1825 г.

February 21. Review by Archbishop Philaret of Moscow about an extract from our Slavic books compiled by an unknown person in French of some expressions allegedly indicating that the Orthodox Church, together with the Roman Catholic Church, recognized the Roman bishops as successors to St. Apostle Peter Having received an extract from the Slavic books, which testify, as the one who wrote it out, in favor of the Roman Catholic Church, while I have opened one part of the four-mines, precisely on the 4th day of January, I immediately encounter evidence that can be usefully compared with the testimony of the defender of the Roman Catholic Church, taken from the same book. The position of the defender of the Roman Catholic Church: the bishops of Rome are the successors of St. Petra. Proof from the four men, namely from the life of Clement, November 25. The deceased Peter and after him Bishop Linus, also Bishop Clitus, ruled Clement in Rome the good ship of the Church of Christ. I make exactly the same point: the bishops of Antioch are the successors of St. Petra. Here is the proof from four menyas, namely from the legend of the 70 apostles, January 4, leaf. 25, per reverse Saint Ignatius the God-Bearer, whom the Lord took into His arms, was a bishop according to Saint Peter in Antioch, preaching Christ apostolically. Put both positions and proofs on the right scales: one will not outweigh the other. How many Roman bishops are the successors of St. Peter, the same number of bishops of Antioch are the successors of the same saint. Petra. As much as one testimony speaks in favor of the Roman Church, as much another speaks in favor of the Antiochian Church. Both bishops are equal. Both churches are equal to 145. February 24. Review by Archbishop Philaret of Moscow regarding the reference to the Bulgarian Archbishop Theophylact, made by a collector in our Slavic books of expressions, allegedly in favor of the false teaching of Roman Catholics about the communion of the holy mysteries under one guise About communion under one guise. In a well-known extract from the Slavic books it is said that Theophylact, who chose his interpretation of the Gospels partly from Chrysostom, recognized that Jesus Christ communed the disciples under one guise at Emmaus. These are the words of the Evangelist Luke (Luke 24:30–31). And as I sat down with them, I took the bread and blessed it, and broke it. His eyes were opened, and he knew Him: and he was invisible to him. Here are the words of Theophylact of Bulgaria: When he let it go, then his eyes were opened and he knew Him. He also shows otherwise, as if the eyes of those who partook of the blessed bread were opened to know Him; Great and indescribable power does the Lord’s flesh have. I confess that I would like a new interpretation of this interpretation, just like the words of the evangelist that he interprets. What do the words of the evangelist mean: let us bless the bread and break it? What do the interpreter’s words mean: to those who partake of the blessed bread? Let's compare almost the same words from the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 14:19). Having received the five loaves and both fish, looking up to heaven, blessed them and broke them. What do these words describe? Is Holy Communion a sacrament? Everyone will say: no; for here it speaks of fish. Therefore, the blessing of the loaves is simply described here. Why not think that in the Emaus adventure there should also be a simple blessing of bread? As the dispute goes on with the followers of the Roman Church, I take this evidence, instead of the Slavic books, from the book of the writer of the Roman Church, namely Dionysius of Carthusia 146, who, in response to the above words of the Evangelist Luke, says: “having taken the bread and blessed; not with his body, as at the evening, but as food is usually blessed; and thus he instructed us to bless food and drink before eating.” So, here there is no communion under one guise; for there is no sacramental communion at all, but a simple blessing of the bread. But what does Theophylact say? And he speaks about the communion of the blessed bread, more simply, in Russian, about the eating of the blessed bread, and not about the communion of the Lord’s flesh, which he later mentions as an object that is something else that the Lord reveals, shows, makes clear through what happened in Emaus. The question that the interpreter answers is this: what does it mean that the Lord was recognized during the breaking of bread? He responds to this, firstly, simply that they knew when the Lord pleased: “When he allowed, then their eyes were opened or they knew Him.” Moreover, he adds another hidden sign of this circumstance: “the Lord also reveals something else, that is, the Lord shows something else, or makes it clear, when the eyes of those who partake of the blessed bread were opened to recognize Him, namely the strength of His body in holy communion; for the Lord’s flesh has great and unspeakable power.” It is useful to remember here that the sacrament of holy communion was established by the Lord, three days before His appearance in Emaus, just before His departure to suffer, and was then performed once before only twelve apostles; that the following days of His suffering and death were for them days of flight and horror; that therefore the two disciples who supped with the Lord at Emmaus, who, according to church tradition, were from among the seventy, in all likelihood, until now did not know the sacrament of communion at all. So, in order to make it more convenient for them to recognize the Lord, they needed His usual blessing of bread, which they, no doubt, saw many times; for it happened more than once among several thousand people. But at the same time, He showed something else, that is, He gave them the idea of ​​the power of holy communion, which they were soon to recognize. If you like, let us also assume that Theophylact (for I have already said that his interpretation is quite clear to me) recognized the Emmaus Supper as the Last Supper; Let us suppose that you have decided to believe precisely the interpretation of Theophylact: I ask, where does he recognize communion under one form? He mentions only the Lord's flesh, keeping silent about the blood, because the evangelist mentions only bread. Why does the evangelist mention only bread? Is it because there was nothing else? Is it possible that the traveler-disciples, who, without recognizing the Lord, considered him to be a traveler, reclining with him at supper, in our opinion, when sitting down for lunch or dinner, they offered only bread and did not place water below for drinking? This doesn't happen. Why does the evangelist speak only about bread? Because bread had to be offered first, and because the Lord was recognized over the bread, which was the subject of the Gospel narrative. Whether the wine was offered and what they did with it when the Lord became invisible, immediately after the blessing of the bread, was not necessary to say for the sake of the Gospel story; but this silence does not prove that the wine was not offered or tasted by the disciples. But if we are talking about the question: should one receive communion under both types, or under one, why agonize over the short story about the blessing of bread at Emmaus and over Theophylact’s unclear explanation? Is there no clear evidence of this? Is it necessary to go away from the clear sun into a dark church and look for candles? What does the Divine Author of the sacrament say? “Take it, eat it. Drink everything from her. (Matthew 26:26-27) Let us take the bread, having given praise, break it, and give it to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me. Likewise the cup at supper, saying: This cup is a new covenant with my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:19–20)" To whom was this said? Is it just the apostles? Is it to them alone that the remembrance of the Lord belongs? Is it to them alone that His new covenant belongs, through shed blood? Isn’t all this the property of the whole church? So. He looks at the entire church from the Upper Room of Zion to the extremes of the world, until the last day of time, and in the person of the apostles he says to all its members: “Take, eat; drink everything from her." Why doesn’t he say: “Eat everything, drink everything”, or, simply, “Eat, drink”; but one day you just “eat”, and in another case it’s different: “drink everything from it”? Doesn’t this mean that He does not see people who would want to deprive others of the communion of His body, and therefore He simply says: “Eat”; that, on the contrary, he sees people who want to take away the holy cup from others, and therefore says: “drink from it, all of you”? An incredible thing, if it were not in our eyes! “Drink from it, all of you,” says the Lord. No, not all, says the Roman Church; the laity do not need it. “The same goes for the cup,” writes the evangelist. No, not “the same way,” answers the Roman Church; the bread is different, and the cup is different; there is bread for everyone, but a cup not for everyone. “A new covenant with my blood,” says the Savior. “You have been delivered,” says the Apostle Peter, “by honorable blood, like the spotless and pure blood of Christ. (1 Peter 1:18–19) “We have redemption through His blood,” writes the Apostle Paul. (Eph.1:7) “The blood of Jesus Christ,” writes the Apostle John, “cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:1)" Who does not see how universal the instrument of salvation for Christians is the blood of Christ? The Roman Church recognizes that the same saving blood of Christ, which was shed on the cross for everyone, is shed on the bloodless altar, but does not want it to be shed here for everyone. There were, they say, in ancient times examples of communion under one guise. I can add, if you like, and now there is the communion of infants and the sick who cannot eat solid foods. But so what? There was an example in ancient times that in the steppe they baptized with sand instead of water; Is it really possible to make a general rule from this example? Note the general order of the apostolic church in relation to communion, in chapters X and XI of the first letter to the Corinthians. There is no doubt that the apostle speaks there not to one clergy, but to all believers, and therefore in relation to everyone, mentioning the sacrament of communion many times, each time he puts a meal and a cup, or bread and a cup. They also say that the power of the blood of Christ lies in the body of Christ. But what of this? The sacrament must be performed not according to conjectural speculation about the power of its parts (which, in fact, as mysterious and Divine, is incomprehensible), but according to the exact decree of the Lord. You would go and tell the Lord: Do not say: drink of it, all of you, for the power of your blood. But I am afraid to think about this competition, about which others think that they have already won it, and have done in their own way better than what was established according to the word of the Lord. If, due to extreme need, it is possible to shorten the image of communion, then it is more convenient to allow communion under one type of wine, rather than, on the contrary, under one type of bread. Firstly, according to the exact power of the words of the Lord about the type of wine: drink of it, all of you; secondly, by the power of redemption, which was revealed through the mortal shedding of the Lord’s blood in suffering on the cross; thirdly, because just as the flesh of the Lord is truly meat and the blood of the Lord is truly drink (John 6:55), then just as in the natural order some may be without bread for some time, for example infants, but drink is for everyone without exception; so in the spiritual, mysterious order, it is the blood of the Lord that should be for everyone without exception. Since the extract from the Slavic books in the testimony of Theophylact also thought to have the testimony of Chrysostom (whose interpretation of the Gospel of Luke does not exist, however), it is not superfluous to bring here the silent, but genuine testimony of this church father on the present subject, which we find in his XVIII conversation on the second letter to the Corinneans. Here it is. There is a case in which the priest does not differ in any way from those over whom he rules, precisely when the terrible mysteries must be received; for they are still allowed to eat them, not as in the old law, the priest ate some, and the subordinate ate some, and the people were not allowed to eat what the priest ate. For now it happens differently: since everyone has one body, one cup is offered to everyone. Based on a Slavic translation published in Moscow in 1709, p. 1833. There is nowhere below the priest of the one who is beginning to leave: that is, when you will receive the terrible mysteries: equally, we are all worthy of the same. And not like in the Old Testament, some are eaten by the priest, and others are the ones who begin: and pour out communion for the people themselves, and the priest takes communion for them. But not now: but one body and one cup will be offered to all. 147 March 4th. Review by Archbishop Philaret of Moscow on the evidence cited by the defender of the Roman Catholic Church from Western writers, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose and Cyprian, in support of the fact that the bishops of Antioch and Rome are unequal, and therefore their churches are unequal Logic teaches, or, if you prefer otherwise, reason says that when the proof is fair and the conclusion from the proof is correctly deduced, then one cannot argue against the conclusion. For whatever is deduced from the truth and deduced correctly is necessarily the truth and not a lie. I was offered an object and assigned a type of evidence. Having used this type of evidence, I drew a conclusion. They do not say that the evidence is false, they do not say that the conclusion was drawn incorrectly; Consequently, the conclusion is undeniable. But, bypassing the evidence, they again begin to argue against the conclusion. Thus, anyone who has the leisure can continue any debate endlessly, looking for various ghosts of opposing evidence. By the way, they require a lot of evidence. Evidence is not money, of which the more someone has, the more he can buy. If there is one solid proof, then the truth stands safe, even if clouds of arrows, that is, objections, are fired at it. The Lord had to prove an important truth against the Sadducees, the resurrection of the dead. He used one piece of evidence. Concerning the resurrection of the dead, did you not hear what was spoken to you by God, saying: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? There is no God of the dead, but a God of the living” (Matthew 22:31–32). Is it really possible to say that this proof is not suitable, because there is only one, but many are needed? And the enemies of the Lord did not say this; but when the nations heard, they marveled (33), and the Pharisees themselves confessed, “For the Sadducees have been put to shame” (34). So, the requirement of many proofs does not weaken one given, although, however, it is useful to present many when circumstances require it. A thousand examples and many texts, which in fact are not given, constitute a proof to which something must be answered, because it seems solemn, but to which it is difficult to give an answer that would not seem unpleasant. May they forgive me, and may they listen calmly to what I say calmly, when necessary, when summoned. This thousand and this multitude are words in which there is much sound, but little light; and truth requires light, just as it itself is light. This is a kind of learned threat; but threat does not always mean strength, and does not always guarantee victory. Three extracts were presented; I count three, not a thousand. I won’t say anything now about two extracts in favor of the Roman Church, from Jerome and Cyril of Alexandria, because I don’t have the books of these writers at hand. I don’t know whether I’ll find an extract from Kirill; because the indication does not promise this. The third extract from Ambrose of Milan, whose books are close. So, let’s rewrite the French extract in Russian and compare it with the original book of St. Ambrose. “The Church, writes Saint Ambrose of Milan, is where Peter is. The ship of Saint Peter is Noah's Ark. Outside of which everything will perish. Communion with Rome is that which is sufficient for union with all Catholic bishops; His important judgment (autoritè) must be maintained in the difficulties that arise” (On Ps. 40:11; letter 74 to Theoph.). I open the interpretation on Ps.40, and find the following: “Where Peter is, there is the church; where there is a church, there is no death, but eternal life.” Not a word about the Roman Church. Peter was not only in Rome, where the current Roman bishops would like to imprison him, but also in Antioch, and above all in Jerusalem, which is called St. James and in the verses of St. John of Damascus, still sung at Sunday Vespers, “the matter of churches.” I open the words according to the Paris edition of 1661 and find an explanation of the Gospel story about the Savior teaching the nations from Petrov’s ship. By the way, Saint Ambrose says about the Lord: “He chooses Peter’s ship, abandons Moses’, that is, he despises the treacherous synagogue, accepts the faithful church. Next: go into the depths, that is, into the depths of reasoning about the Divine birth; for is there anything so profound as what Peter said to the Lord: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God? Even further: just as Noah’s Ark, when the world was drowning, kept everyone it received safe, so Peter’s Church, when the world burns, will present everyone it embraces unharmed.” Again, not a word about the Roman Church. Peter's Church of Christ was named, obviously, in reference to the ship Peter and to his confession of faith, on which the church is established and according to which Peter, the first confessor of Christ the Son of God, was laid as the first stone in the foundation of the Church of Christ, however, next to the ancient stones of the ancient church, and with other new churches of the renewed one, on the same cornerstone for all and at the head of the existing stone, according to what was said: the former were built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, which is the cornerstone of Jesus Christ himself (Eph. 2:20). For no one can lay another foundation than that which lies, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). I finally open letter 74, but it is not to Theophilus, but to Alypius. I am looking for letters to Theophilus; I find it under the number 9, and in it I see the following: it is necessary that the grace of the given peace between everyone be preserved and that, however, the deviation of one side cannot have the consequence of deception. Really, I think, we must refer to our holy brother, the priest (sacerdotem) of the Roman Church; for I assume that your judgment will be one that he cannot but like. This will be done in a way that will benefit the opinion, and peace and tranquility will be preserved, if your council decides something that will not cause discord in our communication, so that we, having received a number of your decisions, learn that something has been done that the Roman Church, without a doubt, approved, then we will joyfully accept the fruit of such a test. What does Saint Ambrose say here about the Roman Church? The main thing is that one must act in accordance with the duty to maintain peace. He adds his opinion, I ask for attention, opinion, and not church law, in order to apply to the Roman bishop. Finally he says that he will more willingly accept what the Roman Church approves; he is one of the bishops of the west, where from ancient times the Roman Church took precedence, just as in the south - Alexandria and in the east - first Jerusalem and Antioch, and then Constantinople. What the western bishop says here about the Roman Church, the southern bishop would say the same about the Alexandrian one, the eastern one about one of the three others, and every bishop of the smaller church would say about any of the named main churches. What is important here in favor of the Roman Church? What is especially worth impartial consideration is whether it was impartially stated in the extract delivered to me that two passages that do not speak at all about the Roman Church were merged into one with a third, in which, fortunately, her name was found, and that in this last passage both the words and the meaning of the writer were altered? Is this the correct evidence? Do they serve the truth so sincerely? If they think that Saint Ambrose in the above letter speaks in favor of the Roman Church, then let them advise some bishop, not I say Italian, but boasting of the liberties of the Gallican Church granted or forced from the Holy See, to write now in the words of Saint Ambrose: rightly, I think, it is necessary to treat our holy brother, the priest of the Roman Church. Will they not say that such language is too disrespectful, and even offensive to the Holy See and the Holy Father? Therefore, it can be noted that our former holy brother, a priest of the Roman Church, now stands much higher in the opinion of the West than he stood in the days of Saint Ambrose 148. March 12. Opinion of Moscow Archbishop Philaret on the evidence of the defender of the Roman Catholic Church on the primacy of the Roman bishop In the continuation of the extracts delivered to me in favor of the Roman Church, which from Slavic books have already turned to foreign languages, under the formidable position that there is no salvation outside the Roman Church, I read the following evidence: “St. Cyprian looks at the Bishop of Rome not only as the head of the church, but as such a head, whose abandonment is the source of all schisms and all heresies.” (De unitat.) The book De unitate ecclesiae, on the unity of the church, is quite well chosen to mediate the dispute. For it is impossible for the current follower of the Roman confession, when discussing the unity of the church, to remain silent about the pope and the Roman church. These objects are inseparable in his concept of the church, and constitute one. Whoever, speaking about the unity of the church, forms this concept without the concept of the pope and the Roman Church, the current defenders will immediately declare that there is no salvation for him. So, let's read the book of St. Cyprian De unitate ecclesiae, about the unity of the church. I read it from beginning to end. What happened? There is neither the name of the bishop of Rome, nor the name of the Roman church, nor the name of the head of the church in relation to any bishop in the entire book. Is it possible? - people will say who have given such faith in written extracts that they no longer have any power of attorney left for anyone who dares to say the opposite to him. I answer: it is possible to see in the imagination an object which the senses do not represent; it is possible to take personally words that are not spoken with this thought at all; It is possible to apply the words of the writer to the subject we desire, about which he did not think at all. Saint Cyprian speaks of a single church, but the writer of the extracts thinks that this must be understood about the Roman Church, and so on. I think they will say again: is it possible? The answer is simple: read the book: De unitate ecclesiae. Since this book has been chosen as a mediator in the dispute, I will also say what I found in it, and what everyone who can read will surely find in it. Hoc erant utique et ceteri apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti et honoris et potestatis. That is: also, without a doubt, there were other apostles that Peter was, gifted with equal participation both in honor and in power (De unitat. On the unity of the church. Paris edition, 1643, p. 254). Unum corpus et unus spiritus, una spes vocationis vestrae, unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma, unus Deus. Quam unitatem firmiter tenere et vindicare debemus, maxime episcopi, qui in ecclesia praesidemus, ut episcopatum quoque ipsum unum atque indivisum probemus. That is: One body, one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God. We must firmly maintain and defend this unity, especially the bishops who preside over the church, in order to thus show that the bishopric itself is one and indivisible. (Ibid, on the same page.) It seems that there is no need to expand to show whether these sayings of St. Cyprian are in favor of the present Roman Church, or in favor of the one, holy, truly catholic and apostolic church, additionally called the Eastern, since the western part of it was broken off by its schism? Fear not, good people: no one is forcing you to decide not to believe Saint Cyprian; think instead and decide to believe or not to believe the one who quotes the words of Saint Cyprian, which Saint Cyprian did not say. Just don’t dare decide not to believe your eyes in what is written in the book of St. Cyprian De unitate ecclesiae. Let us rewrite the rest of the extract from St. Cyprian, supposedly in favor of the Roman Church. “Rome,” he also says, “is the see of St. Peter, the source of priestly unity. He is not only primarily worthy of reverence, but is also such that one cannot leave him without leaving the holy church” (letters 42, 45, 54). The answer to this should be the same as the answer to the first part of the statement. In these three letters there is no name of Rome at all. They were written to the Roman Bishop Cornelius, but they were written to him by Saint Cyprian in the ancient spirit of episcopal brotherhood, and not in the form of servility before the Roman throne, which is so necessary now in the West. For example, in letter 42, Saint Cyprian writes: hoc enim vel maxime, frater, et laboramus et laborare debemus, ut unitatem a Domino et per apostolos nobis successoribus traditam, quantum possumus obtinere curemus; that is: about this, especially, brother, we work and we must work, so that, as much as we can, we try to achieve unity, from the Lord and through the apostles to us, our successors, faithfully. It would take a long time to sort through entire letters in order to prove that they do not contain what they think is found in them. If they truly want the truth, let them write down the exact words of Saint Cyprian, or someone else; then they will see in favor of which church, what was written by whom 149. From a handwritten rough original. Inventory No. 100; document No. 7. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 100; document No. 8. From a handwritten black original. Inventory No. 100; document No. 10. From a handwritten draft original. Inventory No. 100; document No. 11 and 12.