Dogmas of the Christian Faith. Dogmas about the relationship of God, as the Creator and Provider, to man, for example

Articles of Faith

Dogmas- these are indisputable doctrinal truths (axioms of the Christian dogma), given through Divine Revelation, defined and formulated by the Church at the Ecumenical Councils (as opposed to private opinions).

The properties of dogmas are: doctrinalism, revelation of God, ecclesiastical and obligatory nature.

Doctrine means that the content of dogmatic truths is the doctrine of God and His economy (that is, God's plan to save the human race from sin, suffering and death).

revelation characterizes dogmas as truths revealed by God Himself, for the Apostles received the teaching not from men, but through revelation Jesus Christ(Gal. 1:12). In their content, they are not the fruit of the activity of the natural mind, like scientific truths or philosophical statements. If philosophical, historical and scientific truths are relative and can be refined over time, then dogmas are absolute and unchanging truths, for the word of God is truth (John 17:17) and endures forever (1 Pet. 1:25).

Churchness dogmas indicates that only the Ecumenical Church at its Councils gives dogmatic authority and significance to the Christian truths of faith. This does not mean that the Church itself creates dogmas. It, as “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15), only unmistakably establishes behind this or that truth of Revelation the meaning of the unchanging rule of faith.

obligatory dogmas means that these dogmas reveal the essence of the Christian faith, necessary for the salvation of man. Dogmas are the unshakable laws of our faith. If there is some originality in the liturgical life of individual Orthodox Local Churches, then in dogmatic teaching there is strict unity between them. Dogmas are obligatory for all members of the Church, therefore she long-suffers any sins and weaknesses of a person in the hope of his correction, but does not forgive those who stubbornly seek to muddy the purity of the apostolic teaching.

Orthodox dogmas were formulated and approved at 7 Ecumenical Councils. A summary of the basic truths (dogmas) of the Christian faith is contained in.

Being the result of Divine Revelation, dogmas are indisputable and unchanging definitions of the saving Christian faith.

Dogmatic definitions are not so much a revelation of the doctrine of God, but rather an indication of the boundaries beyond which lies the realm of error and heresy. In its depths, every dogma remains an incomprehensible mystery. Using dogmas, the Church limits the human mind from possible errors in the true knowledge of God.

As a rule, Orthodox dogmas were formulated only when heresies arose. The acceptance of dogmas does not mean the introduction of new truths. Dogmas always reveal the original, unified and integral teaching of the Church in relation to new issues and circumstances.

If any sin is a consequence of the weakness of the will, then heresy is "persistence of the will." Heresy is stubborn opposition to the truth, and as blasphemy against the Spirit of Truth is unforgivable.

Thus, dogmas are designed to help each person to have an accurate, unambiguous idea of ​​God and his relationship with the world, and to clearly understand where Christianity ends and heresy begins. Therefore, the dispute about dogmas is of the most important and acute significance in Christianity, and it is precisely the differences in the understanding of dogmas that entail the most serious and almost insurmountable schisms. These are precisely the disagreements between Orthodoxy, Catholicism and the Protestant churches, which are more or less united in so many questions, but in some they absolutely contradict each other, and this contradiction cannot be overcome by diplomatic compromise, because they argue not about tastes or politics, but about Truth itself, as it really is.

But mere knowledge of God is not enough for a believing person: prayerful communion with him is also necessary, life in God is necessary, and for this we need not only rules of thought, but rules of behavior, that is, what is called canons.

Canons of the Orthodox Church

Church canons - these are the basic church rules that determine the order of life of the Orthodox Church (its internal structure, discipline, private aspects of the life of Christians). Those. in contrast to the dogmas in which the dogma of the Church is formulated, the canons define the norms of church life.

One can just as well ask why the Church needs canons as one can ask why the state needs laws. The canons are the rules by which members of the Church must serve God and organize their lives in such a way as to constantly maintain this state of service, this life in God.

Like any rules, the canons are designed not to complicate the life of a Christian, but, on the contrary, to help him navigate the complex church reality and life in general. If there were no canons, then church life would be complete chaos, and in general the very existence of the Church as a single organization on earth would be impossible.

Canons are the same for all Orthodox people all countries , approved at the Ecumenical and Local Councils and cannot be canceled . Those. the authority of the sacred canons is eternal and unconditional . The canons are the indisputable law that determines the structure and government of the Church.

Canons of the Church are a model for every believer, on the basis of which he must build his life or check the correctness of his actions and actions. Anyone who moves away from them - moves away from correctness, from perfection, from righteousness and holiness.

The schism on canonical issues in the Church is just as fundamental as on dogmatic ones, but it is easier to overcome, because it concerns not so much the worldview - what do we believe how much of our behavior - how we believe . Most schisms on canonical issues relate to the topic of church authority, when for some reason some group suddenly considers the existing church authority “illegal” and declares its complete independence from the Church, and sometimes even considers only itself to be the “true church”. Such was the split with the Old Believers, such are today's splits in Ukraine, such can be very many marginal groups that call themselves "true" or "autonomous" Orthodox. Moreover, in practice, it is often much more difficult to communicate with such schismatics of the Orthodox Church than with dogmatic schisms, because people's thirst for power and independence is very often stronger than the desire for Truth.

Nonetheless, canons can change in history, retaining, however, their inner meaning . The Holy Fathers kept not the letter of the canon, but precisely the meaning that the Church put into it, the thought that she expressed in it. For example, some canons that did not relate to the essence of church life, due to changed historical conditions, sometimes lost their significance and were abolished. Lost in their time and the literal meaning and instructions of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, the wise teaching of St. app. Paul about the relationship of masters and slaves lost its literal meaning with the fall of slavery, but the spiritual meaning lying in this teaching has, one might say, an enduring meaning and the words of the great Apostle and now can and should be a moral guide in the relationship of Christians standing on different steps of the social ladder despite the proclaimed principles of freedom, equality and fraternity.

When trying to apply church canons to modern circumstances, it is necessary to take into account mens legislatoris - the intention of the legislator, i.e. the meaning originally invested in the canon, historical and cultural aspects.

Modern revolutionary church reformers and renovationists of various types, trying to make changes to church canons, refer to the church reforms of Patriarch Nikon in their justification. But this reference can hardly justify the present reformers. Suffice it to point out that under Nikon the continuity of the Apostolic hierarchy was not violated. In addition, then there was no encroachment on either the dogma or the moral teaching of the Church. Finally, the reforms that took place under Patriarch Nikon received the sanction of the Eastern Patriarchs.

In the Russian Orthodox Church, all canons are published in "Book of Rules" .

The "Book of Rules" is a set of laws that came from the Apostles and St. Fathers of the Church - the laws approved by the Councils and laid the foundation for Christian society, as the norm of its existence.

This collection contains the rules of St. Apostles (85 rules), rules of the Ecumenical Councils (189 rules), ten Local Councils (334 rules) and rules of thirteen St. Fathers (173 rules). Along with these basic rules, several canonical works of John the Faster, Nicephorus the Confessor, Nicholas the Grammar, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Anastasius (134 rules) are still valid. - 762 .

In a broader sense, canons are all ordinances of the Church, both relating to doctrine and concerning the organization of the Church, its institutions, discipline and religious life church society.

Theological opinion

Of course, the experience of Christianity is broader and more complete than the dogmas of the Church. After all, only the most necessary and essential for salvation is dogmatized. There is still much that is mysterious and unrevealed in Holy Scripture. This gives rise to the existence theological opinions .

Theological opinion is not a general church teaching, like a dogma, but is a personal judgment of one or another theologian. Theological opinion must contain truth, at least not contradicting Revelation.

Of course, any arbitrariness in theology is excluded. The criterion for the truth of an opinion is its agreement with Holy Tradition, and the admissibility criterion is not a contradiction with it. Orthodox and legitimate theological opinions and judgments should be based not on logic and rational analysis, but on direct vision and contemplation. This is achieved through a prayer feat, through the spiritual development of a believing person...

Theological opinions are not infallible. Thus, in the writings of some Church Fathers there are often erroneous theological opinions, which nevertheless do not contradict Holy Scripture.

According to St. Gregory the Theologian, questions of creation, redemption, last destinies of man belong to areas where the theologian is given some freedom of opinion.

DOGMA OF CHRISTIANITY

... Now we see

as if through a mirror,

in a riddle.

Corinthians 1, ch.13

"DOGMA" is now an abusive word, a sign of the indisputability of authoritative judgments uttered once and for all, a symbol of the deadness of the spirit, ideological obstinacy, violence against free thought ... Alas! This word is of ecclesiastical origin; and quite recently there was a shameful fact of dogmatic violence - the prohibition of the works of the late Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in the name of the Catholic dogma of the biblical Adam.

For a correct view of the matter, one must return to the true. the original meaning of the word. According to the Greek dictionary "DOGMA" (in plural"DOGMA") is an "opinion", "decree", "decision". In church history, DOGMA are decisions, resolutions of councils on questions of the teaching of faith. These decrees were caused by the appearance of "heresies" - false teachings that claimed universal recognition, which became the subject of controversy and divisions. Those who have closely studied the history of cathedrals speak of phenomena that are by no means inspiring: the dominance of the imperial power, which sought the forced unity of the state religion; court intrigues, personal quarrels; fanatical persecution of dissidents on both sides ... Here is a living and very authoritative evidence:

"... To tell the truth, I decided to generally avoid any meeting of bishops. I have never seen a single such example when the cathedral did any good, or did no more harm than good. Discord and ambition reign in them (do not think that I express myself too harshly) to an incredible degree" (St. Gregory the Theologian, Letter). But with all the historical sins and abuses, the authority of some councils later became universally recognized and they were called "ecumenical." The ancient "undivided" Church had only SEVEN such universally recognized, ecumenical councils. , must first eliminate an important misunderstanding: dogmas are not "mystical facts", as they are sometimes exaltedly expressed about them; DOGMA IS NOT FACTS, BUT WORDS, rulings of councils on heresies. If there were no heresies, there would be no dogmas.

After the so-called "separation of the churches" in the West, the compilation of dogmas continued. Catholics and Protestants denounced each other and delivered lengthy statements of faith, binding separately for all Catholics and for all Protestants. Among Catholics, this dogmatic creativity resulted in a detailed system of beliefs. In the last century, Catholics have adopted the dogma that the Pope, even without a council, can single-handedly decide on matters of faith. Quite recently, Pope Pius XII took advantage of this right and drew up a new dogma on the bodily Ascension of the Mother of God... I do not consider it necessary to consider these later Catholic and Protestant dogmas: it is clear that they have no general Christian significance. Another thing is the dogmas of the ancient "undivided" Church: they are recognized by Catholics, and in general, I believe, by all Christians. These DOGMA and I will remember in order.

The first dogma of Christianity was adopted at the council of 325 against the heresy of Arianism. The dogma is stated in the ancient form of the "Symbol" - the confession of faith, which was read during the so-called "announcement", preparation for the acceptance of the sacrament of holy Baptism:

into one GOD

Almighty,

Creator of heaven and earth,

visible to all and invisible.

“That is God in reality, it will always be hidden from us, and the highest knowledge that we can have about GOD in this life is that He is incomparably higher than any idea that we can ever form about Him” (St. Thomas Aquinas, "On Truth"). Known. that at the end of his earthly life the great scholastic ceased to practice scholasticism:

"... His friend Reginald asked him to return to books and engage in disputes. Then St. Thomas said with amazing excitement:" I can not write anymore. " Reginald did not move away, and St. Thomas answered with even greater force: "I cannot write. I have seen things before which all my writings are like straw" (G. Chesterton, "St. Thomas Aquinas"). Unfortunately, I have no quotations on this subject from the works of the great mystics of Eastern Christianity. Here is just one passage - the testimony of the venerable Simeon the New Theologian (XI century) "God is known to us as much as anyone can see the boundless sea, standing on its edge at night with a small lighted candle in their hands. How much, do you think, will he see from the whole boundless sea? Of course, a little or almost nothing. For all that, he sees that water well and knows that the sea is before him, that the sea is boundless and that he cannot embrace it all with his gaze. This is also the case with respect to our knowledge of God" (quoted from the "Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy", 1958, No. 1, p. 57).

DEITY is superintelligent and it is impossible to construct a "concept" of GOD. The Ancient Symbol did not set such a task. His confession is very short. In the word "GOD" we perceive, first of all, the most important thing - our religious intuition of Divine Holiness. "In one" - probably then it was directed against pagan polytheism. Now we have already forgotten about polytheism and can mean here our faith in God, the same for all religions on earth and for all worlds in the Cosmos. "Father" - of course, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; but through Him also our Heavenly Father. For He "predestined to adopt us to Himself through Jesus Christ" (Ephesians, ch.1). "Father" - in this word a Christian, acutely aware of his utter unworthiness, hears the symbol of "fatherly", demanding, strict love.

"Almighty" - a symbol, which seems to be most consistent with the apostolic word: "For we live and move and have our being" (Acts, ch.17). The symbol of the "Creator" may have a polemical orientation against the Gnostic heresies, which considered the creation of such an imperfect world to be the work of an evil inclination. It was said above that this problem is still open today. The Creator of everything, the Almighty - how could HE allow the very appearance of evil and such suffering in His world? This mystery is incomprehensible, we accept it with faith - with TRUST in our GOD.

The symbol of the "Creator" does not contain, of course, any concept of the "method" of the creation of the world. The natural sciences and the opening pages of the Bible speak of natural Evolution. One could not even argue with the dogma of materialism about the eternity and spatial infinity of the physical world - that is, in essence, about its fundamental incomprehensibility. For such a mysterious Cosmos would correspond to the greatness of GOD, who creates time and eternity. But it is heard that latest physics speaks directly about the temporal and spatial finiteness of the physical universe.

"Sky", "invisible" - these symbols remind us of the intangible planes of being. “Therefore, we do not lose heart, but if our outer man smolders, then our inner one is renewed from day to day. For our short-term light suffering produces eternal glory in an immeasurable excess, when we look not at the visible, but at the invisible: the invisible is eternal" (to the Corinthians II, ch. 4). We "look" at the invisible - HOPE for the invisible. One can think differently about the "teachings" about the hierarchy of the incorporeal Heavenly Forces. The presence of a guardian angel is the personal spiritual experience of many Christians.

"Earth", "visible" seemed to the authors of the Symbol quite cozy. Today we know that our planet is just a speck of dust in the unimaginable vastness of the Cosmos, among billions of billions of suns... But it turns out that this speck of dust, in its SPIRITUAL significance, is the center of the universe. However, with some degree of probability, one can think that the physical Cosmos is not a dead desert, that we are surrounded, perhaps, by other inhabited worlds ... We must be spiritually ready to meet such an opportunity. To do this, we will need to expand our understanding of MAN. If I'm not mistaken, in Greek AN-TROPOS (man) means: UP-TURNING. Man, as the highest spiritual and bodily being, can also live on other planets, perhaps even in a different bodily form, nothing would change from this, For the Eternal, Heavenly Man is at the right hand of God the Father.

Then - the main content of the dogma:

... And in one Lord

Jesus Christ

the only begotten Son of God,

before all ages.

Light from light

God is true from God is true,

born, not created

consubstantial with the Father,

They are all bysha.

For us people

and ours for the sake of salvation

descended from heaven

and embodied

from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin

and becoming human.

crucified for us

under Pontius Pilate,

and suffered, and buried.

And rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures,

And ascended to heaven

And sitting at the right hand of the Father.

And packs of the future

With glory

judge the living and the dead,

His kingdom will have no end.

In the first edition of the dogma, there were also such words (cited from the "History of the Ancient Church" by Abbot L. Duchen, vol. II, 1914, p. 101):

“As for those who say: There was a time when He was not; He was not before He was born; He was created from nothing or from another hypostasis or essence; the Son of God is a created, changeable, changeable being — then on them the catholic (universal) Church pronounces an anathema (excommunication)."

There is the TRUTH of the Christian religious experience - the absolute Divinity of Christ. We experience this truth with the people in the temple when we sing the Creed. This truth is protected from untruth, from heresy by the first dogma of Christianity. The practical goal is achieved - the heresy is rejected in terms that do not allow reinterpretation.

But turning to the positive interpretation of the text of the dogma, we see its frank inconsistency. "We believe in one God", but after that we confess faith in Christ - "God is true from God true" ... TWO GODS? This verbal inconsistency implied the PHILOSOPHICAL doctrine of the eternal "Logos" and the distinction in God of "one essence" and three "hypostases" or "persons". By the end of the 4th century, when the universal, "universal" recognition of dogma became clear,

"The Church has already found those formulas in which her view on the relationship between the concepts of the unity of the Divinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ began to be expressed. The Divinity manifested in Jesus Christ is completely identical with the one God whom Christianity professes; the Divinity of Christ differs from Him, however, by one, of course, incomprehensible feature, which in the New Testament, which guides the Church, is expressed in the likeness of the relationship between patronymic and sonship.From here follows the difference in persons, as they said in the West, or in hypostases, as they expressed in the East. , or Persons, the Father and the Son, joins in the same way of distinction the third hypostasis or person - the Holy Spirit. This is how the theological Trinity was formed - this is how the Christian tradition was formulated in the philosophical language of that time, formulated as clearly as it is possible to express such a mystery. (Abbé L. Duchenne, op. cit., p. 399). However, for a simple person (I judge by myself), the philosophical understanding of the Trinity is completely unacceptable, and this can lead to the greatest despondency. Where is the evangelical simplicity, why has the Christian faith become so complicated? Why in the spiritual Christian life these painful MENTAL efforts? Efforts are futile - none of them work out, some wild ideas arise of some kind of "symmetrical model" of God, as a Being with three faces ... What should we think about all this?

Here again, the Christian philosophy of N. A. Berdyaev helps me out:

"... The Divine is comprehended not in the categories of reason, but in the relations of spiritual life. The Trinity of the Divine is completely inaccessible to rational thinking, to a logical concept. dualism, and he is disturbed and even outraged by the mythology of the Christian Trinity, he is ready to see polytheism in it. The Christian Divine Trinity is a mythologeme. About the Trinity, only a myth and a symbol are possible, but not a concept. But this myth and this symbol does not reflect and depict my religious feelings and experiences, as the newest symbolists of the subjective-idealistic type think, but the very depth of being, the deepest mysteries of existing life. Only in the Trinity Divinity is there an inner life that eludes concepts. free spirit", part 1, underlined by me). So, the philosopher himself refuses a rational explanation of the first dogma of Christianity. And it should be clear to everyone that no rationalization is possible with respect to the most important thing in dogma - the mystery of the Person of Jesus Christ. First, the Creed refers to the "pre-human" existence of the Son of God (although this very concept of "Son" is a human concept). Then - "and becoming human"; in the Latin text of the Symbol - "and became a man" ... Here comes the main "icon-painting" contradiction, already noted above in the chapter on the Gospels. If Christ on earth preserves PERSONAL UNITY with the eternal Son of God - REMEMBERS everything, KNOWS everything - then all His human experiences and sufferings turn out to be illusory... It would be most realistic to imagine Christ on earth as a Man Who "forgot" about His Whom only the mighty intuition of God's Sonship remained. Only in this way would the words of the Symbol be fulfilled: "and became a Man." But this would contradict not only the gospel icons, but also the Creed itself, for in this way the PERSONAL UNITY of the eternal Son of God and the Man Jesus would be violated ... The mystery of the Person of Christ is superreasonable.

Below are extracts from the works of the Philosopher relating to the theme of Divine humanity. From "Self-Knowledge":

"... My religious and philosophical worldview can, of course, be interpreted as profound humanism, as the affirmation of eternal humanity in God. Humanity is inherent in the second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, this is the real grain of dogma. Man is a metaphysical being. This conviction cannot be shaken by baseness empirical man. I am characterized by the pathos of humanity. Although I am convinced and am becoming more and more convinced that humanity is not very characteristic of man. Now I often repeat: "God is human, man is inhuman." Faith in man, in humanity is faith in God and it requires illusions about a person "...

From "The Existential Dialectic of the Divine and the Human":

"The theme of God-manhood is the main theme of Christianity. I would prefer to say not God-manhood - an expression favored by Vl. Solovyov - but God-manhood. Christianity is anthropocentric. It proclaims the liberation of man from the power of cosmic forces and spirits. man, and in this it differs from abstract monotheism, Judaism and Islam, from Brahmanism. It must be resolutely said that Christianity is not a monistic and monarchical religion, it is a God-human and Trinitarian religion. But the vital dialectic between Divinity and humanity was so complex that the human was often humiliated in the history of Christianity. In the historical fate of God-manhood, the Divine swallowed up the human, then the human absorbed the Divine. The very dogma of the God-manhood of Jesus Christ expressed the mystery of God-manhood, the union of two natures without confusion and identity. That was a symbolic expression of the mystery. But the monarchical and monistic tendency is always with existed in Christian history and sometimes prevailed.

In my old book, The Meaning of Creativity, I said that a new anthropology, the Christology of man, should correspond to the Christological dogma. But only in the future it can be fully revealed. There was no real Christian anthropology yet. In patristics, St. Gregory of Nyssa, the most philosophical of the teachers of the Church, he tried to raise the dignity of man. But little was followed. Only Christianity teaches that God became man. The gulf between God and man must be bridged. The humanity of God is revealed, not only the Divine in man, but also the human in God. If we think through the humanity of Christ to the end, then we must admit that the Second Person of the Holy Trinity is the Pre-Eternal Man. And this mystery does not at all mean the assumption of identity between God and man, which would be tantamount to a rational denial of the mystery.

In the first centuries of Christianity, when dogmatic disputes were conducted and dogmatic formulas were developed in which they wanted to express the events of the spiritual world in symbols, a complex dialectic unfolded about the relationship between the Divine and the human. Both the emergence of heresies and the denunciation of heresies are connected with this topic. Arianism, Monophysitism, Nestorianism, Monothelitism - all these are heresies about God-humanity. The disputes were confined to the Christological problem, that is, the relationship of the two natures in Christ. But the problem itself is broader and deeper, it affects the relationship between the Divine and the human in general. Let the problem of Christology be resolved already in the first centuries and a formula for the correlation of the Divine and the human in Christ be found, beyond monism and dualism. But in our world epoch - speaking of the epoch of the Spirit - the question becomes different, for the question of man, which the patristic epoch did not yet know in such a form, becomes with unprecedented acuteness, and God-consciousness itself changes depending on the changes in human consciousness.

The new soul has come to know freedom—the quests and temptations of freedom, and slavery from freedom—in such sharpness, in such depth, that the former Christian souls did not know. The human soul has not improved, but it has become very complex and unfolded, and a different consciousness corresponds to this.

Man became less whole, more divided, and new disturbing questions confronted him. Catechisms do not answer these questions. In world culture, in literature and philosophy, people of the prophetic type appeared, such are Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Vl. Solovyov, L. Blois and others. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the scholastic theologians, cannot answer the topics they have raised. the prophetic fire has always been a regenerating force in a frozen, chilled spiritual life. Mysticism was another regenerating force.

For the topic of the relationship between the Divine and the human mystic is very difficult. A certain type of mystics tend towards monism, towards the recognition of one nature, towards the quenching of human nature in the Divine. Such is all Quietism. Jansenism is interesting for the dialectic of God-humanity. We meet the classical image of mystical monism in the religious philosophy of India. Such is the religious philosophy of Shankara, for whom our soul - Brahman, the One - is opposed to any origin and formation. Orobindo, the most remarkable modern philosopher of India, teaches that the idea that we are the authors of our actions must be abandoned - the universal acts through the personality. Impersonality is a condition for union with the Divine; it is necessary to achieve impersonality and indifference. The soul is a particle of the Divine.

Mysticism is often accused of inclining towards pantheism and this is often abused. This is due to a misunderstanding of the language of mysticism. But it must be said that when pantheism really exists, then it is not so much a heresy about God as a heresy about man, a diminution of the role of human freedom and human creativity. The fate of European humanism, its inner drama, poses an entirely new religious theme. This is the theme of God-humanity"...

Another extract from the same place:

“... A static understanding of God cannot be preserved. It is the Christian God, the God of the religion of crucified Truth, that can only be understood dynamically. but in such a way that the process taking place in the world is internally connected with what is happening in eternity, and not in time, with the process in God, that is, with the Divine drama. God would not need them for anything, they would be an accident, and thus would be deprived of any meaning. We must boldly recognize the need of God in man, and this need does not limit God at all, it would limit and humiliate His stony immobility and self-satisfaction. In God there is anguish according to the beloved, and this gives the highest meaning to the beloved.Faith in God is faith in the highest Truth, which rises above the untruth of the world.But this Truth requires the creative participation of man and the world, it is God-man eternal, ideal humanity operates in it"...

"... Genuine humanity is the God-like Divine in man. The Divine in man is not "supernatural" and is not a special act of grace, but there is a spiritual beginning in him, as a special reality. This is the paradox of the relationship between the human and the Divine. In order to resemble fully human, one must resemble God. In order to have a human image, one must have the image of God. Man himself is very little human, he is even inhuman. It is not man who is human, but God. It is God who demands humanity from man, while man not very demanding. In exactly the same way it is God who requires man to be free, and not man himself. Man himself loves slavery and easily puts up with slavery. Freedom is not a right of man, but a duty of man before God. The same must be said about humanity By realizing in himself the image of God, man realizes in himself the image of man, and by realizing in himself the image of man, he realizes in himself the image of God. the secret of human life. Humanity is God-humanity."

The philosopher talks about the relationship "between the Divine and the human in general", but does not touch on the personal mystery of Jesus Christ. Below are some more remarks on the text of the first dogma of Christianity.

"Our sake of salvation"... What is SALVATION? The Catechism explained this in a rationally negative sense: salvation is from what. Salvation from the consequences of the fall of Adam and Eve in the earthly paradise - salvation "from sin, damnation and death." But we know that there was no earthly paradise, that the curse of mutual eating, the struggle for existence, suffering, death were already on earth even before the appearance of man. And we see that even after the Appearance of Christ, nothing in this sense has changed on earth: all living things suffer, we are sinners, we are born in torment and we die… There was no return to earthly paradise. Yes, there is not a word about it in the Gospels. The true idea of ​​SALVATION has a positive, mysterious meaning. St. John Chrysostom said somewhere: "with Adam we lost paradise, with Christ we gained heaven"... SALVATION IS INVOLVEMENT TO THE DIVINE LIFE. "The love of God for us has been revealed in this, that God sent His only begotten son into the world, that we might receive life through Him" ​​(1 John, ch.4). Another apostle wrote that great and precious promises have been given to us in Christ, so that through them we "may become partakers of the divine nature" (1 Peter, ch. 1). How will it be, how will it be done? We do not know. "Beloved! We are now the children of God, but it has not yet been revealed what we will be; we only know that when it is revealed, we will be like Him, because we will see Him as He is" (1 John, ch.3). SALVATION IS A MYSTERY, about which the holy teachers surprisingly agreed expressed themselves in the sense that the “incarnation of God” has as its goal the “deification of man”…

Here is the last testimony of St. Simeon the New Theologian in this continuity:

"... What is the purpose of the incarnate dispensation of God the Word, which is preached in all Divine Scripture, but which, while reading this Scripture, we do not know? None other than that, to partake of what is ours. to make us partakers of what is His. The Son of God became the Son of Man in order to make us humans sons of God, raising our race by grace into what He Himself is by nature, giving birth to us from above by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and immediately leading us into the Kingdom of Heaven, or, better to say, granting us to have this heavenly Kingdom within us (Lk. XNUMX, 21), so that we, not only by the hope of penetrating into it, but having already been introduced into its possession, cry out: "our life is hidden with Christ in God" (Col. .III,3)…

This is how the holy teachers wrote, for whom SALVATION was already "destined" in their especially enlightened spiritual life. SALVATION does not fit in this existence, it is the aspiration of the future age, our destiny in the mysterious Eternity. We can only foresee SALVATION in the rarest moments of spiritual uplift, in the prayers and sacraments of the Church, as well as in the sacraments practical life when Christ is depicted among us.

"And Mary the Virgin"… Thanks be to God - I have already successfully recovered from the theme of Ever-Virginity, it seems to me insignificant. For many Christians, this is an inviolable Shrine. But I can fully understand others who, on the contrary, are very embarrassed, directly tempted by analogies in pagan myths and believe that it is impossible to make belief in a biological miracle an indispensable condition of Christianity. Indeed, this is a difficult and, it seems, an unnecessary obstacle on the path of faith for modern man. Referring to the conjecture of Rev. John of Damascus, our Catechism states that the birth of Christ was accomplished also "painlessly" ... How do they know this? In an effort to glorify the Mother of God, they free Her from maternal suffering! Former seminarians recall one blessed rector who just recently taught about the painless birth of Christ: "as the wind brought" ... The ancient heretics-docets (from the Greek "seem") would agree with this, who taught about the unreal, ghostly, " apparent "corporeality of Christ. By the way. it is against this heresy that the words of the Symbol are directed: "and she suffered, and she was buried." Christ suffered and died like us; nothing terrible if He were born in everything, like us. Blessed Jerome wrote about the Nativity of Christ:

"... Add, if you like, other natural troubles - a womb that swells for nine months, nausea, childbirth, blood, diapers. Imagine the Infant himself, wrapped in an ordinary cover of membranes. Attach a hard manger, the Infant's crying, circumcision on the eighth day, the time of cleansing, in order to show Him unclean. We do not blush, we do not keep silent. How much more humiliating is what he endured for me, so much more I am indebted to Him. And having exposed everything, you will not imagine anything more shameful than the Cross "...

("On the ever-virginity of Mary"). So, the complete naturalness of birth does not prevent us from honoring the Mother and the Child. This fundamental position today can be expanded. B. Pasternak wrote in his novel: "every conception is immaculate" - because the sacred ministry of Motherhood begins with it ... There are people who think otherwise - that any conception is EVIL, because it is associated with the satisfaction of bodily desire, and this is a SIN. Is not it? Then, after all, every eating of food, and the quenching of thirst, and even our very breathing - all this is a SIN? Yes, everything bodily is sinful: this was taught by the ancient heresies and "deviations" of Christianity, which secretly live in it today. But there is a church sacrament of marriage. There is the greatest secret of life - the secret of sex, and there are in it the possibilities of both a very evil and sinful, and a very good and even sacred content. And does the reverence that everyone feels for the sacred memory of HIS MOTHER - does it offend in any way from the consideration that our birth did not take place supernaturally? Looking from here at the theme of Ever-Virginity, we can confidently conclude that it has no essential, fundamental significance in the confession of Christianity. Anyone who is embarrassed - let him attribute this to the general problem of the "icon-painting" of our Gospels. None of this can prevent our free veneration of the Mother of Jesus Christ.

I am not able to adequately speak about the sacrament of Motherhood, about the holiness of maternal love: verily, there is something Divine in it. Christ spoke of His future Golgotha: "My hour" (according to John, ch.2,7,8,12,17); and about pregnancy and childbirth of women he said: "HER HOUR". “When a woman gives birth, she endures sorrow, because her hour has come; when she gives birth to a baby, she no longer remembers that sorrow - for joy, because a man was born into the world” ... (according to John, ch.16). But in the suffering and joy of birth, the service of Motherhood only begins. We venerate the Mother of God as "the CROWNING OF ALL MOTHERS"; this is Dante's expression:

... And I see a temple, and a confluence of people in it.

And the wife enters the temple and, like a crown

To all mothers, he meekly broadcasts: "Child!

What have you done to us? Here is your father

And I - with great sorrow in the midst of the city

You were looking for...

(The Divine Comedy, "Purgatory, XV, corresponds to the Gospel according to Luke, ch. 2). Other gospel evidence has also been preserved that it was not at all idyllic, but tragic Motherhood (according to Matthew, ch. 12, according to Mark, ch. 3, according to Luke, ch.8, ch.11).Even before Golgotha, the prophecy began to come true: weapons will pass soul "(according to Luke, ch. 2). Church poetry truly depicts how the Mother suffered and died with the Son on the Cross. "Alas! Alas for me, my child! Alas for Me, My Light and My beloved womb "... "My Light and My joy will go into the tomb: I will not leave Him alone, here I will die and bury Him" ​​... But in the triumph of the Resurrection - Mother is given the first place: "Rejoice now and be merry , Zion, You, Pure, make up, Mother of God, about the uprising of Your Nativity. "So the humble translators translated the Greek: about the uprising of Your Beloved, Your Child ... The Mother of God is not only personal, She is a cosmic Image. In Her Face, all mothers and everything " Matter", all Mankind and all Creation give birth to Christ. "Every creature rejoices in You, O God-given one"... In Dostoevsky:

"... And in the meantime, whisper to me, leaving the church, one of our old women, in repentance, we lived for the prophecy: "What is the Mother of God, what do you think? "Great Mother, - I answer. - The hope of the human race." - "So, he says, the Mother of God - the great mother of Cheese the Earth is, and great joy lies in this for a person. And every earthly longing and every earthly tear - there is joy for us; and how you fill the earth with your tears under you half an arshin deep then at once you will rejoice in everything" ...

("Demons", the speech of the Lame-foot). I cannot explain to myself the excitement with which every time I remember these amazing verses:

"Earth is the Mistress! I bowed my forehead to you,

And through your fragrant cover

I felt the flame of my native heart,

I heard the trembling of the life of the world."

(Vladimir Solovyov). Personal and cosmic images merge in our veneration of the Mother of God - and it is impossible to fully comprehend this. In Eastern Christianity, and especially in Catholicism, there are extremes that give reason to reproach us for the revival of the pagan cults of the Mother Goddess. It is not necessary to assume that in paganism it was very deep. For we know from experience that there is something truly divine in a mother's love.

"And the packs of the future" ... Prophecy of the New Testament. “And suddenly, after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven; and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" (according to Matthew, ch.24). "The day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night, and then the heavens will pass away with a noise, the elements, having flared up, will be destroyed, the earth and all the works on it will burn" II Epistle of Peter, ch.3). "However, the end of everything is near" (ibid., ch.4). The Second Coming of Christ, according to the gospel and apostolic predictions, will take place after a cosmic catastrophe - already outside our space and time. This means that the Second Coming cannot be interpreted in any terms of our visible world. Just as there was "nowhere" for Christ to "ascend" physically, so there is "nowhere" for Him to physically "come"... The Second Coming is a SYMBOL. This is a symbol of the Appearance of Christ in glory - A APPEARANCE FOR ALL, for all mankind, as opposed to the First Appearance, when He was revealed to so few. As it will be? We do not know.

"... Let's be frank: WE DO NOT KNOW what we are talking about when we talk about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ for judgment, about the Resurrection of the dead, about eternal life and eternal death. Scripture so often testifies that all this will be connected with a new deepest comprehension, - a vision, in comparison with which all our present vision will turn out to be blindness "... (Karl Barth). Will not this be accomplished in our "personal doomsday" - in personal DEATH? Then the sun will darken for each of us, and then all of us, together with everyone who lived before us and who will live after us on earth, will stand before the Lord in Mysterious Eternity.

The first dogma of Christianity ended with the words: "And in the Holy Spirit." Behind this remarkably brief confession lay the reality of the spiritual experience of the ancient Church. In the action of the Holy Spirit lies the mystery of early Christianity. no matter how great was the charm of the Person of Christ, no matter how convincing the Apparitions of His Resurrection were for the unbelievers, - all this could have an impact only on a handful of eyewitnesses and after their death should soon be forgotten ... What Power inspired Christian communities, martyrs, preachers, - all this Movement that has grown into a worldwide Church?

Christ promised to send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit (according to John, ch.14,15,16), and after the Resurrection he commanded to baptize all nations in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (according to Matthew, ch.28). Starting with the appearance of fiery tongues on the day of Pentecost, the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostles tells about the actions of the grace of the Holy Spirit. "And, at their prayer, the place where they were gathered was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness" (chapter 4). There are many such texts. The Apostolic Council decreed the abolition of circumcision: "Be pleased with the Holy Spirit and us" (Ch. 15). The Apostle Paul said in his farewell speech that the Holy Spirit appointed the elders of the Church (chapter 20). And in the epistles of the apostles the Holy Spirit is always referred to as the highest, Divine Reality." "... Because you did not accept the spirit of Slavery in order to live in fear again, but you accepted the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry: Abba, Father! This very Spirit bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God…. Likewise, the Spirit strengthens us in our weaknesses; for we do not know what to pray for, as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings that cannot be expressed" (Romans, ch. 8). "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit are with you all" ( to Corinthians II, ch.12) "For God gave us the Spirit not of fear, but of power and love and chastity" (to Timothy II, ch.1).The Holy Spirit is the Third Divine Reality in the mystical experience of the Church.

The confession about the Holy Spirit was brief at first, but it soon proved to be insufficient:

"... Between people who are disposed to recognize the Son as an unconditional, essential likeness to the Father and even to accept the term "consubstantial" in relation to the first two Persons of the Holy Trinity, there were those who refused to extend this concept to the Holy Spirit. Little by little the dispute turned in this direction , and the positions were determined" (abbot L. Duchen, op. cit., p. 248). At the end of the 1st century, the Creed was supplemented by a more lengthy statement about the Holy Spirit, which is erroneously (quoted op. p. 297) attributed to the Council of Constantinople in 381:

... And in the Holy Spirit,

the Lord of Life,

Who comes from the Father,

Together with the Father and the Son

Worshiped and glorified

Speaking through the prophets.

Later in the West, this dogma took shape with one insignificant addition: "Who is from the Father and the Son (Filioque) proceeding." It is strange for us now to hear that because of this one word "FILIOKVE" the so-called "separation of the churches" took place, thousands of years of disputes between the church wise men of the East and West followed, many books were written ... An interesting impression of an inexperienced observer already in the 19th century - an entry in the "Diary" Russian official A. V. Nikitenko:

"... 23.X.1875. Meeting at the Society for Christian Enlightenment ... Osinin read in the report on the Bonn Conference of the Old Catholics, where he was among our delegates. It was about the union of our church with the Old Catholic. The main issue that made this connection difficult was the Holy Spirit "The debate that took place on this subject is extremely curious. The fact is that no one knows anything about the Holy Spirit, and whether He proceeds from the Father or from the Father and the Son. It is strange to see that people seem serious, they catch the air with importance with their hands and they think they have something in them"...

This image of catching air also correctly characterizes other "dogmatic" disputes, when scholasticism tries to replace religious experience with itself. The Holy Spirit is the most Mysterious in Christianity... It seems that no one has yet explained the meaning of the gospel symbolization of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descending on Christ (according to Matthew, ch.3, according to Mark, ch.1, according to Luke, ch.3, according to John , Ch.1). Here it is also appropriate to note that in the liturgical, prayerful experience of the ancient Church there is no "Person" of the Holy Spirit. According to the Gospels, Christ never prayed to the Holy Spirit. And the apostles did not pray to the Holy Spirit; according to Acts, they prayed to GOD - and received the grace of the Holy Spirit. In the prayers of the Eucharist, even at that moment, which is called "the invocation of the Holy Spirit", there is no personal appeal to Him. Even the church feast of the Holy Spirit - neither in the troparion, nor in the kontakion, nor in the magnificence, nor in the three prayers of vespers, is there a personal appeal to him. Our current prayer "O Heavenly King" (as well as the personal prayers of St. Simeon the New Theologian that are not used in the Church) is of later origin. In the ancient church, it would have sounded something like this: Heavenly King, send us the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth... And now we pray: "Come" - as if in the third person: YES HE COMES.

The rest of our Symbol repeats the texts of even more ancient "baptismal" symbols:

… into one

cathedral and apostolic

At first, everything was so simple: there was one Church and there was an entrance to the Church - one Baptism. But at the end of the 4th century, when a common Creed took shape, external church unity was already supported by the forcible concerns of state power. In the 11th century, the "separation of the churches" of the East and the West was completed, and in the 16th century the "separation" of the Western Church also followed (not to mention the many later minor "separations"). And so, for a thousand years now we have not had the outward unity of the Church of Christ on earth. Our Catechism does not recognize this truth, it asserts that there is one Church - that it is supposedly the only "Eastern Church". The Catechism contains an unworthy frivolous praise of the "Eastern Church" even for some reason and simply in geographical terms: in the East there was an earthly paradise, in the East Christ appeared ... In the same spirit of pride, Archpriest Fr. Sergei Bulgakov wrote that "not the entire human race is included in the Church, but only the elect, and not even all Christians fully belong to the true Church, but only the Orthodox" ("Orthodoxy", p. 43); and further: "The Church is one, and therefore unique," and this "is Orthodoxy" (p. 203). On the attitude of "Orthodoxy" to other Christian confessions: "it can strive only for one thing - to justify the entire Christian world" (p. 291) ... The Christian world consists of many "separate" churches, equally confessing in Christ true Son of God, who equally call Him their spiritual Head. A monstrous image: a single Head - and many bodies, alien, and even completely hostile to each other ... What a shame for Christianity!

However, even in the last century, the author of the Catechism, Metropolitan Filaret, admitted: "I dare not call any Church that believes that Jesus is the Christ false." Known catchphrase Metropolitan Platon (Gorodetsky), said in a speech when visiting the church: "Our partitions do not reach the sky." AT recent times many pleasant declarations have been made on all sides about the striving for all-Christian unity. But the difficulties of organizational "unification of churches" are insurmountable. After all, the Catholics will never renounce the principle of papal primacy in world Christianity, and the rest of the Christians of East and West will never agree to this. And Protestants of all directions will never give up the principles of the Reformation... Where is the way out?

"The unity of the Church is not created, it is discovered" (Karl Barth). Here is a real "project for the unification of churches": to recognize that the Church is not divided, that all of us, Christians, are members of the one Church of Christ. "Is Christ divided?" (to Corinthians 1, ch.1). Dogma speaks of one Church and one Baptism. And it is true: if a Catholic or a Protestant wishes to "join" the Russian Church, then their Baptism in Catholicism or Protestantism is recognized as valid, and thus in fact it is recognized that every BAPTIZED (significantly this expression of our people) already belongs to the one Church of Christ. "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism" (to the Corinthians, ch.4). All of us Christians have one Lord and one Baptism; in the essential, faith is also one, but trifles, conventions, as well as human sins prevent us from recognizing this unity. Are Catholics deluded about the universal authority of the Bishop of Rome? But this is essentially not even a question of faith, but of practice, and this practice in some respects proves to be very useful. Protestants terribly impoverish themselves by refusing prayerful communion with saints, refusing to commemorate the dead: such was the trauma they received from Catholic perversions; but this is also a practice, a matter of their religious experience, and there is nothing about this in the Creed. Do they teach about the Eucharist differently, in their own way? But "the doctrine of the Eucharist has never been the subject of consideration by the highest authoritative body of the Church" ("Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy", 1965, No. 5, p. 79). And in general, these eternal disputes about the Eucharist, as someone said, are similar to the debate of idlers on the topic of who dine better ... Is there any external "uniformity" in the traditions of the cult? But even Blessed Augustine wrote somewhere that the Church of Christ is DECORATED BY VARIETY. And, to tell the truth, we have a lot to learn by visiting the churches of "non-Orthodox" Christians. Chekhov did not quite joke that "when you stand in a church and listen to the organ, you want to accept Catholicism" (letter from Italy). "I love the Lutheran service" ... (Tyutchev). It has long been said that there is no dispute about tastes. If we talk about explicitly weaknesses and defects of "non-Orthodox" rites - then we have no less such phenomena ... No, no - no delusions and old habits will prevent me from realizing that all Christians actually belong to the one Church of Christ.

This consciousness is growing and expanding among us. And we are already so late with this!.. For now the problem of the Church, one might say, goes beyond the limits of the Creed. Blessed Jerome wrote on some occasion: "Christ is not so poor as to have the Church only in Sardinia." Now we must say: Christ is not so poor as to have the Church only in us, "baptized" so unworthy of our Baptism. "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; and whoever does not believe will be condemned" (according to Mark, ch.16, later addition). No, we have already grown out of this isolation of primitive Christianity. And even then the apostle wrote: “... We trust in the Living God, Who is the Savior of all people, especially the faithful (to Timothy 1, ch. great progress. In S. Markevich's pamphlet "The Secret Ailments of Catholicism", M. 1967, p. 73 et seq. mentions the German theologian Karl Rahner, who

"introduced the concept of" anonymous Christians ". These are people who, although they do not believe in Jesus Christ and do not adhere to the principles proclaimed by the Church, are often better Catholics in their behavior than those who are listed as such by the metric. It is characteristic that, like John XXIII, so did Cardinals Depfner and König defend Rahner against the criticism of the Integrists.

The Church is THE BODY OF CHRIST. This apostolic symbol does not coincide with the "ecclesiastical" boundaries of the Church. The dogma about the Church has long since become a problem. You can't think that Eternal Man- only with us, in our church provinces. "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me." Everything that is best in universal humanity, everything truly spiritual, directed towards God, belongs to Christ. There can be no human holiness outside of the Holy Spirit, outside of Christ. All people of good will, believers and non-believers in the divinity of Christ, belong to Christ. They partake of him in the sacraments of a conscientious life, enter into the mystical BODY OF CHRIST. "Where the love of God is, there is Jesus Christ; and where Jesus Christ is, there is the Church with Him" ​​(Lacordaire). Today we can talk about "anonymous Christians", about the "Church of good will". This idea is a valuable acquisition in the modern crisis of church teaching; this paradox of Christian thought must be accepted. Some analogy can be seen in how the living cells of the human body may not know the head of a person, the whole person ... Let's pay tribute to church organizations - their saving sacraments, ancient rites, spiritual guidance. And yet the Church of Christ is not just the sum of provincial Christian churches. The big question is whether they will ever achieve formal unity. Even more doubtful, in all likelihood, the unification of all religions is impossible at all. But there is a third unity that exists in reality, today. This is not a unification of beliefs, but an incomparably deeper and more essential UNITY OF SPIRIT. Once the disciples of Christ confessed the greatest faith, but received a reproach from the Teacher: "YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPIRIT YOU ARE" (according to Luke, ch. 9). And for us now it is not the formal unity of beliefs that is essential, but WHAT SPIRIT WE ARE. There is the Spirit of mercy, truth, freedom - this is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ. And there is a spirit of hatred, lies, violence - this is the spirit of the Devil. According to these signs, everything in our world is divided: this is the real border of the Church of Christ.

Dogmas The depth of dogmas is inexhaustible, and it is dangerous to touch it, especially to those who are subject to any kind of passion. Who can affirm the dogmas of the Holy Trinity and theologize? )