Review of the book by Rev. V. Nechaev "Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy according to the rite of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great"

Name o. Archpriest Nechaev is respected and enjoys well-deserved fame in our theological literature. Honorably holding for many years the difficult post of editor of the famous Moscow spiritual magazine “Soulful Reading,” the venerable Fr. The archpriest managed to make a name for himself in the press and with some very respectable historical and theological works. These works, being in direct connection with the magazine edited by Fr. Archpriest, since they were originally published on his pages, have always found and continue to find a favorable reception from readers who love moral and edifying reading. And that such readers, in our blessed and God-protected Rus', have not yet changed, both the very existence of the magazine with the above name and the real book of Fr. Archpriest Nechaev, appearing in the third, revised edition. Such a number of publications and such a sympathetic reception from the reading public rarely befall even the classic works of our Russian theological thought. As far as we know, only I. Dmitrevsky’s book “Historical, Dogmatic and Mysterious Explanation of the Divine Liturgy” counts its publication in dozens. What explains such a success of the book by Fr. Archpriest Nechaev among his regular readers, lovers of moral, religious and edifying reading? Without any doubt, nothing other than those internal capital merits of it, which usually distinguish the works of the experienced pen of the venerable Fr. Archpriest Nechaev. A clear and distinct understanding of the subject that the author intends to talk about with his readers, simplicity and accessibility in presentation, a strictly logical flow of thought running through the entire work, and most importantly, the sincerity and depth of religious feeling, warmed by love for his readers - these are the distinctive advantages of the works of Fr. Nechaev in general and the book we are examining in particular, this is what in the works of his pen captivates readers and gives them wide distribution among the latter. The very purpose of this book, for example, already sufficiently disposes the reader in its favor. “Publishing for the third time, after a thorough revision and with significant changes in places, our interpretation of the liturgy according to the rite of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great, we, says Fr. Nechaev, in the preface to the book we are examining, we mean, as with the first two editions, to give pious readers an easy-to-understand guide to the proper understanding of the accepted and established rite of the Greek and Russian liturgy in the Church. How much similarity there is in it with the ancient rites of the liturgy and how, unchanged in essence, it was modified over the centuries, until in the Greek and Russian missals it adopted the edition that has hitherto been preserved, with minor differences, - we did not go into a detailed study of this, being content with not extensive archaeological and historical considerations - where it seemed necessary to explain the existing rite of the liturgy. (p. III). The author’s goal is clear and direct, and therefore the success of this book among “pious readers” is fully guaranteed, which we, for our part, wish for it from the bottom of our hearts. To our great regret, taking the point of view of these readers, we cannot agree with the venerable author, both regarding some, in his opinion, “necessary explanations of the archaeological and historical nature” of the existing rite of liturgy, and regarding its main task and the method of explaining the constituent elements of the modern rite of liturgy. Having set himself the goal of giving “pious readers” his (“our”) interpretation of the order of the liturgy, the author tries to distinguish himself from the ranks of ordinary contemporary expositors and interpreters of our worship and show, although, in our opinion, completely in vain, the distinctive features of his work. “When explaining this rite (i.e., liturgy) in its connection and particulars, our task, says Fr. Archpriest Nechaev, was to reveal the immediate meaning of the liturgy, as far as it follows from its text itself; We avoided interpretations that had only an external, distant relationship to the text of the liturgy. We followed this rule not only when explaining prayers, chants, and short liturgical sayings, but also when explaining rituals in the closest sense, that is, various bodily movements and actions included in the liturgy. A rite in the closest sense, by its very essence, is a symbol, more or less expressive, of one or another thought. We found an indication of the thought hidden in the shell of the ritual in those prayers, chants and sayings with which the performance of the ritual is connected. So, for example, to us, continues Fr. Nechaev, there was no need to explain the removal of the Lamb from the prosphora at proskomedia, being prepared for consecration into the body of Christ, in the sense of the birth of Christ from the Virgin, when, while performing this rite, the priest pronounces the words of the prophet Isaiah, indicating not the birth, but the death of Christ: “as His life will be lifted up from the earth.” In general, we find it difficult, concludes Fr. Nechaev, to share the views on the liturgy of those interpreters who, wishing to see in all its composition a consistent chronological image of the earthly life of Christ the Savior from birth to ascension to heaven, resort for this to stretches similar to the one exemplified by the explanation we have indicated of the rite of removing the Lamb from the prosphora about the birth of Christ. The entire liturgy, its entire composition is a sermon about Christ, a remembrance of Him, especially about the last days of His earthly life, but by no means a chronological narrative about His earthly life. No matter how simple and natural the method of interpretation of the liturgy that we have adopted, it has not, however, been used until now in numerous interpretive works on it - and for the first time, in the form of experience, it appears in our book (pp. III, IV). It leaves aside the solution to a very curious and extremely interesting question: do all kinds of “their” and “our” interpretations of the Divine Liturgy really satisfy quite sincerely pious readers, or will they read with greater interest, and therefore with greater benefit to the mind and heart, interpretations of this most important service of the Church of Christ, written on the teaching of the Word of God, and on the basis of the works of the fathers and teachers of the Church of Christ? And let us note here first of all that Fr. Nechaev claims in vain that his supposedly “simple and natural way of interpreting the liturgy has not been used hitherto in numerous interpretive works on it and appears in the form of experience for the first time in his book.” We can confidently assure the venerable Fr. Nechaev that the method he used to interpret the liturgy has been known in the exegetical literature on the worship of the Orthodox Church for a very long time. Even Bishop Theodore of Anfida, a writer of the 12th century, if you believe the researchers about this exegete of our worship, considered this kind of interpreters of the Church, who did not want to see in the rite of the liturgy of the Orthodox Church, “a chronological narrative about the earthly life of Jesus Christ,” not in the singular, and was forced to say a harsh word about them, but absolutely fair, in our opinion. We recommend reading Explanation. liturg., comp. Feod., ep. Anfidsky, a monument to the Byzantine spirit. liter. 11th century translated by N. F. Krasnoseltseva. Kazan. 1884 pp. 1, 2, 4. Leaving then evidence in favor of the need to explain our order of the liturgy in the sense of “a sequential chronological depiction of the earthly life of Christ the Savior from birth to ascension,” for example, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, the Venerable Maximus the Confessor, the most famous exegete of our divine service, Simeon of Thessalonica, and many others, whose names and writings, without any doubt, are known both to all “pious readers and to the venerable Fr. Archpriest Nechaev long ago, we will briefly present here evidence of the same idea from the letter of the Patriarch of Constantinople Paisius I to the Moscow Patriarch Nikon, written when the question of correcting the service book was raised with us. Pointing to the well-known commandment of the Savior (Luke 22:19) and to the fact that St. The Church “has received the opportunity, for all subsequent times, to perform over the body and blood of Christ the remembrance of the carnal economy, i.e. death and resurrection,” Patriarch Paisius writes: “and since His death presupposes His birth, the preaching of the Gospel, miracles, the election of the apostles and other sacraments performed by Him before His suffering and resurrection, for the sake of which He was crucified; therefore, the church took care to compose the liturgy in such a way that it embraces the entire mystery of the incarnation of the Son of God from beginning to end, from birth to ascension and sitting at the right hand of God the Father; and all this, she presents to the senses of her children through material and visible symbols in order to lead them through them to the immaterial and supermundane.” In conclusion, Patriarch Paisius also mentions the reasons why the Church “has connected many meanings to the same subject” and why “in the order of the sacraments in the liturgy, the chronological order of their establishment by Christ is not observed” (St. Petersburg, 1881, pp. 21, 22). In view of everything that has just been given, one can hardly risk exposing oneself from the ranks of interpreters of our Orthodox theology and declaring as boldly as Fr. Nechaev. The pious feeling of the readers, to whom the book is mainly intended, will hardly remain calm if it becomes known to these readers that the author of the book, taken by them to calm this feeling, openly declares his non-solidarity with such authoritative interpreters of Orthodox theology as St. Sophrony, Patr. Jerusalem, Rev. Maximus the Confessor, Simeon of Thessalonica, etc. The ear of these readers, accustomed to treat with deep respect and full attention the words of these thoughtful and edifying exegetes of our worship, cannot remain deaf to the words of the author, even if it were the venerable Fr. Archpriest Nechaev, when we hear from his lips the accusation of these dear names of “exaggeration”, etc. Drawing conclusions that Fr. Nechaev, by “not a few interpretive works on the liturgy,” does not mean the works of these persons, dear to every sincere son of the Church of Christ, in which we positively believe, but some other works of some other persons, whose names, to our deep regret, are also not mentioned by Fr. archpriest, the author of the book we are examining in his, in our opinion, completely unnecessary introductory article entitled: “to the readers,” does not give absolutely any even weak grounds. But let’s leave the reference to the above authorities aside for the time being, let’s look at the matter with unbiased eyes, read carefully the text of the liturgical prayers and “look for an indication of the thought hidden in the shell of the rite - the method that Fr. Nechaev in his interpretation of the liturgy - in those prayers, chants and sayings with which the performance of the ritual is connected.” We completely agree that Fr. The archpriest correctly and thoroughly explains the ritual of removing the Lamb from the prosphora at the proskomedia, as a rite, in the sense of the words pronounced during this action by the priest, which is closely related to the “redemptive sacrifice of the cross” (p. 17), that it “points not to the birth, as some explain it, but to the death of Christ” (p. III), but was there sufficient and serious evidence based on this example, and perhaps some others, to conclude that the order of the liturgy “is by no means a chronological narrative about the earthly life” of Christ the Savior, that “the entire liturgy, its entire composition is a sermon about Christ, a remembrance of Him, especially about the last days of His earthly life.” We are sure that Fr. has such reasons. Nechaev did not exist and could not exist. It is absolutely true that in the rite of the liturgy “there are especially many memories of the last days of the earthly life of Christ the Savior.” as the main and most important moment in the history of our house-building; but if it contains absolutely no indications of other aspects of this story, this is positively false. If we read more carefully into the text of the liturgical prayers, we will see clearly that the idea of depicting in the rite of the liturgy “consistently in chronological order” the earthly life of Christ the Savior from birth to the ascension to heaven was not alien to the “great luminaries and organizers” of the rite of the liturgy, Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, but on the contrary, they carried it through the entire rite from its beginning to end. For example, let us indicate in the rite of proskomedia at the moment the priest placed a star on the paten and the words he uttered at the same time: “And the star came and stood above where the child was born” (Matthew 2:9). These words were borrowed by the author of the rite of proskomedia from the Gospel of Matthew, from its second chapter, in which the inspired evangelist narrates about the very first moment in the earthly life of Christ the Savior, namely: his birth and worship of the newborn God-infant of the Magi and cannot be attributed in any way to any moment from the last days of His earthly life, “without a gross stretch.” And Archpriest Nechaev is alien to such a stretch, and when he had to explain these words of the rite of proskomedia, he says, although not in as much detail as the present place deserves, directly and clearly indicating the very first moment in the life of Christ the Savior, that “the priest here remembers the star that led the Magi to worship the Infant God as the King,” whose royal glory was revealed even in the den itself” (p. 28). If we further follow the order of the rite of the liturgy and carefully read its most important Eucharistic prayer, then we will see that both in the songs composed by God-inspired men and in the prayers, the idea of ​​depicting the entire earthly life of Christ the Savior in the rite of the liturgy is carried out everywhere. At the very beginning of the liturgy, we hear a song in which “the Only Begotten Son and Word of God is glorified, immortal and willing for our salvation, incarnate from the Holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, immutably made man,” a little further: “Save us, Son of God, born of the Virgin (chorus on the Birth of Christ) or “in the Jordan being baptized" (approx. on the Epiphany), or “Ascended in glory” (ex. on the Ascension), etc., in the very middle of the rite of the liturgy, the priest prays to God the Father, remembering that the Son of God, “this eternal God, appeared on earth and was born as a man and was incarnated from the Holy Virgin, exhausting for yourself the form of a servant; being conformed to the body of our humility, so that we may be conformed to the image of our glory” (see Eucharistic prayer), finally, at the end of the liturgy, we hear the singing of the stichera of Pentecost: “We have seen the true light and received the heavenly Spirit,” and the priest pronounces the verse: “God has ascended into heaven” and prays to the Lord God for “communion of the holy Mysteries of the body and blood of Christ” helped us to preserve unshameful faith, unfeigned love, to increase wisdom, to heal soul and body, to distance ourselves from everything contrary to this, to keep the commandments of God, to a favorable answer before the terrible judgment seat of Christ" (see the prayer after communion of the clergy: “We give thanks to Thee, Lord our God”). In a word, we repeat once again that the idea of ​​depicting the entire earthly life of Christ the Savior in the rite of the liturgy was strictly and persistently pursued by its compilers, and therefore in the prayers and chants that begin with the glorification of the moment of the birth of Christ the Savior, we see a quick transition to His death and resurrection, and vice versa. If now, we remember that in our contemporary rite of liturgies there are quite a few songs and rituals included that have no direct relation to the life of Christ the Savior and are not associated with any of its moments, but have the most living and close connection with the fate of the Church of Christ in general, and with its history, such as, for example, the exclamations: “Go forth from the catechumens,” “Pray for enlightenment,” “Doors, doors, let us smell of wisdom” or a ritual, for example, kissing the priests in the altar and the deacon’s exclamation: “Let us love one another,” pronounced at the same time, etc. etc., then we must, in our opinion, based on the commandment of Christ the Savior and the example of the fathers and teachers of the Church, not only not narrow the concept and meaning of the rite of our liturgy, but, on the contrary, very significantly expand it. The exclamations and rituals we have now cited from the rite of the liturgy, pointing to one or another most important moment in the past life of the Church of Christ, tell us as clearly as possible that the compilers of this rite look at it not only as a “chronologically consistent image of the earthly life of Christ the Savior, but also as a “chronologically consistent” image of the entire fate of the Church of Christ, its most important historical changes, starting from its foundation, that is, from the beginning of the birth of Christ the Savior until the “end of this age,” when, according to the commandment of the Savior, the end of the Church of Christ itself will be. Consequently, the modern rite of the liturgy is, in our opinion, a symbolically visual representation in rituals, chants and prayers of everything that the militant Church of Christ experienced and re-experienced, and therefore it can be explained from the narrow point of view taken by the Venerable Fr. Archpriest, you can’t do it in any way, otherwise you can be very untenable and even illogical in your explanations. Thus, based on everything we have said about the “way of interpreting the liturgy” by which Fr. Nechaev distinguishes himself from a number of “not a few interpreters” on this rite, we must conclude that neither the word of God, we mean the commandment of Christ the Savior” (Luke 22:19), nor the scriptures, and the personal example of the fathers and teachers of the Church of Christ, nor the compilers of our order of liturgies, nor even the text of the liturgical prayers give us absolutely no right to look at and explain the order of the liturgies in the same way as Fr. Archpriest Nechaev. Therefore, we will look at the present method of interpreting the liturgy, “appearing for the first time in the form of experience” in the book we are analyzing, as precisely an experience in the proper sense of the word, moreover, a first and not entirely successful experience, and we sincerely wish that it would be, at the same time, the last in our exegetical literature on worship. May our deeply revered Fr. not complain about us. Archpriest Nechaev, if we express our desire that in the next edition of this book, which we sincerely wish for it, the present introductory article, in our extreme understanding, tempting or rather arousing a lot of bewilderment and objections on the part of readers, will be completely removed or at least significantly changed: “to the readers.” Without this article, especially if Fr. Nechaev will introduce into his book more “pious and edifying reflections on the liturgy,” by which he means the views of numerous interpreters on it of the opposite direction to him personally, views, although not significant, in the opinion of “Fr. Nechaev, interpretations of it,” nevertheless, “capable of reviving and maintaining reverence for it in those present when it was performed,” then his book not only will not lose value in the eyes of “pious readers,” but will acquire even greater significance and popularity. We can assure the venerable author, and he personally is not unknown, that “pious and edifying reflections on the liturgy, capable of reviving and maintaining the reverence for it of those present during its celebration, are necessary and highly desirable in our time, with the decline of religiosity among the people, and due understanding and respect for the most holy service of our Church, the liturgy, not only for the pious, but also for the people weak and religiously weak. So, let’s leave the interpretations that arouse bewilderment and objections, and let us, following the commandment of Christ the Savior, the example and teaching of St. Fathers and teachers of the Church, and staying closer to the text of the liturgical prayers, explain our order of the liturgy in such a way that with their explanations, revealing the direct and natural meaning of rituals, prayers and chants, in the minds of believers they would be able to revive a picture of the Church of Christ full of vital drama from the beginning of its existence to the present day, and at the same time, would be able to support and revive reverence for what is done during the liturgy on the part of those present, and to arouse in them a feeling of deep respect for the wise organizers and compilers of this order. This is our first objection. The second objection is that we personally do not fully sympathize with those “non-extensive archaeological and historical considerations” that we encounter in the book of Fr. Nechaeva. This objection of ours may seem strange and even unscientific to some of our readers, and therefore we will try to clarify our thought. In our opinion, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between a scientific study and a book written “for pious readers,” with the goal of giving them “a clear guide to the proper understanding of the accepted order of the liturgy established in the Greek and Russian Church.” The presence of historical and archaeological considerations in the first is highly desirable and even necessary, and the more data and considerations of this kind there are in them, the more scientific significance of the study can have greater value and greater significance in the eyes of readers and scientists; the presence of these “considerations” in the second, in a book for edifying teaching, may not only not have such value and importance, but, on the contrary, sometimes, can bring unexpected and very sad consequences, exactly the opposite of those that the author of an edifying book would like. In relation to the authors of moral and edifying books, in our opinion, we could recommend that wise pedagogical rule, according to which the mentor and confessor are charged with the duty of the former not to communicate information, and the latter not to ask penitents about sins that, according to the assumptions of both, are unnecessary and incomprehensible to their pupils and spiritual children, so that inappropriate and premature messages and questions do not disturb their calm thoughts and do not arouse a vicious desire it is in their hearts to experience and test what they have learned. The authors of such books stand in exactly the same relationship to their readers. Therefore, extreme caution is needed on the part of these authors when choosing information of a historical and archaeological nature, and it is only in such cases that they resort to this double-edged weapon, when it becomes urgently necessary, so that instead of a healing plaster, they do not apply destructive, abscess-corrosive drugs to the brewing abscess. A deeply edifying and instructive example in this regard was given to us by the already mentioned fathers and teachers of the Church, who were engaged in the interpretation of the order of our liturgy. Simeon of Thessalonica, Theodore of Anfida and many others. others in their writings do not shy away from “historical and archaeological considerations”, and even in some places enter into polemical disputes with the Latins, but they do all this moderately, wisely and prudently. All these “considerations” were aroused in them by the urgent needs of their time, since at that time the most lively and heated polemics between the Orthodox and Catholics were going on, they were a response to the ardent requests with which their pious readers turned to them, who wanted, in the works of their archpastors, to find calm for their agitated religious feelings and the clearest and most accurate answer to the requests of their agitated thoughts. We do not see this wise prudence and responsiveness to the needs and demands of the difficult times we are going through in the book of Fr. Archpriest Nechaev. Against. reading this book, we see that the author, as it were, wants to appear before his readers fully armed with his scientific knowledge, at the height of the level at which theological and historical sciences currently stand. Only this can explain, in our opinion, the inappropriateness in the book of Fr. Nechaev, quotes from the history of Professor Golubinsky about the use of seven-prosphoria in the ancient Greek Church (p. 26 note 2), from an article by Professor Subbotin, in which he takes up arms against T. Filippov, who spoke out in polemics with the late Archpriest Vasiliev for the destruction of the words in the rite of the liturgy of V. the Great: “Translating by Thy Holy Spirit” (p. 199 note), from the article by the Right Reverend Porfiry: “Scribes of Athos”, which proves some inappropriateness of the troparion: “Lord, like Thy Most Holy Spirit...” in the Eucharistic prayer (p. 260), from the famous work of the late Archbishop of Kherson Innocent: “The last days of the earthly life of our Lord Jesus Christ,” in which he explains the significant words spoken by the thief on the cross: “Remember me, Lord, when you come in Your kingdom” in the sense of his prayer for the earthly kingdom, the emergence of which will not be prevented, according to the opinion the thief, even the shameful death of Jesus Christ (p. 60), and similar quotes. Undoubtedly, all these quotes speak of the author’s great erudition, but can they be considered “pious and edifying reflections” on our liturgy, which is what the author himself strives for, “and can they revive and maintain reverence for it in those present when it is celebrated?” - this is a very serious question. We think that these quotes achieve results that are completely opposite to those that our venerable author wants from his book “for pious readers.” In the souls of readers of a sincerely pious trend, who always treat church orders and rites with deep reverence and due respect, a small seed of doubt about the integrity and purity of our worship may be planted, and through this their calm pious mood may be disturbed, and in the souls of people “with a weak conscience” a protest against church orders may appear, and what God forbid, even disdain and complete indifferentism towards them. “Let us say, in the significant words of the late rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky, addressed to T.I. Filippov, it’s your business, Venerable Fr. Archpriest, right, your quotes are correct and have scientific significance, but spare the conscience of the weak, and not only the weak, but also all those who are tempted by the harshness of the phrase” (see book Filippov Modern Church. questions) in relation to objects of religion or to the words of our prayers, with which we are accustomed to connect a certain deep Christian meaning and even dogmatic meaning, and in which people of cold reason and critical analysis, and not of heart and deep faith, see something completely different, and sometimes consider them unnecessary, and try to impose them on others. In particular, turning now to the quotes we cited above in the book of Fr. Nechaev, we must note that they are not of such a nature that the priests of science, the people of thought and analysis, would not arouse any doubts and objections. We are no longer talking about the quote regarding the seventh prosphoria from the book of prof. Golubinsky, which for people wavering between “antiquity” and “innovation” can give hope to see the truth of the former and the inconsistency of the latter, as a quote unconvincing for real scientists, and completely unnecessary, and not caused by the very course of speech in the book of Fr. Nechaev, we must say that the quotation from Subbotin’s polemical article regarding the words: “Transformed by Your Holy Spirit” can hardly be called successful. In his article directed against T.I. Filippov, Mr. Subbotin regarding the question of whether the words of the Eucharistic prayer are appropriate or not: “Having translated by Your Holy Spirit” in the rite of the Liturgy of Basil the Great, having sometimes expressed quite a lot of witty thoughts on this issue, it is unlikely that in the end he managed to convince anyone, and it is unlikely, as it seems to us, that he himself was convinced by his arguments and considerations. At least, his considerations did not go further than the famous phrase of the deceased Gorsky, in which he asks to spare the “conscience of the weak” in matters similar to what they are arguing about with T. Filippov. (See addendum to the work of the Holy Father, 1883, II, 678–709). The link is from Fr. Nechaeva’s response to the article on this issue by Eminence Porfiry is completely incorrect. The Reverend Porfiry, in his article: “Athonite scribes,” proves, in fact, where in our rite the apparently completely unnecessary insertion in the form of a troparion came from: “Lord. like Thy Most Holy Spirit” and did not say a word on his own about the addition to the rite of the Liturgy of Basil the Great, the words: “Translating by Thy Holy Spirit,” limiting himself on this subject to only the advanced one “efficient, although not thorough in everything, and blessed,” as he puts it, the reasoning of a certain Messolong priest, a new preacher, who wrote this reasoning, according to the hunch of St. Porfiry, to the new preacher of the great Church of Constantinople, a certain Philotheus, around 1799. In the same reasoning, the Messolong priest not only does not prove the need for the words: “Translating by Thy Holy Spirit” in the rite of the Liturgy of Basil the Great, but, on the contrary, considers both these words and the troparion: “Lord, even Thy Most Holy Spirit” and many others. etc., “the inventions of the Antichrist Pope” (Reader. general lovers. spiritual enlightenment. 1883, No. 2, p. 137). Extract from the 8th century euchology, now in Imp. public library, available in the named article by Rev. Porphyry was cited by the latter as proof of the absence of the troparion in it: “Lord, like Thy Most Holy Spirit,” but it was taken from the order of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Jbid. p. 181; Cnf. our book Divine services in the Russian church in the 16th century. Kaz., 1884, p. 424), and not from the rank of Basil the Great, which is discussed in the city. Subbotin and Filippov, and in which, we can assure the Venerable Fr. Archpriest Nechaev, based on our personal acquaintance with this euchology, the words: “Transformed by Your Holy Spirit” really do not exist. Therefore, Rev. Porfiry could not even talk about what was not in the euchology, which once belonged to him, and therefore, the quote to his article in the book of Fr. Nechaeva, as having appeared due to a misunderstanding and oversight of the author, is completely unnecessary and incorrect. – As for the quoted Fr. Nechaev, the book of the Right Reverend Innocent of Kherson, then it, having at one time aroused talk in censorship, society and the press, can hardly be recommended, in our opinion, to the attention of “pious readers” even today. But be that as it may, there is hardly any need in our time to interpret the words of the thief: “Remember me, Lord, when you come into your kingdom” in this sense, as the late Innocent of Kherson did, when now none of the pious Christians understands these words in the sense of the desire for an earthly kingdom, namely, directly refers them to the kingdom of heaven, and therefore every time, when reading these words in a church, everyone present in it considers it necessary to devoutly make the sign of the cross on themselves... So, let’s leave scientists to debate and debate among themselves about various particles, grammatical phrases, let them examine the texts of our liturgical rites, write whole volumes about them with huge lower floors - all this will have value and significance in science, and in the book “for pious readers” we will try to avoid all sorts of hypotheses and assumptions. leading to doubt, we will discard the unnecessary, with very rare exceptions, ballast in the form of learned footnotes and give in it truly “pious, edifying reflections on the liturgy, capable of reviving and maintaining good will towards it in those present during its celebration.” Let in this case, as in the first, the fathers and teachers of the Church, who were engaged in explaining the order of the liturgy and in general our entire divine service, will always be an instructive example and an indispensable model for us. If the above goal, in relation to the readers and participants in our worship, is achieved at least halfway, then in this case, we must boldly and cheerfully look at the future and call on as many workers as possible to this fruitful field of activity. Our third and final objection will actually concern some minor historical errors found in the book of Fr. Nechaeva. So, for example, our venerable author still continues to assert that the council of Constantinople, which examined the issues of the Sarai Metropolitan Theognostus, took place in 1301 (page 12 note), and not in 1276, as was very thoroughly proven by the famous canonist Professor A. S. Pavlov (Russian historical bibliography, 1880 g., vol. VI). About the image of cherubs with the faces of evangelists, Fr. Nechaev argues that such images “are usually considered attributes of evangelists, indicating the characteristics of each evangelist. But rather, the symbols of the cherubim, he says, are the essence of the Gospel in general and in relation to it they have the same meaning as the images of the cherubim above the ark of the covenant... Giving cherubs the meaning of attributes of evangelists is already inconvenient because on the most ancient monuments, cherubs were, in the indicated images, depicted without evangelists, and then they began to be depicted with the faces of evangelists in a non-uniform manner” (p. 101 note). In this regard, we consider it necessary to recall the barely known in print decree of Emperor Peter I, April 6, 1722, which clearly states how to look at the images of cherubs with the evangelists. “The four evangelists in the likeness of a calf and other animals on these antimensions (the decree was issued regarding the printing of antimensions), the cited decree says, because with such a calf the image acquires a “hagios” (that is, St. Luke) and the like, and writing a thing forming instead of the person being formed is not only indecent, but it is guilty of stumbling for simple ones, as about something like this This image is clearly shown in Rule 6 of Ecumenical Council 28... It is not appropriate to depict the mentioned animals with the signing of the apostolic names instead of the evangelists themselves, but those evangelists themselves, persons with the Slavic dialect lettered in their names, should be depicted in their likeness in the faces of the Evangelists, and their educational animals should be written (Parish. expenditure books of the Moscow printing yard No. 22 and 288). In conclusion, one cannot help but notice that. what about. Nechaev quite often uses such vague terms as “many”, “some”, without indicating who he means by these words, which is sometimes absolutely necessary to know. But behind all that, be that as it may, and with all these shortcomings, which are very easily eliminated, there is a book. Archpriest Nechaev still remains exemplary among books with similar goals and objectives on the subject of our worship, and we sincerely wish it the widest possible distribution among our pastorates. All the merits that characterize the works of the venerable Fr. Archpriest Nechaev are also inherent in his present book. “The peculiarities of this book, in the words of its author, include the fact that it provides a detailed explanation, not found in other works on the liturgy, of antiphons, prokeemnas, entrance verses, alleluiaries and sacraments, with clear considerations of what significance these parts have in the liturgy,” and also the fact that when presenting and explaining its constituent parts, the author paid special attention to the richness of the dogmatic elements contained in them and moral truths (p. IV). Therefore, we can safely recommend this book as a guide for our pastors when compiling their so-called catechetical teachings. If Fr. the archpriest will eliminate from the book all unnecessary things that arouse bewilderment and excitement on the part of readers, even if he returns to his first, in our opinion, the best editions, leaving at the same time his insistent statement of his non-solidarity with interpreters who in the liturgy see a chronologically consistent depiction of the life of Jesus Christ from birth to His death, then one can wish his book to become a reference book in every Christian family. The fourth, newly revised edition and certainly significantly expanded. We will welcome this book with delight. You might be interested in: