On the relationship of the Church of Christ to the societies that separated from it

The question of whether I am in the true Church of Christ is so important for the believer that, it would seem, in his decision there is no room for any touchiness or ordinary pride. Anyone who explains to me that I am outside the Church and shows me where to find it, it would seem, can only count on gratitude on my part. In fact, there seems to be no question from the area of ​​doctrine that would so painfully affect human pride and would be accompanied by such mutual irritation of the parties as this particular question. Probably, those possessors of the truth who are ready to be a merciful Samaritan, but do not have the strength to refrain from some disdain for one who has fallen into robbers, are also to blame for this. Be that as it may, this latter, in most cases, meets any attempt to help him with implacable intolerance. Therefore, in a cultural Christian society it is not customary to raise the question of the true Church head-on. There, one hears more often the so-called broad view, according to which our earthly partitions do not reach heaven, church divisions are the fruit of the lust for power of the clergy and the intractability of theologians. Let a person be Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, as long as he is a Christian in life, and he can be calm about his fate after death. But such breadth, so convenient in life and soothing, does not satisfy truly church people, accustomed to giving themselves a clear account of their faith and convictions. Underneath this breadth they sense simply skepticism, coldness towards faith, indifference to the salvation of the soul. Therefore (and sometimes, perhaps, simply because they are not accustomed to noticing and sparing the feelings of their interlocutor) they express a radically opposite view: only the Orthodox Church has now remained truly the Church of Christ, only it is in union with its Head - the Lord Jesus Christ, only it receives from Him all the grace-filled powers for the salvation of people. Consequently, only her priesthood is the true priesthood, only her Sacraments are gracious and saving. Outside of it is outside of Christ. There the priesthood ceases to be a priesthood; the Sacraments are empty rites that impart no grace. An exception is made only for the Sacrament of Baptism, and even then in view of a certain decree of the Church, rather than logically. Now if you ask which of the two above views expresses the true teaching of the Church about itself, then without hesitation we must say that in any case the second view is closer to the true church self-consciousness. We will not repeat here what is usually written to prove this idea in polemical works. It is enough to provide information from the history of our relations with the Old Catholics. Old Catholics, as is known, recognized the possibility of unity with the Orthodox Church on the basis of the dogmatic teaching of the undivided Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils. The criterion determining the content of this teaching was the rule of Vikenty Lerinsky: what was always, everywhere and everyone believed. According to this rule, the obligatory or optional nature of various points of doctrine characteristic of the Roman Church was determined: filioque, the doctrine of the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, and so on. The cause of unity advanced, perhaps too slowly for some enthusiasts on the Russian side, who hastened without further recognition of the Old Catholics as Orthodox and equal in rights with us. But in general, the negotiations proceeded peacefully, until in our “Church Bulletin” in the first years of this century it was indicated that, given the current state of affairs, our negotiations with the Old Catholics would lead to nothing. The first thing that Old Catholics need is to realize their ecclesiastical position, that is, that they are outside the Church. Our Orthodox, so-called Eastern Church, geographically, of course, cannot call itself Ecumenical, but historically it is such, since one of all societies remained in the bowels of the Ecumenical Church. This means that an Old Catholic society can become a part of the Universal Church (albeit while preserving its characteristics and autocephaly) only through the mediation of the Eastern Orthodox Church, being accepted into communion by it. With the Old Catholics realizing this their main spiritual need, questions about the various features characteristic of Western Christianity in teaching, ritual, structure, discipline, etc. will be resolved by themselves, and then for the Old Catholics themselves these questions will recede far into the background. This quite benevolent instruction was met by the Old Catholics with such irritation that they had to stop further discussions on this topic. Only a few years later, in “Faith and Reason,” in his “Answers to a Heterodox Theologian,” Archbishop Anthony of Kharkov showed all the inconsistency of the Old Catholics. If they tried with all care to establish how the undivided Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils taught, for example, about the Holy Trinity, about the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts, and so on, then it should be equally interesting and obligatory for them to know how the Church taught about itself. And if we ask historical documents, it turns out that “always, everywhere and everyone believed” that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ exists on earth in the form of a visible, externally defined organization, having its own hierarchy, management, etc. Anyone who is in Eucharistic communion with this organization can say about himself that he is in the Church of Christ, but those who are not a member cannot. There is hardly any other dogma that would be accepted so unanimously by everyone: both Orthodox and non-Orthodox. The dispute between them was only about where this Church of Christ was, which of the existing societies represented it (each considered his own such a society), but that the dignity of the true Church of Christ belonged to any one of the existing societies - on this everyone agreed. Then they did not speak (as is now customary in Western science) about the division of Churches, but only about schism, about the falling away of a certain community or Local Church from the Church of Christ, with which those who fell away also lost their participation in the grace-filled gifts of the Church. Such was the self-awareness of the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, and such is the self-awareness of our Orthodox Church. She considers only herself the Church of Christ, only her Sacraments as grace-filled, only her hierarchy as endowed with apostolic powers to bind and decide. Outside the Orthodox Church there is no resolution of sins, no Sacraments, no grace at all. Therefore, the reconciliation of the Orthodox Church with those who fall away from it can only consist in the fact that it accepts them into its bosom, with the power given to it resolves their sin of falling away and in its Sacraments imparts saving grace to them. From the stated general principle, it would seem that only one practical direct conclusion should follow regarding the attitude of the Church to all societies that have broken away from it. For her, all of them should merge into one indifferent mass under the sign of gracelessness, and, therefore, those coming from these societies to the Church, regardless of which society they come from, the Holy Church should accept, as she accepts every person not yet regenerated by grace, that is, through the Sacrament of holy baptism. In fact, next to the universal dogma about itself as the only treasury of grace and salvation on earth, the Orthodox Church offers us the equally universal dogma about “one baptism for the remission of sins,” according to which the Sacrament of baptism, even if it was performed outside the Church, but performed correctly in the Name of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, is recognized as valid and cannot be repeated when the baptized person joins the Church. In certain cases, consecration, and subsequent anointing, is not repeated. In a word, instead of a single, identical rite for everyone (as the dogma of the Church would require), the Orthodox Church has three rites: some through baptism, others through confirmation, and others through repentance. And, what is especially important, when bringing one or another fallen society under one or another order, the Church always has in mind the nature or properties of the given society itself: through Chrismation it accepts members of the society where it finds correct baptism; through repentance - those who recognize the correct priesthood, and so on. It is not difficult to see that this universal practice of the Orthodox Church is, if not in direct contradiction with the above dogma about the Church, then in any case introduces a significant reservation into it. How can we understand and reconcile this, of course, apparent contradiction between two dogmas, this radical divergence of principle and practice, equally universal? Supporters of the church's strict view, in order to resolve this perplexity, essentially sacrifice the dogma of the non-repetition of baptism. There can be no question of any validity of the Sacraments outside the Church. There are only (comparison instead of proof) the forms of the Sacraments, perhaps correct, but empty. When receiving a convert, the Church puts its grace-filled content into these empty forms. Since the matter here is about form, which in itself cannot give anything to a person, then the recognition of heterodox Sacraments depends entirely on the discretion of the Church; in one case the Church is free to recognize them, and in another not to recognize them. This means that the classification of heterodox confessions into three rites does not have any objective grounds that the Church could consider dogmatic or generally obligatory for itself. This classification rests entirely on the so-called church economy, on the desire of the Church to facilitate access to salvation for as many people as possible, that is, on the discretion of the church’s benefit for a given time and place. When the benefit of the Church prescribes strictness in relation to a given confession, the Church does not make any concessions to it and, strictly following its dogma, accepts the followers of this confession as unbaptized through the Sacrament of Baptism. When the benefit is seen, on the contrary, in relaxation, the Church sometimes accepts followers of the same confession through confirmation and even only through repentance (although, in essence, they still remain unbaptized for her). As proof, they usually refer to the undoubted historical fact of the great instability of church practice regarding the reception of certain non-Orthodox people. The same confession is interpreted differently by the Church not only in different periods of time, but also at the same time by different Local Churches differently, and, what especially requires attention, this difference does not lead to a break in communion. For example, we can point to Western confessions. Under Patriarch Filaret, our Russian Church rebaptized all Western Christians, and now we (and the Serbian Church) accept Protestants through confirmation, and confirmed Latins through repentance, and Latin priests are recognized in their existing rank. Meanwhile, the Greek Church has a decree of the Council of 1756 under Patriarch Cyril I on the rebaptism of all heretics, and this decree by the Greek Pidalion (Herms) definitely applies to the Latins. However, this Greek practice cannot be considered firmly standing. For example, for the wife of the Greek heir Sophia, a Lutheran (sister of William II), the Patriarchate of Constantinople made an exception: she allowed Sophia to be accepted through anointing. If, they say, the question did not concern only the view of an empty form, then, firstly, church practice would not be so unstable, and, secondly, the Local Churches could not be so indifferent to their mutual disagreement on this point. However, this attempt to explain the discrepancy between church principle and church practice does not actually clarify anything, but rather increases bewilderment, and moreover, if one adheres to a strict view. A broad-minded person can perhaps calmly look at the instability of church practice. It can only be affected by cases of acrivia (strict application of the principle), when, for example, followers of a given confession, usually accepted without baptism, are subject to rebaptism. And even then, he can only condemn disrespect for the shrine of the baptism already received or the fanatical imposition of a second baptism (with an existing baptism). But this severity does not harm the essence of the matter: one way or another, a person turns out to be baptized and there cannot be any doubts regarding communication with him or his promotion to sacred degrees. Meanwhile, if we, together with strict churchmen, say that there are no Sacraments outside the Church, then the acrivia will not cause us bewilderment, and the economy will be completely incomprehensible: how can a person, essentially unbaptized (as the above-mentioned definition of the Council of Constantinople of 1756 calls the Latins), can be considered a member of the Church and admitted to its Sacraments, up to and including holy communion? And can these Sacraments bear any fruit for the unregenerate spiritually? After all, this is almost the same as giving food to a dead person. If such an unregenerate person becomes a clergy member, much less a bishop, can he impart to others grace that he himself does not have? And then is it possible to maintain communion with that Local Church, in whose hierarchy there are such bishops and their proteges? To find a way out of this impasse, defenders of a strict opinion resort to a heroic means: they decide to make some amendment to the catechismal teaching on the Church and the Sacraments. The Church, they say, as the bearer of the fullness of Divine powers to administer and distribute grace, is not itself bound by those forms of the Sacraments under which it teaches to teach this or that grace in the usual manner. Therefore, in extraordinary cases, the Church can give a person grace and, in addition to ordinary forms, or under the form of one Sacrament, give the grace of another. This is done in the second and third ceremonies. If in the second rite a non-Orthodox person is received through confirmation, this does not mean that the baptism he received in heterodoxy is recognized as valid, but only that, without repeating the form of baptism out of condescension, the Church imparts to the recipient the grace of baptism together with confirmation and under its form. In the same way, if, for example, a Latin or Armenian priest is received into the third rank, through repentance, in his present rank, this means that under the form of repentance he is immediately given all the necessary Sacraments: baptism, confirmation, and ordination. The explanation presented is captivating, like any ingenious invention, with its simplicity and practical usefulness; it immediately eliminates all confusion, and the relationship between church theory and practice receives almost transparent clarity. Unfortunately, one cannot help but see that here perplexities are eliminated or circumvented, rather than resolved; The Gordian knot is not unraveled, but simply cut. Captivating clarity in a field of teaching, which by its very nature cannot be fully accessible to the human mind, is a warning sign rather than a reassuring sign. In fact, how can the Church, under any circumstances and in the name of any highest motives, recognize baptism in the established form as unnecessary, when there is a completely clear command from the Lord on this subject: to baptize all languages ​​in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) or: Whoever has faith and is baptized will be saved (Mark 16:16)? True, we know of cases when the Church directly allows an exception to be made from the law on baptism by water - this is the so-called baptism of blood, also baptism in the absence of water. But about these completely exceptional and extremely rare cases of seizure, we have very specific reservations in church teaching or legislation. Is it possible to allow a general withdrawal, raised, one might say, into a system, to remain without any reservations, as a natural and self-understandable thing? This is all the more incredible because the Church always tries to justify and motivate its deviations from its own established rules (on the application of one or another of the three rites). Let us recall at least the same resolution of the Council of Constantinople in 1756 on the rebaptism of heretics. The very motivation for rebaptism is also interesting: the baptism of these heretics is not baptism, but a simple washing that does not give anything; they remain unbaptized. But according to the opinion we are now examining, any baptism performed outside the Church does not give anything to the baptized person and, therefore, all heretics or schismatics in general should be recognized as unbaptized. Meanwhile, the Church classifies some of them as the second, others as the third, and carefully conceals the fact that they were not baptized. The Church cannot deliberately keep silent about this in order to hide its deviation from the command of the Lord, if it were really a deviation. Let us assume, however, that the Church has quite sufficient grounds both for exceptions from the commandment of the Lord and for defaulting on them. But in church practice, if it is understood as recommended by the defenders of the opinion under discussion, there will be further silences, even more perplexing. In fact, a person comes to the Church whom, in its conscience, it must recognize as unbaptized. From the point of view of economy, there is no reason to make the transition of followers of this confession particularly difficult. And so, not wanting to painfully affect the well-being of a person who is accustomed to consider himself baptized, the Church pretends to him that she considers him baptized and does not repeat the baptism. And then, teaching him anointing or the resolution of sins in the Sacrament of Confession, she, unnoticed by the one joining, teaches him baptism in the form of the named Sacraments. But in such a light, the Church’s actions in receiving converts take on a character that is completely inconsistent with its dignity, some kind of spiritual frivolity and insincerity, which makes it possible to justify all sorts of abuses during conversions. Following this line, one can also justify such cases when, for example, Indians or Chinese were lured into swimming under some pretext or, as if inadvertently, sprinkled with water, while the baptismal formula was pronounced in their minds; or, having invited the Old Believers to venerate the icon of the holiday, unbeknownst to them, they anointed them with Holy Myrrh instead of the usual blessed oil. Such and similar cases are possible only with a too philistine view of holy baptism, when it is presented in the form of some kind of magical rite that acts on a person against his will, and even with his ignorance of this action. Our Orthodox Church posits the essence of baptism in the promise to God of a good conscience, that is, in the voluntary and conscious decision of the baptized person to move from the old to the new life according to Christ, mediated by grace. That is why not only in the first centuries of Christianity, but also much later, the custom of receiving holy baptism in adulthood was widespread. It is known, for example, that even the son of an Orthodox bishop, Saint Gregory the Theologian, was baptized almost as a husband, and Patriarch Nektarios of Constantinople, who took the see after the deposition of Nestorius, was baptized as an elder, after being elected patriarch. The baptism of children is permitted under the indispensable assumption that they will be raised in the Christian faith (to which the recipients undertake). To an adult who receives holy baptism without proper consciousness and without the above decision, the Church directly says through the mouth of St. Cyril of Jerusalem that for him the water (of baptism) will remain water. Hence the 8th rule of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which commands those who have been baptized to be insincerely numbered “according to their religion” as before, and not among Christians. Thus, if the Orthodox Church really recognized all non-Orthodox people without exception, in essence, as unbaptized, but from the types of church economy wanted to impart to some of them the grace of baptism through the Sacrament of Confirmation or repentance, then, remaining faithful to its teaching, it would not have done this silently, as if secretly, but would certainly have made a definite ruling on this subject, so that both the one who joins and the one who joins could quite consciously relate to what they do. Further: if the heterodox have only empty forms of the Sacraments without grace-filled content, then the difference between them and the heterodox (Jews, Mohammedans and others) is in fact only formal. Why shouldn't the Church extend its economy to people of other faiths, at least to those closest to the Church? There are many people of other faiths who were raised in a Christian family, went through a Christian school, and in general, in cultural and everyday terms, are almost no different from Christians. However, according to the 1st rule of St. Timothy of Alexandria, even a catechumen, if by chance, while present at the liturgy, receives communion, must be “enlightened by baptism.” Let us note that in this rule we are talking about a catechumen who can already be present at the celebration of the liturgy, that is, he has passed all the lower degrees of the catechumen, and is already almost a member of the Church. Undoubtedly, he is closer to the Church than any non-Orthodox who is outside it, however, for him, no Sacrament, not even Holy Communion itself, can replace baptism. Obviously, the Church sees some objective boundary, over which no economy can ever cross. This objective limit makes itself felt in the very practice of the Church in welcoming non-Orthodox people. And again, this limit is more insurmountable for economy (in the sense of leniency) than for severity. Again, among a certain group of non-Orthodox people, what they seem to have on formal grounds, or what has hitherto been provided to them by church practice, is considered possible. The Latins formally have reason to be accepted according to the second and third ranks and in their existing rank, and in fact they were accepted as such, but the Greek Church found it necessary to transfer them to the first rank. Maxim Kinik could claim that his consecration, as performed by Orthodox bishops having legal apostolic succession, was recognized as valid. However, the Second Ecumenical Council found that “lower than Maximus was or is a bishop, lower than those placed by him on any degree of clergy: both what was done for him and what was done by him is all insignificant” (canon 4; cf. Canon 6 of the First Ecumenical Council). History knows cases when the consecration of a bishop, performed by one bishop (on behalf of a council of bishops), was recognized as legal and grace-filled. For example, in the Russian Church, on the instructions of the Holy Synod, Joasaph was consecrated for the Kodiak mission (in Alaska). According to the canonical law of the Western Church, individual ordinations constitute a legal phenomenon. On these grounds, by the way, some Russian theologians considered it possible to recognize the Old Catholic hierarchy (which began with individual consecration). On the same grounds, the Belokrinitsky hierarchy could claim recognition. However, the Church declares this hierarchy insignificant and everything it does is graceless and invalid. Renovationist, and Grigorievskaya, and similar modern hierarchies, undoubtedly, originate from Orthodox bishops; The process of consecration itself does not raise any particular objections in most cases. However, after the ban imposed on the leaders of the new schism, we recognize these hierarchies as graceless and their Sacraments invalid (except for baptism). Therefore, we accept those born in these societies through Chrismation (in relation to the 68th Apostolic Canon). Schisms abroad, for example Karlovatsky, are in the same situation. In cases such as those listed, fluctuations in church practice are possible in the direction of relaxation. For example, our Russian Church accepts Latins as the third rank, and Protestants as the second. Probably, in the future the Greek Church itself will follow the same if it seriously strives for union with the Anglicans (as if there is already a secret decree of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the possibility of union). The followers of Nestorius - the bishops - were declared by the Third Ecumenical Council to be “alien to the priesthood and deposed from their degree” (rules 1 and 2); but then, according to Rule 95 of the Trullo Council, the Nestorians are accepted into the third rank, that is, their consecration and confirmation are not repeated. Arians, according to the rules (II Om., 8; IV Om., 95 and others) are accepted in the second rite, through anointing - which means that their consecration is not recognized. However, we know many examples when bishops ordained by the Arians were accepted into their existing rank (for example, St. Cyril of Jerusalem). It is quite possible that our Local Council, when it convenes, will establish a different point of view on our current schisms and introduce a different practice for accepting them. But, for example, a Lutheran pastor or a priestless mentor, no matter how worthy they are and no matter how useful it is for the Church to have them in the clergy, the Church will not allow them to be accepted into the clergy without Orthodox ordination. This is because they do not have the right or no consecration. In cases of this kind, even the most authoritative precedents cannot have an apologetic or guiding value. For example, although “the great Dionysius (of Alexandria) did not notice” that the Pepusians, when they distorted the dogma of the Holy Trinity, could not have correct baptism, and accepted without rebaptism, “but we should not observe the imitation of the wrong” (Basily the Great, rule 1). We are talking here not about comparative benefit or harm for the Church, but about some objectively given vice of the Pepusian society, so significant that it makes them unbaptized and does not give the Church the opportunity to accept them otherwise than through baptism. Thus, heterodox societies belong to one or another of the three rites according to their nature or their essential characteristics. The discretion, or economy, of the Church, undoubtedly, can introduce changes into this distribution according to rites, but only to a certain extent, within certain, strictly defined and rigid limits: a heterodox society, according to its objective characteristics belonging to one of the highest categories, can, due to its special danger at a given time, be classified as lower (Arians, Nestorians, Latins in Greek practice), and then returned again to the former (the same Arians in places, Nestorians), but a society that by its nature belongs to a lower category (for example, the first order) is never, under any circumstances, transferred to a higher one. Let us note that the indicated framework of church practice generally repeats the specified framework of the church court: a person who has received correct baptism, and Confirmation, and Ordination, the church court can defrock and excommunicate from Holy Communion and even completely from the Church, but the court cannot endow him with any grace-filled gift without administering the corresponding Sacrament. Defenders of the opinion under discussion usually refer to the 1st rule of St. Basil the Great in support. From the second half of the rule they take what was said about the Kafars: “Although the beginning of the apostasy occurred through a schism, those who apostatized from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit on them. For the teaching of grace has become scarce, because the legal succession has been cut off. For the first to apostate received initiation from the fathers and, through the laying on of their hands, had spiritual gifts. But those rejected, having become laity, had no power to baptize or ordain, and could not impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit, which they themselves did not have.” These words, they say, set forth the main view of the Church on all heterodox societies - they are all equally graceless and subject to rebaptism. And then Basil the Great explains how and why exceptions are made from this principle: “Because some in Asia decidedly wanted to accept baptism (Kafars) for the edification of many; then let it be acceptable.” The seizure is not made for any objective reasons, but simply because it is “pleasant”, or “for the edification of many,” that is, at the discretion of the church authorities, having in mind the benefit of the church. Further, the Enkratites are spoken of even more clearly: in the opinion of Basil the Great (“I think”), they should be rebaptized, “but if this is an obstacle to the general creation of good, then it is still appropriate to adhere to the custom” of the fathers, that is, to accept the Enkratites without baptism. “For I am afraid that we... will not bring back those who are being saved by the severity of delay.” Thus, they say, Basil the Great, at least in those cases where there is no definite decree of the Church (“since nothing is clearly stated about the Encratites”), seems to leave the whole matter to the discretion of even an individual bishop: he can follow strictly the Church’s view and rebaptize, and if he is afraid of thereby preventing the conversion of non-Orthodox people, then he can also adhere to economy. Basil the Great allegedly does not even hint that Kafars or other schismatics by their very nature have the right to be accepted without baptism: the whole point is to consider the benefit or harm and, at most, to observe the “custom”, the established order (so as not to cause confusion), and one must “follow the custom of each country,” as if without asking which of them is more correct. Once the general position is accepted that all schismatics are without grace, then it seems to be indifferent to which of them is accepted in what rank. To establish the true meaning of the 1st rule of Basil the Great, it is necessary to analyze it. Amphilochius of Iconium sent a message to Saint Basil in which he asked him about many subjects, and among other things about the rites of the Kafars, Pepuzians and others. Saint Basil writes a response letter to Amphilochius, which we now have divided into rules by subject. So, after the introduction, in which Saint Basil humbly notes that he himself has learned from the questions of Amphilochius, the epistle begins with a speech “regarding the question of the Kafars,” (beginning of the 1st canon): “It was said before, and you judiciously mentioned that it is appropriate to follow the custom of each country, because their baptism was thought differently by those who judged this subject in their time.” As we see, this is not yet a solution to the question of the Kafars, and not even the thought of Basil the Great himself about them, but a thought, maybe even a phrase, by Amphilochius, or, more precisely, a current saying given by Amphilochius in his message, obviously in the form of an explanation of why he asks about the Kafars. Repeating what Amphilochius said, Saint Basil does not approve of the varied practice regarding the Kafars, but only that Amphilochius raised the question about them, says that this question naturally arises in view of such a variety of practice. This is not at all the case with the Pepusians: there cannot be a question here in view of completely definite church rules. Next comes a presentation of the classification of heterodoxy, already known to us, into three categories: 1 - heretics, “completely rejected and alienated in the faith itself,” “therefore” (and not just at the discretion of benefit) “from the beginning, the former fathers (that is, church tradition) wanted to completely sweep away the baptism of heretics”; 2 – schismatics who separated from the Church because of issues that were more or less insignificant (“allowing for healing”); their baptism, “as if they were not yet alien to the Church,” was pleasing to be “accepted”; finally, 3 - an unauthorized council - schismatics in our modern sense, separating on personal and disciplinary issues; these are accepted by the third rank, as, obviously, even closer to the Church than the schismatics. From this presentation, firstly, it is undoubtedly clear that heterodox societies are distributed into three classes according to their natural properties, and not due to any random considerations of benefit or harm. The baptism of heretics is not accepted simply because it cannot be accepted in the very nature of things: “For here there is a clear difference in the very faith in God.” Secondly, the thought of St. Basil deserves the greatest attention that the natural characteristic by which heterodox societies are classified is the degree of their alienation by nature from the Church. Heretics, as “alienated in the faith itself,” no longer have anything in common with the Church, are called “completely alienated,” and their Sacraments are not accepted. The schismatics are “not yet alien to the Church,” but precisely from the Greek: even “they still belong to the Church” - this means that they have not yet completely separated from it, some kind of connection with the Church has survived, therefore their baptism is accepted. And an unauthorized assembly is even less alien to the Church than the schismatics, and, therefore, there is even more reason to accept not only their baptism, but also their confirmation. Thus, it is as if complete darkness does not immediately begin behind the fence of the Church; between the Church and heretical societies there is, as it were, a penumbra, which, in turn, splits into schismatics and self-initiators. These two categories cannot be called, in the strict sense, either completely alien to the Church, or completely alienated from it. It is extremely important here that Saint Basil expresses the thought just stated not as his private opinion or guess, but asserts that the “ancients,” “former fathers from the beginning,” who, on this basis, “decided to accept baptism” of schismatics, thought this way. This means that this is the original teaching of the Church, which sheds (let’s say on our own behalf) a very special light on our question about the apparent contradiction between faith in one Church and faith in one baptism for the remission of sins. Finally, the very term “receive baptism,” used by Saint Basil, does not reconcile well with the assumption that here we are talking only about apparent acceptance, as if in fact considering the person coming unbaptized. The Church, out of some decency, does not repeat the Sacrament, but teaches it quietly from the addition under the guise of confirmation. This term, especially in this context, next to such remarks as “still belonging to the Church” or in Slavic: “as if not yet alien to the Church” and the like, can only mean with St. Basil the sincere acceptance by the “ancients” of the baptism of schismatics, as “in no way departing from the faith” and therefore having valid force. At least, Aristinus, interpreting this passage, directly says that schismatics “must be received as baptized,” that is, having not only the form, but also actual baptism, “and only be anointed with the holy Myrrh.” Having established the general position by which the Church commands to be guided when judging heterodox societies, St. Basil the Great moves on to judge, in particular, about each of the societies mentioned by Amphilochius. At the same time, let us remember that we are dealing with a canonical or legal document, that the Holy Father is arguing here as a lawyer or as a judge, first establishing the act of the defendant and evaluating it from the point of view of the current law, that, in a word, we will certainly encounter judicial and legal techniques and concepts here. “The Pepusians are clearly heretics,” subject to condemnation either for the idolization of man, or for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and therefore “are not the essence of baptism,” as “those who were baptized into that which was not given to us.” As unbaptized people, they cannot but be baptized upon reception, although “the great Dionysius did not notice this.” The nature of this society is such that it cannot but be classified as one of the first of the groups established by law. “The Kafars are among the schismatics.” This is a judgment about the Kafars, also on the basis of the above law. (Probably, this is where they are meant when it is said: “To think differently about repentance than those who exist in the Church is a schism.”) This is also Amphilochius’ answer to the question of how to receive the Kafars. If they are schismatics by their properties, then they must be accepted as established by law for a group of schismatics, that is, only through confirmation, as those already baptized. However, just as when pronouncing his legal verdict on the Pepusians, Saint Basil had to eliminate the opposite, incorrect opinion (Dionysius), so here. “However, it was the will of the ancients” is a phrase identical to that used at the beginning of the rule (“it was the will of the former fathers from the beginning,” “the ancients laid it down”). There it meant the original tradition of the Church or the long-established church law; here the holy father calls these “ancients” by name: “like Cyprian and our Firmilian,” literally from Greek: “who were around (kept) Cyprian and our Firmilian,” that is, their followers. This means that here we are talking about the opinion of some fathers that existed in ancient times, or, more precisely, the former practice of some Churches, different from what is now established in the law. “For although the beginning of the retreat occurred through a schism...” and so on, as we cited at the beginning of our chapter when presenting the opinion of strict churchmen. The context makes it clear that this is neither Saint Basil’s own opinion, nor the generally accepted teaching of the Church expressed by him, but only a motivation for the opinion of Cyprian and Firmilian, which Saint Basil contrasts with the law on the Kafars that he had just clarified. But why is this opinion not refuted here, as the opinion of Dionysius was refuted in the question of the Pepusians? Yes, simply because we are talking about an opinion that, after the First Ecumenical Council, has already become obsolete and inappropriate in Orthodox practice. It is probably mentioned only because Amphilochius mentioned it. Saint Basil is not writing a dogmatic treatise, where every opinion must be analyzed on its merits, but a canonical answer to the question. For him, as in this case a lawyer or a judge, it is quite enough to establish that this opinion contradicts the current law and, therefore, has no binding force. Therefore, without examining this opinion on its merits, much less asking the question of what is better, opinion or law (for a judge the question is even inappropriate), Saint Basil limits himself to one repetition of the reference to the established law: “But since” and so on. It is not superfluous to recall here what we said about the framework within which fluctuations in church practice were allowed. Dionysius received Pepusians without baptism, who by nature could not be recognized as baptized; and Cyprian and those who agreed with him, on the contrary, demanded baptism for those whose baptism by law should be recognized. In the first case, the church court went beyond its powers and wanted to give the Pepusians what they could only receive through the church Sacrament. In the second case, a sentence was pronounced, perhaps too severe, not corresponding to the degree of “alienation” of the Kafars from the Church, but from a formal point of view legal: having determined the guilt of the sect, the court had the authority to impose on it one or another restriction in the rights, even those that actually belonged to it. “But since some in Asia decidedly desired for the edification of many to receive baptism, let it be acceptable.” It is impossible (together with the defenders of a strict opinion) to understand these words in the sense that Saint Basil, having expressed his conviction or even the general church teaching on the merits of the matter, now suddenly sacrifices the truth for the sake of accepted custom. This is only a repeated reference to the law to show that the opinion expressed is not binding. “Some in Asia” are mentioned here, whereas previously the law was called the will of the “original former fathers” - probably because they resolutely defended their practice against Cyprian and the Ecumenical Council took their side. So: according to the current law, the Kafars are schismatics. True, Cyprian and Firmilian and their followers rebaptized the Kafars, as well as all those who had fallen away from the Church. But the law is binding on us. It is absolutely unacceptable to think that here St. Basil is talking about the unlimited freedom of church discretion regarding the reception of heterodox people: as if the Church, recognizing everyone equally unbaptized, can at its own discretion, for the sake of its own benefit, call any of these unbaptized baptized and accept without baptism and even without confirmation. The expression: “whatever happened” does not at all mean arbitrariness in discretion. It is enough to take down this place with the words: It pleased the Holy Spirit and us (Acts 15:28) to see that this word means a will or a decision made after a comprehensive discussion of the matter. Most likely, Saint Basil here directly quotes this passage from the Acts in order to replace the simple phrase: “Decided by the Council” with such a figurative phrase, quite understandable to Amphilochius. Hence the end of the reasoning: “Let it be acceptable” - does not express indifference to the essence of the matter, but only the subordination of private opinion to the authority of the Council of the Church, as an immutable witness of the truth and the final judicial authority. In the same way, the expression: “for the edification of many” does not have that superficial and, perhaps, sentimental meaning here (like the need for the law to be applied) that they want to impose on it. The disadvantage of the strict opinion, which denied without exception everything extra-Church, was that, revolving in the realm of principles, it omitted reality from sight and therefore, from absolutely correct premises and through strictly logical means, came to a conclusion that was incorrect and extremely unfair in its cruelty, and therefore practically harmful to the Church (“which could be an obstacle to the general welfare”). Whereas the Church, accepting the major premise that there is no grace outside the Church, and the minor premise that non-Orthodox people have fallen away from the Church, before drawing a conclusion from this, finds it obligatory for itself to enter into a special consideration of the guilt of each of the defendants and comes to the conclusion that real life, as always, makes amendments here to the abstract principle. All have fallen away, but there are degrees of falling away. Some fell away because they lost everything churchly: they distorted the faith, the Triune God, and the Lord’s commandment. The baptism of such heretics can only be called a simple washing and even desecration (since their teaching contains blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). Therefore, it means that not only truth, but also mercy demands that these dead be spiritually taught life in the Sacrament of Baptism. Others have separated from the Church on some issues, but everything that makes a person a Christian: faith in the Triune God and the Lord's commandment about baptism is sacredly observed. If they fell away, then not completely; they still had some kind of connection with the Church, and along with the connection there remained some kind of (perhaps invisible and even incomprehensible to us) opportunity to use the grace-filled life juice that nourishes the Church. But in this case, the Church would not have fulfilled its calling - to serve the salvation of all people, if possible, if it had neglected even the most insignificant offspring of life. It is from the point of view of “the edification of many” that every spark of life is precious, because it contains the possibility of a speedier reunification with the vine than is possible for a completely withered shoot. Based on these indications of reality, the Church pronounces its verdict on schismatics and self-initiators. Of course, formally, it has the full right of any criminal, especially an apostate, to deprive him of all the grace-filled rights and gifts that he enjoyed in the bowels of the Church, and thus equate the apostate with the pagans. But usually the Church does not use this formal right. Usually it finds schismatics and arbitrators guilty only of what they are really guilty of: distorting some secondary issues of faith or violating church order and unity - in a word, that in itself does not make such renegades pagans, unbaptized. Therefore, while holding its punitive sword, the Church usually accepts schismatics and self-initiators in the second and third ranks, and only some aggravating circumstance (for example, the special bitterness of the sect or its special danger for the Church) forces the church court to impose a more severe penalty on one or another sect (and the possibility of a mitigation of the sentence in the future, under changed circumstances, is not excluded). Of course, the usual sentence of the Church regarding schismatics and self-initiators is more lenient than the Carthaginian one, but it is also more just (because it is based on the actual extent of the defendant’s guilt established by the investigation), and at the same time, it is more far-sighted and more expedient in the sense of “edification of many” - in a word, this sentence is more consistent with humanity, wisdom, and the truth of the Church as the continuer of the work of Christ on earth. It is not difficult to see that the basic principle is not denied here: the Church remains the only treasury of grace-filled gifts; Here, however, the side of the application of this principle to real life, often overlooked by straightforward logic, is not forgotten. The section of the rule, where Saint Basil examines the “evil tricks of the Encratites,” is cited as particularly clear evidence that the holy father did not see anything objectively stable in church practice: everyone should, in essence, be rebaptized, but “if this is an obstacle to the general creation of good,” then one can leave without baptism. In reality, the section on the Encratites, like the whole rule, is entirely based on the basic church law on the three categories of heterodoxy, as “it was pleasing from the beginning to the former fathers.” First of all, let us note that Saint Basil first expresses his personal opinion (“I think”) about the Encratites, “since nothing has been clearly stated about them.” Obviously, what is meant here is not the absence of a general church law on the reception of non-Orthodox people (this law, as we have seen, is set out in detail above) - here we can only talk about a decree relating specifically to the Enkratites, just as there was a special cathedral decree about the Kafars (unless St. Basil is simply talking here about his lack of fully established information about this sect). In this case, the question that Saint Basil now poses to himself was not, so to speak, to reinvent the procedure for receiving enkratites, but much narrower: which of the categories established by the rule should include enkratites and, accordingly, determine the order of reception. The personal opinion of St. Basil is this: “It is fitting for us to reject their baptism and... from them... to baptize those who come to the Church.” However, this is necessary not because all non-Orthodox people should be rebaptized. Saint Basil in his reasoning does not at all proceed from the slightly higher interpretation he expressed of the practice of Cyprian and Firmilian. On the contrary, he wants to justify the rebaptism of the Encratites with special arguments taken from the natural qualities of this sect: “They deliberately precipitate their own baptism” in order to make themselves “inconvenient for the Church.” In other words, they brought something into their baptism that gives reason to suspect them of distorting the Lord’s command. And this distortion is precisely the sign by which a heterodox society belongs to the category of those accepted through the first rite (through baptism). It is clear that the thought of the holy father continues to be guided by the general church rule of three rites and nothing else. Having expressed his personal opinion about the rebaptism of the Enkratites, Saint Basil, fearing “to disturb those who are being saved by the severity of delay,” then refuses this opinion and advises “to adhere to custom and follow the father who prudently arranged our affairs.” Again, the “custom” established by the “fathers” can here only mean the general church rule mentioned above (by the way, the creation of good in this place is called “common”, in Greek: to katholou oikonomia - as it were, a generally accepted custom or rule for arranging affairs). It is clear that, having expressed, and rather hesitantly, his personal opinion, to which category he believed the Encratites should be classified, the holy father readily subordinates this opinion to the rules of the Church, where the characteristics of each of the categories are precisely indicated. Saint Basil remembers that the immoderate severity of the Carthaginians, which actually hindered the salvation of many, had already been condemned by the Council in favor of a more “prudent discretion.” If Saint Basil considered the only law in relation to non-Orthodox church benefit, he would not have said further: if the Encratites accept our baptism, then this cannot determine our relationship towards them; In this matter, we are obliged to be guided not by a feeling of gratitude to them, “but to repent of the rules with precision” (to submit to the acrivia of the canons). And since we are talking about the rules of reception, then “akrivia”, obviously, is in what natural qualities determine the assignment of a given society to one or another category (despite personal discretion). Having persistently (“to the fullest extent”) recognized the need for chrismation for the Encratites, Saint Basil suddenly seems to remember the acceptance of Bishops Zoin and Satornin into their existing rank and concludes (a very characteristic expression) that now “we can no longer alienate the Encratites from the Church with a strict court.” This is a direct quote from the rule stated at the beginning: “as if they are not yet alien to the church.” Moreover, here Saint Basil makes an even more significant comment on the word “alien.” By accepting Zoin and Satornin, “a kind of rule of communication with them” (Enkratites) was established. We said above that the name of schismatics “not alien” to the Church presupposes some kind of connection with the Church, making it possible for them to preserve some of the Sacraments. Here Saint Basil directly calls this connection “a certain rule of communication.” Communication obliges us to recognize each other’s Sacraments - here there is only “a kind of rule of communication,” because communication here is incomplete and recognition concerns only some of the Sacraments. How, however, did the single fact of receiving bishops become obligatory for St. Basil? Dionysius, as we have seen, recognized the baptism of the Pepusians, while Basil, having proved the incorrectness of such a practice, argued that “we should not observe to imitate the wrong.” Obviously, the reception of Zoin and Satornin was not an arbitrary act of any bishop, but was carried out by order of some Council, which, having investigated the natural properties of the Encratite sect, found it possible to classify Zoin and Satornin as the third rank. In a court case, any court ruling approved by the highest authority, even if it concerns a particular case, becomes law for all similar cases. There is no need to look for a solution to the question of which category to include the Enkratites: in the persons of Zoin and Satornin, they have already been classified by the church court as the third. Thus, what was said about Zoin and Satornin cannot be interpreted in such a way that it is as if Saint Basil turns a blind eye to the fact that the rules have been violated, fearing that raising the issue will cause embarrassment. Here again, he quite consciously and from his point of view consistently subordinates his speculation to the current law. For a lawyer writing on a legal issue, this method of solution is quite natural. The analysis of the 1st rule of St. Basil the Great makes it clear that the basis for the distribution of heterodox societies into three ranks is the degree of their alienation from the Church, which, in turn, depends on the degree of distortion of church teaching and order by them. The Church considers those who are completely alienated to be non-Christians and rebaptizes them when they receive them. With those who have been alienated, the Church does not quite retain some kind of connection, has “as it were some rule of communication,” recognizing some of their Sacraments as valid. Of course, Saint Basil speaks about this rather in hints and analogies than in precise terms. His 1st rule does not make it clear in what way societies that have decisively separated from it continue to remain to some extent in the Church, how the continuity of grace can not be broken in the event of an actual break. Saint Basil did not find it necessary to explain in detail how and in what ways schismatics remain “not alien to the Church.” Probably, both for the holy father himself and for his intended readers, this did not require explanation, as it was generally accepted and understandable to everyone. Be that as it may, one cannot think that the matter is about schismatics preserving only the appearance of the Church, because this appearance in itself does not make their Sacraments Sacraments and cannot oblige the Church “to establish, as it were, some rule of communication with them.” There is something more that was discerned by the conciliar mind of the Church and made it possible, next to the confession of faith in the one saving Church, to fearlessly place faith in one baptism, in accordance with the Lord’s command, even if this baptism was performed outside the Church. The idea of ​​incomplete separation of schismatics from the Church seems to contradict all church practice in relation to them. According to church rules, it is forbidden to have prayerful communication not only with heretics in the strict sense (which are mentioned in the 1st canon of St. Basil the Great), but also with heretics (renegades) in general. They cannot have martyrs, they cannot have any shrines. Can we talk about the existence of any Sacraments among them? First of all, you need to keep in mind that external severity or harshness of relationships in church practice does not necessarily mean a final break with the sinner - rather, on the contrary. For example, the Apostle Paul commanded the Corinthians not to have fellowship with fornicators, covetous people, idolaters, and others, but not with those outside the church, but if anyone, calling himself a brother (that is, a Christian, a church member), turns out to be a fornicator, etc., with such a person below the surface (1 Cor. 5:9-13). If certain deliberate measures of alienation are applied to schismatics, this rather indicates that the Church still orders them to be considered brethren, churchmen, who have only sinned and therefore need measures of correction. Further: it is necessary to remember that, when discussing the attitude of the Church to heterodoxy, we are moving in the area not of dogma in the proper sense, but in the area of ​​ecclesiastical judgment or discipline. Here the matter is not about establishing certain abstract principles and the relationships between them, but about applying such principles to specific phenomena, moreover, to living individuals. Dogmatic logic here, of necessity, must make certain concessions to concrete reality: the degree of guilt, incorrigibility, and so on. A living example of such a refraction of principles in the atmosphere of life is the penitential discipline of the Orthodox Church. Strictly speaking, no murderer, no adulterer, no covetous person has an inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ and God (see: Eph. 5:5). Our logic will not be difficult to conclude from this that all those who have sinned after baptism should be completely excommunicated from the Church, like already dead members. This is indeed what some sects taught, despising the ecclesiastical reason. The Church, on the contrary, sees its very calling in returning to full life the slightest spark that can be preserved in a person. Therefore, for sinners the Church has established almost the same ladder as is mentioned in the 1st rule of St. Basil the Great. It completely excommunicates only the most unrepentant sinners, depriving them not only of communion in Holy Communion, but also of Christian burial after death. Other sinners are only excommunicated from Holy Communion for a time. At the same time, one of them who has not committed any grave sins, that is, just people of this world, is allowed to begin communion after the usual confession with a confessor. Others must perform penance, sometimes for many years, to prove their repentance and desire to improve. How to count someone who has been excommunicated from Holy Communion? Legally, he is still in the Church, but in fact he is outside it, because he does not enjoy the main thing for which he needs to be in the Church: he does not have communion with Christ in the Sacrament of Communion. Of course, there cannot be a complete analogy between repentant discipline and the trial of heterodox societies. Repentant discipline, simply because it has an application to each individual individual, is changeable and varied to infinity. The existing rules for penances are only guidelines of principle, which require the greatest consideration in applying them to each particular case. Discipline in relation to entire societies, for this very reason, cannot but require more stable rules applicable to the entire given society. And this society, in matters that separate it from the Church, unites all its members into one whole. With all this, the trial of entire societies is the same church judgment of sinners and, therefore, it is based on the same principle, the same “wonderful humane disposition of Savior for our sake,” which does not allow the smoking flax to be quenched, and the bruised reed to be crushed, which preserves in the sinner the slightest signs of life in the hope that under favorable conditions, with a favorable turn of the situation, these beginnings, or, more precisely, the remnants of life will develop and thus lead man to complete rebirth. One can therefore think that by excommunicating from her communion, that is, from participation in the Eucharist, first of all, and from communion in life in general, everyone who leaves the God-given order of the Church in teaching or discipline, the Church only completely and always alienates heretics in the proper sense from itself (they, however, have already made themselves completely alien to it). For schismatics, as those separating “because of issues that allow for healing,” the Church leaves the ground for such “healing” - baptism as another Church Sacrament. For self-initiated people, in the hope of the same healing, he leaves both ordination and confirmation. Just as in private discipline a sinner, after the Sacrament of repentance, becomes a full member of the Church, retaining the baptism he previously received from the Church and so on, so here, accepting from the Church what he lacks (some - anointing, some - remission of sins in confession), the convert retains all those valid Sacraments that his heterodox society, that is, the Church itself, could give him, but not directly, but through this society, not yet completely alienated by her. A question may be put to me: if schismatics and self-initiators must be recognized as “still churchmen” or “not yet alien to the Church,” if they can have valid Sacraments, then for their salvation they cannot do without visible affiliation with the Orthodox Church? The answer is the same as in private discipline: let the heterodox have some Sacraments; let them have the right to the name of Christians with the ensuing consequences; let them remain in the church fence or even on the porch, but non-Orthodox people do not participate in the church Eucharist. The Lord said; Unless you have eaten the flesh of the Son of Man and drunk His Blood, you have not life within you (John 6:53). It is true that non-Orthodox people also celebrate the Eucharist. But neither we can participate in their Eucharist, nor they in ours. And the Eucharist is precisely the unity of those who partake of Christ and in Christ among themselves. This means that if we are separated from them in the Eucharist, one of the parties celebrates an untrue Eucharist. There cannot be two Eucharists that do not communicate with each other, equally Christ’s and equally true, just as there cannot be two Christs and two Churches. Thus, inconsistency and even contradiction between the teaching of a single saving Church and the recognition of the reality of baptism (and other Sacraments) in some heterodox societies occurs only when we, like sectarians, are guided by human conjecture. For church tradition there is no such contradiction. As the “fulfillment” of Christ, the Church undoubtedly recognizes itself as the only source of grace on earth for people and therefore, together with St. Cyprian, says: “Whoever is outside the bishop (arbitraries) is outside the Church. To whom the Church is not a mother (schismatics), God is not a Father.” By virtue of the power given to her to bind and decide, the Church has the right to completely excommunicate anyone who does not submit to her and thereby deprive her of the hope of eternal salvation. However, again, as a continuer of the work of Christ, the Church pronounces such a sentence only where there is no longer any hope for “healing.” Usually, while excommunicating schismatics and self-initiators from communion in prayers and the Eucharist, she still retains “a certain rule of communication” with them, which makes it possible for real Sacraments to be performed in these societies. You might be interested in: