Приложение

The considerations we expressed in conclusion regarding the lack of adequate conditions in the Greco-Roman world for the formulation of the dogmatic doctrine of the sacraments require, of course, confirmation by factual data - data that would be the fruit of the most careful teaching of ancient patristic and generally theological writing in the period from Origen to the 13th century. inclusive. In a word, what we said at the conclusion of the essay calls for further research on this subject. Not having the opportunity, at least at the present time, to present such a study and despite allowing ourselves to express, in the form of assumptions, the above considerations, we will try, at least somewhat, to justify our words, at least with some facts. In our opinion, the considerations we have expressed are largely confirmed, by the way, by the work of Dionysius the Areopagite: “On the Church Hierarchy,” as well as by what is still known regarding the first appearance of the formula for the septenary number of sacraments 840. I. Dionysius the Areopagite, in his calculation of the sacraments, stands on precisely the ancient point of view about which we spoke at the conclusion of our work. He, as is known, recognizes six sacraments, but he counts so many of them and includes in this number these particular ones, and not others, looking at the subject completely differently from our point of view. There is no doubt that he set out to indicate the most important sacred rites in the circle of liturgical actions; but he had a different criterion for determining this importance, and not the one that we are guided by at the present time. In connection with the doctrine of the heavenly hierarchy, Dionysius the Areopagite expounds the doctrine of the church hierarchy. Judging by the fact that when imposing the doctrine of the heavenly hierarchy, he found in this hierarchy several degrees or ranks of angels, which differ from one another in enlightenment and of which the highest impart enlightenment and knowledge to the lower ones and even described the method of enlightenment 841, one can expect that in his essay on the church hierarchy he will have the goal of showing what degrees of enlightenment and perfection exist in the Church and into what classes they are divided accordingly. believers and how they are raised to these degrees. This goal is indeed the main goal pursued by the author of the work about the “church hierarchy.” But along with this main goal, he also pursues another. Comparing the heavenly hierarchy with the church hierarchy and finding the difference between them that, while the first hierarchy is incorporeal and therefore does not represent anything sensual in its actions, the church hierarchy represents an abundance of various sensual symbols through which we are raised to deification, to God and divine virtue 842. That is why he subsequently defines hierarchy, as the subject of his creation, as follows: “Hierarchy in general, according to our venerable tradition, is a word about the subject of the sacred, something most general about what concerns the hierarchy or the totality of the sacred related to it. Therefore, we call it hierarchy and there is a work that embraces everything sacred that is accomplished through it (hierarchy)... For he who pronounced (the word) hierarchy at the same time briefly spoke about the ordering of everything sacred... The beginning of such a hierarchy is the source of life, the essence of goodness, the only cause of all things, the Trinity, from which, by goodness, life and the good of life are given to all things. This all-surpassing God-first bliss, the Trinity Unity, truly existing, incomprehensible to us, but known to Him, desires the reasonable salvation of both us and the beings higher than us. But salvation cannot be other than through the deification of those being saved. Deification is, as far as possible, likeness to God and unity (with Him). The common goal of the entire hierarchy is constant love for God and the divine, sacredly accomplished through inspiration (from God) into union (with Him); but before this (it is necessary) complete and irrevocable removal from the opposite (evil), knowledge of existence as it exists, knowledge and knowledge of sacred truth, as far as possible the divinely inspired communion of the one-form perfection (τελειώσεως) of Him Who is One, the pleasure of contemplation (ἐποψίας), mentally nourishing and adoring everyone, rising up to him.” So, by hierarchy Dionysius the Areopagite means the totality of everything that sanctifies, everything that comes from the Divine Trinity, that adores, likens man to God, brings man into union with Him, and brings man to possible perfection, mainly through contemplation. Continuing to further develop his thoughts, he notes: “what is given to those (incorporeal beings) simply and jointly is communicated to us from divine words, according to the degree of perceptibility in the variety and multitude of individual symbols. For the essence of our hierarchy consists of God-given words (λόγια).” These λόγια are written and unwritten, according to legend passed on from mind to mind, without writing. And this is conveyed not in open concepts, but in sacred symbols 843. “The first leaders of our hierarchy, being themselves filled with a divine gift from the super-existent Divine principle.... handed over to us, according to a sacred institution, in sensual images (αἰσγηταῖς εἰκύσι) the supercelestial, and in diversity and plurality - united by unity, in the human - the divine, in the material - the immaterial and in ours - the superexistent, in written and unwritten instructions (μυήσεσι), and This is not only for the sake of the uninitiated, for whom it is not proper to touch symbols, but also because with us, as I said, the hierarchy, in accordance with ourselves, is in some way symbolic (συμβολική τις), requiring the sensory for the divine elevation of us from the sensory to the spiritual 844.” The meaning of the symbols, understandable to celebrants, should not be communicated only to those still being raised to perfection (τοὐς ἔτι τελειουμένους). The clergy know that the legislators distributed the hierarchy in accordance with various permanent, and not mixed classes (ἀσυμφύρτοις τάξεσι). Therefore, you can convey the meaning of symbols only to a member of the class to which you belong. Judging by this introduction, one should expect that Dionysius the Areopagite will depict the process of man’s gradual elevation to perfection, to God, his gradual assimilation to Him, ascending from one degree to another - from lower to higher. The first sacrament is μυστήριον φωτίσματος. This is birth, the beginning of deification, likeness to God, unity with Him. This sacrament, as can be seen from the description of its performance, includes both baptism and confirmation, performed after immersion 845. The second sacrament is μυστήριον συνάξεως, ἐίτουν κοινωνίας. It is τελετῶν τελετὴ 846. “Why is it that what is common to other hierarchical sacraments (τελεταῖς) is predominantly applied to it? Because, due to God's initial and perfecting gifts, it is completion (τελείωσις) in relation to participation in other hierarchical symbols (ίεραρχικῶν συμβόλων). For it is almost impossible that any hierarchical sacrament (τινα τελεσθἤναι τελετήν ίεραρχικὴν) should be performed unless the most divine Eucharity sacredly performs in conclusion, every consecration (ἐν κεφαλαίῳ τῶν καθἐκάστα τελουμένων) bringing the sanctified (τελεσθέντος) to the One and the God-given gift of the performing sacraments (τελειωτικῶν μυστηρίων) will not complete (τελεσιουργούσης) his communion with God. If, in this way, each of the hierarchical sacraments (ίεραρχικῶν τελετῶν), not being final (ἀτίλης οὖσα), does not accomplish our communion and assembly with the one, and is deprived (of the right) through the very fact that it is not final (ἀτέλεστον), to be τελετή, and if the end of everything and the head is the teaching of the divine mysteries to the one being raised to perfection (μυστηρίων), then, in justice, hierarchical wisdom invented for him the name inherent in the essence of the matter.” Thus, according to Dionysius the Areopagite, the Eucharist is the final sacrament not only in relation to baptism, but in relation to all sacraments, which is completely in accordance with both ancient and current church practice. The third sacrament is μυστήριον τελετῆς μύρου. “There is another sacred rite similar to the Eucharist. Our leaders call it the sacrament of peace (μύρου τελετήν) 847. It is used in the most holy rites (τελεταῖς) over that which should be sanctified for every almost hierarchical rite” 848. The fourth sacrament is μυστήριον ίερατικῶν τελειώσεων. In the preface to his further discussion, Dionysius the Areopagite says that he should now say about the triplicity of hierarchical degrees, the triplicity of division, which is characteristic of every hierarchy 849 and which is located both in the heavenly, higher than ours, and in the sub-legal, lower 850. Moreover, the triplicity of hierarchical degrees fully corresponds to both the triple power of the sacraments and the degrees raised to perfection. The most holy celebration of the sacraments has God-like power, firstly, the sacred purification of the imperfect; secondly, through enlightenment, to initiate those who have already been purified into the mysteries, and finally, to elevate those initiated into the mysteries to perfection through teaching the mysteries handed down to them.” Accordingly, the first degree of the hierarchy purifies, the second enlightens, the third, the highest, leads to perfection 851. He further says that he revealed the triple power of performing the sacraments, namely the sacraments of the birth of God (baptism), in which purification and enlightenment take place, then the sacraments of the assembly (Eucharist) and the sacraments of the world, in which knowledge and knowledge of the affairs of God is obtained; and therefore now he should talk about three degrees of hierarchy: purifying, enlightening and leading to perfection. - “The divine degree of hierarchs is the first.” Just as the entire hierarchy is centered in Christ, so it is in the hierarch. She “through all other sacred degrees performs the sacraments (ίεραρχἰας μυστήρια) of the hierarchy, which is her own hierarchy.” However, this degree is primarily characterized by the performance of certain sacred rites (ίερουργἰας). These are such sacred rites, “which are the perfect images (εἰκόνες) of God’s original power, (such sacred rites) through which all divine symbols and all sacred rites are performed... For, although some of the symbols worthy of reverence (συμβόλων) are also performed by priests, a priest will never perform the sacred birth of God without the most divine peace, will not perform the sacrament of divine communion unless he places symbols of communion on the most divine altar, will not become a priest himself unless by hierarchical initiations (ίεραρχικῶν τελειώσεων) will not be introduced into the clergy. Therefore, the divine law provided only the sacred powers of the hierarchs with initiation (ἁγιαστείαν) into hierarchical degrees, sanctification (τελείωσιν) of the divine world and the preparation of the altar through consecration (τελετουργίαν) 852. The fifth sacrament is μυστήριον μοναχικῆς τελειώσεως. In the preface to this sacrament he says that he now needs to say about the trinity of degrees raised to perfection (τριάδα τῶν τελουμένων τάξεων). The first degree is made up of all those being purified who are just preparing to participate in the mysteries, the second degree is made up of all the faithful people. The first, being in a state of purification, are just preparing for luminous contemplation and participation in luminous sacred ceremonies 853. The latter have the right to contemplate and participate in divine symbols 854. The third, highest degree is the sacred rank of monks. These latter have learned the most complete purification (ἀποκεκαθαρμένην κάθαρσιν), acquired the purity of all powers and all actions, are allowed, as far as possible, to contemplate all sacred rites in mental contemplation (νοιρᾶ θεωρία) and communion and entrusted to the perfecting powers of the hierarchs themselves. “That is why the sacred law granted them mysterious grace and honored them with a certain sanctifying invocation, not hierarchical (for it is performed over only hierarchical degrees), but sacramental, performed by holy priests in a hierarchical secondary sacred rite 855. The sixth sacrament is μυστήριον ἐπι τῶν ίερῶς κεκοιμημένων. In the preface to this sacrament, Dionysius the Areopagite notes: “After defining this (i.e., the above), it is necessary to say, I think (ώς οῖμαι), about what we perform sacredly over the dead” 856. Having further said that the faithful and the unfaithful do not depart in the same way, he notes in conclusion: “he who approaches the limit of his exploits is filled with sacred joy and with full joy enters the path of sacred restoration. And those related to the deceased, due to divine kinship and the same way of life, consider him blessed, which he really is, because he reached the longed-for victorious end (νικήφορον τέλος) and send songs of gratitude to the Author of the victory, and ask Him to give them a similar lot” 857. When describing the burial, it is concluded that “the hierarch pours oil (τὀ ἔλαιον) on the deceased.” Dionysius the Areopagite brings into a certain system the sacred rites of the Christian Church. At the same time, he bases his system, first of all, on the idea of ​​gradual improvement of man, raising him from one degree of perfection to another, higher one. This idea, in combination with the triple number and especially with the ancient mystical language in which the entire creation “On the Church Hierarchy” is set out, gives us the right to think that Dionysius the Areopagite set out to, like the fathers of antiquity, especially the Alexandrian ones (with whom he is similar - mainly to Clement - and in language), - to present the Christian sacraments in some analogy, a mental parallel with the pagan mysteries. If this is true (and this, it seems to us, cannot be subject to any doubt, even on the basis of our far from complete analysis of this creation), then it is clear why the sacraments we have outlined do not include the sacraments: repentance, marriage and consecration of oil. They do not approach the basic idea of ​​creation, namely the idea of ​​raising man from a lower, less perfect state to another more perfect, higher state. Neither repentance, nor marriage, nor consecration of oil can raise a person to a higher degree, compared with the degree to which other sacraments have placed him; they can only either return him to his previous state from which he fell through his sins, like repentance and anointing (related to the first in his repentant character), or help keep him at the same height, prevent the fall, like marriage. Ordination to monasticism and burial are a different matter; both represent degrees for ascent to the highest. It is remarkable, however, how Dionysius the Areopagite stipulates regarding both. About the first, he says that although it has τελεστικήν χάριν, it is not a hierarchical action, but a priestly one, and therefore should be classified as “minor sacramental rites.” Regarding the burial, he seems to apologize for starting to talk about it along with other important sacred rites, adding that, “in his opinion,” it is necessary to talk about this too. It seems to us that these data are sufficient to confirm our guess that the last two sacraments appeared in the system of Dionysius the Areopagite only because they fit very conveniently into it from his point of view, and not because he looked at them as something equivalent in the church with other sacred rites described above by him. Another main thought that guided Dionysius the Areopagite in his systematic review of the sacraments was the thought of the necessary and general conditions and means for performing sacred rites that lead to perfection. These general conditions and means naturally seemed to him very important, since without them it is impossible to raise believers to perfection. And if these conditions are so important, then through this, of course, those sacred rites through which these conditions are created, through which the existence of the latter is given, acquire special importance. These sacred rites really stand out from a number of other sacred rites, which is why, according to church practice, they are performed only by bishops. He considers such sacred rites 858: 1) initiation into hierarchical degrees, since without it it is impossible to perform anything sacred; 2) the consecration of the throne, without which the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, and 3) the sacred rite of the world, since the world has great use 859. But of these three sacred rites, he describes in detail and includes among the special sacraments, on a par with baptism and the Eucharist, only the sacrament of peace and the sacrament of the priesthood, and does not make the consecration of thrones a separate sacrament. Why does he do this and, above all, why does he place the sanctification of the world after baptism and the Eucharist? He does this, as he himself explains, because the chrism is similar to the Eucharist, since it, like the Eucharist, which completes all sacraments, is used at every almost final sacred rite. But this is obviously a purely external trait. His internal motive, in all likelihood, was the third principle, which formed the basis of his creation about the church hierarchy. This third principle is the beginning of the trinity, passing through the entire system of Dionysius the Areopagite. This principle of trinity is revealed in him in the fact that he sees triplicity everywhere. He presents the totality of all sacred rites in the form of three triads. The first triad: baptism, eucharist and chrism. Second: initiation into three degrees of hierarchy. The third triad: numbering among the catechumens, introduction into the society of the faithful and initiation into monasticism. Yet this leads to one end of everything on earth, to the act of passage into eternity, accompanied by burial. In such a system there was no place for the consecration of the throne; it could not be marked anywhere without violating the trinity. Meanwhile, the priesthood very conveniently itself formed a separate triad, and the sanctification of the world could form a triad together with the first two sacraments. Why with them, and not with others? The answer to this must be sought, it seems to us, in those places of creation, precisely in the introduction, where it is said that the source of the hierarchy, that is, hierarchical sanctification, is St. Trinity. In accordance with the order of the persons of St. He places the Trinity: baptism in accordance with the Father (Birth of God), the Eucharist - with the Son, chrism - with the Holy One. Spirit 860. After this, it is clear why he places the sanctification of the world not before the Eucharist, but after it. At the same time, the following motive is also natural, which does not contradict the first, but is conveniently combined with it, namely the desire to place these three sacred rites in a row in an order corresponding to the order of those degrees of the hierarchy that these sacraments can perform: baptism - deaconal, Eucharist - presbyterian, chrism - episcopal. It is remarkable that in the work on the church hierarchy it is not directly expressed that there are only six sacraments, no more and no less. A similar formula appeared after, although based on this very creation, it is found in the 9th century. from Theodore the Studite, who directly refers to Dionysius the Areopagite. In one of his epistles, resolving the objection: where it is taught about renunciation of the world or monasticism, Theodore the Studite replies that this is taught by the same people from whom the tradition was received that there are six sacraments: ἔξ μυστήρια. When naming each of the sacraments separately, Theodore the Studite uses exactly the same expressions as Dionysius the Areopagite, without any change 861. After all that has been said above about the originality of the system of Dionysius the Areopagite, built on three principles, none of which was identical with the principles of the subsequent septenary number of the sacraments, it is self-evident how incommensurable the sixfold system of Dionysius the Areopagite and the septenary system of subsequent times are. These are completely heterogeneous quantities that do not allow the possibility of comparing them with each other, as equal to equal. Therefore, it is in vain that Protestants triumphantly point to the disagreement of Dionysius the Areopagite with the subsequent calculation of the sacraments. If the author of the creation in question counted the six sacraments from the same points of view from which they were later counted as seven, then one could find in him an obvious contradiction to the church counting of the sacraments. But this was not the case; he proceeded from very special, speculative grounds; and therefore his experience has no significance, either refuting or confirming the sevenfold system of sacraments. It stands completely separately and its sixfold system of sacraments is a completely heterogeneous, incommensurable value compared to the sevenfold one. II. Without the intention and opportunity in this short essay to show how new points of view on the subject were gradually established, let us turn to the moment when the formula for the sevenfold number of sacraments appears. In the west this formula appears earlier than in the east. Already at the beginning of the 12th century. it is found in the so-called testament of Otto of Bamberg (†1139) to the inhabitants of Pomerania, whom he converted (1124) to Christianity 862, although they suspect that this formula belongs to this particular person, but without sufficient, it seems to us, grounds 863. In the same way, they suspect the authenticity of the formula found in the first book of Hugo Victor (†1140–1141): De caeremoniis, sacramentis, officiis et observationibus ecclesiasticis 864, but are forced to admit that later “the established number seven already had a certain meaning for this scholastic”; This is the conclusion reached by the Protestant Liebner, who excellently studied his works and wrote a classic monograph on this subject. According to the opinion established in the West, Hugo Victor, who was brought up under the influence of the works of Dionysius the Areopagite, had no small influence on Peter Lombard (†1164). This latter counts seven sacraments, without at all proving why he recognizes only seven, no more and no less than 866, and through this makes it clear that he does not offer anything new in essence. Somewhat later than in the west, septenary notation appears in the east; at least the evidence related here (as far as is known so far) dates back not to the 12th, but to the 13th century. At first glance it may seem natural to assume that the East adopted such a formula from the West. But, in addition to all other considerations - which will be discussed later - the very nature and characteristics of the first Eastern formulas concerning the septenary number do not allow us to accept the assumption that these formulas owe their origin to the West. The monk Job (†1270), who was the first to appear in this kind of formula 867, differs significantly from the scholastics in that he considers initiation into monasticism the sixth sacrament, and the seventh sacrament of consecration of oil together with repentance; His first five sacraments are the same as those of the West. In addition to this significant difference, the order in the calculation of the sacraments and their names attract attention in Job. While Westerners first name the first five sacraments common to all Christians, and then two sacraments - the priesthood and marriage, as private for some Christians, Job counts them in the following order. "Seven Sacraments of St. The Church of Christ in order is as follows: first baptism, second chrisma, third acceptance of the holy things of the life-giving body and blood of Christ, fourth priesthood, fifth honest marriage, sixth holy schema and seventh consecration of oil or repentance” 868. Everything here is original, starting with the inclusion of monasticism in the number of sacraments and the combination of consecration of oil with repentance, continuing with the order of counting the sacraments and ending with their names, and therefore there is absolutely no reason to see here the influence of the West on the East; on the contrary, there is a lot of evidence to suggest some eastern influences, namely: Dionysius the Areopagite - on the inclusion of monasticism among the sacraments and the ancient one of Origen, which, however, has its basis in the words of the apostle himself. James' point of view on the blessing of oil as a form of repentance. As for the deviation of this formula from the current one, this deviation does not consist in the elimination of any of the sacraments now recognized by the church (for they are all mentioned by Job), but in the introduction of one unnecessary sacred rite into the circle of the sevenfold number of sacraments. Isn’t it necessary to look at such a calculation of the sacraments as an attempt by the monk Job to support the authority of monasticism? If this guess is correct, then all the features of the formula under consideration are easily explained: the combination of repentance and consecration of oil, as if with the aim of giving a place in the sevenfold number of sacraments to monasticism, and the placement of the latter in the series of sacraments. At the same time, it might have seemed to Job that his formula did not harm anything; it did not eliminate the idea of ​​septenaryity, it did not exclude any of the sacraments from this number, and at the same time the authority of monasticism was affirmed. The second oldest monument in which the formula for the septenary number of sacraments is found is the gramata (1277) of Veccus, Emperor Michael Palaiologos and his son Andronikos. In them there is a calculation of the sacraments without any difference from the current one 869. These charters, however, date back to the era of the Union of Lyons and were written by persons devoted to the union with Rome; but the way in which these charters speak of the sevenfold number of sacraments is not at all capable of leading to the idea that in this case the Greeks were subordinate to Rome and that they borrowed from the Latins the doctrine of the number of sacraments. The general theme on which these messages are written is the idea of ​​​​unifying the two churches on the basis of recognition of the peculiarities in church practice between both churches - which do not interfere with church unity; as a result of which the eastern ones, recognizing all the features of the celebration of the sacraments in the Western Church, accepted these features on an equal basis with their own indifferently. For this purpose, the authors of the messages, having listed the seven sacraments, then specifically dwell on each of them and note that it is from Western practice that they accept along with their own. It is obvious, therefore, that the differences in the way the sacraments were performed in the East and in the West were the only reason for the discussion about the sacraments in these grams. Otherwise, that is, if there had been a disagreement between the Eastern Church and the Roman Church in recognizing the number of sacraments, it would certainly have been mentioned how the Eastern Church differs from the Western in this respect, and the Greek formula would either be completely rejected (if only it differed in some way from the Western), or accepted on an equal basis with the Western. But we find neither one nor the other in the gramata; and therefore one conclusion remains, namely, that the Eastern Church at that time already had the same formula as it had in the West. All three messages are almost completely similar to each other 870. In the first epistle (Vecca), after the point about purgatory, comes the point about the sacraments. First, it is said that the Apostolic Church of Rome recognizes “seven ecclesiastical rites: baptism, which was mentioned above, the anointing of affirmation, which is performed through the laying on of hands by bishops who anoint the regenerate, repentance, the Eucharist, the holy order, marriage and the last anointing” 871. Then it is said that the Greek Church thinks of it this way. She accepts and recognizes baptism as holy. Although confirmation is performed in the Roman Church by bishops alone, and in the Greek by bishops and presbyters indifferently, the Greek Church, remaining faithful to its custom, nevertheless recognizes a sanctifying and consummating action (ἁγιαστικὸν καὶ τελειωποιὸν) and for Roman sacred rites. With joy (ἁσπασίως) she recognizes and accepts repentance. Regarding the Eucharist, she admits that both unleavened bread, which is used in the Roman Church, in accordance with its ancient custom, and leavened bread, which is used in the East, are transubstantiated (μετουσιοῦσθαι). Receives with joy (ἁσπασίως) the sacrament of the priesthood. Regarding marriage, the Roman Church adheres to the following rules: one husband cannot have two wives, but after the death of his wife he can enter into a second and third marriage, if there are no canonical obstacles; The Greek Church also looks at marriage. Like other sacraments, she also receives the last anointing, which in the East is called semipopia (ἐπταπαπάδον). In conclusion, Veccus declares that the Eastern Church will remain unchanged in the customs that it inherited from antiquity. - The epistle of Michael Palaiologos and his son Andronikos, literally similar to each other, is almost literally similar, in the point about the sevenfold number of sacraments and with the message of Veccus 872; but they speak more briefly than Veccus about the peculiarities in the performance of the sacraments; namely, it is noted only about unleavened bread and about marriage (literally, as in Vekk). But, in addition to the nature of the first Eastern formulas - which testify to their originality with their internal and external signs - the same is even more strongly evidenced by many other considerations based on irrefutable historical facts. There is not the slightest doubt that the 13th century, when, according to hitherto known data, the Eastern formula for the septenary number of sacraments appeared, was the time of the most hostile relations between the Greek East and the Latin West. This was the time when the period of fifty years of Latin domination over Constantinople had just ended - the time of the strongest height of the irreconcilable, fierce hatred of the Greeks towards the Latins and everything Latin. Then, although it was possible that Latin influence on some of the members of the Eastern Church was possible, as it was revealed in some cases (Filioque), it was not conceivable that - given the extreme sensitivity then developed in the East to everything that resonates with Latin and Latin influence - unnoticed by anyone, the Western opinion about such an important dogmatic teaching as the doctrine of the septenary number would be accepted without protest by the entire Eastern Church. sacraments At this time, when they were heatedly arguing about the far from so important ritual and canonical features of both churches (such as disputes about the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, disputes concerning particulars regarding the method of performing or receiving other sacraments and other disputes), it is impossible that in the Orthodox East they would not have noticed the Western innovation that had crept into Orthodox dogma regarding the doctrine of the number of sacraments, if this had been a real innovation, and had not appeared as a formulation (although for the first time, perhaps, in the West) of what has always been in the church practice of both the Western and Eastern Churches. Meanwhile, it is remarkable that never, neither at this time nor in the following centuries, as far as is known so far, do we encounter a single fact that would indicate a protest of the Eastern Church against the sevenfold number of sacraments. On the contrary, subsequent eastern writers, looking for every way to expose Western ones for innovations, even regarding the most insignificant ritual things, such as Simeon of Thessalonica 873, directly assert that there are seven church sacraments. In the appearance of the formula for the septenary number - precisely at this time and in the absence of any protest on the part of at least one member of the Eastern Church - lies, in our opinion, the strongest refutation of the Protestant theory about the invention of the septenary number of sacraments by Peter Lombard. If we reject the theory of the Eastern Church borrowing this teaching from the Western (and it is impossible to accept it decisively, as we have seen), then from the Protestant point of view the only thing that remains is to assume that in the Eastern Church someone, simultaneously with Peter Lombard, but completely independently of him, conceived and compiled the theory of the sevenfold number of sacraments. But 1) in the east it is impossible to point to a single taxonomist like Peter Lombard, since in the east, everyone knows, at that time productive activity 874 became impoverished; Westerners, however, do not point to such a person; 2) in this case there would be a very surprising coincidence between the results of two theologians who worked completely separately from one another, but arrived at exactly the same results; and 3) most importantly, given the known devotion of the Eastern Church to its ancient traditions, it is difficult to believe that it would accept the opinion of one of its fellow members regarding such an important dogmatic point without polemics, silently agreeing with it. After all that has been said, one thing remains - to admit that in this fact of the silent acceptance by the Orthodox Eastern Church of the formula of the sevenfold number of sacraments, the power of church tradition, to which our Church has always unquestioningly obeyed, was reflected. Since the time of the Apostles, in the church practice of both the Western and Eastern Churches - and even the heretical societies scattered throughout the East, which in ancient times broke ties with the universal Church - all seven sacraments existed and enjoyed special reverence, and when the artificial, historical conditions of the ancient world, conditioned by the points of view from which the sacraments were grouped in a peculiar way, were eliminated, then their more natural, completely corresponding to church practice and the constant tradition of the Church about these sacred rites as the most important in comparison with all others. Only with this method of explanation does it become clear, completely incomprehensible with other explanations, the mysterious fact of the appearance in the East of the formula of the septenary number of the sacraments under the circumstances stated above and the relationship of the Greeks to the Latins - its appearance somehow suddenly, without any preliminary preparation and its acceptance by the entire Church without any polemics. It goes without saying that we cannot and do not mean to enter into a detailed study of both the works of Dionysius the Areopagite and the historical evidence mentioned above. See Decoel. hierarch. c. III n. 1–3. Comp. as sums up the essence of the content of this chapter of St. John of Damascus in his “Accurate Exposition of the Orthodox Church. faith" (book II, chapter 3). De eccles. hierarch. c. 1 n. 2 (cf. n. 4). Οὐδὲ ἀπαρακαλύπτοις νοήσεσιν, ἀλλ ἐν συμβόλοις ίεροῖς. Before immersion it is said: κυρίζουσι μὲν οί ίερεῖς τὀ τῆς χρίσεως ἄγιον ἔλαιον. Upon immersion, it is noticed: (p. II n. 7). Ibid. n. 2: πρὸς πάσαν σχεδὀν ίεραρχικὴν τελεσιουργίαν. Ibid. n. 3: τὴν ίερἀν τῶν ἀτελέστων κάθαρσιν, μέσην δὲ, τὴν τῶν καθαρθέντων φωτιστικὴν μύησιν ἐσχάτην δὲ... τὴν τῶν μυηθέντων ἐν ἐπιστήμῃ τῶν οἰκείων μυήσεων τελείωσιν. Degrees of hierarchy: καθαρτικἠ, φωτιστικὴ καὶ τελειωτική. Cap. VI n. 1: τὴν κοινωνίαν. Ibid. n. 2: ἐν ταῖς θεωρίαις αὐτῶν καὶ κοινωνίαις. Ibid. n. 3: ?? καί τινος αὐτοὺς ἡξίωσεν άφιερωτικῆς ἐπικλήσεως οὐχ’ ίεραρχικῆς... ἀλλ’ ίερουργικῆς ύπὀ τῶν όσιων ίερεων τῇ ίεραρχικῇ τελετουργίᾳ δευτέρως ίερουργουμἐνης. Although he twice notes that myrrh is used in almost every sacred ceremony (in Chapter IV θεωρία n. 10 even without adding the word almost), but in his work he indicates (compare Chapters IV and V and especially n. 5 and θεωρία n. 12 in the last chapter) only three cases of using the world: for pouring it into the font, for anointing coming out of the font and to anoint the throne during its consecration. Oh St. The Spirit says a lot in the contemplative explanation of the sanctification of the world. Theod. Stud. Epistolarum 1. II (ep. CLXV, Gregorio filio p. 1523). In response to the question posed, Theodore writes: Οὐδὲν ἔτερόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν, ἤ ὄτι Πόθεν παρεδώθη γίνεσθαί τινα χριστιανὀν; ? δεύτερον ἐξέδωκεν ἔξ μυστήρια ἐκτεθεικώς πρῶτον, περὶ ?? περὶ τελετῆς μύρου τέταρτον, περὶ ίερατικῶν τελειώσεων πέμπτον, περὶ μοναχικῆς τελειώσεως ἔκτον περὶ τῶν ίερῶς κεκοιμημένων. He further notes that it is dangerous to reject anything from the divine tradition, since the rejection of monasticism can lead to the rejection of the other five sacraments, which he lists again. At the conclusion of his discussion on this subject, he mentions Dionysius the Areopagite, namely that he, imitating the angelic hierarchy, divided both the earthly hierarchy and the lay believers into three degrees or classes. See the quotation from G. L. Hahn (Doctrinae romanae de numero sacramentorum septenario. Vrat. 1859 p. 56). In the life of Otto (ed. Basnage t III. P. 11 p. 62) the following is read: Discessurus a vobis trado vobis quae tradita sunt a Domino: arrham fidei... inter vos et Domini fidelis septem sacramenta ecclesiae, quasi septem significativa dona Spiritus sancti. The sacraments are then mentioned in the following order and with the following names: baptis mus, confirmatio, unctio infirmorum, eucharistia, per poenitentia reconciliatio lapsuum, conjugium, ordinatio. The first five are characterized as sacraments common to all, the latter as special only to some. Modern scholars, according to Hahn (p. 23), doubt the authenticity of this will. Such are Wünscher and Neander, those quoted; According to Neander, the chronological indication regarding the mention of the sevenfold number of sacraments is doubtful and therefore one cannot vouch for the accuracy of the story. For our part, we will add on our own that Baur (Vorl. aber Dogmeng. Leipz. 1866, II, 466), noting that Otto’s life was written after his death (1130), considers this circumstance to be sufficient, apparently, proof of the later origin of the formula itself. Hagenbach expresses himself more restrainedly (Dogmeng. ed. 3. Leipz. 1853, 449–450), considering this issue unresolved and requiring research. Protestants are increasingly rejecting the authenticity of this historical evidence because this fact undermines their theory about the invention of a sevenfold number of sacraments by Peter Lombard. The testimony of a man, not a theorist, but a practitioner, and in addition referring to the eternal church tradition (quae tradita nobis a Domino), like Otto, they especially should not like. Meanwhile, the dissimilarity in the name of the sacraments and in the order of their enumeration with the Lombard nomenclature and enumeration leads to the recognition of this formula as having appeared independently of the influence of the formula of the famous scholastic. Lib. 1. p. 12 (See Hahn's De numero sacr. septen. p. 57): septem sunt, principalia sacramenta, quae in ecclesia ministrantur, quorum quinque generalia sunt, quia a eis neuter sexus, nulla aetas, conditio nulla excluditur, videlicet baptismus, confirmatio, eucharistia, poenitentia unctio infirmorum; duo particularia sunt eo, quod non tribuantur omnibus, sed quibusdam homininum: ordines scilicet et conjugium. Liebner–Hugo von St. Victor. Leipz. 1832. Here on pp. 423–430 the author, analyzing the content of what is included in 1 book. of the aforementioned work to the sacraments, comes to the above conclusion, although for some reason he does not cite the passage contained in our previous note. Petri Lombardi–Sententiarum libri quatvor. Paris. ed. Migne 1841. p. 331. This is what he writes, moving from the Old Testament sacraments to the New Testament: Jam ad sacramenta novae legis accedamus, quae sunt: ​​baptismus, confirmatio, panis benedictio, i. e. eucharistia, poenitentia, unctio extrema, ordo, conjugium. Quorum alia remedium contra peccatum praebent, et gratiam adjutricem conferunt, ut baptismus, alia iu remedium tantum sunt, ut conjugium, alia gratia et virtute nos fulciunt, ut eucharistia et ordo. Arcudius quotes (Libri VII de concordia ceclesiae occid. Et orient. In septem szcramentorum administratione. Luth. 1 26 p. 5) the following work of Job, in which this formula is found: τὰ ἑπτὰ μυστυρίων τὴς ἑκκλησίας ἐξηγηματικὴ θεωρία καὶ διασάφηνσις πρὸς Φωκαεῖς. Τὰ ἑπτὰ τῆς ἰερᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ τῆς ἐκκλησίας μυστήρια κατὰ τάξιν εἰσι ταῦτα, πρῶτόν ἐστι βάπτισμα, δεύτερον χρισμα, τρὶτον ματάληψις τῶν ἀγιασμάτων τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σώματος καὶ αματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἱεροσύνης τετάρτον πέμπτον τἰμιος γάμος, ἔκτον ἄγιον σχῆμα, καὶ εὐχέλαιον εὔδομον ἤτοι μετάνοια. It is remarkable that Western theologians, even Protestant ones, who, it would seem natural to use these charters for their own purposes, do not (as far as we know) pay attention to them. This circumstance proves to what extent the West has hitherto little studied the Greek East. There they are still content with the instructions given by Allius (De reg. consens. 1. III p. 16 n. 4); and since the latter, in the indicated place, representing a body of evidence relating to the history of the appearance in the East of the formula of the septenary reckoning of the sacraments, for some reason did not make reference to these gramata (although one of them is placed in another place; see below), then we do not find references to these gramata in the newest Western theologians. gramat, take them as a whole, and not in fragments; but with a certain technique characteristic of Protestants, they, of course, could be used by them in the case against Roman Catholics. The first epistle in the Latin text was printed in Allacius (De perpet. cons. I. II p. 16 n. 5), and in Greek in the newest edition of Theiner in Miklosich (Monumenta, spect. ad unionem eccl. graecae et rom. e sanctioribus Vatic. tabulariis. Vindov. 1872). The epistle of the emperor and his son is written only in the last edition, the first in Latin, and the second in Greek (in Allius, the epistle of M. Palaiologos and Andronicus, placed next to the epistle of Veccus, are different epistles). Επεὶ δὲ αὖθις πρὀς τοῖς ἀναγεγραμμένοις ή ἀγία καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησἰα τῆς Ρῶμης λέγει καὶ κηρίττει καὶ ὄτι ἐπτα εἰσὶν ἐκκλησιαστικαὶ ίεροπραξἰαι, το βάπτισμα... τὸ τῆς βεβαιώσεως (unrev. confirmationis) χρίσμα, ή μετάνοια, ή εὐχαριστία, ή ἰερα τάξις, ό γἀμος καὶ ἔσχατον χρίσμα...Then follows what the Eastern Church thinks regarding the difference from the Western in the manner of performing the sacraments. With the most minor change in names. Since the message of Andronicus came to us in Greek, we present the formula for this message. Κρατεῖ δὲ καὶ διδάσκει αὔτη ή τῆς Ρώμης ἐκκλησία έπτα εἶναι ἐκκλησιαστικά μυστήρια, ἔν λέγω τὸ βάπτισμα... ἄλλό ἐστι μυστήριον βεβαιώσεως... ἄλλό ἐστιν ἡ μετάνοια, ἄλλό ἐστιν ἡ εὐχαριστία, ἄλλο μυστήριον τῆς ίερατικῆς χειροτονίας, ἄλλο ἐστι τὸ τοῦ γάμου, ἄλλο τὸ ἔσχατον χρίσμα. – Compar. from last Vecca and with a letter from the imp. John Palaiologos (in 1369), containing a repetition of Andronicus's gramata, but with a change in some expressions. In this 14th century gram. Confirmation is called μυστ τοῦ χρίσματος τοῦ ἀγίυ μὑρου, priesthood - μυστ, τῆς τάξεως, Blessing of oil εὐχέλαιον (see Allation 1. II p. 17 p. 6). See his “Conversation about St. sacred rites and church sacraments,” in which he, having directly said at the beginning that there are seven church sacraments (chapter 1), then notes and denounces in the explanation of each of the sacraments all the most insignificant ritual features of their performance among the Latins, such as for example. the fact that the Latins perform the consecration of oil only on the dying (chapter 250), or that they use the formula during baptism: “I baptize” (chapter 32) and many others. etc. The nature of the dogmatic works of this time is known, representing nothing more than the most unprocessed collections of passages from the fatherly works. We understand the works of Zigaben, Nikita Choniates and others. You might be interested in: