Views of Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is not Christianity

In 1054, it became widespread mainly in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Features of Orthodoxy

The formation of religious organizations is closely related to social and political life society. Christianity is no exception, which is especially evident in the differences between its main directions - and Orthodoxy. At the beginning of the 5th century. The Roman Empire split into Eastern and Western. The Eastern was a single state, while the Western was a fragmented conglomerate of principalities. In conditions of strong centralization of power in Byzantium, the church immediately turned out to be an appendage of the state, and the emperor actually became its head. The stagnation of the social life of Byzantium and the control of the church by the despotic state determined the conservatism of the Orthodox Church in dogma and ritual, as well as a tendency towards mysticism and irrationalism in its ideology. In the West, the church gradually took center stage and became an organization seeking dominance in all spheres of society, including politics.

Difference between Eastern and Western was also due to developmental characteristics. Greek Christianity focused its attention on ontological, philosophical problems, Western - on political and legal.

Since the Orthodox Church was under the protection of the state, its history is connected not so much with external events as with the formation of religious doctrine. The basis of Orthodox dogma is the Holy Scripture (the Bible - the Old and New Testaments) and the Holy Tradition (decrees of the first seven Ecumenical and local councils, the works of the church fathers and canonical theologians). At the first two Ecumenical Councils - Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) the so-called Symbol of faith, briefly outlining the essence of Christian doctrine. It recognizes the trinity of God - the creator and ruler of the Universe, the existence the afterlife, posthumous retribution, the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ, who opened the possibility for the salvation of humanity, which bears the stamp of original sin.

Fundamentals of Orthodoxy

The Orthodox Church declares the fundamental provisions of faith to be absolutely true, eternal and unchangeable, communicated to man by God himself and incomprehensible to reason. Keeping them intact is the primary responsibility of the church. It is impossible to add anything or remove any provisions, therefore, the later dogmas established by the Catholic Church are about the descent of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son (filioque), about the immaculate conception of not only Christ, but also the Virgin Mary, about the infallibility of the Pope, about purgatory - Orthodoxy regards it as heresy.

Personal salvation of believers is made dependent on the zealous fulfillment of the rituals and instructions of the church, due to which there is an introduction to Divine grace transmitted to man through the sacraments: baptism in infancy, confirmation, communion, repentance (confession), marriage, priesthood, unction (unction). The sacraments are accompanied by rituals, which, together with divine services, prayers and religious holidays form a religious cult of Christianity. Orthodoxy attaches great importance to holidays and fasting.

Orthodoxy teaches observance of moral commandments, given to man by God through the prophet Moses, as well as the fulfillment of the covenants and sermons of Jesus Christ set out in the Gospels. Their main content is adherence to universal human standards of living and love for one’s neighbor, manifestations of mercy and compassion, as well as refusal to resist evil through violence. Orthodoxy places emphasis on the uncomplaining enduring of suffering, sent by God to test the strength of faith and cleansing from sin, on special veneration of sufferers - the blessed, the beggars, holy fools, hermits and hermits. In Orthodoxy, only monks and the highest ranks of clergy take a vow of celibacy.

Organization of the Orthodox Church

Georgian Orthodox Church. Christianity began to spread in Georgia in the first centuries AD. Received autocephaly in the 8th century. In 1811, Georgia became part of the Russian Empire, and the church became part of the Russian Orthodox Church as an exarchate. In 1917, at the meeting of Georgian priests, a decision was made to restore autocephaly, which remained in effect even during Soviet power. The Russian Orthodox Church recognized autocephaly only in 1943.

The head of the Georgian Church bears the title Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia, Archbishop of Mtskheta and Tbilisi with residence in Tbilisi.

Serbian Orthodox Church. Autocephaly was recognized in 1219. The head of the church bears the title Archbishop of Pecs, Metropolitan of Belgrade-Karlovakia, Patriarch of Serbia with residence in Belgrade.

Romanian Orthodox Church. Christianity penetrated into the territory of Romania in the 2nd-3rd centuries. AD In 1865, the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church was proclaimed, but without the consent of the Church of Constantinople; in 1885 such consent was obtained. The head of the church bears the title Archbishop of Bucharest, Metropolitan of Ungro-Vlahia, Patriarch of Romania Orthodox Church with residence in Bucharest.

Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Christianity appeared on the territory of Bulgaria in the first centuries of our era. In 870 the Bulgarian Church received autonomy. The status of the church has changed over the centuries depending on the political situation. The autocephaly of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was recognized by Constantinople only in 1953, and the patriarchate only in 1961.

The head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church bears the title Metropolitan of Sofia, Patriarch of All Bulgaria with residence in Sofia.

Cypriot Orthodox Church. The first Christian communities on the island were founded at the beginning of our era by St. the apostles Paul and Barnabas. Widespread Christianization of the population began in the 5th century. Autocephaly was recognized at the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus.

The head of the Church of Cyprus bears the title Archbishop of New Justiniana and all Cyprus, his residence is in Nicosia.

E.yada (Greek) Orthodox Church. According to legends, Christian faith was brought by the Apostle Paul, who founded and established Christian communities in a number of cities, and St. John the Theologian wrote Revelation on the island of Patmos. The autocephaly of the Greek Church was recognized in 1850. In 1924, it switched to the Gregorian calendar, which caused a schism. The head of the church bears the title Archbishop of Athens and all of Greece with his residence in Athens.

Athens Orthodox Church. Autocephaly was recognized in 1937. However, due to political reasons, contradictions arose, and the final position of the church was determined only in 1998. The head of the church bears the title of Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania with his residence in Tirana. The peculiarities of this church include the election of the clergy with the participation of the laity. The service is performed in Albanian and Greek.

Polish Orthodox Church. Orthodox dioceses have existed in Poland since the 13th century. However, for a long time they were under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. After Poland gained independence, they left the subordination of the Russian Orthodox Church and formed the Polish Orthodox Church, which in 1925 was recognized as autocephalous. Russia accepted the autocephaly of the Polish Church only in 1948.

Divine services are conducted in Church Slavonic. However, in Lately increasingly used Polish language. The head of the Polish Orthodox Church bears the title of Metropolitan of Warsaw and all Wormwood with his residence in Warsaw.

Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church. The mass baptism of the people on the territory of modern Czech Republic and Slovakia began in the second half of the 9th century, when the Slavic enlighteners Cyril and Methodius arrived in Moravia. For a long time, these lands were under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. Orthodoxy was preserved only in Eastern Slovakia. After the formation of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918, an Orthodox community was organized. Further development events led to division within the Orthodoxy of the country. In 1951, the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church asked the Russian Orthodox Church to accept it under its jurisdiction. In November 1951, the Russian Orthodox Church granted it autocephaly, which the Church of Constantinople approved only in 1998. After the division of Czechoslovakia into two independent states, the church formed two metropolitan provinces. The head of the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church bears the title Metropolitan of Prague and Archbishop of the Czech and Slovak Republics with residence in Prague.

American Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy came to America from Alaska, where late XVIII V. The Orthodox community began to operate. In 1924, a diocese was formed. After the sale of Alaska to the United States, Orthodox churches and land remains the property of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1905, the center of the diocese was transferred to New York, and its head Tikhon Belavin elevated to the rank of archbishop. In 1906, he raised the question of the possibility of autocephaly for the American Church, but in 1907 Tikhon was recalled, and the issue remained unresolved.

In 1970, the Moscow Patriarchate gave autocephalous status to the metropolis, which was called the Orthodox Church in America. The head of the church has the title Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada with residence in Syosset, near New York.

Orthodoxy(Greek ὀρθοδοξία (orthodoxy) - correct judgment, correct teaching, correct glorification (from Greek ὀρθός - straight, standing straight, correct, + δοκέω - think) – 1) true religious teaching about, about His creation and His relationship to it creation, about vocation and destiny, about the ways of achievement by man, given through the Lord, revealed to man through, constantly abiding in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Christ; 2) the only true direction.

“Orthodoxy is true and reverence for God; Orthodoxy is the worship of God in Spirit and Truth; Orthodoxy is the glorification of God by true knowledge of Him and worship of Him; Orthodoxy is God’s glorification of man, a true servant of God, by bestowing upon him grace. The Spirit is the glory of Christians (). Where there is no Spirit, there is no Orthodoxy" (St.

The concept of Orthodoxy includes three interconnected parts.
Firstly, the word Orthodoxy has a doctrinal meaning. By Orthodoxy we must understand pure, holistic and undistorted Christian teaching, revealed in church churches. In a dogmatic sense, Orthodox teaching opposes all heresies as distortions of Christianity and reflects the fullness of knowledge of God accessible to the human race. In this meaning, the term Orthodoxy is found already in the writings of apologists of the 2nd century (in particular,).
Secondly, the word Orthodoxy has an ecclesiastical or ecclesiological meaning. By Orthodoxy we must understand the community of Christian local Churches that have communion with each other.
Third, the word Orthodoxy has a mystical meaning. By Orthodoxy we must understand the Christian spiritual practice (experience) of knowledge of God through the acquisition of the Divine Holy Spirit, which saves and transforms (deifies) man.

All three meanings of Orthodoxy are interconnected and one cannot be imagined without the other. Orthodox doctrine has its source and is taught in the Church of Christ. Orthodoxy presents one dogmatic doctrine based on one mystical experience. Orthodox mystical experience is expressed in the doctrine preserved by the Church.

The word Orthodoxy is a translation of the Greek word Orthodoxy. This word consists of two parts. The first part of Ortho (Ortho) translated from Greek means “straight”, “correct”. The second part of doxa (doxa) translated from Greek means “knowledge”, “judgment”, “opinion”, as well as “radiance”, “glory”, “honor”. These meanings complement each other, for correct opinion in religion presupposes correct glorification of God, and, as a consequence, participation in His glory. In the latter sense ("glory"), the word doxa occurs most often in the New Testament. For example, the Savior “received glory from God the Father (Greek. d oxa) and honor" (), was "crowned with glory (Greek. d oxa) and honor through suffering death" (), coming "on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Greek doxa)" (), a Christian must be transformed "into the same image from glory (Greek doxa) to glory" () , “for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory (Greek doxa) forever” (). Therefore the word Orthodoxy translated as Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy is not Christianity. How historical myths appeared

The Greek-Catholic Orthodox (Right Faithful) Church (now the Russian Orthodox Church) began to be called Orthodox Slavic only on September 8, 1943 (approved by Stalin’s decree in 1945). What then was called Orthodoxy for several millennia?

“In our time, in modern Russian vernacular in official, scientific and religious designation, the term “Orthodoxy” is applied to anything related to the ethnocultural tradition and it is necessarily associated with the Russian Orthodox Church and Christian religion (Judeo-Christian religion – ed.).

To a simple question: “What is Orthodoxy,” any modern person, without hesitation, will answer that Orthodoxy is the Christian faith that Kievan Rus adopted during the reign of Prince Vladimir the Red Sun from the Byzantine Empire in 988 AD. And that Orthodoxy, i.e. The Christian faith has existed on Russian soil for more than a thousand years. Historical scientists and Christian theologians, in support of their words, declare that the earliest use of the word Orthodoxy on the territory of Rus' is recorded in the “Sermon on Law and Grace” of the 1037-1050s of Metropolitan Hilarion.

But was it really so?

We advise you to carefully read the preamble to the federal law on freedom of conscience and religious associations, adopted on September 26, 1997. Note the following points in the preamble: “Recognizing the special role Orthodoxy in Russia...and further respecting Christianity , Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and other religions..."

Thus, the concepts of Orthodoxy and Christianity are not identical and carry within them absolutely different concepts and meanings.

Orthodoxy. How historical myths appeared

It is worth thinking about who participated in the seven councils of Christian ( Judeo-Christian - ed.) churches? Orthodox holy fathers or still Orthodox holy fathers, as indicated in the original Word on Law and Grace? Who and when made the decision to replace one concept with another? And was there ever any mention of Orthodoxy in the past?

The answer to this question was given by the Byzantine monk Belisarius in 532 AD. Long before the baptism of Rus', this is what he wrote in his Chronicles about the Slavs and their ritual of visiting the bathhouse: “Orthodox Slovenians and Rusyns - wild people, and their life is wild and godless, men and girls locking themselves together in a hot, heated hut and exhausting their bodies...”

We will not pay attention to the fact that for the monk Belisarius the usual visit to the bathhouse by the Slavs seemed something wild and incomprehensible; this is quite natural. Something else is important for us. Pay attention to how he called the Slavs: Orthodox Slovenians and Rusyns.

For this one phrase alone we must express our gratitude to him. Since with this phrase the Byzantine monk Belisarius confirms that the Slavs were Orthodox for many hundreds ( thousands – ed.) years before their conversion to Christianity ( Judeo-Christian – ed..) faith.

The Slavs were called Orthodox because they RIGHT was praised.

What is "RIGHT"?

Our ancestors believed that reality, the cosmos, is divided into three levels. And it's also very similar to Indian system divisions: Upper world, Middle world and the Lower World.

In Rus' these three levels were called:

>The highest level is the level of Government orEdit.

>Second, average level, ThisReality.

>And the lowest level isNav. Nav or Non-reality, unmanifested.

>Peace Ruleis a world where everything is right orideal higher world.This is a world where ideal beings with higher consciousness live.

> Reality- this is ours, the manifest, obvious world, the world of people.

>And peace Navi or do not appear, the unmanifest is the negative, unmanifested or lower or posthumous world.

The Indian Vedas also speak of the existence of three worlds:

>The upper world is a world where energy dominates goodness.

>The middle world is covered passion.

>The lower world is immersed in ignorance

Christians do not have such a division. The Bible is silent about this.

Such a similar understanding of the world gives similar motivation in life, i.e. it is necessary to strive for the world of Rule or Goodness. And in order to get into the world of Rule, you need to do everything correctly, i.e. according to God's law.

Words such as “truth” come from the root “rule.” Is it true- what gives the right. “Yes” is “to give,” and “rule” is “highest.” So, “truth” is what gives the truth. Control. Correction. Government. Right Not right. Those. The roots of all these words are this “right”. “Right” or “rule”, i.e. highest beginning. Those. The point is that real management should be based on the concept of Rule or a higher reality. And real governance should spiritually elevate those who follow the ruler, leading his wards along the paths of rule.

>Details in the article:Philosophical and cultural similarities of Ancient Rus' and Ancient India" .

Substitution of the name "Orthodoxy" is not "Orthodoxy"

The question is, who and when on Russian soil decided to replace the terms orthodoxy with Orthodoxy?

This happened in the 17th century, when Moscow Patriarch Nikon instituted church reform. The main goal of this reform by Nikon was not to change the rituals of the Christian Church, as it is interpreted now, where everything supposedly comes down to replacing the two-fingered sign of the cross with a three-fingered one and walking the procession in the other direction. The main goal of the reform was the destruction of dual faith on Russian soil.

Nowadays, few people know that before the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in Muscovy, dual faith existed on Russian lands. In other words, the common people professed not only orthodoxy, i.e. Greek Rite Christianity, which came from Byzantium, but also the old pre-Christian faith of their ancestors ORTHODOXY. This was what most worried Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov and his spiritual mentor, Christian Patriarch Nikon, for the Orthodox Old Believers lived by their own principles and did not recognize any authority over themselves.

Patriarch Nikon decided to put an end to dual faith in a very original way. To do this, under the guise of reform in the church, allegedly due to the discrepancy between the Greek and Slavic texts, he ordered all liturgical books to be rewritten, replacing the phrases “orthodox Christian faith” with “ Orthodox faith Christian." In the Chetiy Menaia that have survived to this day, we can see the old version of the entry “Orthodox Christian Faith.” This was Nikon’s very interesting approach to the matter of reform.

Firstly, there was no need to rewrite many ancient Slavic, as they called then, charati books, or chronicles, which described the victories and achievements of pre-Christian Orthodoxy.

Secondly, life during the times of dual faith and the very original meaning of Orthodoxy were erased from the memory of the people, because after such a church reform, any text from liturgical books or ancient chronicles could be interpreted as the beneficial influence of Christianity on Russian lands. In addition, the Patriarch sent out a reminder to Moscow churches about the use of the three-finger sign of the cross instead of the two-finger sign.

Thus began the reform, as well as the protest against it, which led to a church schism. A protest against Nikon's church reforms was organized former comrades patriarch archpriests Avvakum Petrov and Ivan Neronov. They pointed out to the patriarch the arbitrariness of his actions, and then in 1654 he organized a Council at which, as a result of pressure on the participants, he sought to carry out a book review of ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts. However, for Nikon, the comparison was not with the old rituals, but with the modern Greek practice of that time. All the actions of Patriarch Nikon led to the fact that the church split into two warring parts.

Supporters of the old traditions accused Nikon of a trilingual heresy and indulgence in paganism, as Christians called Orthodoxy, that is, the old pre-Christian faith. The split spread throughout the country. This led to the fact that in 1667 a large Moscow council condemned and deposed Nikon, and anathematized all opponents of the reforms. Since then, adherents of new liturgical traditions began to be called Nikonians, and adherents of old rituals and traditions began to be called schismatics and persecuted. The confrontation between the Nikonians and the schismatics at times led to armed clashes until the tsarist troops took the side of the Nikonians. In order to avoid a large-scale religious war, part of the highest clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate condemned some provisions of Nikon’s reforms.

The term Orthodoxy began to be used again in liturgical practices and government documents. For example, let us turn to the spiritual regulations of Peter the Great: “...And as a Christian Sovereign, he is the guardian of orthodoxy and all piety in the Holy Church...”

As we see, even in the 18th century, Peter the Great was called the Christian sovereign, the guardian of Orthodoxy and piety. But there is not a word about Orthodoxy in this document. It is not in the editions of the Spiritual Regulations of 1776-1856.

Education of the Russian Orthodox Church

Based on this, the question arises: when did the term Orthodoxy begin to be officially used by the Christian Church?

The fact is that in the Russian Empire did not have Russian Orthodox Church. The Christian Church existed under a different name - “Russian Greek Catholic Church”. Or as it was also called “Russian Orthodox Church of the Greek Rite”.

Christian church called The Russian Orthodox Church appeared during the reign of the Bolsheviks.

At the beginning of 1945, by order of Joseph Stalin, a local council of the Russian church was held in Moscow under the leadership of responsible persons from the State Security of the USSR and a new Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' was elected.

It should be mentioned that many Christian priests, those who did not recognize the power of the Bolsheviks left Russia and beyond its borders they continue to profess Christianity of the Eastern Rite and call their church nothing more than Russian Orthodox Church or Russian Orthodox Church.

In order to finally move away from well crafted historical myth and to find out what the word Orthodoxy really meant in ancient times, let us turn to those people who still keep the old faith of their ancestors.

Having received their education in Soviet times, these pundits either do not know or carefully try to hide from ordinary people, that even in ancient times, long before the birth of Christianity, Orthodoxy existed in the Slavic lands. It covered not only the basic concept when our wise ancestors glorified the Rule. And the deep essence of Orthodoxy was much larger and more voluminous than it seems today.

The figurative meaning of this word also included the concept of when our ancestors The right was praised. But it was not Roman law or Greek law, but ours, our native Slavic law.

It included:

>Clan Law, based on the ancient cultural traditions, laws and foundations of the Family;

>Communal law, creating mutual understanding between various Slavic clans living together in one small settlement;

>Copper law that regulated the interaction between communities living in large settlements, which were cities;

>Vese law, which determined the relationships between communities living in different cities and settlements within the same Vesi, i.e. within one area of ​​settlement and residence;

>Veche law, which was adopted at a general gathering of all the people and was observed by all clans of the Slavic community.

Any Right from the Tribal to the Veche was established on the basis of the ancient Laws, the culture and foundations of the Family, as well as on the basis of the commandments of the ancient Slavic gods and the instructions of the ancestors. This was our native Slavic Right.

Our wise ancestors commanded to preserve it, and we preserve it. Since ancient times, our ancestors glorified the Rule and we continue to glorify the Rule, and we preserve our Slavic Right and pass it on from generation to generation.

Therefore, we and our ancestors were, are and will be Orthodox.

Substitution on Wikipedia

Modern interpretation of the term ORTHODOX = Orthodox, appeared on Wikipedia only after this resource switched to funding from the UK government. In fact, Orthodoxy is translated as rightVerie, Orthodox is translated as orthodox.

Either, Wikipedia, continuing the idea of ​​​​the “identity” Orthodoxy = Orthodoxy, should call Muslims and Jews Orthodox (for the terms Orthodox Muslim or Orthodox Jew are found throughout world literature) or still admit that Orthodoxy = Orthodoxy and in no way relates to Orthodoxy, as well as the Christian Church of the Eastern Rite, called the Russian Orthodox Church since 1945.

Orthodoxy is not a religion, not Christianity, but a faith

Any Indian follower Vedanta knows that his religion, together with the Aryans, came from Rus'. And modern Russian is their ancient Sanskrit. It’s just that in India it changed to Hindi, but in Russia it remained the same. Therefore, Indian Vedism is not fully Russian Vedism.

Russian nicknames of gods Vyshen (Rod) And Kryshen (Yar, Christ) became the names of Indian gods Vishnu And Krishna. The Encyclopedia is cunningly silent about this.

Witchcraft is an everyday understanding of Russian Vedism, including elementary skills of magic and mysticism. "Fighting the Witches" in Western Europe in the XV-XVI centuries. was a struggle with Slavic women who prayed to the Vedic gods.

The Russian god corresponds to the Christian God the Father Genus, but not at all Jehovah-Yahweh-Sabaoth, who among the Masons is the god of darkness and death of Rus' Mary. Myself Jesus Christ on many Christian icons is designated as Yar and his mother Maria- How Mara.

The word "devil" has the same root as Virgo. This is the prince of darkness, Masonic hosts, which is otherwise called Satan. There are also no “servants of God” in the Vedic religion. And only the desire of the West to belittle Russian Vedism and force Russians to abandon their gods, in which Russians believed for hundreds of thousands of years, led to the fact that Russian Christianity became more and more pro-Western, and the followers of Russian Vedism began to be considered “servants of the devil.” In other words, in the West they turned all Russian concepts inside out.

After all, the concept "Orthodoxy" originally belonged to Russian Vedism and meant: "The Rule was Praised".

Therefore, early Christianity began to call itself "true believers", however this term was then transferred to Islam. As you know, Christianity has the epithet “Orthodox” only in Russian; on the rest it calls itself “orthodox,” that is, “orthodox.”

In other words, modern Christianity has secretly appropriated the Vedic name, which is deeply rooted in the Russian consciousness.

The functions of Veles, to a much greater extent than Saint Blaise, were inherited by Saint Nicholas of Myra, nicknamed Nicholas the Wonderworker. (See the result of the study published in the book: Uspensky B.A.. Philological research in the field of Slavic antiquities.. - M.: Moscow State University, 1982 .)

By the way, on many of his icons it is written in implicit letters: MARY LIK. Hence the original name of the area in honor of the face of Mary: Marlykian. So in fact this bishop was Nicholas of Marlikiy. And his city, which was originally called “ Mary"(that is, the city of Mary), is now called Bari. There was a phonetic replacement of sounds.

Bishop Nicholas of Myra - Nicholas the Wonderworker

However, now Christians do not remember these details, hushing up the Vedic roots of Christianity. For now Jesus in Christianity is interpreted as the God of Israel, although Judaism does not consider him a god. But Christianity says nothing about the fact that Jesus Christ, as well as his apostles, are different faces of Yar, although this is read on many icons. The name of the god Yara is also read on Shroud of Turin .

At one time, Vedism reacted very calmly and brotherly to Christianity, seeing in it simply a local outgrowth of Vedism, for which there is a name: paganism (that is, an ethnic variety), like Greek paganism with another name Yara - Ares, or Roman, with with the name Yara - Mars, or with the Egyptian, where the name Yar or Ar was read in the opposite direction, Ra. In Christianity, Yar became Christ, and Vedic temples made icons and crosses of Christ.

And only over time, under the influence of political, or rather geopolitical reasons, Christianity was opposed to Vedism, and then Christianity saw manifestations of “paganism” everywhere and waged a struggle with it not to the stomach, but to the death. In other words, he betrayed his parents, his heavenly patrons, and began to preach humility and submission.

>Details in the article:V.A. Chudinov - Proper education .

Secret writing on Russian and modern Christian icons

Thus Christianity within ALL Rus' was adopted not in 988, but in the interval between 1630 and 1635.

The study of Christian icons made it possible to identify sacred texts on them. Explicit inscriptions cannot be included among them. But they absolutely include implicit inscriptions associated with Russian Vedic gods, temples and priests (memes).

On the old Christian icons of the Virgin Mary with the baby Jesus there are Russian inscriptions in runes, saying that they depict the Slavic Goddess Makosh with the baby God Yar. Jesus Christ was also called HOR OR HORUS. Moreover, the name CHOR on the mosaic depicting Christ in the Church of Christ Choir in Istanbul is written like this: “NHOR”, that is, ICHOR. The letter I used to be written as N. The name IGOR is almost identical to the name IHOR OR CHORUS, since the sounds X and G could transform into each other. By the way, it is possible that the respectful name HERO came from here, which later entered many languages ​​practically unchanged.

And then the need to disguise Vedic inscriptions becomes clear: their discovery on icons could entail accusing the icon painter of belonging to the Old Believers, and for this, Nikon reform, could be punished by exile or death.

On the other hand, as is now becoming obvious, the absence of Vedic inscriptions made the icon a non-sacred artifact. In other words, it was not so much the presence of narrow noses, thin lips and large eyes that made the image sacred, but it was the connection with the god Yar in the first place and with the goddess Mara in the second place through reference implicit inscriptions that added magical and miraculous properties to the icon. Therefore, icon painters, if they wanted to make an icon miraculous, and not a simple piece of art, were obliged to supply any image with the words: FACE OF YAR, MIM OF YAR AND MARA, TEMPLE OF MARA, YAR TEMPLE, YAR Rus', etc.

Nowadays, when persecution on religious charges has ceased, the icon painter no longer risks his life and property by applying implicit inscriptions to modern icon paintings. Therefore, in a number of cases, namely in the cases of mosaic icons, he no longer tries to hide this kind of inscription as much as possible, but transfers them to the category of semi-explicit.

Thus, using Russian material, the reason was revealed why explicit inscriptions on icons moved into the category of semi-explicit and implicit: the ban on Russian Vedism, which followed from reforms of Patriarch Nikon . However, this example gives rise to the assumption of the same motives for masking obvious inscriptions on coins.

This idea can be expressed in more detail as follows: once upon a time the body of a deceased priest (mima) was accompanied by a funeral golden mask, on which there were all the corresponding inscriptions, but not very large and not very contrasting, so as not to destroy the aesthetic perception of the mask. Later, instead of a mask, smaller objects began to be used - pendants and plaques, which also depicted the face of the deceased mime with corresponding discreet inscriptions. Even later, portraits of mimes migrated to coins. And this kind of image was preserved as long as spiritual power was considered the most significant in society.

However, when power became secular, passing to military leaders - princes, leaders, kings, emperors, images of government officials, not mimes, began to be minted on coins, while images of mimes migrated to icons. At the same time, secular power, being more coarse, began to mint its own inscriptions weightily, roughly, visibly, and obvious legends appeared on coins. With the emergence of Christianity, such explicit inscriptions began to appear on icons, but they were no longer written in the runes of the Family, but in the Old Slavonic Cyrillic script. In the West, the Latin script was used for this.

Thus, in the West there was a similar, but still slightly different motive, why the implicit inscriptions of mimes did not become explicit: on the one hand, aesthetic tradition, on the other hand, the secularization of power, that is, the transition of the function of managing society from priests to military leaders and officials.

This allows us to consider icons, as well as sacred sculptures of gods and saints, as substitutes for those artifacts that acted as carriers of sacred properties before: golden masks and plaques. On the other hand, icons existed before, but did not affect the sphere of finance, remaining entirely within religion. Therefore, their production has experienced a new heyday.

(from grsch. - “orthodoxy”) developed as the eastern branch of Christianity after the division of the Roman Empire and, taking shape after the division of churches in 1054, became widespread mainly in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

Features of Orthodoxy

The formation of religious organizations is closely related to the social and political life of society. Christianity will not be an exception, which is especially evident in the differences between its main directions - Catholicism and Orthodoxy. At the beginning of the 5th century. The Roman Empire split into Eastern and Western. The Eastern was a single state, while the Western was a fragmented conglomerate of principalities. In conditions of strong centralization of power in Byzantium, the church immediately turned out to be an appendage of the state, and the emperor actually became its head. The stagnation of the social life of Byzantium and the control of the church by the despotic state determined the conservatism of the Orthodox Church in dogma and ritual, as well as a tendency towards mysticism and irrationalism in its ideology. In the West, the church gradually took a central place in society and became an organization seeking dominance in all spheres of society, including politics.

Difference between Eastern and Western Christianity was also due to the peculiarities of the development of spiritual culture. Greek Christianity focused its attention on ontological and philosophical problems, while Western Christianity focused on political and legal issues.

Since the Orthodox Church was under the protection of the state, its history is connected not so much with external events as with the formation of religious doctrine. The basis of the Orthodox dogma is the Holy Scripture (the Bible - the Old and New Testaments) and the Holy Tradition (decrees of the first seven Ecumenical and local councils, the works of the church fathers and canonical theologians). At the first two Ecumenical Councils - Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) there was the so-called Symbol of faith, briefly outlining the essence of Christian doctrine. It recognizes the trinity of God - the creator and ruler of the Universe, the existence of the afterlife, posthumous reward, the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ, who opened the possibility for the salvation of humanity, on whom lies the stamp of original sin.

Fundamentals of Orthodoxy

The Orthodox Church declares the fundamental provisions of faith to be absolutely true, eternal and unchangeable, communicated to man by God himself and incomprehensible to reason. Keeping them intact will be the first responsibility of the church. It is impossible to add anything or subtract any provisions, because the later dogmas established by the Catholic Church are about the descent of the Holy Spirit not only from the Father, but also from the Son (filioque), about the immaculate conception of not only Christ, but also the Virgin Mary , about the infallibility of the Pope, about purgatory - Orthodoxy regards them as heresy.

Personal salvation of believers is made dependent on the zealous fulfillment of the rituals and instructions of the church, due to which there is an introduction to Divine grace transmitted to a person through the sacraments: baptism in infancy, anointing, communion, repentance (confession), marriage, priesthood, consecration of oil (unction). The sacraments are accompanied by rituals, which, together with services, prayers and religious holidays, form the religious cult of Christianity. It's important to know that great importance in Orthodoxy it is attached to holidays and fasts.

Organization of the Orthodox Church

Unlike Catholicism, in Orthodoxy there is no single spiritual center, a single head of the church. In the process of development of Orthodoxy, 15 autocephalous(from Greek auto- "myself", kephale- “head”) of independent churches, 9 of which are governed by patriarchs, and the rest by metropolitans and archbishops. Except for the above, there are autonomous churches are relatively independent of autocephaly in matters of internal governance.

Autocephalous churches are divided into exarchates, vicariates, dioceses(districts and regions) led by bishops and archbishops, deanery(merging several parishes) and parishes created at each temple. Patriarchs And metropolitans are elected at local councils for life and lead the life of the church together with Synod(a collegial body under the Patriarchate, which consists of senior church officials who are members of it on a permanent and non-permanent basis)

Today there is three autonomous Orthodox churches: Sinai (jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem), Finland (jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople), Japan (jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate) The limits of independence of autonomous churches are determined by an agreement with the autocephalous church that granted it autonomy. The heads of autonomous churches are elected by local councils and are subsequently approved by the patriarch of the autocephalous church. A number of autocephalous churches have missions, deaneries, metochions under other Orthodox churches.

The Orthodox Church is characterized by hierarchical management principle, i.e. the appointment of all officials from above and the consistent subordination of the lower clergy to the higher. All clergy are divided into higher, middle and lower, as well as black (monastic) and white (rest)

The canonical dignity of Orthodox churches is reflected in the official list - “ Diptych of Honor." According to this list, churches are located in a certain order.

Constantinople Orthodox Church. It has another name - the Ecumenical Church or the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Patriarch of Constantinople is considered ecumenical, but he does not have the right to interfere in the activities of other churches. It arose after Emperor Constantine moved the capital from Rome to the small Greek city of Byzantium, which was then renamed Constantinople. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, the residence of the Orthodox Patriarch was moved to the city of Phanar, which became the Greek quarter of Istanbul. In 1924, the Church of Constantinople passed from Julian calendar in Gregorian. Under its jurisdiction there is a monastery complex that includes 20 monasteries. The head of the Church of Constantinople has the title Archbishop of Constantinople - New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch. Followers of the Church of Constantinople live in many countries around the world.

Alexandria Orthodox Church. Another name is the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria. Its founder is considered to be the Apostle Mark. Originated in the 30s. I century AD In the 5th century a schism occurred in the church, as a result of which a Coptic Church. WITH 1928 The Gregorian calendar was adopted. The head of the Alexandrian Church has the title Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria and all Africa, with residence in Alexandria. The jurisdiction of the church extends throughout Africa.

Antiochian Orthodox Church founded in the 30s of the 1st century. AD in Antioch, the third largest city of the Roman Empire. The history of this church is connected with the activities of the Apostle Paul, as well as with the fact that the disciples of Christ were called Christians for the first time on Syrian soil. John Chrysostom was born and educated here. In 550 the Antiochian Church was divided into Orthodox and Jacobite. The current head of the Antiochian Church bears the title Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, with residence in Damascus. There are 18 dioceses under jurisdiction: in Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and other countries.

Jerusalem Orthodox Church, which also has another name - the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem. According to legend, the Jerusalem Church in the first years of its existence was headed by relatives of the family of Jesus Christ. The head of the church bears the title of Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem with residence in Jerusalem. Divine services are performed in monasteries in Greek, and in parishes in Arabic. In Nazareth, services are performed in Church Slavonic. The Julian calendar was adopted.

It is important to note that one of the functions of the church is the preservation of holy places. Jurisdiction extends to Jordan and areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority.

Russian Orthodox Church

Georgian Orthodox Church. Christianity began to spread in Georgia in the first centuries AD. Received autocephaly in the 8th century. In 1811, Georgia became part of the Russian Empire, and the church became part of the Russian Orthodox Church as an exarchate. In 1917, at the meeting of Georgian priests, a decision was made to restore autocephaly, which remained under Soviet rule. The Russian Orthodox Church recognized autocephaly only in 1943.

The head of the Georgian Church bears the title Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia, Archbishop of Mtskheta and Tbilisi with residence in Tbilisi.

Serbian Orthodox Church. Autocephaly was recognized in 1219. The head of the church bears the title Archbishop of Pecs, Metropolitan of Belgrade-Karlovakia, Patriarch of Serbia with residence in Belgrade.

Romanian Orthodox Church. Christianity penetrated into the territory of Romania in the 2nd-3rd centuries. AD In 1865, the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church was proclaimed, but without the consent of the Church of Constantinople; in 1885 such consent was obtained. The head of the church bears the title Archbishop of Bucharest, Metropolitan of Ungro-Vlahia, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church with residence in Bucharest.

Bulgarian Orthodox Church. Christianity appeared on the territory of BULGARIA in the first centuries of our era. In 870 the Bulgarian Church received autonomy. The status of the church has changed over the centuries depending on the political situation. The autocephaly of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was recognized by Constantinople only in 1953, and the patriarchate only in 1961.

The head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church bears the title Metropolitan of Sofia, Patriarch of All BULGARIA with residence in Sofia.

Cypriot Orthodox Church. The first Christian communities on the island were founded at the beginning of our era by St. the apostles Paul and Do not forget that Barnabas. Widespread Christianization of the population began in the 5th century. Autocephaly was recognized at the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus.

The head of the Church of Cyprus bears the title Archbishop of New Justiniana and all Cyprus, his residence is in Nicosia.

E.yada (Greek) Orthodox Church. According to legend, the Christian faith was brought by the Apostle Paul, who founded and established Christian communities in a number of cities, and St. John the Theologian preached the “Revelation” on the island of Patmos. The autocephaly of the Greek Church was recognized in 1850. In 1924, it switched to the Gregorian calendar, which caused a schism. The head of the church bears the title Archbishop of Athens and all of Greece with his residence in Athens.

Athens Orthodox Church. Autocephaly was recognized in 1937. At the same time, due to political reasons, contradictions arose, and the final position of the church was determined only in 1998. The head of the church bears the title of Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania with his residence in Tirana. The peculiarities of this church include the election of the clergy with the participation of the laity. The service is performed in Albanian and Greek.

It is worth saying - the Polish Orthodox Church. Orthodox dioceses have existed on the territory of Poland since the 13th century. However, for a long time they were under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. After gaining Polish independence, they left the subordination of the Russian Orthodox Church and formed the Polish Orthodox Church, which was recognized as autocephalous in 1925. Russia accepted autocephaly It is worth saying that the Polish Church only in 1948.

Divine services are conducted in Church Slavonic. At the same time, recently the Polish language is being used more and more often. The head of the Polish Orthodox Church bears the title of Metropolitan. Do not forget that Warsaw and the whole Wormwood with residence in Do not forget that Warsaw.

Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church. The mass baptism of the people on the territory of modern Czech Republic and Slovakia began in the second half of the 9th century, when the Slavic enlighteners Cyril and Methodius arrived in Moravia. For a long time, these lands were under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. Orthodoxy was preserved only in Eastern Slovakia. After the formation of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918, an Orthodox community was organized. Further developments led to division within the country's Orthodoxy. In 1951, the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church asked the Russian Orthodox Church to accept it under its jurisdiction. In November 1951, the Russian Orthodox Church granted it autocephaly, which the Church of Constantinople approved only in 1998. After the division of Czechoslovakia into two independent states, the church formed two metropolitan provinces. The head of the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church bears the title Metropolitan of Prague and Archbishop of the Czech and Slovak Republics with residence in Prague.

American Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy came to America from Alaska, where from the end of the 18th century. The Orthodox community began to operate. In 1924, a diocese was formed. After the sale of Alaska to the United States, Orthodox churches and land remained the property of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1905, the center of the diocese was transferred to New York, and its head Tikhon Belavin elevated to the rank of archbishop. In 1906, he raised the question of the possibility of autocephaly for the American Church, but in 1907 Tikhon was recalled, and the issue remained unresolved.

In 1970, the Moscow Patriarchate gave autocephalous status to the metropolis, which was called the Orthodox Church in America. The head of the church has the title Archbishop. Do not forget that he is the Metropolitan of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada, with his residence in Syosset, near New York.

Peter A. Borits

With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II

From the author

The 20th century is a century of technological development and technological achievements. Man overcame his powerlessness before nature and reached a high level of civilization. We can say that we live in a time when the whole world is united. There are no longer remote places that took months to get to. We no longer speak, as was the case in the past, of East and West as separated by many kilometers. Now there is no distance between them. People have become able to easily meet and communicate with people of other nationalities and religions. Such ease of communication, fraternization and friendship, which characterize modern man, is undoubtedly an encouraging sign of the progress achieved by man.
However, in the spiritual sphere, small and large problems arise. Many foreigners (usually Catholics and Protestants) visiting Greece and its famous monuments, among which there are Christian monuments (Holy Mountain, Meteora, etc.), which have been admired for several centuries, ask with doubt:
“Is this really the Christ whom we and you worship?” What divides us?
What is Orthodoxy that you so devotedly defend?
On the pages of this book we will try to briefly but clearly answer the following questions:
1. What is Orthodoxy?
2. What causes schism between Churches?
3. What other differences exist between the Churches that still divide them today?
4. What are the prerequisites for true and Divine union?

I. What is it?

1. The primacy of the Pope

We have already said that each local Church was self-governing and was responsible for its area. The Catholic Church has never given the bishop of a large province the right to interfere in the affairs of another church. The Church recognized only the primacy of honor, i.e. who should sit or be remembered first at the cathedral. Thus, the Second Ecumenical Council, with its 3rd rule, determined that the bishop of Constantinople has “primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is the new Rome." The Church recognizes only the primacy of honor and seniority, but not the primacy of power over other bishops of the Church. In this way and in this spirit the Church acted for the first eight centuries.
However, in the 9th century, Pope Nicholas I (858-867), surprising not only the bishops of the East, but even the West, tried to declare himself “the highest authority of the Church and the whole world by divine right.” With such monarchical sentiments, the pope attempted to intervene in the purely international issue of the Church of Constantinople during the patriarchate of Photius and Ignatius. Of course, the Church of Constantinople did not ignore these monarchical and anti-church sentiments of the pope, but, unfortunately, the pope and his theologians did not abandon the innovations of the Western Church. And although Orthodoxy remained faithful to the dogmas that were developed by the holy fathers of the Church and the Ecumenical Councils, Westerners began to call the Orthodox apostates.
So, the first blow to the unity of the Church was dealt by the innovations and monarchical sentiments of the pope. Disregarding the fact that the head of the Church is only He who sacrificed Himself, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom the Father “placed above all else, the head of the Church, which is His body” (), the pope wanted to become the visible head of the Church and have supreme power; he even declared himself “the successor of the Apostle Peter, who was the supreme head of the apostles” and “the vicar of Christ on earth.” But this teaching is absolutely contrary to the spirit of the Bible and the Fathers of the Church; the only basis for this teaching is the selfish and absolutist mood of the pope, his desire to become a leader and despot, judge and supreme ruler of the whole world.
Indeed, what a contradiction there is between the pope and the One who founded the religion, whose viceroy the pope proposes to become, who declared that “My kingdom is not of this world” (; 36), and “whoever wants to be great among you, let him be your servant.” (; 26). This opposition of the pope to the letter and spirit of Holy Scripture indicates his removal from the truth, as the Church expresses it; this removal places the pope outside the Church.
Studying the ancient Fathers of the Church and the acts of the Ecumenical Councils of the first nine centuries, we are fully convinced that the Bishop of Rome was never endowed with supreme power and was not considered the infallible head of the Church. Yes, each bishop is the head of his local Church, who obeys only the decrees and decisions of the Church, the only infallible one. Only our Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal King and the Immortal Head of the Church, because “He is the Head of the body of the Church” (;18), Who also said to His divine disciples and apostles “behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (; 20).
In the Holy Scriptures, the Apostle Peter, whom the papists consider the founder of the Roman Church and the first bishop, referring to the pseudo-Clementines (apocryphal books of the 2nd century), takes part in the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem as an equal among equals, and on another occasion is even sharply accused on the part of the Apostle Paul, as we see from the Epistle to the Galatians.
Moreover, the papists themselves know very well that the line from the Gospel on which they base their statement “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church” (; 18) - in the first centuries was explained by the Church completely differently, both by tradition and holy fathers. The stone on which the Lord built His Church, which the gates of hell will not overcome, is understood metaphorically as Peter’s truthful confession of the Lord that He is “Christ - the Son of the Living God” (; 16). On this confession and faith, the saving preaching of the Gospel by all the apostles and their successors remains unshakable. Also, the Apostle Paul, raptured into heaven, explaining these divine lines, according to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says: “According to the grace given to me by God, like a wise builder, I laid a foundation, and another builds on it... For no one can lay another foundation other than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ" ().
The Holy Fathers, who firmly stood on the Apostolic Tradition, could not even think about the primacy of the Apostle Peter and the Bishop of Rome; They could not give any other, unknown to the Church, explanation for these lines of the Gospel other than the true and correct one; nor could they arbitrarily, on their own, come up with a new dogma about the excessive privileges of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of the Apostle Peter, precisely because the Roman Church was founded not by the Apostle Peter, whose apostolic ministry in Rome is not confirmed, but by the inspired Apostle Paul, whose apostolic the ministry in Rome is known to everyone.
The Divine Fathers, treating the Bishop of Rome only as the Bishop of the capital of the Empire, gave him only the advantage of honor, as the first among equals; this same advantage of honor was then given to the bishop of Constantinople when the city became the capital of the Roman Empire, as stated in the 28th rule of the IV Ecumenical (Chalcedonian) Council: “We also determine and decree the advantages Holy Church Constantinople, new Rome. For the fathers gave decent advantages to the throne of ancient Rome, since it was the reigning city. Following the same impulse, 150 most God-loving bishops presented equal advantages to the most holy see of new Rome. From this rule it is quite obvious that the bishop of Rome is equal in honor to the bishop of Constantinople and other bishops of the Church; neither in this rule nor in any other is there even a hint that the fathers considered the bishop of Rome the head of the entire Church, the infallible judge of the bishops of other independent and self-governing churches, the successor of the Apostle Peter or the vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
“Each Church, both in the East and in the West, was absolutely independent and self-governing during the time of the seven Ecumenical Councils. The bishops of the Eastern Churches and the bishops of the Churches of Africa, Spain, Gaul, Germany and Britain conducted affairs through local councils without the intervention of the bishop of the Roman Church, who had no right to do so. He, like the other bishops, obeyed and carried out the decrees of the councils. But on important issues that required the blessing of the Ecumenical Church, they turned to the Ecumenical Council, which was and is the only highest authority of the Ecumenical Church.
This was the ancient constitution of the Church. None of the bishops claimed to be the monarch of the Universal Church; and if sometimes such statements of the Roman bishops reached the point of absolutism, alien to the Church, they were duly condemned. Consequently, the assertion of the papists that, before the reign of the great Photius, the name of the Roman See was considered holy in the Christian world, and that both East and West unanimously and without opposition submitted to the Roman Pontiff as the legitimate successor of the Apostle Peter, and, accordingly, the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, - is incorrect and erroneous...
Over nine centuries of Ecumenical Councils, the Eastern Orthodox Church has never recognized the excessive claims of the bishops of Rome to supremacy, and, therefore, has never submitted to them, as the history of the Church testifies...
Famous Patriarch Photius, a worthy priest and luminary of Constantinople, defending the independence of the Church of Constantinople in the 2nd half of the 9th century and foreseeing the upcoming retreat from the church constitution in the West and the falling away of the Western Church from the Orthodox East, first tried to avoid danger in a peaceful manner; but the Bishop of Rome, Nicholas I, with his uncanonical intervention in the affairs of the East, outside his metropolis, with an attempt to subjugate the Church of Constantinople, brought the relations of the Churches to the sad brink of separation.”
Spiritual fathers, convinced that history is directed by God and the Church is directed by Christ, never sought political power. Wanting to preserve the treasure of faith, they endure persecution, exile and even martyrdom. They never sacrificed their faith for the sake of temporary glory and power in this world. And the papacy, on the contrary, in the pursuit of glory and power, became like the princes of this world and, therefore, lost zeal for the dogmas of the Church and the truth of the New Testament, fell away from the Church and God's grace.
Saint Mark of Ephesus said the following: “We would treat the pope the same as the patriarch if he were Orthodox.”
Even famous Western theologians, such as Hans Küng, refute the primacy and infallibility of the pope (Boston Sunday Globe, November 16, 1980).
If it is true that the Lord Jesus Christ placed the Apostle Peter over all the holy apostles, then why was the Apostle James, and not Peter, presiding at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem? And why did the opinion of the Apostle Paul prevail, although he was baptized by the Apostle Peter?
Moreover, there is no doubt historical fact that the founder of the Roman Church was the Apostle Paul, not Peter. The fact that the Apostle Peter preached in Rome does not give the pope the right of primacy.
It is also known, as stated in the Holy Scriptures, that the Apostle Peter lived for a long time in Antioch, preaching to Christians. Why not give the privilege of primacy to the bishops of Antioch? Isn’t it obvious from this that the pope’s demands to recognize him as the successor of the Apostle Peter are not based on Holy Scripture, but represent merely his monarchical aspirations, which is so contrary not only to the spirit, but also to the letter of the Bible?
None of the apostles demanded primacy or a special position among the other apostles, thereby belittling them and considering them subordinate to themselves. Because they kept the spirit of Christ, Who taught humility and simplicity.
The Pope, on the contrary, rejecting the spirit of Christ and losing his grace, demands primacy, forgetting the words spoken by Christ to the apostles John and James when they asked Him for first places: “You do not know what you are asking...” (; 38).

2. Filioque

So, with the pope’s demand to recognize him as the supreme judge and monarch, the vicar of Christ on earth, the first blow was dealt to the unity of the Church. But if someone moves away from the truth, makes innovations, serves his egoism and his ambitions, then he removes God’s grace from himself. For the first eight centuries, the Church in the East and West maintained the unity of faith, but suddenly the West began to introduce innovations, new dogmas and pervert the true faith. Their first mistake and heresy, moving away from the dogmas developed by the holy fathers, was the addition of the “filioque” to the Creed.
“At the Second Ecumenical Council, this issue was discussed and the use of the word “outgoing” in the Creed to describe the peculiarity of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. God the Father is not born, i.e. It does not come from anyone; The Son is born from the Father. The Holy Spirit is not born, but comes from the Father. God the Father is the cause, the Son and the Spirit are the product of the cause. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit differ in that the Son is born from the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
The whole doctrine of the Trinity can be divided into simple statements:
1. The consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity is the consubstantiality and identity of all Three Persons or Hypostases.
2. Hypostasis, i.e. The Persons of the Holy Trinity differ in Their properties or manner of manifestation, which is individual and belongs only to one Person, or Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity."
The Latins claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds “from the Father and the Son,” citing the teaching of Blessed. Augustine “what the Father has, the Son also has.”
Replying to this argument, St. Photius says: “If what belongs to the Father belongs to the Son, then it must also belong to the Holy Spirit..., and if the production of the Spirit is a general property, then it must also belong to the Spirit Himself, i.e. The Spirit must come from Itself, be both the cause and the product of this cause; Even the ancient Greeks did not invent this in their myths.”
Following the teachings of Bl. Augustine, the Frankish theological tradition added the filioque to the Creed, although the so-called Great Council of St. Sophia in 879 condemned those who either added to or subtracted from the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and also condemned those who did not accept VII Ecumenical Council.
Pope John wrote to St. Photius has a message in which the “filioque” is spoken of as something new, not previously used by the Roman Church and which was sharply condemned.
Pope John himself accepted the condemnation of the filioque by the Council of Saint Sophia not only as an addition to the Creed, but also as a teaching.
Pope Agapit also wrote in the message: “We believe in God the Father and His Only Begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Life-Giving Lord, Who proceeds from the Father, with the Father and the Son we worship and glorify.”
According to the 7th canon of the Council of Ephesus and the statement of faith, as adopted at the 1st Ecumenical Council, the Church strictly prohibits the use of other symbols of faith except the Nicene-Constantinople, and in case of listening: bishop - “let him be deposed”, cleric - “let him be cast out from the clergy.”
The Fathers of the IV Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), reading the Creed, said: “This holy Creed is sufficient for full knowledge truth, since it contains the complete dogma of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."
Even St. Cyril, whose teachings were misunderstood by the Latins, who used his teachings to justify the filioque to the Creed, wrote: “We prohibit any change in the Creed accepted by the holy Fathers of Nicaea. We do not allow us or anyone to change or omit a word or syllable in this Creed.”
Elsewhere, St. Cyril emphasizes: “The Holy Ecumenical Council, meeting in Ephesus, prohibited the introduction of God's Church every confession of faith, except the one that exists, handed down to us by the holy fathers through whom the Holy Spirit spoke.”
Western theologians have incorrectly explained the teachings of St. Cyril, concluded in the words: “although the Holy Spirit comes from the Father, He is still not alien to the Son, because what the Father has, the Son also has.”
Pope Agapit also wrote to the Greek emperor: “The Roman Church adheres to the dogmas of faith established by the five Ecumenical Councils and takes special care to preserve everything that is determined by the canons, without adding or reducing anything, to preserve the integrity of words and thoughts.”
It must be remembered that everyone present at the Second Ecumenical Council, after hearing the Creed, said: “We all believe in this; we think the same. This is the faith of the apostles, this is the correct faith... Whoever does not accept this faith will be excommunicated.”
Even in the Roman Church, for a long time after the VII Ecumenical Council, the Creed was read without the filioque. It was in this form, without a postscript, that the Pope ordered the Creed to be written on silver tablets in Greek and Latin languages and put them in the church of St. Apostle Peter in Rome.
It should also be noted that the oldest Latin copies of the acts of the Ecumenical Councils do not contain an addition to the Creed.
The Fathers of subsequent Ecumenical Councils accepted and confirmed the Creed in the form in which it was adopted by the first two Ecumenical Councils, and no changes were made. They forbade making additions to the Creed even if necessary.
The Fathers of the Church did not even allow the addition of the word “Mother of God” to the Creed, although the concept expressed by this word is nothing more than a brief explanation of the dogma contained in the Creed. This addition in itself was useful and necessary for refuting the teachings of the Nestorians.
All such additions to the Creed, even if it was an explanation consistent with the truth, were strictly prohibited after the Council of Ephesus.
Thus, the Greeks, following the instructions of the Councils and the exhortations of the holy fathers, could not allow the “filioque” in the Creed as correct and legal. How could a separate church boldly demand for itself the right to any addition to the Creed, if this is prohibited by the Councils even of the Catholic Church?
The Fathers of the Church and confessors of the faith were ready for the sake of Christ and His Gospel to lay down their soul, body, shed blood, and give everything they had, because “in matters of faith there should be no concessions or hesitation.”
It is also noteworthy that even the emperor of Byzantium said that “the Latins dispute the obvious and encourage the Greeks to agree that they anathematized the Ecumenical Councils. Isn’t this an attempt to force the One Holy Catholic Church to contradict itself?”
It is important that all dogmas were proclaimed in Greek and then translated into Latin.
St. said that “The Holy Spirit comes only from the Father and from no one else.” If the Spirit proceeds from the Person who is the Father, then the expression “from no one else” shows that the Spirit does not proceed from another Person.
St. says: “everything that the Father has, the Son also has, except causality.”
The word "outgoing" is introduced into the Creed as a parallel to the word "begotten", both words denoting a causal relationship with the Father, but not energy or delegation.
St. Maximus also wrote to Marinus that the Romans in the West accept (the dogma) that the cause of the procession of the Holy Spirit is only the Father, and not the Son.
We must not forget that when the Latins insisted that the filioque would be an improvement on what was a correct but incomplete dogma of the Holy Trinity, Pope Leo warned that when anyone tries to improve what is already good, he must be sure that, while improving, it will not spoil. He emphasized that one cannot place oneself above the fathers of the Councils, who did not accept the “filioque” not through oversight, not through their own ignorance, but through divine inspiration. This theological position coincides with the opinion of Pope Adrian I (772-795), as well as with the attitude of the Council of Toledo towards the “filioque”, at which this addition to the Creed was not mentioned.
However, a schism between the Churches occurred, and the reason for this was that subsequent popes insisted on their heretical doctrine of the “filioque”, which was nothing more than a misunderstanding of the primacy of honor among other things being equal. The desire of the Eastern Church to follow the faith of the fathers and preserve the unity of faith, i.e., is completely obvious to any conscientious researcher. preserve the Orthodox Church - the Truth - because outside of it there is no salvation.
The Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ, which bears His wounds and does not compromise in matters of faith, does not seek power over the world and glory, but remains in simplicity and humility, like its Founder. But the Western Church, on the contrary, striving for temporary glory and power over the world, sacrifices everything that connects it with Tradition and the true Church, introduces new dogmas and the concept of the global and humane significance of Christianity, and thereby strays from the path indicated by Christ , – the path of holiness and deification.
How can the unity of the Church and faith be preserved if the Western Church constantly tries “by divine right” to interfere in the internal affairs of the Eastern Church and, moreover, supplements or reduces the dogmas of the Ecumenical Councils, which by right do not belong to anyone?
It is also significant that the papists never accused the Orthodox of heretical teachings. Heresy is their own and exclusive privilege. The main accusation that has been brought against Orthodoxy is that it does not accept the teachings of the West. This testifies that Orthodoxy has always remained faithful to Tradition and the faith handed down from the first Apostolic Church. The papists, on the contrary, having cut themselves off from the body of the Church, increasingly began to make dogmatic errors, deepening the crack between the Churches.

III. What are other differences between the Churches that divide us now?

1. Infallibility

As already stated, the Eastern Apostolic Church believes that Christ is the truth (“I am the way, the truth and the life”), which is expressed through the Church, which is His body. The Apostle Paul said clearly that the Church “is the pillar and ground of the truth” (; 15). The truth conveyed to us by Christ is preserved and expressed by the Church of Christ. Russian theologian Archpriest S. Bulgakov said that “infallibility belongs to the Church.” The Fathers of the Church never trusted themselves or any individual person endowed with power, since even the great fathers were mistaken on certain issues or deviated from unanimity with the faithful. And therefore they trusted only the Church, its Ecumenical Councils.
Even the promise of Christ, “where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them” (; 20) proves that Christ is present not where one person makes a decision, but when two or more gather and ask for divine enlightenment. Nowhere in the New Testament is it said that Christ endows a certain individual with privileges and rights, nor is this said about the Apostle Peter, whose exclusive successor the pope presupposes himself to be, but, on the contrary, it speaks of conciliarity.
Although the Roman Church deviated from Orthodoxy several centuries ago, it was only in the 19th century, to the surprise of the Christian world, that it declared that the Bishop of Rome was infallible.
The Orthodox Eastern Church does not know a single person on earth who would be infallible, except the Son and Word of God who became Man. Even the Apostle Peter denied the Lord three times, and the Apostle Paul twice accused him of deviating from the truth of the Gospel.
When the question arose whether Christians should observe the regulations given by the prophet Moses, what did the apostles do? Acts says: “The apostles and elders met together to consider this matter” (; 6). They did not ask the advice of the Apostle Peter, as the only bearer of truth and the vicar of Christ on earth, as the pope would like to see him, but they convened a council, which was attended by the apostles and elders. This behavior of the apostles deserves special attention, because they knew the Lord in the days of His earthly life, learned from Him the saving truth of the Gospel, were imbued with divine inspiration, and on the Day of Pentecost were baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Isn’t this proof that the truth is declared only by the Church, and that only the Church should decide questions about the salvation of its members?
Isn’t it blasphemy to put the pope above the synod, since even the apostles did not demand this privilege?
Do we need further proof that the pope came to this because of his arrogant conceit, absolutism and denial of the true spirit of the Gospel and thereby fell into many heresies? Can a Christian doubt that the Pope is making a mistake, deviating from the truth, when he insists on his infallibility?
Let us remember in what words the apostles expressed the results of their Council: “It pleased the Holy Spirit and us” (; 28), i.e. The Holy Spirit was present during the discussion of issues and guided the thoughts of the members of the Council, who talked as equals among equals. Not one of them claimed the infallibility or primacy that the pope so insistently demands, thereby confirming how far he had deviated from the spirit and tradition of the apostles.
The infallibility of the pope is denied not only by the Orthodox, but also by famous Catholic theologians, for example, Hans Küng refuses to accept the primacy and infallibility of the pope (Boston Sunday Globe newspaper, November 16, 1980). Even the council held in Constantia declared that the pope was not infallible, and especially noted that the pope was just one of the bishops.
Moreover, examples from history show that we cannot accept the dogma of infallibility or the primacy of the pope, because many popes were anathematized or removed by councils of bishops. It is known that Pope Liberius (IV century) supported Arianism, and Zosima (V century) supported heresy, denying original sin. The Fifth Council condemned Virgil for his incorrect views. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (VII century) condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic who had fallen into the Monothelite heresy; the popes who succeeded Honorius also condemned him.
Such facts became the reason that Western Christians began to protest against innovations and demand a return to the church structure of the first centuries of Christianity. In the 17th century, the learned theologians of Galia made the same protest, and in the 70s years XIX century, the protest of Christian consciousness against the dogma of papal infallibility, proclaimed by the Vatican Council, was expressed by clergy and theologians in Germany. The consequence of this protest was the formation of a separate religious community, the Old Catholics (Old Catholics), who abandoned the pope and were independent of him.
The Russian theologian Archpriest S. Bulgakov wrote about this that “the Roman Catholic bishops, with their dogma of infallibility, dogmatized and signed a document that is canonical suicide.”
Indeed, with this new dogma, unprecedented in church history, the Roman Catholic Church abolished the power of the Ecumenical Councils, because their power and infallibility are made dependent on the Bishop of Rome, who for this reason is not a bishop of the Church. He became a fantastic and incredible figure, standing above the bishops and above the Church, which supposedly could not exist without him. In other words, the Pope replaced the Church.
An impartial Christian in search of truth will not doubt that the pope is mistaken in this matter, nor will he deny the non-ecclesiastical and worldly reasons that gave rise to such a desire for power.
Evading the right way and ambitious sentiments indicate to the true Christian that any dogma emanating from the Roman Church is false from the very beginning.

2. On the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary

In the 19th century, Roman Catholicism, contrary to the spirit of the Gospel and the Apostolic Tradition, but following the spirit of rationalism, moving away from the truth and continuing to formulate new dogmas, announced the dogma of the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
"One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church The seven Ecumenical Councils teach that only the supernatural incarnation of the Only Begotten Son and the Word of God from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary is true and immaculate. But the papal church again introduces a new dogma about the immaculate conception of the Mother of God and the Ever-Virgin Mary, which the ancient Church did not talk about and which caused strong objections in different times even among famous papal theologians."
Has the Church been wrong for nineteen centuries, and only now has the truth been revealed to the Pope? According to Orthodox Tradition, the Most Holy Theotokos was cleansed from original sin by the grace of the Holy Spirit when the archangel said to her: “The Holy Spirit will come upon You, and the power of the Most High will overshadow You” (; 35). And in the Gospel, and in the rules of the Councils, and in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, nowhere is there any teaching of the Roman Catholics about the immaculate conception of the Mother of God.

3. Purgatory

Another new and incorrect teaching of the Roman Catholics is the doctrine of the supererogatory merits of saints. They teach that the good deeds or merits of the Holy Virgin and the saints exceed the amount necessary for their salvation, and therefore “extra” merit can be used to forgive other people. Of course, these merits are distributed by the pope himself, who has invented many ways to collect money using this supposed right to forgive sins.
However, the Bible clearly warns us that every person will be judged according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or bad. (; 10). Everyone's sins can be cleansed by sincere repentance, and not by the superfluous merits of the good deeds of saints.
Also unorthodox is the dogma of purgatory, where the souls of sinners remain for a short or long time, depending on the number and severity of sins, in order to be cleansed.
However, the Lord spoke only about eternal fire, in which sinful and unrepentant souls will be tormented, and about pleasure in eternal life the righteous and those who have repented. Nowhere did the Lord speak about an intermediate state where the soul must be cleansed in order to be saved. The Church believes the words of the Gospel that both the righteous and sinners await the resurrection of the dead, and that they are already in heaven or hell depending on good and bad deeds, awaiting the final judgment. The Apostle Paul says: “And all these, who were testified in faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that they would not be made perfect without us.” ().

4. Divine Eucharist

For more than a thousand years in the East and West, the United Catholic and Apostolic Church, following the example of our Savior, used leavened bread during the Divine Liturgy. This is a fact known to Catholic theologians. But starting from the 11th century, the Catholic Church introduced an innovation into the sacrament of the divine Eucharist - the use of unleavened bread, which contradicts ancient tradition Universal Church. Another innovation invented by the Papal Church is that the transubstantiation of the Venerable Gifts occurs with the words “Take, eat: this is My Body,” and “Drink from it, all of you; this is My Blood” (), although in the early Church, as the ancient theological books of Rome and Galia say about this, the transubstantiation of the Honest Gifts occurred with the invocation of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the gifts were transubstantiated by the Holy Spirit, not the priest.
Also, the Catholic Church deprived the laity of the sacrament of the Blood of Christ, although the Lord commanded: “Drink of it, all of you,” and the early Church observed this commandment. It is also worthy of attention that the bishops of the ancient Roman Church prohibited the use of wafers for the Divine Eucharist, but later the popes, following their erroneous opinion, prohibited the communion of the laity with the Blood of Christ and allowed the use of wafers (unleavened bread).

5. Baptism

Another innovation of the Roman Catholics was the abandonment of the ancient order of baptism with threefold immersion. The word baptism (baptizo) comes from a Greek word that means to immerse. Thus, the ancient united Church baptized with threefold immersion in water. Pope Pelagius speaks of threefold immersion as a commandment of the Lord. This also corresponds to the words of the Apostle Paul: “Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? So, we were buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (). The triple immersion symbolizes the three-day burial of Christ our Savior and His Resurrection. Christ was also buried in a cave, just as we are immersed in water, and resurrected, just as a new man is resurrected from sins.
The holy fonts, which still remain in the most ancient churches of Italy, where baptism by immersion prevailed until the 13th century, are the most eloquent witnesses to the truth.
However, the popes, continuing to introduce innovations, perform the sacrament of baptism not with immersion, but with sprinkling or pouring, deepening the existing differences between the Churches. And the Orthodox Apostolic Church, remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the experience of the seven Ecumenical Councils, “stands firmly, affirming a single confession, the paternal treasure of the living faith” (St., Ep., 243).

6. Holy Confirmation

Another sacrament in which the rationalistic spirit of the Roman Catholic Church is clearly present is the sacrament of confirmation. The Holy Apostles and the Orthodox Church performed the sacrament of holy confirmation immediately after the sacrament of baptism, so that the newly baptized person would receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Even a church author wrote: “After baptism, which saves, we perform holy confirmation according to the ancient order.” But the Roman Catholic Church, since the Council of Trent (1545-1563), has postponed holy confirmation and performs it many years later, because, under the influence of the spirit of rationalism, it believes that the child must be “of age”, and then he will be Has Holy Confirmation been performed? or confirmation.

IV. What are the prerequisites for a true and divine union?

The unification of all in one faith was and is the most ardent desire of our High Priest, the Lord Jesus Christ. This unity He prayed for in His last prayer, shortly before sacrificing Himself on the Cross. It is the duty of every Christian to pray and desire the unification of all Christians - a union in the Body of Christ, His Church, His Truth.
“Orthodoxy, which came into the world through Christ, and history as divine and eternal truth, constantly lives in Christ and always exists in the world, in the Body of Christ, in His ONE CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
“Thus, the search for modern Christians in dialogues and meetings should be aimed at uniting existing “Churches” and denominations in Orthodoxy (Truth), as Christ revealed, and not at uniting one church into another, because there is a possibility of unification not based on revealed truth , but on an external and empty basis.
Scientific and theological research into Christian primary sources, if conducted in humility and sincere love for the truth, will help each of the so-called “Churches” and denominations to find the Orthodoxy of the One Church.
This process of returning to Orthodoxy - the true faith - presupposes general repentance, i.e. willingness to admit one’s deviation from the apostolic faith (if there is heresy), renunciation of heresy and unification again into One Church of Christ.
This one Church, by the grace of God, was never limited to any one area on earth, but spread throughout the whole world. Every existing “Church” has the opportunity to find it. This is only possible with the return of the existing “Churches” to the Orthodox Church, with which there was a division at a certain point in history...
And for Western Christians belonging to the Roman Catholic "Church" or another Christian denomination, there is an opportunity to discover the old and true form by returning to ancient Orthodox Rome and to the faith of their Orthodox fathers, who did not accept any of the heresies of modern Rome (the primacy of the pope, papal infallibility, filioque, etc.)… When the Roman Catholic Church becomes a true continuation of the Orthodox Church, it will be able to help Protestantism return to Orthodoxy, which, unfortunately, was not done by the Reformation in the 16th century.”
True unification is possible only in truth and with precise dogmas, as they were written down by the Ecumenical Councils and the Fathers of the Church. Only such a path will be a saving unification in Christ, and not a unification based on human ambitions.
Western Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church of Christ “are sincerely ready to accept everything that the Eastern and Western Churches unanimously recognized before the 19th century. We will have nothing to say if Westerners prove from the teachings of the Holy Fathers and divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils that the Orthodox Roman Church, which occupied the entire Western territory, even until the 9th century read the Creed with the filioque, or ate unleavened bread, or accepted the dogma of purgatory , or sprinkled the baptized person instead of immersion, or spoke about the immaculate conception of the Ever-Virgin Mary, or about temporary power, or about the infallibility and absolutism of the Bishop of Rome. And, on the contrary, it is easy to prove to the Latins who love the truth that the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ stands firmly on the dogmas handed down from generation to generation, which in those days East and West confessed in unity, and which in subsequent times the West perverted with various innovations, then it will become clear even to a child that the most natural way for unification - the return of the Western Church to the ancient dogmatic and administrative structure of the Church, because faith is unchanged in time and circumstances, but remains the same always and everywhere, because “one body and one spirit”, and it is said: “as you are called to one the hope of your title; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in all" ()."
In the works of the fathers of the Apostolic Church, we Orthodox Christians find ancient dogmas, transmitted by divine Providence, which we firmly adhere to to this day.
It is self-evident to every sensible person that without faith in Christ it is impossible to please God. It is also obvious that this faith in Christ, at all costs, must be true in everything, in accordance with the Holy Scriptures and the apostolic tradition, on which the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the acts of the divinely convened Ecumenical Councils are based. Moreover, it is quite obvious that the Universal Church of God, which in its bosom preserves intact this unique, unchangeable and beneficial faith as a divine revelation, as it was formulated and transmitted in the first nine centuries by the God-bearing Fathers inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one and the same forever, not changed by time; the truth of the gospel never undergoes changes and does not develop over time, unlike various philosophical systems, because “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” (; 8).
An honest reader can have no doubt which confession is the true successor to the Church of the Holy Fathers, and which has been changed by many heresies and innovations. He cannot have doubts, and if he really wants to be saved, he must follow the Tradition of Christ, the apostles and the fathers of the seven Ecumenical Councils. In this Tradition he can find the true Church of Christ, truth and Orthodoxy; outside of this there can be no salvation. The Church that adheres to this Tradition is Orthodox. And the Church, having deviated from Tradition, has deviated from the truth, i.e. from Christ.
The true unification of the Churches is possible only with the revival of the ancient symbols (the Creed) and Tradition, which were followed by the God-bearing fathers, and with the return to the faith of the first and united Church.
There is no doubt that from the time the Pope, driven by excessive egoism, declared himself the ruler of the world, he lost the grace of God and fell into many dogmatic errors, contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the Fathers of the Church. We also have no doubt that the dogmas of the primacy and infallibility of the Pope are based neither on the teaching of Holy Scripture nor on the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, but are the invention of the excessive ambition and vanity of the popes.
Is it possible to believe in the infallibility of the pope if many of them were condemned by the Ecumenical and Local Councils, and other popes became famous for their depraved lives? Is it possible that the primacy of honor given to the pope by the Church, because Rome was the capital of the Empire (primus inter pares honoris causa), means the power of the pope over the entire Church, if conciliarity has prevailed in the Church since the time of the holy apostles?
There is no doubt that the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ kept unchanged the tradition of its fathers, kept unchanged the faith that it received, without adding or adding anything from what the holy apostles handed down and the holy fathers preserved. A sane and benevolent student of history cannot prove otherwise. Even the Latins, having heard Orthodox dogmas from the Greek fathers at the Council of Florence, said: “We have never heard anything like this; the Greeks teach more correctly than the Latin theologians” (Syropulus vi 19).
And vice versa, starting from the 10th century, the Western Church, with the help of papism, introduced various strange and heretical dogmas and innovations and, thus, broke away and strayed far from the truth and the Orthodox Church of Christ. How necessary it is to return to the ancient and unchangeable dogmas of the Church in order to be saved in Christ can be easily understood by reading the commandment of the Apostle Paul given to the Thessalonians: “Therefore, brethren, stand steadfast and hold fast the traditions which you have been taught, either by word or by our epistle” (Thess. .2;15); We must also take into account what the same apostle wrote to the Galatians: “I am amazed that you are so quickly moving from Him who called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel, which, however, is not another, but there are only people who are confusing you and want to change the gospel of Christ” ( ). But this perversion of the Gospel truth must be avoided, “for such people serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and with flattery and eloquence they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded” (18).
The One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, consisting of individual Churches of God, divinely planted, like the prolific vine of the Christian world, which are inseparably united one into another by the unity of saving faith in Christ, the bonds of peace and the Holy Spirit, where you meet the all-praised and most glorious Lord and God, the Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the world.
“In matters of faith there should be neither concessions nor hesitation” (St. Mark of Ephesus). The Holy Fathers said: “I will never renounce you, beloved Orthodoxy, and I will not hide you, holy Tradition, as long as the spirit lives in my body.” Our Church prays to God the Father at every sacred service: “Reconcile and unite them to Your Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”
Therefore, it is vital for all of us to visit the Church of the first eight centuries, the Church that has preserved and preserves inextricably and invariably the Apostolic Tradition, the true Church of Christ, so that the prayer of our Lord for the unity of all Christians is fulfilled, so that we all become “one flock”, whose Shepherd is Christ , the Head of the Church, which is His body, “the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Bibliography

1. “History of the Cathedral in Florence.” Boston, 1971.
2. D. Romanides. "Filioque". Athens.
3. N. Vasiliades “Orthodoxy and papism in dialogue.” Athens, 1981.
4. “Response of the Orthodox Church to the Roman Catholics’ proposal for Reunification.” New York, 1958.
5. G. Metallinos “What is Orthodoxy?” Athens, 1980.
6. Vl. Lossky "Mystical theology of the Eastern Church." London, J. Clark, 1957.
7. Tim. Var "Orthodox Church". Penguin Books, 1963.
8. Tim. Var "Orthodox way".
9. N. Zernov “Eastern Christianity”. London, Windenfield and Nicholson, 1961.
10. N. Gogol “Catechism of the Orthodox Church.” Jordanville, New York, USA.
11. Khomyakov “The Church is One.” Holy Trinity Monastery, Jordanville, New York, USA.
12. A. Meyendorff “Byzantine theology.” Mowbrays, London, 1975.

Notes

G. Metallinos “What is Orthodoxy?” With. 19.