinism in particular; namely: where it is said: a) about the predestination of some to salvation, others to condemnation on the basis of the divine foreknowledge of the deeds of both, but not on the basis of the unconditional will of God alone sine respectu ad illorum (electornm) opera (Part 3; cf. Part 3 Cyrilli Confessio); b) about the justification of a person not simply by faith alone (οὐ διὰ πι’στεως α’πλῶς μο’ντες ch. 13), but by faith promoted by love, that is, through faith and works (ἀλλὰ διὰ πι’στεως καὶ ἐνεργουμε’νης διὰ τῆς ἀνα’πης,… διὰ τῆς πι’στεως καὶ τῶν ἐ’ριγον ); c) about the sevenfold number of sacraments; d) about the sacraments not only as signs of God’s promises τοῦ Θεοῦ), but as instruments that necessarily act with grace on those who approach them (ὁμιολοῦμεη δ᾿ αὐτὰ εἱαιι ὀ’ργανα δραστικὰ τοῖς μυσυμε’νοις χα’ριτος ἐξ ἀναγκῆς: member. 15); e) about the presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist “not symbolically, not figuratively (τυπικῶς, ἐικονικῶς), not by an excess of grace, as in other sacraments, not by influx alone: .. and not through the penetration of bread,” .. “but truly, truly and essentially, through the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the true Body and the true Blood of the Lord (ἀλιθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς καὶ οσιωδῶς – vege realiterque ac substantialiter: part 1?), etc. All these places clearly indicate against whom it is actually directed "Confession" of Patr. Dosithea. But, although the reason for the appearance of the “Confession” was the need to contrast the ideas of the Reformation with a true statement of faith, the main tone of the Confession cannot be called polemical. This is a positive statement of faith, although it is a statement in which every thesis excludes an antithesis. In this respect it is similar to the “Orthodox Confession”. It is similar to the latter in understanding the activity of the Holy Spirit in the sacred writers and church fathers (chapter 12), in justifying the sacrament of confirmation with reference to Acts 2, and the sacrament of anointing - with Mark 6:13, not to mention the similarities in other cases. However, we do not see direct references to the “Orthodox Confession” in Dosifei’s “Confession,” although we know from history that Patr. Dosifei was well acquainted with the “Orthodox Confession”. The original language of Dositheus's Confession is Greek. The attitude towards the “Confession” of Pariarch Dositheus of the Eastern Church was expressed: a) in the approval or acceptance of it “after careful study” by the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 and b) in the view of all four ecumenical patriarchs, together with some other hierarchs, as an “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith of the Eastern Church”, which contains “the pious and Orthodox way of thinking of the Eastern Church” - in the view expressed in 1723, when the eastern hierarchs, in order to familiarize themselves with their beliefs, in response to the British Christians, sent this presentation to Great Britain, as well as to Russia to the Holy Synod for the same purpose. The attitude of the Russian church to the presentation of faith was expressed, 1st, in its acceptance by the Holy Synod in 1723 and, 2ndly, in its publication in Russian in 1838 under the title: “Message of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Catholic Church on the Orthodox Faith” (translated by Metropolitan Philaret) with the subsequent order in 1845 on the use of this books. “The Holy Synod,” says a paper from the Spiritual Educational Administration at the Holy Synod dated August 28, 1845. - taking into account that the Royal Charter and the Patriarchal Charter issued, by his order, on the establishment of the Holy All-Russian Synod outlining the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic Church, in terms of its importance in relation to the dogmas of the Orthodox faith and the Church, especially the Russian hierarchy, is very useful and even necessary for spiritual students, both when listening to theological sciences, and then upon entering priestly places, by decree of July 25-31, he decided to supply this book free of charge to all students of seminaries when transferring from the middle department to the higher one, so that at the end of the course and upon leaving the seminaries, they would keep this book with them for constant use” († M. Macarius, Introduction to Orthodox Theology, St. Petersburg 1847, p. 591, note 780). In the relationship of the Eastern and Russian Church to the “Epistle of the Patriarchs”, one can thus see the same story that we saw in relation to the “Orthodox Confession”: first, the Eastern Church has been using the “Epistle” since 1672, while the Russian Church, for 51 years, did not know it, until 1723, and second, the special attention of the Russian Church to the “Epistle of the Patriarchs” also falls by 30–40 years of the 19th century and - like the “Orthodox Confession”, the “Epistle” from that time became the subject of interpretation in the works of Russian scientists on dogmatics. According to its content, the “Message of the Eastern Patriarchs” is divided into 18 members and four questions and answers (or, according to the Russian edition, if the third question and answer is omitted, into 18 members and three questions and answers). Member 1 about God as the Most Holy Trinity; member 2nd about understanding the inspired Holy Scripture. Scriptures according to the mind of the universal church or - about the significance of the church in the matter of understanding the inspired Holy Scripture. Scriptures; member 3rd - about predestination and about grace and freedom; member 4th - about God as the Creator of everything visible and invisible, and that God is not the author of evil; member 5th – about the Providence of God; member 6th – about the Fall and its consequences; member 7th – about the incarnation, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ; member 8th - about Jesus Christ, as our Reconciler with God, and about the intercession of the saints for people; member 9th - about faith, promoted by love, as a necessary condition for salvation; member 10th - about the church and, especially, about the episcopate residing in it; member 11th – about members of the Catholic Church; member 12th - about the Holy Spirit, as the Teacher of the Catholic Church, who determines its infallibility; member 13th - about the justification of a person not just by faith alone, but by faith promoted by love; member 14th – about the fallen nature of man, in its relation to doing good, and about grace; 15th - about the seven sacraments of the church and about the meaning of faith in reasoning about them; member 16th – about baptism in general and infants in particular; member 17th - about the sacrament of the Eucharist; member The 18th is about the fate of a person after death. The questions and answers talk about reading St. Scriptures, under the guidance of God-enlightened men, about the meaning of icon veneration, about the worship of saints and about the full conformity of the patristic hymns with Christian piety. Thus, at its core, the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs” is almost exclusively a dogmatic statement of faith. Its content speaks for this. The Eastern Patriarchs testify to this when, sending it to the Anglicans, they clearly convey the idea that they are sending precisely a book outlining the dogmas of the faith, but not rites or church customs. In this respect, the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs” differs from the “Orthodox Confession”, which, as is known, contains material from the field not only of dogma, but also of church discipline, as well as moral theology. This point, on the other hand, contains the remarkable property of the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs”, which encourages us to see here the implementation of the ancient principle: in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus autem caritas. As a feature of the “Epistle”, it should be pointed out, finally, that it, excluding the formula of the “Confession” of Cyril Lucaris - about the procession of the Holy Spirit ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς δ᾿ Yἰ’οῦ - a Patre per Filium, instead clearly states simply the formula about the procession of the Holy Spirit ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς – ex Patre. III) “The Long Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church” has three main phases in its historical destiny until the formation of its edition in which it is used to the present day.” The first phase covers the editions of the Catechism of 1823–1824. According to †prof. Iv. Nick. Korsunsky, who had at hand the editions of the Catechism of 1823–1824, the Catechism of this phase “was printed in St. Petersburg in Slavic font, large when presenting the main thoughts ... and small in those places where, according to the author, there should have been italics, or secondary thoughts, - in civil font only in the translation of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Decalogue - into new Russian language, and their Slavic text and Russian translation were arranged in two columns. When presenting catechetical truths, evidence in their favor, borrowed from the Holy Scriptures, or from the works of the Holy Fathers, is all presented in Russian translation and, moreover, without comparison with the corresponding Slavic text, as was done in relation to the full presentation of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments" (see "Russian Messenger" 1883, parts 1-2, pp. 327–328: The fate of the Catechisms of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow). Awarded in June 1823 not only the Synodal, but also the Royal, Highest approval, the Catechism of this first phase was already subject to suppression in November 1824 by decree of the Holy Synod, which commanded neither the printing nor the distribution of the Catechism. The basis for such a prohibition was that in the Catechism the Creed, “Our Father” and the Lord’s commandments were translated into the “common” Russian “dialect”. The main initiator of this case appears to be the Minister of Public Education, Admiral A. S. Shishkov, an opponent of the Bible Society, an ardent zealot of the Slavic language, nominated by Arakcheev as an associate in the overthrow of Prince A. N. Golitsyn (“Russian Bulletin” 1883, parts 1–2, p. 339). The second phase covers the editions of the Catechism of 1827–1828. According to the testimony of Metropolitan himself. Philaret, the Catechism of this phase differs from the Catechism of the first phase in the following: 1) that “All sacred and ecclesiastical sayings used in this book, instead of the Russian dialect, are offered in Slovenian. 2) Although the presentation of the truths in the first and second editions of this book in all parts was approved by the Holy Synod; however, during the present revision, it seemed not superfluous to use new precautions in various places against incorrect understanding, to make explanations and additions, and, in addition to the previous ones, to bring new evidence from the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Holy Fathers. 3) An addition has been compiled containing special instructions for those preparing for a military rank” (“Russian Bulletin” 1883, parts 1–2, p. 353). According to the observation of †prof. Iv. Nick. Korsunsky, these amendments or additions are expressed as follows. For example: in the doctrine of the first member, in answer to the question: “What does it mean to believe in God?” the words: “it means to have living confidence in His being...” are corrected: “about His existence.” In answer to the question: “What is the word devil?” instead of “It means a deceiver,” it was corrected: “a slanderer or a seducer...” In the section “on repentance” the entire teaching on penance was added again, starting with the question: “Is there still an auxiliary means for cleansing and calming the conscience of the penitent?” In the teaching on the sacrament of marriage, they added to the end to reinforce previous evidence from the Holy Scriptures. More scriptures: 1 Cor.7:8–9,32–33,38. In the teaching about the 12th member, in the answer to the question: “What will happen to the unbelievers and the lawless,” text from Mark 9:47–48, etc. was added (“Russian Bulletin 1883, part 1–2, pp. 356–360”). But the main difference between the Catechism of the second phase and the Catechism of the first certainly lies in the dominance of the Slavic language, expressed both in the presentation of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Decalogue in the Slavic language, without a Russian translation of them, as well as in the general approximation of the presentation of the Catechism in Slavic speech. In this edition, the Catechism continued to exist until 1839, when it was published in a new form, marking the third phase in the history of the formation of the Catechism. The Catechism of this third phase was published in comparison with the Catechism of the second phase, primarily with significant additions to its content, expressed in the fact that “in the introduction to the Long Catechism the doctrine of sacred tradition was added, but the doctrine of natural knowledge of God was excluded; in the first part, about faith, the doctrine of predestination is added to the first term” with its term: prevenient grace, as well as the doctrine of God’s providence; “in the second part, about hope, the doctrine of the nine beatitudes was added; part three about love remained unchanged” (“Russian Bulletin” 1883, 1–2, pp. 368–369). Then the Catechism of the third phase appeared with noticeable changes in its presentation, one might say, starting from its very definition. Catechism ed. 1828 in answer to the question: “What is the Catechism?” affirmed the concept of morality, “as a brief doctrine of Christian piety,” and the Catechism ed. 1839, in response to the same question, puts forward the concept of dogmatic-theoretical, as “instruction in the Orthodox Christian faith,” which is a condition for piety. Catechism ed. 1828, the concept of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is defined by the term, transubstantiation (“bread and wine are transmuted into the true Body of Christ and into the true Blood of Christ”), and the Catechism of 1839, after the word “transubstantiated,” introduces the expression “or: transubstantiated” with a further detailed explanation of the term “transubstantiation.” Catechism ed. 1828 defines the church as "the united multitude of believers", and the Catechism ed. 1839 - as “a society established by God of people united by the Orthodox faith, the law of God, the hierarchy and the sacraments.” Catechism ed. 1828 sees the basis for the meeting of ecumenical councils solely in the example of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, and the Catechism ed. 1839 - in addition to this - the importance of the church with its definitions, from which the ecumenical council appears to be only a way to pronounce the definitions of the universal church. The section on the church in the Catechism of 1839 is generally presented in more detail than in the Catechism of 1828, since here the concepts of the visibility of the church, the doctrine of Jesus Christ as the one head of the church, the agreement of the unity of the church with the existence of many are more clearly expressed local churches, about the Catholic Church, as the only savior of souls, about the church hierarchy, or hierarchy, about the state of the souls of those who died before the general resurrection,... about holidays,... about the equality of the Holy Synod with the most holy Orthodox patriarchs. The 1839 edition of the Catechism continues to exist to this day. The external history of the formation of the Catechism is explained in two main factors: a) government-administrative, b) literary-social, which in one way or another influenced the formation of the Catechism. By the governmental-administrative factor we mean the closest attitude to the Catechism on the part of the Holy Synod. According to certain data, the entire fate of the Catechism took place before the gaze of the Holy Synod. At the suggestion of the Catechism, the Catechism was compiled by Metropolitan Philaret in its first edition in 1823, with the direct personal participation of the Holy Synod, the Catechism was corrected and then published; by decree of the Holy Synod it was temporarily banned. In the same way, at the suggestion of the Holy Synod, Met. Philaret prepared the Catechism in its second edition, in which it was published by the author also not before it was considered by the Holy Synod, which made some amendments to it. Finally, with the approval of the Holy Synod, the Catechism saw the light of day in its third final edition. But, although the entire history of the composition of the Catechism passed before the gaze of St. Synod, led by its then first-present Metropolitan Seraphim (Glagolevsky), however, the Holy Synod had a completely independent initiative only in the first stage of the formation of the Catechism - in its initial appearance, which took place through the independent activity of the Holy Synod. The further fate of the Catechism - the fate of additions and amendments - occurred at the direction of partly the Imperial, partly the chief prosecutor, who gave the Holy Synod the impetus to correct the Catechism. It is known that the Catechism ed. 1827–1828 appeared as a result of the Highest command to compile a uniform educational book on the Law of God in secular and military educational institutions; a Catechism ed. 1839, obliging something to the will of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count N.A. Pratasov. In the latter case, the fact of the influence of the chief prosecutor's power, however, is reflected in the Catechism under the image of literary influence. The literary factor in relation to the first and second groups of publications is expressed in the compilation of Metropolitan. Philaret of the Catechism “on the one hand, under the living, direct impression of his personal sympathies for the biblical society, and on the other, under the significant influence of the Catechism of Plato (Levshin), Metropolitan of Moscow, Philaret’s first benefactor and patron” (“Russian Bulletin” 1883, parts 1–2, p. 378). The literary factor in the formation of the third group of the Catechism is inextricably linked with the fact of the influence on it of the “Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church,” but especially of the “Orthodox Confession” - in those predominantly parts of it that constitute the features of the Catechism ed. 1839. The fact is that the Catechism of the first and second groups testifies to some other, very insignificant, borrowings from the “Orthodox Confession”, but does not refer at all to the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs”; Meanwhile, Catechism ed. 1839 quotes not only the “Orthodox Confession”, but also the “Message of the Eastern Patriarchs”. In the spirit, for example, of the exposition of the faith of the Eastern Patriarchs, Catechism ed. 1839 defines the concept of transubstantiation, the predestination of God, and the important advantage of the church. Under the influence of the “Orthodox Confession,” the doctrine of sacred tradition as a source of Christian knowledge, as well as a section on the Gospel beatitudes, was introduced. And since both of these monuments: “Orthodox Confession” and “Exposition of the Faith of the Eastern Patriarchs in the 30-40s of the 19th century were paid special attention at the initiative of Chief Prosecutor Count Pratasov, then from here the influence of these monuments on the Catechism naturally takes the form of literary influence. It is known, for example, that, on behalf of gr. Pratasova, Metropolitan Filaret personally translated into Russian and rules found by gr. Pratasov in the Holy Synod, the so-called Patriarchal Letters, i.e. letters of recognition of the Holy Synod by the Eastern Patriarchs as a brother equal to themselves in Christ, and a letter with the addition of the “Message of the Eastern Patriarchs”. It is also known that Met. Philaret was directly pointed out that the omission in his Catechism of the doctrine of sacred tradition is the reason for the seductive judgment of the student Rudnev (in the essay: On heresies and schisms in the Russian Church) that the priest. tradition is lower than Holy Scripture, although the author dealt with the actual Roman Catholic teaching on tradition. Therefore, it was ordered to introduce the doctrine of sacred tradition into the Catechism, guided by the “Orthodox Confession.” The editors of the Catechism were also influenced by the comments of some private individuals about its inaccuracies - such as, for example, the definition of the church as “a united multitude of believers.” True, we do not find any specific indication of this influence in official documents; but the correction of the indicated inaccuracies, especially in the latest edition of the Catechism, encourages us to think that the feedback of private individuals was taken into account. - Like Metropolitan Did Filaret personally relate to the influence of administrative, governmental and literary factors? The fact that he fulfilled all the instructions of the Holy Synod regarding the compilation of the Catechism and the fact that he supplemented or corrected the Catechism show that Metropolitan. Filaret submitted to these influences, considering the amendments for the improvement of his work (A. Gorodkov, Dogmatic theology based on the writings of Filaret, Moscow, Kazan 1887, p. 296); but he obeyed, however, not always with the same mood: for example, he met the temporary prohibition of the Catechism in 1824 with bitter complaint, and the introduction of the doctrine of predestination into the Catechism with protest that “the doctrine of predestination is a theological subject,” but not a catechetical one. Thanks to the protest, by the way, the so-called church commandments from the “Orthodox Confession” were not included in the Catechism, although at first Count N.A. Pratasov wanted to include them here at all costs. The different conditions under which the Catechism was compiled gave it a different character. Perhaps it would be an exaggeration, inconsistent with reality, to say that “in the first and second group of publications, especially judging by the introduction, there was something in the Catechism that resonated with Protestantism”, “in the last” “group of publications the Roman Catholic coloring began to predominate: both seemed to be in accordance with the direction that prevailed, on the one hand, in the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs of Prince A. N. Golitsin under chief prosecutor of P.S. Meshchersky, and on the other hand, under the chief prosecutor of Count Pratasov” (“Russian Bulletin” 1888, parts 1–2, p. 377). Closer to reality will be the judgment that in the second group of publications (1827–1828) the Catechism “becomes... more perfect than the first group of publications (1823–1824), and in the third it is far more perfect than both groups” (ibid.). More specifically, the Catechism of the first and second groups, in defining certain subjects of doctrine, subsequently formulated differently, is indifferent in its presentation: with definitions that can be shared equally by both Orthodox and Lutheran, such as the definition that the church is “the united multitude of believers,” therefore, with definitions where the presentation of Orthodoxy does not go along with a noticeable rejection of heterodox professers. The catechism of the last, third group is, on the contrary, confessional, where the presentation of Orthodoxy is accompanied, in necessary cases, by a clear rejection of the false teachings of either Lutheranism or Roman Catholicism. In its last edition of 1839, the Catechism contains the following content: “The Long Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, reviewed and approved by the Holy Governing Synod, and published for teaching in schools, and for the use of all Orthodox Christians, according to His Highest Imperial Majesty’s command.” According to its content, it is divided into an introduction and three parts. In the introduction, after preliminary concepts about the Orthodox Catechism, about faith and good deeds necessary for the salvation of the soul, it talks about the revelation to the divine about the priest. legends and Holy Scripture, about the Holy Scriptures in particular, and the composition of the Catechism is outlined. Part one treats faith in the order of a question-and-answer explanation of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Part two sets out the doctrine of Christian hope. And since the means for acquiring saving hope are: prayer in the true doctrine of beatitude, then this section of the Catechism is more often composed of an explanation of the Lord’s Prayer and the Nine Beatitudes. Part three finally imparts the doctrine of love by interpreting the Ten Commandments of God. Thus, in the Catechism one should distinguish between dogmatic and moral teaching: dogmatic in the first part about faith, and moral in the second and third about hope and love. But since, on the one hand, in the section on hope and love the concepts of dogma are found, in the form of basic provisions, and on the other hand, in the section on faith one can find grains of morality, hence the assertion that the dogmatic teaching of the Catechism is presented in the part about faith, and the moral teaching in the part about hope and love, obviously must be understood not in an exclusive, but only in a primary sense. The principle of interpretation of the subjects of the Catechism is the obligatory transfer of these explanations, in order to give them truth, from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, and where necessary, with sacred tradition. In the vast majority of interpretations, this principle is applied correctly in the Catechism. Only a few places raise doubts, such as, for example, whether it is convenient in Mark 6:13 to see an indication of the “beginning” of the consecration of oil, as precisely the sacraments, and in Matthew 19:21 - the basis for highlighting the highest virtue, posited in complete non-covetousness; In general, is it convenient to divide virtues into higher and higher ones from an objective point of view? So, a review of the origins of three monuments: the “Orthodox Confession”, the “Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs” and the “Long Christian Catechism” indicates that 1) each of them appeared depending on the conditions or needs of its time; 2) each of them has its own historical destiny in its education; finally, 3) each of them received approval from the Holy Synod, which calls them a “guide” to the knowledge of the truth, intends them for use by Orthodox Christians, but does not openly call them “symbolic books.” At least, we did not find this name in relation to the indicated books of the Holy Synod. The last name is adopted by learned theologians. [See, for example, the speech by Prof. F. A. Tikhomirova, The spirit of the relationship between grace and freedom in a regenerated man according to the guidance of the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church in “Christian Reading” 1894, no. 2, pp. 293–310, where the author speaks on p. 293, 1: “two of them should be considered symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, as published on behalf of the entire church: “Orthodox Confession...” and “Epistle of the Patriarchs...”. †Protoprev. G. L. Yanyshev, Orthodox Christian teaching on morality, ed. 2nd. St. Petersburg 1906, p. 22: “We limit ourselves to the symbolic books of our Orthodox Church, of which the two oldest: the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Catholic Church and the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs belong to the entire church, and the newest: the Long Christian Catechism, belongs to the Russian proper, although it enjoys great respect in the East.” “The Holy Tradition is expressed in the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church.” The method of moral theology is that “every moral truth is consistent with the teaching of the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church.”] All this suggests that, while strictly maintaining the character of the view of St. Synod, one should look at the designated monuments, namely, as a guide to the acquisition of theological knowledge, and, using the expression of scientists, call them symbolic books, but only in the relative and not the absolute sense of the word. This relativity does not exclude the emergence of new, approved by the Orthodox Church, guides to the knowledge of Christianity or to improving the existing ones in terms of their presentation - in both cases, however, necessarily under the indispensable condition of their exact agreement in content with the ancient universal teaching. [Wed. views on this subject about. P. Ya. Svetlova, Christian belief in an apologetic presentation I, 1910), p. X seq., and †prof. A.F. in the publication of Fr. prof. T. I. Butkevich. How are academic titles sometimes awarded in Theological Academies? Kharkov 1909.]