About the Council of Jerusalem in 1672

The history of the Council of Jerusalem, which took place two hundred years ago, is not alien to the interests of the present time. The importance of dogmatic definitions, decreed by this council and recognized by the entire Eastern Church, gives them a symbolic meaning in the Orthodox Church, and in a dispute with the two main faiths in Christianity, it establishes our relationship to their teachings on many points that the ancient ecumenical councils did not touch upon in their reasoning. Meanwhile, our new relations with members of one or another confession that have recently arisen force us to look for solid, unshakable supports for establishing our relations with them, and involuntarily turn our gaze to the time when the same confessions, vying with one another, in their mutual disputes tried to have the voice of the Eastern Church on their side. – At the same time, the circumstances of the establishment of the Council of Jerusalem in our literature have not yet been sufficiently revealed, and scientific research and explanation of its definitions themselves have not yet attracted the attention of our scientists. History of the Council of Jerusalem 1672 is closely connected with modern church movements in Western Europe. Protestants, in their struggle with the Roman Catholic Church, have long tried to win over the pastors of the Eastern Church in their favor. This was also the reason for the appearance, in the thirties of the 17th century, of a confession of faith with the name of the Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lukar, supposedly belonging to the Eastern Church, but in fact agreeing with the teachings of the Reformed Society. It caused great unrest in the east and west. Roman Catholic theologians tried with all their might to prove that the teaching of the Eastern Church has always been in agreement with the teaching of the Roman Church. The Council of Jerusalem appeared as a refutation of the slander against the Eastern Church by Protestants, and together as an independent one, not to please anyone’s demands, not to answer other people’s questions, but for its own protection from false thinking, a witness to the faith of the Eastern Church, with the special assistance of two worthy Hierarchs of the Jerusalem throne, Nektarios and Dositheus. In the age of Louis XIV, who wanted to put his personal will above everything in the state and in the Church, and was himself entangled in the networks of the Jesuits, a learned and pious brotherhood arose near Paris, founded by the Abbot of Saint-Cyran Duvergier, in the Portroyal monastery. With strict rules of life, spiritual aspirations, independence and firmness of its convictions, deep and varied knowledge, which were all devoted to the cause of faith, this society soon declared itself in the French Church as possessing healthy forces. It was not embarrassed either by papal decisions, when they were issued under the influence of the same Jesuits, or by the coercive influence of the secular government, when it was necessary to defend its strong convictions. Many strong minds belonged to him, or were in close connection with him: Arnold, Nicole Pascal, Quesnel, Tilmon and others. He was sympathized, although not by many, but by the best members of the French Hierarchy, and among them in the first place was Bossuet. The enemies of this brotherhood tried to brand it with the shameful name of heretics, Jansenists; but they, not recognizing the papal infallibility in condemning Jansen, agreed to hide in the unknown, wander in foreign countries and act from afar, rather than completely renounce their convictions or interrupt their activities. Finally Pope Clement IX granted peace to the Jansenists who had been persecuted by his predecessor. Then the most active of the members of Portroyal, Arnold, whom the “golden pen” of the Papal Nuncio called to defend the Church against the Protestants, together with his comrade Nicholas, turned to polemics against the Calvinist pastor Claude. At that time, strong disputes arose between Catholics and Protestants in France about the sacrament of communion. Defending the transubstantiation of the forms of the Eucharist, Arnold and his friend Nikol gave special strength to the testimonies of the Holy Fathers of the Greeks. The treatise he wrote on the Eucharist 1, before it appeared in print, had already aroused objections from the Reformed pastor in Charenton, to which Arnold and Nicole, in turn, considered it their duty to respond first with a brief refutation 2, and then, in conjunction with other still learned defenders of Catholicism, with a lengthy, multi-volume study in which the continuity from the beginning of the Church to the last time of the faith that is in the sacrament was proved Holy Communion is given to the true body and true blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The first volume of this apologetic work appeared in 1669. 3 The Reformed theologian Claude, for his part, tried to assure that the doctrine of transubstantiation and the worship of the sacrament of the Eucharist is known nowhere else except the Roman Church, that neither the Greeks, nor the Russians, nor the Armenians, nor the Jacobites, nor the Abyssinians know it, in a word, no one except the adherents of the Pope; but even in the Roman Church this teaching is not ancient, but it appeared from the time of disputes with Berengarius (in the 11th century). – Accordingly, the defenders of the Catholic Church, dwelling on the idea, admitted by their opponents, that until the 11th century both Churches, Eastern and Western, were completely in agreement with each other in the doctrine of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and only as if from the 11th century the Roman Church deviated from it, took it upon themselves to reveal that the Greek Church, as well as other confessions in the East, from the 11th century until now, also teach, like the Roman Church, about the sacrament The Eucharist, specifically regarding transubstantiation and the adoration appropriate to the Sacrament. On the other hand, they are trying to prove that the Roman Church even before the 11th century. taught the same way as after this century. – What is important for us is the first half of this study 4 . In refuting Pastor Claude, the defenders of the Catholic Church first of all enlist the testimony of Protestant writers that the Greek Church does not agree with either the Lutherans or the Calvinists in their teaching about the Sacraments in general, and especially about the Eucharist. So Kruse, based on information about the Greek Church received from Gerlach, who had direct relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah, argued that the Greeks recognize the seven Sacraments and believe in the transmutation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Englishman Sandy, in a book on the state of religions, writes that the Greeks almost agree with Rome in the doctrine of transubstantiation, and in general about the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Hugo Grotius laughs at Rivetus, who recognizes the confession issued under the name of Cyril Lucar as the confession of the Eastern Church, and claims that the Greeks have the same Sacraments and the same dogmas as the Romans. Forbes, Bishop of Edinburgh, admits that the opinion of transubstantiation is accepted by the majority of the Greeks and Romans. The Strasbourg professor Dangauer, in his essay against Allatio, directly places the Greeks' belief in transubstantiation between their imaginary errors. The Lutheran theologian Hitrey, the London professor Brerewood, and the Utrecht Gorpbeck are strenuously trying to find something in the Greeks in favor of Protestantism, but regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist they cannot find anything like that. – In vain do some of the Protestants wish to explain this agreement of the Greeks with the Roman Church by the influence of the Council of Florence, or, even earlier, by the contact of the Greeks with Western Christians since the Crusades. Neither one nor the other has a historical basis 5 . In the half of the 11th century. Church division followed between the Greeks and Romans, which preceded the Crusades. – And, starting from this era, Arnold passes through all centuries and represents a continuous series of undoubted witnesses to the independent teaching of the Eastern Church about the Sacrament of Communion. Stated in its own words, defended against its enemies, although it does not represent the well-known Roman term transsubstantiatio, it nevertheless firmly and definitely expresses the faith of the Church in the transmutation or transformation of bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Eucharist into the true Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. – We do not consider it necessary to reproduce this series of evidence cited by Arnold among the 29 proofs of agreement between the Greek Church and the Latin Church regarding the Eucharist 6 . But the evidence of distant times and strangers was not enough. The defenders found it necessary to invite to their aid the modern pastors of the Eastern Church, as well as the Bishops of certain confessions who had separated from it in previous centuries. The best means of gathering these voices was found in the extensive diplomatic relations of France with the European and Asian powers, as well as in the missions of the monastic orders of the Roman Catholic Church. In this struggle between the defenders of Catholicism and Protestants, the testimony of the Russian Church, as an independent branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, was also introduced. Arnold and his collaborators sorted through the printed news about Russia of Roman Catholic and Protestant scientists and travelers: Paul Jovius, S. Herberstein, A. Guagnini, Anthony Possevin, Sakran - Canon of Krakow, Oderborn, Jan Lasski 7 . But they found evidence of a way of thinking about the Eucharist in the Russian Church that was consistent with the teachings of the Roman Church, only from the negative side, i.e. that the news they report about the Russians does not contradict the belief in the transubstantiation of bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Eucharist - although, it must be admitted, among these news there are also those whose groundlessness is obvious the first time; and on the other hand, it was not easy for writers who did not specifically have it in mind to find a satisfactory answer to a dogmatic question. The information gleaned from the works of I. Lefebvre, the Pole Lazitzky and the Strasbourg professor Dangauer more satisfied the wishes of the defenders. John Lefebvre, or, according to the Latin designation of his name, John Fabry, had the opportunity to become acquainted with the religion of the Russians through the Russian embassy, ​​which V.K. Vasily Ivanovich was sent to Spain to Emperor Charles V. The ambassador was Prince Ivan Fedorovich Yaroslavsky, with whom the later famous employee Maxim Greka, familiar with the Latin language, Vasily Vlas, was a translator. On behalf of Archduke Ferdinand, Fabri, his confessor and learned Theologian, inquired in particular detail about the teachings and rituals of our faith from the Russian envoy and his companions, upon their return in 1515 through Tübingen 8 . His news about the Russian religion says: “the consecration (of the Sacrament of the Eucharist) is performed with the words spoken by Jesus Christ; and they attribute to them such power that they believe: as soon as they are pronounced by the priest, the creature yields to the Creator.” The information is not entirely accurate, with or without intention, whether the Theologian of Rome Fabri himself, or his interlocutors distorted, is unknown: because the pronunciation of the words of the Savior during the consecration of gifts, according to the order of the Liturgy, is also joined by the prayerful invocation of the Holy Spirit. – Lazitzky bases his testimony on Fabry’s testimony. – Dangauer mixes up the order of actions in his words, but, nevertheless, repeats that Russians believe in the transubstantiation of Gifts 9. Not content with this, Arnold's friends entered into contact with certain individuals to demand closer information about the beliefs of the Russian Church regarding the Sacrament of the Eucharist. They asked the question to the scholar Olearius, the librarian of the Duke of Goliptinsky, who visited Russia twice and during his long stay in it became well acquainted with its life. In his description of his trip to Russia, he mentioned the Russian belief in the transubstantiation of gifts, or the transmutation of bread into the Body and wine into the Blood of Jesus Christ. In response to the question put to him, confirming his testimony, Olearius explained that he was based on the testimony of Lutheran pastors with whom he had contact in Moscow as a Lutheran, on the words of some of the Germans who accepted the Russian faith and entered the number of translators for the Tsar’s service, and finally, on the words of the Russians themselves; merchants, priests, monks 10. At the same time, the defenders of Catholicism asked the French envoy to the Swedish court, Pompon, to deliver from among Russia itself, through the Swedish resident in Moscow, Lilienthal, a statement of the Russian Church regarding the controversial issue. Pompon sent two reviews: one from Baron Nikolai Spatariy, who later moved to Russia and entered the service of the embassy order, and at that time, after the catastrophe that befell him in his fatherland, Moldova, he was looking for happiness from the Swedish government; the other is from Paisius Ligaridas, Metropolitan of Gaza. Nikolai Spatariy gave his review a loud title: Enchiridion, sive stella orientalis occidentali splendens 11. Greek by religion, but well acquainted with the Latin language, calling himself a disciple of the wise and pious Gabriel Blasius, who from the pulpit denounced opinions alien to Greek Orthodoxy, Spatarius stated in his work, in terms developed by Latin dogma, that 1) according to the Eastern Church, the most pure body and the most honorable blood of the Lord, after consecration, are under the guise bread and wine vere, realiter et substantialiter 12. We do not know whether the next 2) paragraph, which says: we believe that bread and wine are essentially and truly changed and transubstantiated into body and blood by the words of the Lord, so that after consecration the essence of bread and wine does not remain, but their place is taken, by Divine action and will, by the body and blood of Christ. The remaining two points speak of the divine worship of the Holy Mysteries, and of the Eucharist as a sacrifice - In addition, Nikolai Spatarius, probably in response to these questions, touches on some other controversial points between Catholics and Protestants, such as: the dignity of the rank of Bishop, the number of the sacrament, fasting and other rituals observed according to church tradition, monasticism, the veneration of the Mother of God and the Saints, and their icons, about prayer for the dead. Paisius Ligarid, educated at the Roman College, arrived in Moscow at the call of the government, due to confusion in the administration of the Russian Church that arose with the removal of Patriarch Nikon from Moscow. It is unknown who pointed him out to Arnold's party: only Paisiy did not enjoy power of attorney from the Eastern Patriarchs on the part of Orthodoxy, and was even under excommunication 13 . But it was he who suffered for old sins. In this answer to the question about the Eucharist, he used the scientific manuals of the school in which he studied, but in cases of disagreement with the Greek Church, he adhered to the Eastern way of thinking and custom, for example. regarding the communion of the laity under both types. However, he could not be a representative of the Russian Church in any case, and he sent his answer, not signed by any of the primates of the Russian Church, and did not even submit it for approval to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who had already arrived in Moscow, although the Swedish resident wished and hoped so 14. The Paisievs' answer represents a fairly complete discussion about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not only in relation to the main subject of the dispute. But he suffers from a lack of strict systematic presentation and an excess of Paisius’ usual eloquence. There is no doubt that Paisius, more thoroughly than any of our pastors, could know the matter in its essence and in its modern history, could know the evidence of Roman theologians and reflections of Protestant objections, could know the movement of this issue in the East, since the time of Cyril Lukar, and in the West. With all this, in conclusion of his answer he had to write: dixi et feci, non ut volui, sed quod potui, neque ut publicus doctor, sed tanquam privata persona exposui. Paisius does not hide in his answer that the term: transubstantiation (μετουσ ί ωδις) by many Greeks, according to their news, is not accepted, that in the writings of the ancient fathers and teachers of the church, when describing the change with the types of the Eucharist, other expressions are used: μεταβάλλεται, μετα ῤῥ υμ ί ζεται , μεταποιε ͂ ταιουσ ί ωδις : however, the innovation is justified by the example of the first ecumenical council, which introduced the word into the creed: ὁμωουσιος, and denies both Lutheran teaching (impanationem) and Reformed teaching (symbolicam et typicam reprseasentationem). We, Greeks and Latins, says Paisius, agree to recognize realem transsubstantiationem. Not content with this, Arnold's friends took advantage of the stay of the Russian embassy in Paris to personally receive information about what doctrine the Russians adhere to about the Holy Mysteries 15. At that time, the Russian Ambassador Potemkin was in France, whom Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich sent to Italy and France to establish trade relations 16. Being in relations with the Portroyal, Archbishop Gondren of Sansk asked our envoy to send to him our priest at the embassy with the embassy secretary and translator for an explanation. The French Archbishop, to his surprise, found in the Moscow priest, Ivan Ivanovich, a very respectful, modest and sober person. After some extraneous conversations about relations with the Patriarchs, about the rituals of our church, when asked about the Sacrament of the Eucharist, our priest, as a modern, officially certified record assures, answered that in this sacrament there is the true body and true blood of Jesus Christ, that after the words of the Savior are uttered by the priest: “this is my body,” the bread is turned into the body of Christ, and after the words: “this is my blood,” the wine is turned into blood Christ's. The record assures that the Archbishop asked the priest again about this subject, and received the same answer. And when the translator added on his own behalf that bread and wine are transubstantiated into body and blood, the Archbishop asked him: does the word used by the priest in his language exactly correspond in its meaning to the Latin transsubstantiatio? the translator answered this in the affirmative, looking at the priest and the secretary, who both gave a sign that this word was proper in their language and meant a change in essence 17. Passing literally the words of the note, we do not think it superfluous to note that although it says that the translator was from the embassy, ​​but from Potemkin’s list of articles it is clear that the translator from Moscow who was with him did not know how to communicate in French, and therefore in relations with government officials in France he was replaced by the Dominican monk from the Poles, Urvanovsky, who was temporarily accepted 18. If the same Urvanovsky was used for a conversation with the Archbishop, then it is not surprising; that the words of the recording reflected partly the influence of the translator’s own religion. – But the oral conversation was not enough: from our priest and those accompanying him they demanded a written testimony of their faith, which was presented in Russian, translated into Latin by Urvanovsky and attached to the note literally in the book 19. By the time the first volume of their publication was published, the defenders of Catholicism had managed to collect answers to questions, mainly about the Eucharist, from some Greek bishops, such as from the island of Cyprus, and even from bishops of other confessions, for example. Armenian. But this evidence was of little importance, appearing to be isolated and, perhaps, not always correctly collected. The testimony of the highest leaders of the church, the four Patriarchs, was needed. The state of the Eastern Church in the 16th century. there was so much confusion that it did not at all represent the calm necessary for theological research and for a firm and thoughtful resolution of issues closely related to the entire structure of the church. Already at the beginning of this century, relations between warring faiths in the West had a detrimental effect on the fate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We mean the unfortunate case of Patriarch Kirill Lukar, whom the English and Dutch envoys supported, and the French king 20 with the agents of the Pope tried by all means to overthrow, and whom the Turkish Government, after repeated overthrows, forcibly took his life. We do not intend to go into consideration of this pitiful history, but we must note that even after Cyril, the struggle continued for a long time between his supporters and opponents, during the election to the throne of Constantinople and during the church consideration of his case. The establishment of the Jesuits in Constantinople, who opened their school here and considered some of those elevated to the throne of Constantinople to be their students, the unrest of the Turkish Government, which elevated and demoted Patriarchs as often as possible in order to more often use the contribution of the agreed and at times elevated amount from the newly installed Patriarchs, the machinations of ambitious people who sought to occupy the throne, which was still retained some political rights, damage to morals and the decline of church discipline under the yoke of Turkish autocracy, all this was the reason that during the 17th century. there were up to fifty changes on the patriarchal throne of Constantinople. Many ascended the throne three to four times. – The state of the other patriarchal thrones was calmer: Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, but even the Patriarch of Jerusalem at that time was strongly challenged over the ownership of the holy places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem either by Latin monks, or by the Armenian Hierarchy, or by the greed of the Turkish authorities 21 . Amid this chaos of affairs in the East, the new envoy of the young King of France Louis XIV, Noantel, who arrived in Constantinople in October 1870, undertook to raise the question of the attitude of the Eastern Hierarchs to the disputes of the Western Church, in favor of Arnold. 22 He himself personally addressed the Hierarchs of the East, visited Greek monasteries and churches, observed and questioned their primates as they discussed the power and significance of the sacrament of the Eucharist, etc., sent out Latin monks with a program of questions to which answers were needed from the Greek Bishops and clergy in refutation of the Calvinists. Endeavoring the Greeks, he opened a refuge in his palace for the persecuted hierarchs and from them he took the feedback he needed 23 . The most significant of all was the response of the newly elected (1671) Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius of Larisa, signed by the three previously replaced Patriarchs of Constantinople and Patriarch Paisius of Alexandria and 36 Metropolitans and Bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople 24 . They were asked questions: how many sacraments do the Greeks recognize? How do they teach about the sacrament of the Eucharist? Is the sacrament of baptism recognized as necessary for infants? How do they talk about hereditary sin, about justification by grace? Do they recognize the necessity of the rank of Episcopal and do they consider the Bishop to be the highest priest jure divino? How do they talk about monasticism? Is the Church recognized as visible and never infallible? How do they teach about the veneration of saints and their images, about fasting? Do they recognize the authority of the books of the Old Testament that have come down to us only in Greek: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch and the Maccabees? – The same questions were proposed to other Bishops. And the answers to them agreed with each other, sometimes even literally 25. The responses of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, who recently returned from a trip to Russia after the trial of Nikon, and then the responses of Makariev’s successor Neophyte 26 are particularly comprehensive. In terms of their content, in general all the answers were not in favor of the Reformed teaching; but those leaning in favor of the Reformed, of course, could not be expected in the publication of Catholic theologians. The voice of the Jerusalem church was missing. The throne of the Jerusalem Patriarchate was then occupied by Dositheos. One could have expected that he, too, would add his voice to the response of the other patriarchs in the same way. But in reality that’s not what happened. And since this is where the history of the Jerusalem Council actually begins, and the main influence on this new direction of affairs belongs to Patriarch Dositheos, and his leader, his predecessor Patriarch Nektarios, then we will become more closely acquainted with the personality of both patriarchs. Dosifei was elevated to the patriarchal throne when he was not yet thirty years old 27 . A native of the Peloponnesian, he came from one village (Arachova) near Corinth, and the Corinthian metropolitan, probably Gregory, was his successor from the font; In his youth, he ordained him as a hierodeacon, opening the way for him to further serve the church. Judging by the closeness of the relationship between Dositheos and his successor, one can guess about the beneficial influence of the Archpastor of Corinth on the development of his spiritual gifts in the early years. In his history of the Jerusalem patriarchs, Dositheus writes that he also read ancient Greek writers for his education, and in another publication he gratefully remembers Nicholas Keramei as his teacher in some subjects 28. But Dositheus’s relative Chrysano, Patriarch of Jerusalem, rightly notes that young Dositheus was not so much indebted to his teachers as to his own God-given talents and personal efforts and labors in enriching himself with theological and various other knowledge. He did not attend Western universities, like many of his fellow tribesmen, but, having knowledge of the Latin language, he could use the manuals of Western scholarship in this language and, moreover, for relations with different people he could use his knowledge of languages: Arabic, Georgian, Slavic and Turkish 29. Despite all the obstacles that an unfavorable environment confronted him with, despite the wandering life that he had to lead, moving from one country to another, collecting alms to pay the debts of his throne, to fight either the Latins or the Armenians, he opened two printing houses in Iasi and Bucharest at the monasteries attributed to St. Sepulcher, published many works written in the Middle Ages against the Roman Church, wrote a huge historical and polemical work - the history of the Jerusalem patriarchs and several other polemical works, and was in live communication with all the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy. These enormous works testify to us of the extraordinary talents of the Archpastor of Jerusalem, whose enlightenment, tireless diligence, the most sincere zeal for Orthodoxy and firm and unyielding character were the true salvation for the Eastern Church in the turmoil that it experienced in the 17th century. At the age of sixteen, Hierodeacon Dosifei left his fatherland, came to Constantinople (January 17, 1657) and entered the Metochia or monastery compound of the Holy Sepulchre. The Patriarch of Jerusalem at that time was Paisiy, the same one who came to Moscow to collect alms in 1649. It was then the most troubled time in Constantinople. Patriarch Parthenius was hanged on Lazarus Saturday. The Patriarch of Jerusalem himself was subjected to cruel torture: but this misfortune especially brought the young hierodeacon of Corinth closer to him. When Patriarch Paisius, at the behest of his enemies, was betrayed by the selfish kaymaka to great suffering for the fact that he was preparing a crown for the Tsar of Moscow, while he remade the miter granted to him by Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich only for himself to the Constantinople model; and, not wanting to surrender himself and others to the will of greedy robbers, he refused to buy his freedom with any sum - Dositheus visited him, tormented, bound and imprisoned in the executioner’s courtyard, along with other elders of the Jerusalem courtyard and served him. He himself writes about this: “the patriarch’s compatriots came to him, served him and provided him with what he needed. And I then, still young, about eighteen years old, barefoot, without sandals, walked to him from the courtyard; and served him during the day, and in the evening he returned to Metohija and slept there. I say that I went barefoot: that’s how the primates held us then, and we obediently followed their rules, out of respect for our superiors.” 30 Freed from the suspicions of the government, Paisius went to Georgia to collect alms, and took Dositheus with him (1658). From that time on, the gifted hierodeacon was his inseparable companion; Paisius died before his eyes during the journey (December 1660) The new Patriarch Nektarios treated him with the same confidence, took him with him on similar trips, and for the same purpose sent him, still in the rank of archdeacon, as exarch to Moldavia and Wallachia. Then he elevated him to the metropolitanate of Caesarea when he was only twenty-five years old (1666), and after an eight-year reign he transferred the patriarchal throne to him, leaving him in retirement. Patriarch Nektary was one of the most enlightened shepherds of his time and in life he was a strict ascetic. Without any intrigues, from the simple monks of the Sinai monastery, he was elevated to the throne of Jerusalem at a time when the brethren only wanted to see him as their abbot and sent him to Jerusalem for initiation into this dignity. He was educated on the island of Crete, where he was born; but in later years, being already forty-five years old, 31 taking advantage of his stay in Athens on monastic affairs, he listened to the lessons of Theophilus Coridal, who was then famous for his teaching of philosophy, who, while maintaining respect for the memory of Cyril Lukar, was an opponent of Roman scholasticism, and in his theological views wanted to adhere primarily to Holy Scripture. 32 How broad were the scientific interests that Nektarios treasured can be evidenced by his letter to his friend at the Koridal school, Hieromonk Herman, later Metropolitan of Nyssa. Inducing him to go to the Patriarch of Alexandria Paisius, who, himself not having sufficient education, had a need for a learned man, he wrote to Herman: “if you want to philosophize in retirement, study books, then here (in Egypt) you will find so many of them that it will not take a human life to read them. Such a rich library as in Egypt cannot be found among any of the Greeks. Here are the books of Meletius (Pigi), Cyril (Lucar), Nicephorus and Ioannikios, who came after them, all the learned men who adorned the See of Alexandria. But all this means nothing in comparison with what Mitrofan (Kritopulus) brought from England, Germany and Venice, who used to tell me that he had no shortage of any book hitherto published in Greek and Latin.” 33 Patriarch Nektarios testified to his learning and, at the same time, his strong theological view through his own writings, of which his book “on the power of the pope,” written by him in the last years of his life, is of particular importance, where he, without denying the benefits of the position of the Roman Church, was able to present in the proper light the more important advantages that the Eastern Church possesses, and calmly but firmly defends the correctness of its relations with the Roman Church. Patriarch Dositheos was devoted to him as a father, and when Paisius Ligarid slandered Nektarios in Moscow for excommunicating him for deviation from the Roman Church, then he wrote to the king: “Cyrus Nektarios, the Patriarch, is not the kind of person to write or speak falsely, but such is he in truth, that now there will not be another such reasonable and God-fearing Bishop.” 34 The Russian Church also knows him from this side, by his conciliatory action in relation to Nikon. Herman, Metropolitan of Nyssa, calls him a preacher of the Gospel, whose deeds corresponded to his words, whose morals were honest and worthy of holy orders. Paisius of Alexandria turned to this hierarch when an invitation reached him to give an answer to the questions raised by the disputes between French Catholics and the Reformed. Before he agreed to sign the documents prepared by P. Dionysius of Constantinople, he asked Nektarios’ opinion about this matter. The answer of Nektarios from Jerusalem is very remarkable. 35 “I received two letters from Your Beatitude,” he wrote to Paisius, “of which one you recommend famous persons who came here to worship the holy places, and the other contains other items, and, by the way, several points about the monk of the Capuchin congregation, Lazarus. Firstly, you write that he requires you to make a confession of faith signed by your holy hand, in order to testify to the way of thinking of the Eastern Church about the Saints and the Sacraments. Secondly, say that by this confession he must convince a Lutheran living in France, who is troubling the Papists by claiming that the Eastern Church does not agree with the Latins on the subject of the sacraments. Thirdly, you report that this metropolitan has in his hands the authentic confession of faith attributed to Cyril, who was recently the Patriarch of Constantinople; and it seems to you that it contains those very members of the Calvinist faith that outraged the entire church and were attributed to the aforementioned Cyril. Fourthly, you inform us that the other patriarchs, as this Latin monk says, each sent his confession of faith to France. “I will start from the last point and finish first, in defiance of those who do not know how to walk straight. I answer the last point boldly, wanting as much to free myself from the crafty intentions and shamelessness of this Lazarus as to expose him publicly in lies on this subject - so that Your Beatitude can clearly see the sophisms of the Latins who come to us, who want to catch us. Let this Lazarus tell us which of the patriarchs, when, where and in what way they fulfilled what he divulges about them. If it is Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, then at what time and in what city; Did all three meet with their synods, or did each write and send this confession on his own behalf? There is no way he can show anything like that... No, holy head! Your brothers the patriarchs and you were of one mind and did not give the Latins their confessions of faith in writing. If this had happened during my patriarchate, how could I not have known it! It seems to me that I have some importance in the Eastern Church. If it was before my patriarchate, I had never heard a word about this matter, or better yet, about such a fiction. So, you very wisely freed yourself from these cunning people by writing a confession, completely Orthodox and thorough, and showing it, but not giving it to them, in order to punish them all the more sensitively for their useless cunning? From the fourth point I move on to the third. What to say about a Lutheran who has the Cyrillic confession - this does not concern us and should not concern us. Firstly, because whether it truly belongs to Cyril, or is it the work of some heretic who wanted to pass off his heresy under the name of Cyril, in any case, this matter should confuse many. Secondly, even if Cyril held the same thoughts according to which this confession was compiled, it does not follow that the entire Eastern Church held the same thoughts. When it happened that some popes or patriarchs fell into heresy, they could not attract into their heresy all the churches subordinate to them; on the contrary, they themselves were rejected by the council. Thirdly, even if someone had enough audacity to assert that Cyril compiled this confession on behalf of the entire Eastern Church, and therefore one would like to know whether the entire Eastern Church was carried away by his opinion, - and in this case it is useless to answer this after many open justifications promulgated by the Easterners after the death of Cyril, in which Cyril’s confession was refuted in words and in writing, and evidence was presented of the Orthodox faith we profess and our way of thinking about Holy Seven Sacraments of the Church." Having then indicated the conciliar decrees and writings that justify the non-involvement of the Eastern Church in the errors set forth in the chapters of Cyril, Patriarch Nektariy moves on to the second point, with which the Latin side tried to attract the Eastern to participate in the fight against the Protestants, as in a matter equally important for Western and Eastern. “Let Lazarus know,” writes the patriarch, “if Calvinists and Lutherans argue with the Latins about the sacraments, the Latins have no right to demand our testimony. Let them first agree on dogmas and unite with us: then they will find in us not only witnesses, but also like-minded people and defenders of the same cause. But Calvinists and Lutherans obviously disagree with us, adds Nektary, on many points, as well as regarding the sacraments, as they themselves say about this: for although they allow some sacraments, they do not like us, while others are completely excluded from the number of sacraments. The Latins, for their part, assure that we agree with them (the Latins), although we do not find this agreement in everything: when performing some sacraments, we differ in the substance and method of invoking grace by the priest, while performing others - only in the manner of invoking sanctifying grace. So, if Latins and Lutherans fight each other, let them fight. The heresy of the Lutherans and Calvinists came out of the Latin Church. And the Latins, more than we, have reasons to wage this struggle and take care of the return of those who once belonged to their church, that is, the Roman one. Let us be allowed to preserve our feelings in peace: the evil of the day prevails.” Finally answering the first point, Nectarius resolutely declares himself against any concession to the demand of the Latins. “Who is this Lazarus to so shamelessly demand from your beatitude, the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria, a confession of faith, to demand, as I have proven, with such deceit and deceit? The Pope did not receive this except out of urgent need. In the name of God, divine and sacred head, do not give in to either this Lazarus or anyone else like him, even if he asked you in writing for the Lord’s Prayer. They come to us not with sincerity, but with pretense in order to become attached to some word; they are great word-takers, they love to slander us.” So persistently Patriarch Nektarios rejected any idea of ​​satisfying the demands of the Latins, and although he did not have time to convince the Patriarch of Alexandria of this; Paisios, as we have seen, signed the answer to the questions proposed from Paris, together with the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius: but Nektariev’s successor, Dositheus, completely shared Nektarios’s way of thinking. And instead of the required confession of faith, they agreed to open a Council in Jerusalem for the final destruction of the slander against the Eastern Church, as if the chapters written in the spirit of Calvin under the name of Cyril Lukar could be called a confession of the Eastern Church. Patriarch Nektary, back in 1662, contributed to the publication of her true confession, known under the name of the catechism of Peter Mohyla: not content with this, he now wanted to more clearly reject the false confession imposed on her, replacing it, chapter by chapter, with a direct statement of the true way of thinking of the Eastern Church. In his letter to Paisius, he had already outlined a plan for the conciliar defense of Eastern Orthodoxy. Dosifei took it upon himself to do this himself. The Nektariev's response to Paisius of Alexandria also coincides in time with the arrival of Dositheus for the first time in Jerusalem, upon his election to Patriarch 36. The new Patriarch appeared in Jerusalem for the first time in March 1671, i.e. more than two years after his election to the Patriarchal throne. He spent all this time wandering around the Danube regions to collect alms to pay off the debts lying at the Patriarchal See, and in efforts to obtain permission from the Turkish government to restore the holy places that had fallen into disrepair and destruction. He wrote to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich that he could not go to Jerusalem without alms, due to many debts; that the Busurman debtors (i.e., creditors) want to mortgage the Church of the Holy Sepulcher into heretical hands, and we are afraid that it will not leave our hands 37 . Arrival 1870 the new French envoy Noantel to Constantinople was especially concerned about Dositheus. And when he went to Adrianople to present to the Sultan, who was there, the Patriarch considered it his duty to go there to avert a dangerous intercession for the throne of Jerusalem for the Latin monks in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and was so happy in his efforts that he even managed to receive permission from the Ottoman government to restore the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. With a firman in his hands, having made an order regarding the delivery of materials for this purpose to Bethlehem, along unmarked roads, Dositheus immediately began work, taking personal part in it himself. - Meanwhile, the defense of the Eastern Church was being prepared from criticism of its unanimity with the Calvinist teaching, expressed in the chapters attributed to Cyril: for which references were required from the remaining works of Cyril. This is not the first time that the Eastern Church denies its sympathy with these chapters. At first, in the very heat of opposition and personal hostility towards Cyril Lukar on the part of the successor who overthrew him, they were rejected with the condemnation of Lukar himself (September 24, 1638). Then at the Council of Jassy (in May 1642) the false teaching contained in them was condemned, but the name of Cyril was preserved inviolable. Now the Church of Jerusalem found it possible to proclaim that not only the Eastern Church, but also Cyril Lukar himself did not teach as these chapters teach. For this purpose, of course, extracts were made in Constantinople from the church teachings of Cyril and his other theological works, proving his disagreement in his way of thinking with the well-known chapters. Taking part in the Council of Jerusalem, as can be seen from the signatures, in addition to Patriarch Dositheus, were the Pastors of the Jerusalem Patriarchate, Metropolitans: Dorotheos of Petra, Parthenius of Nazareth, Josaphat of Ptolemais and Sidon, Neophyte of Bethlehem and Archbishops: Anthony of Lyddia, Christopher of Nailuz, Archimandrite of the Holy Sepulcher and Abbots of the monasteries, located in Jerusalem and other cities of Palestine, representatives of some Churches that are in close relations with the Church of Jerusalem on matters of monasteries, such as Trebizond, Iveron or Georgian, Moldavian, Macedonian and Moscow, and finally, clergy from different cities of the Holy Land, about 60 people in total. The apocrisiary of the Moscow Tsar was Archimandrite Josaphat, and in addition, Hieromonk Timothy signed from the great Russia, whose labors, upon his return from the East, laid the first foundations of the school, which was later transformed into the Slavic-Greco-Latin Academy 38. The time and place of the establishment of this Council are directly indicated at the conclusion of its definitions, where it is said: “in the year of salvation, March 1672, 16 days, in the holy city of Jerusalem.” In addition, in the very introduction to the discussions of the Council it is said: “since we, by the grace of Christ, have gathered to renew (that is, to consecrate the renewed) Divine Church of the Nativity of our Savior Christ and God in the flesh in Bethlehem, which church the true children of the Catholic Church, who are everywhere, the Lord deigned to see recreated in these difficult times of persecution and decorated; With us are also worshipers who came from the ends of the earth: Priests, Clergy and other Christians 39: then we recognized it as due to briefly state the opinion of the mother of our Apostolic Church on those subjects of which she is accused.” – From this one could draw the conclusion that the Council was actually in Bethlehem 40 and not in Jerusalem: but the generally accepted name of the Council of Jerusalem is beyond doubt. The consecration of the Bethlehem Church was only a pretext for inviting other Archpastors of the Palestinian Church; but Bethlehem was not convenient enough for Sobornykh’s reasoning 41 . In addition, in the very presentation of the conciliar definitions, Jerusalem is mentioned as a place of meeting for reasoners 42. As for the reasoning of the Council of Jerusalem, they are not presented in the form of actions adopted by the ancient Councils, by meeting; but they represent a consistent, coherent reasoning, published on behalf of the Patriarch, divided into chapters, at the end of which the dogmatic definitions of the Council are attached, so that in this we see the result of the council’s meetings with its foundations, and not their very course. This should not, however, raise doubts about the historical authenticity of the Council, as some of the Protestants tried to suspect. Among the signatures of those present at the Council, among other things, it is stated: “Gabriel the monk, Protosyncellus and Protopsaltis of Jerusalem signed this apology against heretics, which we compiled by common consent in defense of the Catholic Church.” Another, Nektariy inominmatograf, in his signature says about himself: “I signed, also declaring that the Holy Council” 43. In its present form, the acts of the Jerusalem Council are presented to us in the extent to which they are inscribed in the code of the patriarchal throne of the Church of Jerusalem, as this is indicated at the end of the signatures. What does the defense of Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church, approved by the Jerusalem Council, and the denunciation of Calvinists contain? It is divided into six chapters. The first proves that the Eastern Church never knew Patriarch Kirill Lukar as his opponents imagine, and did not recognize the chapters for his writing. The second asserts the idea that even if Cyril is supposedly recognized as the author of these chapters, it cannot be denied that he published them completely secretly, without announcing it to anyone in the East, especially without the knowledge of the Catholic Church. The third declares that the confession of Kirill is not the confession of the Eastern Church according to the most formal conditions to which acts of this kind are subject. In the fourth, as a conclusion from the previous one, the following dilemma is proposed: either it is impossible to allow the Eastern to recognize this confession as their own, or, if they do, it is not possible that they are Christians. The fifth contains the definitions of the above-mentioned two councils, Constantinople and Iasi, which condemned these chapters. In the sixth, in denial of chapters 1–8 and 4 answers to questions attributed to Cyril, the true teaching on the same subjects of the Eastern Church is set forth in the same number of chapters, or members, or answers. - From this it is clear that the apology of the Jerusalem Council was intended to testify to the lack of evidence of the accusations against Patriarch Kirill in the composition of the well-known chapters, and even more to the non-involvement of the Eastern Church with the false teaching contained in them. We do not intend to enter into an analysis of the accusations against Cyril here, but we consider it our duty to point out the methods of defending him used by Patriarch Dosifei. The conciliar act says that no one heard Cyril publicly or privately preaching the teaching that is set forth in the chapters known under his name. Opponents cannot present any undoubted work written by the hand of Cyril in favor of this false teaching. On the contrary, we say Dositheus, we have a large book of Cyril’s sermons in his own hand, which he spoke in Constantinople on Sundays and holidays, in which there is no such teaching at all. To prove this, excerpts from these teachings are given, up to twenty-eight. Against the first of the so-called chapters of Cyril, which recognizes the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son, passages are cited from two teachings of Cyril and from his dogmatic letter to Tergovishte. Against the second chapter on the authority of Holy Scripture and the church are five passages of teaching, not all significant, but in the last the church is compared to the ark in which Noah was saved, and outside of which everyone perished. Against the third - about election to salvation not by foreknowledge - excerpts from five teachings are given, which undoubtedly contain the opposite teaching. Opposite the sixth and eighth chapters, on the veneration of saints, are lengthy extracts from the homily on the Dormition of the Mother of God and brief ones from six other teachings. Against the tenth chapter, in defense of the superiority of the episcopal rank over the presbytery, an excerpt from the teaching is given, explaining the dignity of the pastoral ministry. Against the fourteenth chapter, in proof of the preservation of freedom in fallen man, there is an extract, significant both in content and in volume, from the word on the Ascension of the Lord. Against the sixteenth chapter, to prove the necessity for salvation and good works, regardless of baptism, excerpts from the conversation at the Epiphany of the Lord are given. Against the seventeenth chapter on communion, there is one particularly important saying from the conversation, in which the word is used: transubstantiation. Against the answer to the question regarding the veneration of St. icons, several strong expressions of Cyril against the iconoclasts are given, from the teaching in the first week of Lent. Finally, against the denial of the importance of the books of the Old Testament, which have not reached us in Hebrew, two passages from teachings are cited, and one of the theological notes of Cyril (ἐκ τῶν θεολογικῶν σημει ώ δεων), where words are borrowed from the book Tobias, Wisdom and the chapters of Daniel, which are not in Hebrew 44. It cannot be argued that all the cited passages from Kirill’s works contain a sufficient refutation of all the false opinions contained in the Kirillov’s chapters. In addition, it was still possible for opponents of the Eastern Church to argue that church teachings were not convenient for preaching new opinions. Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the above sayings enable the defender to defend the Patriarch of Constantinople in his official activities. Further, the conciliar act says that in order to certify that any church act belongs to the patriarch, three conditions must be met. It is necessary, firstly, that it be signed by the bishops who are with him and the learned clergy who are always with him; secondly, that this act be entered into the code of the great church and signed in the same way as the original note; thirdly, that it be included in this code by one of the patriarchal clergy. Not finding these conditions fulfilled in the present case, the Council concludes that if Cyril published this confession, then it means it was published secretly and by deception. 45 But, the Council continues, this confession in no case can belong to the Eastern Church. To have such a meaning, in addition to the above-mentioned conditions, it must also have the signatures of other patriarchs, and the consent of all members of the clergy and other persons famous in life and learning. The Eastern Church does not rely and does not rely on one, or two, or many, but constituting a party, and not adhering to the whole, and does not allow them to dispose of it as they wish, even if they were strong theologians, even if they were distinguished by holiness, so that they would resurrect the dead: it does not follow some ambitious people, acting in guile, secretly weaving, like the fabric of a spider, easily destructible ghosts, but to people who completely agreed with each other in everything that was said. The Eastern Church, governed in this way, recognizes the Holy Spirit as its teacher, and in its confession it does not in the least contradict the Word of God and the Apostolic and Patriarchal traditions 46 . Such loyalty of the Eastern Church to itself is further proven by its entire present structure. She, contrary to the indicated chapters, recognizes the dignity of the episcopal rank and its difference in degree from the presbyterate, recognizes the seven sacraments, honors St. icons and relics of saints, praying for the dead, etc. In the week of Orthodoxy, the Eastern Church still pronounces a curse on iconoclasts and on those who allow only a figurative meaning of sacrifice in the sacrament of the Eucharist. If the church refused all this, it would be out of some kind of human fear. But this cannot be said about. Eastern Christians; they are above fear and threats; this is proven by the many martyrs among them. Even less can one suspect fear in peoples enjoying independent government, such as: the Georgians and other Caucasian tribes, the inhabitants of Great and Little Russia, the prosperous kingdom of Moscow, stretching from the borders of Gotoia or Sweden to the Huns and the Caspian peoples, and from the Dniester and Chersonese to the Ocean. Finally, the non-participation of the Eastern Church in the Cyril Confession is evidenced by two councils: the Council of Constantinople, whose definitions were signed by three patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem, and the Council of Iasi. The first condemned not only the teaching set forth in the chapters of Cyril, but also his very person; the latter is only a teaching. Having cited the decisions of both councils to explain the difference in their judgment regarding Cyril himself, the conciliar act says that “the Council of Constantinople anathematized Cyril not because it recognized him as the compiler of these chapters, or recognized him as a heretic, but because Cyril, during the six years following the publication of these chapters, and at the same time knowing about the unrest caused by their appearance in Poland and Russia, as a result of rumors that the Eastern Church became Calvinist, - did not undertake anything to refute these chapters, although I heard promptings and convictions from many to do so. From this, concluding that he was not entirely pure from deception in relation to the Orthodox faith and did not take care, as he should, of his flock, the church subjected him to a curse, although he was not really such. We not only do not condemn the councils that pronounced a fair verdict against him, but we also congratulate him for the fact that at one time he fought well for the Orthodox faith, having the blessed guilt of punishing such a long silence in order to admonish others. And although we do not curse Cyril himself, we mourn for the fact that by his silence he raised such a battle against the church.” 48 Having repelled the criticism from the Eastern Church of unanimity with the false teaching set forth in the chapters of Kirill, the council contrasted them with its eighteen members of the confession of faith and four answers to individual questions. At the present time, without entering into a detailed examination of these members of the confession and answers, we will limit ourselves only to comments a) about their editions, b) about the publication of their text in Greek and c) about translations into Russian. a) In the edition of the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Jerusalem, the influence of Roman school theology is noted in places. This gave reason to Protestants to suspect the direct participation of one of the Latins in their composition. No, given the mood of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem Nektarios and Dositheos, as their writings show, and the course of affairs preceding the council, which we have revealed above, this suspicion is unthinkable. It would be more correct to explain this phenomenon by the essence of the questions themselves, which are resolved in these definitions. For the most part, the East was alien to the unrest and disputes aroused in the Church by the false teaching of Pelagius and the extreme passions of his opponent himself, Blessed. Augustine. They were born in the West, lasted until the time of scholasticism, were strengthened by scholastic theologians, and flared up with renewed vigor with the advent of Protestantism. The teaching about sin, about the damage it introduced into the nature of man, about the natural powers of fallen man, about freedom, about predestination, about grace, about justification and its relation in the own activity of a regenerated person: all this, although it constitutes a necessary part of church teaching, but in its development and presentation by later theologians, Roman and Protestant, deviated far from the simplicity in which it was proposed in the writings of St. Apostles and St. Fathers. The mysteries of the inner life of a Christian, his intimate relationship with God the Redeemer and Sanctifier, and the hidden actions of the Holy Spirit in the soul of a believer, which cannot be explained theoretically, are incomprehensible to the mind, but, if comprehended in part, then more by feeling, and moreover under the condition of sincere, deep, inner Christian activity, explained very often from personal experiences and sensations and therefore in a variety of ways - these deep mysteries by Eastern theologians were not strictly analyzed and were not determined by the general consideration of the council. It is therefore natural that when Greek theologians were called to participate in the consideration of questions of justification, in disputes between Protestants and Catholics, when for example. Lutheran theologians proposed the Augsburg Confession to Patriarch Jeremiah so that he would declare his agreement or disagreement with it - the attention of the Greek Archpastor focused more on the external, practical conclusions of Protestant dogma than on the first principles from which they flowed. The Confession, the so-called Cyrillic Confession, directly brought the principles of Protestantism before the court of Orthodoxy in the form in which they were set forth in the Confession of the Calvinists. They had to be answered by a person who was well acquainted with these dogmatic disputes from the system of doctrine of both confessions, Roman and Protestant. We see this in the definitions of the Council of Jerusalem, no matter who compiled them, whether a Greek who studied at a Roman Catholic university, or a Greek familiar with the modern theological literature of the Roman Church. They were written not by a Catholic, but by an Orthodox Christian, who had good information about the theological movements of his time in the West. This familiarity was expressed in the formulation of the answers and in their presentation. Without ever deviating to the side of Catholicism in its exceptional positions, the compiler of definitions, however, often expresses himself in the language of Roman theologians and uses evidence found among them. This is most obvious from a) from the name of the sacrament of confirmation bebaiwsiV, which translated into Latin will mean conrfirmatio, while the Greeks used other names for this sacrament, such as: muron, crisma, b) from the conciliar testimonies cited in the definitions. Here are the words of Tertullian, St. Cypriana, bl. Augustine and even Pope Damasus. 49 But, as can be seen, they are not cited by a deep expert in Latin patristics: because he confuses St. Cyprian and Tertullian 50 c) in the doctrine of the indelible seal placed by the sacrament of the priesthood on those ordained 51 and d) from the solution to the question of the sacred books 52. Meanwhile, the independence of the Greek in relation to Catholicism is clearly revealed a) from the confession of the origin of St. Spirit from one Father (part 1); b) from the denial of the primacy of the pope (part 10); c) from the denial of the doctrine of purgatory (Part 18); d) from the recognition of the highest authority in the church behind the ecumenical councils (Part 12); and e) in general, out of evasion of all scholastic subtleties. b) As for the publication of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem, the first edition of them in Greek with a Latin translation was published in Paris in 1676, but due to faults in the list from which it was printed and translation errors, the same publisher was replaced by a more correct edition of 1678, and the cathedral, instead of Bethlehem, as it was called before, was called Jerusalem. Gardouin used this edition for his collection (T. XI), however, with his new corrections. The collated text of these two editions was included in the Kimmel collection of symbolic books of the Eastern Church 53. In this edition, the Greek text of the conciliar acts has the following inscription: Ἀσπ ί ς ὀρθοδοξ ί ας, ἥ ἀπολογ ί α κα ί ἔλεγ χος πρὸς ? ιν ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν θε ί ων , ὡ ς κακοφρονουσιν οὐτοι ἀυτοὶ οἱ καλουῖνου δηλον ό τι, συνθετεῖσα παρὰ τῆς ἐν ἐν ἱεροσολυμοις τοπικῆς συνθετεῖσα παρὰ τῆς ἐν ἱεροδολύμοις i.e. the shield of Orthodoxy, or the defense of the Eastern Church and the denunciation of those who slander it, as if it is heretical about God and divine objects, as these heretics themselves, the Calvinists, are malicious - compiled by the local council of Jerusalem, under the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus. The publication of the acts of the councils, made by Dositheus himself in 1690, in Bucharest, together with the work of Meletius Siriga “a refutation of the Calvinian chapters and questions of Cyril Lucar” has a special appearance. The conciliar acts here have the following name: ; ησ ί αν φρονεῖν ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεοῦ και τῶν φε ί ων ὡ ς ἀυτοι δυτοι ὁ καλουῖνοι δηλομ ό τι κακοφρονοῦσι , προβάλλοντες εἰς π ί ?? ἁ π ό λεως Ἱ ερουσαλὴμ κατὰ τὸ 1672 ἕ τος τν ͂ ς τοῦ Χρισοῦ καὶ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν ἐνδαρκου Ἐπιφανέιας, i.e. the sword of reproof against the harmful Calvinist speculation, slandering the Holy and Apostolic Church of the East, as if in its teachings about God and Divine objects it speculates, just as the Calvinists themselves are being malicious, citing the so-called chapters of Cyril Lukar in support of their words. Compiled by Dositheos, Patriarch St. city ​​of Jerusalem in 1672 from the appearance of Christ and our God in the flesh. This edition has many differences from the above-mentioned Western ones, differences that do not change the dogmatic meaning of the conciliar definitions, but are nevertheless worthy of note. We will indicate the most important of them. Ed. Dosifeev page 3. Above we have already pointed out a chronological note about the time of the council, preserved only in Western editions, which is omitted here in Dosifeev’s edition. – Page 6. In Dositheev’s edition, the division of the acts into six chapters is preserved, but in its place the fourth chapter is completely omitted, and what is called the fourth p.18 is and should be the fifth. - The first chapter of the deeds begins like this: “what Cyril was in his conscience, we cannot say decisively.” These words are omitted from Western publications. Further, in these publications it is said about Cyril Lucar: “having been Pope of Alexandria after Meletius, and then transferred to the throne of Constantinople by the general verdict of the clergy of Constantinople (during his stay in Constantinople), neither at the council, nor in the church, nor in the house of any of the Orthodox, in short, neither publicly nor privately, he did not speak or teach anything that is claimed about him opponents. If they claim that he said something like that to someone alone or to many, then they themselves do not know what they are saying.” According to Dosifeev’s edition, it reads like this: “having been Pope of Alexandria after Meletius, and then, in whatever way, transferred to the throne of Constantinople, neither at the council nor in the church did he speak or teach anything that his opponents claim about him. If they claim that Cyril said something like that to many or some of the Orthodox Christians, then they themselves do not know what they are saying.” With. 7 and 12. Dosifeev’s edition contains several new extracts from the works of Kirill Lukar to refute the Protestant thoughts explained in the confession attributed to him. With. 19. In chapter five there is a rather extensive addition against the text of Western publications, containing memories from the history of ancient times, and several more reproachful words against Kirill Lukar. With. 30. In chapter six, before the beginning of the conciliar definitions, in Western publications it reads: “Dositheus, by the grace of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem, asking and testing about the faith and piety of the Greeks, or about how the Eastern Church talks about the Orthodox faith, - on behalf of all Christians in general, subject to our Apostolic Throne, and coming to this holy and great city of Jerusalem, Orthodox worshipers (with whom the Catholic Church agrees in the teaching of faith), publishes this abbreviated confession, testifying before God and people with a clear conscience without any pretense.” – This is not in Dosifeev’s edition, but definitions follow directly after the presentation of the acts. With. 37. In definition or member 14, the text of Dositheev’s edition represents a significant addition, which develops the idea of ​​​​the insufficiency of natural good actions for the salvation of a person. With. 41. In clause 18 on the Eucharist, a very extensive presentation of church teaching about the seven sacraments is inserted, containing a collection of numerous expressions of St. Fathers, which denote the concept of the essential presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist and the essential transformation of its types. With. 41–81. With. 81. In clause 18 there is also an extensive addition (up to p. 86), which is preceded by the following remark in the margin: “you need to know that in the Egceiridio, according to the inscription belonging to the cathedral of Bethlehem, the writer erroneously said about this chapter XVIII. Now, correcting himself (ἐπιδιορθοῦμενος ἑαυτὸν), he expounded this chapter at length, explaining everything necessary related to it.” With. 93. At the end there are no conciliar signatures. c) Patriarch Dosifei, being in constant relations with the civil and spiritual government in Russia, along with other books and manuscripts, sent his edition of the acts of the Council of Jerusalem to Moscow for translation, and the translation was done at the same time with particular haste. 54 In 1728 Another translation of the same acts was made by the teacher of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academies, Alexei Barsov, as can be seen from the title, not from the Dosifeev edition, but from the Parisian one. 55 But both translations remained in manuscript. And in 1838 St. The Synod published a translation not of all the acts of the Jerusalem Council, but only of its dogmatic definitions, or members. From the letters of the Eastern Patriarchs placed before this, it is clear that the Greek list of these definitions was again communicated to the Russian Church for guidance in the then relations with some Anglican bishops on the issue of their joining the Orthodox Church. Among these patriarchs was the successor of Dositheos, and his nephew, Chrysanthus. We do not know the original Greek text sent by the patriarchs to our St. Synod; but based on their reference to the Paris edition of 1675, it should be thought that it was close to this edition, or identical with it. However, the Russian translation also presents quite a few differences from the well-known publications, and significant ones at that. Much in the translation seems to be expressed with greater rigor and certainty than in the Greek text. Without bearing in mind the text from which this translation was made, it is impossible to decide to what to attribute such superiority of the Russian translation over the Greek text known from printed publications. There is, however, reason to think that, at least in some cases, the thoughts of the original owe greater clarity to the edition of the Russian translation, in which Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, of blessed memory, took a special part 56 . Under the title: Traite sur l'Eucharistie, ou I'on fait voir la perpetuite de la foi de l'Eglise Catholique touchant ce mystere. Refulation de la reponse d'un ministre. It was published for the first time together with Arnold's previous work. Under the title: La Perpetuite de la foi de l’Eglise Catholique touchant de ÍEucharistie. We use the publication l'Abbe Migne. Paris 1841. Contains in the book. 2–6 of the first volume and appendices to the XII book, published by A. Minya T. I. pp. 313–635, 1175–1238. Perpetuite, Liv II. Chap. 4. T. 1. r. .431–338 Liv.II-IV. A new analysis of the teaching of the Greek Fathers on the Eucharist is presented by the work of Steiz, published in Jahrbucher fur Deutsche Theologie B. IX. 1864. X. 1865. XI I866. XII. 1867. XIII. 1868. XIV. 1869. Perpetuite. Livr. V.Cap.1 Adelunga Review of Travelers in Russia before 1700. Russian translation. Part 1. p. 121. Olearius's letter dated January 24, 1667 is included in the appendix to volume 1 of Perpetuite, ed. 1841. p. 1195. Written in Stockholm, Feb. 1667 These are the same terms that were used in the definition of the Council of Trent. See Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers. T. XXI. p.133 et seq. The Paisievs' response was signed on November 8, 1866. Datum in Alexiano museo. And the Patriarchs arrived in Moscow on November 2 of this year. The article list of the Potemkin Embassy was published in Ancient. Vivliof. T. IV p. 360. Potemkin arrived in France in June 1668. 457. The conversation with Archbishop Gondren is not mentioned here. But this is not surprising, because the conversation did not relate to the execution of this assignment to the Embassy. The conversation took place on September 9. The priest's name is conveyed in Urvanovsky's signature: Juan Ivvanouvitz, qui veut dire Ioannes Ioannides, pretre de la capitale de Moscovie. From the list of articles it is clear that at the embassy there were “priests of the cross” p. 484. and one of them was called: Ivan Mikhailovich p. 385. Urvanovsky was recommended to the embassy even before his arrival in Paris p.476. He was originally a Pole, left Poland after the destruction of the city of Lublin by our troops in the last war, and settled in France “for science.” p.477. But in the recording he calls himself: originaire de Moscovie. These words are in nomine Dei nostri, in Trinitate admirabilis Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Nos infra scripti in hac littera testamur et credimus, quod ex quo tantum presbyter pronunciaverit Dei verba super pane et vino, est essentiale corpus et essentialis sanguis lesu Christi Dei nostri et non iam panis neque vinum. Signum panis et vini vides, sed cognoscere oportet corpus et sanguinem Christi nostri, quia per haec Dei verba panis et vinum mutantur in verum corpus et sanguinem Christi Dei. Et omnes debent cultum Divinum Christo Deo nostro in his praesanctis mysteriis. In liturgia sacra oramus pro vivis et mortuis, ut illis Deus misericors non habeat pro offensa eorum peccata, et illa non puniat. Oramus Sanctissimam Dei Genitricem et omnes sanctos, et illis cultum magnum reddimus, ut illi dignentur orare pro nobis ad Deum nostrum in Trinitate admirabilem. Et quis potest ipse se presbyterum facere? Soli Episcopi, soli patriarchae consecrant et benedicunt Dei presbyteros. Ita est quod sola Ecclesia Dei indicit ieiunia, quotes vult et quotes oportet; et quod n his audience est Ecclesiae mandatum Et illos omnes qui haec puncta non credunt, pro excommunicatis et impiis hereticis et Domini Dei nostri inimicis habemus. Ita credimus, et pro hac veritate colla nostra dare volnmus. Et utinam hunc terra vivum sepeliat, qui haec puncta non recipit. Perpetuite. T.I.p. 1227. In extracts from the dispatches of the French envoy in Constantinople G. de Sezy to King Louis XIII, among other things we read: dated February 9, 1623. Your Majesty orders me to try, if possible, to overthrow the Greek Patriarch in Constantinople, as a very dangerous heretic. I don’t waste an opportunity, and as soon as one presents itself, I take advantage of it as I should; I work hard, but it has taken such strong roots that it is impossible to cut it down right away. In any case, I don't lose hope. dated April 30 of the same year. After my last dispatch, I made good use of time and my position: I brought the overthrow of the Patriarch of Constantinople to such an extent that he is now, by order of the Vizier, removed from the throne. The person taking his place has already come to thank me. This is the old man, the Archbishop of Amasia. I wrote about this change to His Holiness (the pope) as a matter that he strongly desired, because this Patriarch (Kirill) is a very dangerous heretic; he has no other goal than to bring the Roman Church to weakening or complete decline, and to establish the Calvinist teaching in Greece and in all eastern countries... They think that he is hiding with the Dutch envoy and that the Jesuit fathers are in great danger from this envoy and from the English; but I hope, with the help of God and the name of Your Majesty, to protect them from their enemies and my rivals. Historica Russiae monumenta, deprompta a Turgenevio. T. II p.121, 425. Tobler recently published a book: Die grosse Streit d.Lateiner mit den Griechen in Palastina uber d.heilige Statten vorletzten Iahrhundert, in which, on the basis of a contemporary account, probably by Paoli Lodi's Guardia Minoritas, this struggle between the Latins and the Greeks in 1631-1637 is depicted. What sums, what efforts it cost the Greeks to wage this fight! His goals and first actions in Constantinople on political issues are described in detail by a personal witness, the traveler Chardin. Voyage en Perse. T.I.p.51 etc. See Perpetuite. T. II. p.1120 Recall of seven metropolitans. Perpetuite. T. II. p.1157–1163. Signed in January 1672 For example, the above-mentioned response of the seven Metropolitans and the response of Patriarch Methodius. T.III. Reply General. p.XLI Macarius's exposition was signed in Damascus on October 20, 1671. and updated November 15; and Neofitovo - May 1673. Perpetuite. T.II.p.1234–1257 He was born in 1641. ascended the patriarchal throne in January 1669. See the brief biography of Dositheos before the publication of his History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem compiled by P. Chrysanthus History of the Jerusalem Patriarchs Vol.1. p.49 and a preliminary notice for the publication of one polemical work by Kerameev in Dosifeev’s edition Τ ό μος καρ ᾶ ς p.13. και ἡμεῖς εν τισιν ἐκρηματ ί σαμεν ἀυροὐ μαθητα ί. Helladii, status praesens Ecclesiae Graecae. 1714. p.15. History of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem. Dosithea T.II.p.1196 This was in 1645. See his letter to Herman below De patriarcha beatae memorise Cyrillo eodem modo etiam nos sentimus, wrote Theophilus to Sophronius, who was formerly the rector of the Kyiv Academy, then the abbot of Iasi in Moldavia. Novimns ipsum pium et doctum hominem; calumniantes vero, quid dicunt, nescimus, ipsi viderint. This letter was published during the composition of Zernikov: Tractatus theologici orthodoxi de processione Spiritus S. a solo Patre. T.2 p.1076. This letter was found and published by Prof. Mattei in Moscow 1811, in the collection: ποικιλἀ ἑλληνικἀ. p. 259. In the manuscript by Herman’s hand it is noted that it was written 13 years before Nektarios’s elevation to the patriarchal throne, r. 260. Dosifei's letter was published in the Notes of the Russian and Slavic Fathers. Archeology T.2 p.601. 1861 Perpetuite. T. II. r. 1179. Nektary’s answer was sent to him in March 1671, or shortly after, as can be seen from the end of the letter. Perpetuite. T.II. p.1184 Notes of the Department of Russian Archeology. T.2. p.603. See Add. to the Work of the Fathers of the Church T. III p. 174 In the library of the Moscow D. Academy, an edition of Hesiod and other Greek poets of the Crown of 1513 in the 8th share, with the signature of the name of the teacher Timothy under Patriarch Joachim in 1685, has been preserved. This is still the same person, the first head of the school founded in Moscow, under P. Joachim. So according to the publication of the acts of the Council, Kimmel, made on the basis of the editions of Paris, and placed by Gardouin in the Actis Conciliorum. T. XI. But in the publication of Patriarch Dosifei these words are omitted. And the first edition of this Council, 1676, was called Bethlehem. Perpetuite. T.I. p.208. Arseny Sukhanov, who was in Jerusalem in 1651 and 1652, wrote about Bethlehem: “Bethlehem is a village, stands on a mountain; they say there are 300 courtyards in it. The monastery was as big as a city, but now the walls are destroyed, except for the gates.” According to the Greek text of chapter or member 10, and answer 4. Kimmel p.439 et 485. Perpetuite T. II. r. 1223 Chapter 1 according to Kimmel's edition p.339–475 Chapter V. p. 395 – 423. Added, Part XXIV. The name of Pope Damasus is not visible either in the Greek edition of the conciliar definitions, Kimmel, or in the Russian translation of them published by the Holy Synod; it hides here under the name of St. John of Damascus (Part 10). But, according to the publication of Patriarch Dosifei in 1690. instead of Damascene, the name Damasus appears, and this is not a mistake, as is revealed from the very quotation of the “fourth epistle to the Africans.” There is no such epistle among the writings of St. John of Damascus, and Epistola 4 ad Stephanum et concilia Africanorum is actually attributed to Pope Damasus, which contains the saying cited in the conciliar definition that “the universal Church is generally entrusted to the bishops.” Binil Conceilia. T.I.p. 506. It is precisely the letter to Papian that is attributed (part 10) to Tertullian, which is not among his writings, but is found in St. Cyprian and is inscribed ad Florentium Pupianum, where the words actually appear: Christi, qui dicit ad Apostolos, ac per hoc ad omnes prepositos, qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt qui audit vos, me audit. Patrolog. Latin. Curs. T. IV. p. 403 This teaching is found in the Greek text of the 16th term from the conciliar definitions, according to the edition of Kimmel and Patriarch Dositheus, but in the Russian translation this term is omitted. This is question 3: what books do you call St. scripture? It is found in both mentioned editions of the Greek text of the conciliar definitions, but in the Russian translation it is also omitted. Kimmel, Libri Symbolici Ecclesis Orientalis. Ienae 1843. Prolegomena p XC. Synodus Hierosolimitana p.324–488. See Description of Synodal Manuscripts. II, 3. pp. 493 and 525. The translation was made in haste by the hands of many, namely the Likhudov students. Description of Tolstoy's manuscripts. Letters from Moscow Metropolitan Philaret to A.N.M. ed. 1869 p.45. letter 30. You might be interested in: