On the Western Confessions of Faith

by Alexei Khomiakov

The present text is translated and abridged = from the=20 text printed in Yu F. Samarin, ed., Polnoe sobranie = sochinenii=20 Alekseya Stepanovicha Khomyakova (Moscow, 1900), Vol. = II

Every Christian, when faced with an attack = on the=20 faith he confesses, is obliged to defend it to the extent of = his=20 intellectual ability, not waiting for any special = authorization,=20 since the Church has no official advocates. In the light of = this=20 observation I am taking up my pen to answer certain unjust=20 accusations brought against the Ecumenical and Orthodox = Church,=20 writing in a language which is not my own, for the benefit = of=20 foreign readers. Khomyakov's article was = first=20 written and printed in French, and was later (1864) = translated and=20 published in Russian.

In an article printed in La Revue des = Deux=20 Mondes and apparently written by the Russian diplomat = Mr.=20 Tyuchev, mention was made of the supremacy of Rome, and in=20 particular of the confusion of spiritual and worldly = interests in=20 the figure of a bishop-sovereign as being the chief reason = for the=20 delay in the solution of the religious question in the West. = In 1852=20 this article was answered by Mr. Laurency, and it is this = response=20 which calls for a refutation.

I leave aside the question whether Mr. = Tyuchev=20 succeeded in expressing his thought in all its breadth (the = merits=20 of his article, incidentally, are not even questioned by his = opponent), and whether he did not to some extent confuse the = reasons=20 for the sickness with its external symptoms.

I shall begin neither by defending my = countryman nor=20 by criticizing him. My one purpose is to clear the Church of = the=20 strange charges brought against her by Mr. Laurency, and so = I shall=20 not go beyond the limits of the religious question. I would = also=20 wish to avoid countercharges, but am not able to do so. My = travels=20 in foreign lands and conversations with cultured and learned = people=20 of all the religious confessions of Europe have convinced me = that=20 Russia is still alien and virtually unknown to the Western = world;=20 and even more of a mystery to Christians following the Roman = banner=20 or the flag of the Reform is the religious thought of the = Church's=20 sons. Therefore, in order to give my readers an opportunity = to=20 understand our faith and the logic of its inner life, it = will be=20 necessary for me to show them, at least in part, how we = regard those=20 questions which Rome and the various German confessions are=20 disputing. I am not even able to promise that I shall avoid=20 unfriendliness in the expression of my thoughts. But I shall = try to=20 be just and to refrain from making any charges that are = either=20 slanderous or ill-founded. In any case, I am by no means = seeking the=20 honor of being known as one who is indifferent to what he = regards as=20 falsehood.

Mr. Laurency brings two basic charges = against the=20 Church. The first is this: that she supposedly acknowledges = the=20 supremacy of temporal power. On these grounds a comparison = is drawn=20 between the Roman confession and the Orthodox Church, which=20 naturally does not turn out to our advantage. "The Pope," = says the=20 author, "is indeed a temporal sovereign, but not because he = is a=20 high priest; while the ruler of your Church is a high priest = because=20 he is a temporal sovereign. On whose side is the truth?" I = shall not=20 quote the actual and rather verbose language of the author, = but I am=20 sure I am giving its sense. First of all let me mention in = passing=20 that the word "high priest" (pontifex) is a most remarkable = word,=20 which the Latinists would be wise to stop using. It points = all too=20 clearly to a whole family of concepts whose Christian = origins are=20 more than doubtful. Even Tertullian noted this and used the=20 expression "Pontifex Maximus" in an ironical sense. However, = to the=20 first charge leveled by Mr. Laurency I reply in few words: = it is a=20 downright lie; we acknowledge no head of the Church, either = clerical=20 or temporal. Christ is her head and she knows no other. I = hasten to=20 add that I certainly do not accuse Mr. Laurency of a = deliberate=20 slander. In all probability he has fallen into error = unwittingly,=20 and I am all the more ready to believe this in view of the = fact that=20 many times in my presence foreigners have made the same = error; and=20 yet it would seem that only the slightest reflection would = be=20 required to clear it up.

Head of the Church! But allow me to ask, if = only in=20 the name of common sense, head of precisely what church? Can = it be=20 of the Orthodox Church, of which we constitute only a part? = In that=20 case, the Russian Emperor would be the head of the churches = which=20 are governed by the patriarchs, of the church governed by = the Greek=20 Synod, and of the Orthodox churches in the regions of = Austria. Even=20 the most extreme ignorance, of course, does not permit such = an=20 absurd conclusion. Or perhaps he is the head of the Russian = Church=20 alone? But the Russian Church does not represent a distinct = Church:=20 she is no more than one of the eparchies of the Ecumenical = Church.=20 From this it would be necessary to conclude that what is = being=20 assigned to the Emperor is the title of head of his own = eparchy,=20 subject to the jurisdiction of general Church councils. = There is no=20 middle position here. Whoever insists on fixing upon us a = head of=20 the Church in the person of a visible sovereign must make a = choice=20 between two absurdities.

Temporal head of the Church! But does this = head have=20 the rights of the priesthood? Does he lay claim =97 I say = nothing yet=20 of infallibility (although it is precisely this that = constitutes the=20 distinctive mark of supremacy in the Church) =97 to some = kind of=20 authority in questions of faith? Does he at least have the = right, by=20 virtue of his office, to decide questions of general church = order=20 (discipline)? If it is impossible to give an affirmative = answer to=20 these questions, then one can only be amazed at the complete = absence=20 of good judgment which alone could persuade a writer to hurl = such an=20 ill-founded accusation against us, and at the complete = ignorance=20 which let this accusation stand and did not expose it to the = ridicule it deserves. Of course there is not a merchant, = tradesman,=20 or peasant in the whole Russian Empire who would not, if he = heard=20 such an opinion about our Church, take it as a malicious = taunt.

It is true that the expression "head of the=20 territorial Church" The Russian = adjective here is=20 mestny, which has the sense of "belonging to or = occupying a=20 certain definite region or locality." I have used the word=20 "territorial" to render this idea rather than the word = "local,"=20 which is often used in modem English in a very restricted = sense=20 which would distort the meaning of mestny as it occurs in = this=20 essay. (Trans.) is used in the laws of the Empire; = but not at=20 all in the sense in which it is used in other lands; and in = this=20 case the difference is so essential that one must not turn = this=20 expression into a weapon against us without first attempting = to=20 understand its meaning. Justice and scrupulousness require = this.

When, after many afflictions and setbacks, = the Russian=20 people in a general assembly elected Mikhail Romanov as = their=20 hereditary sovereign (such is the high origin of imperial = power in=20 Russia today), the people entrusted to their chosen one all = the=20 power with which they themselves had been invested, in all = its=20 forms. By right of this election the sovereign became the = head of=20 the people in ecclesiastical matters as well as in matters = of civic=20 government, I repeat =97 became head of the people in = ecclesiastical=20 matters, and only in this sense head of the territorial = Church. The=20 people did not and were not able to transfer to the = sovereign a=20 right which they did not possess, and hardly anyone will = suggest=20 that the Russian people once considered themselves called to = govern=20 the Church. They had, from the beginning, as was the case = with all=20 the peoples which make up the Orthodox Church, a voice in = the=20 election of their bishops, and this voice they could = transfer to=20 their representative. They had the right, or rather the = obligation,=20 to see that the decisions of their pastors and councils were = carried=20 out in full; this right they could entrust to their chosen = one and=20 his successors. They had the right to defend their faith = against any=20 hostile or violent attack; this right also they could = transfer to=20 their sovereign. But the people had no power whatever in = questions=20 of conscience, of general church order, of dogma, of church=20 government, and therefore could not transfer such power to = their=20 Tsar. This is fully substantiated by all subsequent events. = The=20 patriarchate was abolished; The Russian=20 patriarchate was. abolished, or, rather, allowed to lapse = toward the=20 end of the reign of Peter I, and was not re-established = until 1917.=20 (Trans.) this was accomplished not by the will of the = sovereign but by the decree of the Eastern patriarchs and = the native=20 bishops. Later the synod was established in place of the=20 patriarchate; and this change was brought about not by the=20 sovereign's power but by those same Eastern bishops who had, = in an=20 agreement with temporal power, established the patriarchate = in=20 Russia in the first place. These facts are sufficient to = show that=20 the title "head of the Church" signifies "head of the people = in=20 ecclesiastical matters"; in fact it neither has nor could = have any=20 other meaning. And once this meaning is admitted, all the=20 accusations based on confusion come to nothing.

But does not Byzantine history provide our = accusers=20 with supporting evidence not given to them by the history of = Russia?=20 Do they not imagine that they see in Byzantium, with its = state seal=20 and the imperial title, a belief in a temporal head of the = Church?=20 May it not be supposed that this belief is attested by = reference to=20 the Paleologue who was precipitated into apostasy by despair = and the=20 desire to purchase help from the West? At the time=20 of the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in=20 1453.(Trans.) Or by reference to the Isaurians,A dynasty of Byzantine emperors in the eighth = century.=20 (Trans.) who by their exploits restored the military = glory of=20 the Empire but were drawn into heresy by their misguided = zeal and=20 blind self-assurance (for which the Protestant historians of = our=20 time have not ceased to praise them)? Or to Iraclius, who = saved the=20 state but openly embraced Monothelitism? Or finally to = Constantine's=20 own son, Constantius, who crushed Pope Liberius and was = himself=20 troubled by the holy fearlessness of the Bishop of = Alexandria? But=20 the history of the Eastern Empire refutes the charge = directed=20 against the Church =97 concerning a supposed subordination = to the=20 Emperor =97 even more clearly than the history of Russia, so = that we=20 have no reason to deny the inheritance of Byzantine thought. = Even=20 now we think, as do the Greeks, that the sovereign, as head = of the=20 people in many matters touching the Church, has the right = (along=20 with all his subjects) of freedom of conscience in faith and = of the=20 freedom of human reason; but we do not consider him an = oracle moved=20 by some unseen power, as the Roman bishop represents himself = to the=20 Latinists. We think that the sovereign, being free and a man = like=20 any other man, can fall into error and that if, God forbid, = such a=20 misfortune should happen in spite of the constant prayers of = the=20 Church, then the Emperor does not lose his right to the = obedience of=20 his subjects in temporal matters; nor does the Church = sustain any=20 injury whatever to her glory and fullness, since her Head = never=20 changes. In a case like this the only thing that would = happen is=20 that there would be one less Christian in her bosom.

The Church permits no other interpretation. = But is the=20 slander silenced? I am afraid not. Ill will may = countercharge by=20 referring to the imperial signature attached to the synod's=20 pronouncements, as if the right of publication of laws and = putting=20 them into effect was identical with the legislative power = itself.=20 Again, it may refer to the influence of the sovereign in the = appointment of bishops and members of the synod which has = replaced=20 the patriarchate, as if, in ancient times, the election of = bishops=20 and members of the synod (not even excluding those of Rome) = did not=20 depend on temporal power (either of the people or of the = sovereign),=20 and as if, finally, even today, in many countries of the = Roman=20 confession, such a dependency were not quite common. I am speaking only about the principle, from = the=20 Church's standpoint, and not about its application, which, = like=20 everything in the world, is often unsatisfactory and subject = to=20 abuse. It is difficult to imagine what other false=20 conclusions might be drawn by malevolence and ill will; but = after=20 what I have said conscientious people (and I am sure Mr. = Laurency is=20 such a man) will not allow themselves to repeat accusations = which=20 lack foundation and are ridiculous in the eyes of any = dispassionate=20 and enlightened person.

It is not so easy to refute the second = charge brought=20 against the Church by Mr. Laurency, since it is based not on = fact=20 but on a supposed tendency. We are accused of Protestant = leanings. I=20 leave to one side the question whether this second = accusation does=20 not contradict the first. Since the insolvency of the first = has now=20 been proved, its contradiction of the second cannot serve as = an=20 argument on our behalf. I will attack the question directly. = But=20 first I must raise a question which is apparently new, or at = least,=20 so far as I know, not yet fully examined. For what reason = has=20 Protestantism, which has carried away almost half the = followers of=20 papism, stopped short at the borders of the Orthodox world? = It is=20 impossible to explain this fact by ethnic characteristics, = since=20 Calvinism has gained remarkable strength in Czechoslovakia, = Poland,=20 Lithuania, and Hungary, and has stopped suddenly, not before = another=20 ethnic group but before another faith. Thinkers ought to = consider=20 this question carefully.

The alleged tendency toward Protestantism = can be=20 examined only in the area of principles; but before I begin = the=20 survey of the inner logic of the Orthodox faith, and before = I show=20 its complete incompatibility with the charge made by Mr. = Laurency=20 (and by a great number of other Roman Catholic writers = before him),=20 I consider it desirable to review a historical fact.

The Western Schism (my readers will permit = me to use=20 this term, since my conscience permits no other) has been in = existence now for more than a thousand years. Although the rupture between the Eastern and = Western=20 Church was formalized in 1054, controversy and strained = relations=20 had existed between Rome and Constantinople since the ninth = century.=20 (Trans.) How is it that during this time the Church = governed=20 by the patriarchs has not given birth to its own brand of=20 Protestantism? How is it that it has not revealed, at least = by now,=20 a definite impulse toward reform of some kind? In the West = things=20 developed very rapidly. Scarcely three centuries passed = before=20 Luther and Calvin came forward with uplifted heads, strong = words,=20 definite principles, and fixed doctrines. A serious polemic = will not=20 begin to object by pointing to the heresies and schisms = arising in=20 Russia in the seventeenth century and later. Of course we = bitterly=20 mourn these spiritual sores; but it would be utterly = ridiculous to=20 compare some pitiful children of ignorance, or still more, = the=20 unreasonable zeal for the preservation of old ceremonies, = with the=20 Protestantism of the learned precursors of the Reform; since = I am=20 not speaking here of the Catharists or the Waldensians who = appeared=20 in the south, but about people who, like Ockham or Wycliffe = or the=20 immortal Hus, stood in the front rank of contemporary = learning and=20 could courageously enter into controversy with the whole = theological=20 armament of Rome, fearing no blows other than those which = might be=20 inflicted upon them by the arm of temporal power. I am = speaking of=20 people who, dying no less gloriously than the Christians of = the=20 first centuries, from the height of their victorious funeral = pyres,=20 turned to their executioners with words saturated with holy = and=20 tender love: "Sancta simplicitas," and by these = words=20 proclaimed that they had not chosen their weapons from = ignorance,=20 nor was it upon ignorance that they had erected the building = of=20 their faith. How could it have happened that the East, with = its=20 alleged tendency toward Protestantism, did not produce = similar=20 people or similar religious movements? Do they ascribe this = to the=20 unfortunate destiny of the Eastern Empire? If I am not = mistaken,=20 such an explanation has already been proposed by Comte de = Maistre,=20 but of course it satisfies nobody, with the exception of the = most=20 superficial minds.

However that may be, in the sphere of = religious ideas=20 the absence of this or that phenomenon, even if extended = over a=20 period of several centuries, only supports the more or less=20 plausible argument that the tendency toward such a = phenomenon does=20 not yet exist. By no means does it prove the impossibility = of the=20 phenomenon appearing in the future. To be finally convinced = of this=20 impossibility, to raise a historical probability to the = level of=20 logical certainty, we must deduce this impossibility from = the=20 religious principle itself.

What is Protestantism? Does its = distinctiveness lie,=20 as some say, in the very act of protest made on behalf of = faith? But=20 if this were so then the apostles and martyrs who protested = against=20 the errors of Judaism and against the falsehood of idolatry = would be=20 Protestants; all the fathers of the Church would be = Protestants,=20 since they too protested against heresy; the whole Church = would be=20 constantly Protestant, since she has constantly and in all = ages=20 protested against the errors of the times. Clearly the word=20 "Protestant" defines nothing if used in this way. Where then = are we=20 to seek a definition? Does the essence of Protestantism = consist in=20 "freedom of investigation"? But the apostles permitted free=20 investigation, even made it an obligation; and the holy = fathers=20 defended the truth of the faith by their free investigations = (cf.=20 the great Athanasius in his heroic struggle against = Arianism); and=20 free investigation, understood in one way or another, = constitutes=20 the sole basis of true faith. Certainly the Roman confession = seems=20 to condemn free investigation; but here is a man who, having = freely=20 investigated all the authorities of Scripture and reason, = has come=20 to an acceptance of the whole teaching of the Latinists. = Will they=20 regard him as a Protestant? Another man, using the same = freedom of=20 investigation, has become convinced that the pope's dogmatic = definitions are infallible, and that the only thing for him = to do is=20 to submit. Will they condemn him as a Protestant? Yet in the = meantime, was it not by way of free investigation that he = came to=20 this conviction which compelled him to accept the whole = doctrine?=20 Finally, every belief, every discerning faith, is an act of = freedom=20 and must stem from previous free investigation, to which a = man has=20 submitted the phenomena of the external world or the inner = phenomena=20 of his soul, the events of transitory time or the = testimonies of his=20 contemporaries. I dare to go further. Even in those cases = when the=20 voice of God Himself has spoken immediately and raised a = fallen or=20 misguided soul, that soul has bowed down and worshiped only = after=20 having recognized the Divine voice. The act of free = investigation is=20 the beginning of conversion. In this connection, the = Christian=20 confessions differ from one another only in that some permit = the=20 investigation of all data, while others limit the number of = subjects=20 open to investigation. To ascribe the right of investigation = to=20 Protestantism alone would be to raise it to the level of the = only=20 discerning faith; but of course this would not be to the = taste of=20 its opponents; and all thinkers =97 even those who are not = very=20 serious =97 will reject such a proposition. One may ask, = finally, if=20 it is not in "reform," if it is not in the act of = reformation itself=20 that one must seek the essence of Protestantism? Certainly, = in the=20 first period of its development, Protestantism hoped to = claim this=20 meaning. But then the Church too has constantly been = reforming her=20 rites and regulations, and no one has thought to call her = Protestant=20 for this reason. Protestantism and reform in general are = therefore=20 not one and the same thing.

Protestantism means the expression of doubt = in=20 essential dogma. In other words, the denial of dogma as a = living=20 tradition; in short, a denial of the Church.

Now I ask every scrupulous person: Is this = the Church=20 which is being accused of Protestant tendencies, the Church = which=20 has always remained faithful to her tradition, never = allowing=20 herself to add anything to this tradition or subtract = anything from=20 it, the Church which indeed looks upon the Roman confession = as a=20 schism due to innovations? Is it not absolute nonsense to = bring such=20 a charge against such a Church?

The Protestant world is by no means the = world of free=20 investigation. Freedom of investigation belongs to all = people.=20 Protestantism is one world simply negating another. Take = away this=20 other world which it is negating and Protestantism will die, = since=20 its whole life consists in negation. The body of doctrines = it still=20 holds, the work undertaken by the enterprise of a few = scholars and=20 later received by the apathetic credulity of several million = uneducated people, is surviving only because the need is = felt to=20 oppose the Roman confession. As soon as this feeling = disappears,=20 Protestantism at once breaks down into private opinion with = no=20 common bonds whatever. Could this be the goal of that Church = whose=20 whole concern for other confessions, throughout eighteen = centuries,=20 has been inspired by the desire to witness the return of all = people=20 to the truth? To put the question is to answer it.

But this is not all. I hope to prove that = if, in the=20 future, the spirit of falsehood should ever give rise to = some new=20 heresy or schism in the bosom of the Church, her subsequent = revival=20 could not appear with the character of Protestantism at = first; it=20 could acquire such a character only later on, and then only = after=20 having passed through a whole series of transformations, = precisely=20 as it has happened in the West.

To begin with we must note that the = Protestant world=20 falls into two parts, far from equal in the number of their=20 adherents and in their significance. These parts must not be = confused. One has its own logical tradition, even though it = denies a=20 more ancient tradition. The other is satisfied with an = illogical=20 tradition. The first is composed of the Quakers, the = Anabaptists,=20 and other sects of that sort. The second includes all other=20 so-called Reformation sects.

Both halves of Protestantism have one thing = in common:=20 their point of departure. Both acknowledge an interruption = in the=20 ecclesiastical tradition lasting for several centuries. From = this=20 point on they move apart in their principles. The first = half, having=20 broken almost all ties with Christianity, admits a new = revelation,=20 an immediate descent of the Holy Spirit, and on this = foundation=20 seeks to build one Church or many Churches, claiming for = themselves=20 an unquestionable tradition and constant inspiration. The = basic=20 datum may be false, but its application and development are=20 completely reasonable: a tradition which is acknowledged as = a fact=20 receives also a logical justification. It is quite different = with=20 the other half of the Protestant world. There they accept a=20 tradition, and at the same time deny the principle by which=20 tradition is justified.

This contradiction may be clarified by an = example. In=20 1847, traveling down the Rhine by steamer, I entered into=20 conversation with a worthy pastor, a serious and educated = man.=20 Little by little our conversation shifted round to matters = of faith,=20 and in particular to the question of dogmatic tradition, the = legitimacy of which the pastor did not accept. I asked him = what=20 confession he belonged to. It turned out that he was a = Lutheran. On=20 what grounds, I asked, did he give preference to Luther over = Calvin?=20 He presented me with exceedingly learned arguments. At this = point=20 his servant, who was accompanying him, offered him a glass = of=20 lemonade. I asked the pastor to tell me what confession his = servant=20 belonged to. He, too, was a Lutheran. "On what grounds," I = asked,=20 "does he give preference to Luther over Calvin?" = The pastor=20 remained silent and his face expressed displeasure. I = hastened to=20 assure him that I certainly had not intended to offend him, = but had=20 only wished to show him that even in Protestantism there is = a=20 tradition. Somewhat disconcerted, but good-natured as = always, the=20 pastor, in answer to my words, expressed the hope that with = time the=20 lack of education on which traditions depend would melt away = before=20 the light of knowledge. "But the people with limited = abilities?" I=20 asked. "And the majority of women; and the unskilled = laborers who=20 scarcely succeed in earning their daily bread; and children; = and,=20 finally, young people hardly more able than children to = judge the=20 learned questions over which the followers of the Reform = have become=20 separated?" The pastor was silent and, after a few moments = of=20 reflection, said: "Yes. Yes, of course, the question still = stands.=20 ... I am thinking about it." We parted. I do not know if he = is still=20 thinking, but I do know that tradition as a fact undoubtedly = exists=20 among the Reformers, although they deny its principle and = legitimacy=20 with all their strength; I know, too, that they cannot = behave=20 otherwise, nor can they extricate themselves from this=20 contradiction. Indeed, there is nothing contrary to logic in = the=20 fact that those religious societies which acknowledge all = their=20 scholars to be divinely inspired, and ascribe divine = inspiration to=20 the founders with whom they are connected by ties of = unbroken=20 succession, at the same time also acknowledge tradition =97 = either=20 secretly or openly. But by what right can those who base = their=20 beliefs on the learned propositions of their forefathers = begin to=20 use tradition as a means of support? There are people who = believe=20 that the papacy receives inspiration from heaven; that = Fawkes or=20 Johann of Leyden Guy Fawkes (1570-1606), = Roman=20 Catholic zealot and leading figure in the so-called = Gunpowder Plot,=20 an attempt to blow up the English Houses of Parliament in = 1605.=20 Johann Leyden (1508-1536) was a Dutch Anabaptist fanatic, = leader of=20 a theocratic sect in M=FCnster which revolted against the = city's=20 prince-bishop in 1535. (Trans.) were true organs of = the=20 Divine Spirit. Perhaps these people are in error; = nonetheless one=20 can understand that everything defined by these persons = chosen from=20 above is obligatory for those who believe in them. But to = believe in=20 the infallibility of learning, moreover of a learning which = works=20 out its propositions dialectically, is against common sense. = Thus,=20 while denying tradition as an uninterrupted revelation, all = the=20 scholars of the Reformation are inevitably obliged to regard = all=20 their less learned brothers as people utterly deprived of = true=20 belief. If they were to be consistent they would say to = them:=20 "Friends and brothers, you do not have right faith and you = will=20 never have it until you become theologians like us. In the = meantime,=20 you'll just have to get along somehow without it!" Such a = speech is=20 unheard-of, naturally, but it certainly would be an act of=20 sincerity. It is evident that the larger half of the = Protestant=20 world is quite satisfied with tradition, as understood in = its own=20 illegitimate way; the other, more consistent half has = departed so=20 far from Christianity that under the circumstances it is = pointless=20 to remain within it. Thus the distinctive characteristic of = the=20 Reform consists in the absence of legitimate tradition. What = follows=20 from this? It follows that Protestantism has by no means = extended=20 the rights of free investigation, but has only reduced the = number of=20 reliable data subject to the free investigation of its = believers (by=20 leaving them only the Scriptures), as Rome has reduced this = number=20 for most of its laity, too (by depriving them of the=20 Scriptures).

Clearly Protestantism, as a Church, does not = have the=20 power to check itself, and having rejected legitimate = tradition, it=20 has deprived itself of every right to condemn a man who, = while=20 acknowledging the divinity of the Holy Scriptures, might not = find in=20 them the refutation of the error of Arius or Nestorius =97 = since such=20 a man would be wrong in the eyes of learning, but not in the = eyes of=20 faith. However, I am not attacking the Reformers here; what = is=20 important is to make clear the necessity which compels them = to stand=20 on the ground they now occupy, to trace the logical process = which=20 has forced them to this, and to show that within the Church = such a=20 necessity and process are impossible.

Since the time of her foundation by the = apostles, the=20 Church has been one. Embracing the whole world as it was = then known,=20 connecting the British Isles and Spain with Egypt and Syria, = this=20 unity was never violated. When a heresy arose, the whole = Christian=20 world dispatched its representatives and highest dignitaries = to=20 solemn assemblies known as councils. By their world-wide = character,=20 because of the importance of the questions submitted for = their=20 decision, and in spite of the disorder and even violence = which=20 sometimes marred their purity, these councils stand out in = the=20 history of mankind as the noblest of all its undertakings. = The whole=20 Church accepted or rejected the decisions of the councils = depending=20 on whether she found them compatible or incompatible with = her faith=20 and tradition, and she gave the name of Ecumenical to those = councils=20 whose determinations she acknowledged as the expression of = her inner=20 thought. To their temporary authority in questions of = discipline,=20 this further significance was added: they became certain and = unalterable witnesses in questions of faith. The Ecumenical = Council=20 became the voice of the Church. Even heresies did not = violate this=20 divine unity; they bore the character of private errors and = not of=20 schisms of whole regions or eparchies. Such was the = structure of=20 that ecclesiastical life the inner meaning of which has long = been=20 completely incomprehensible to the whole West.

Let us shift now to the last years of the = eighth, or=20 the beginning of the ninth century, and let us imagine a = traveler,=20 who has come from the East to one of the cities of Italy or = France.=20 Filled with the consciousness of this ancient unity, fully = assured=20 that he will find himself among brothers, he enters a church = to=20 sanctify the first day of the week. Moved by reverent = motives and=20 full of love, he follows the service and listens carefully = to the=20 wonderful prayers which have been dear to his heart from = early=20 childhood. The words reach him: "Let us love one another, = and with=20 one mind confess the Father, and the Son, and the Holy = Spirit." He=20 listens. Now, in the church the Symbol of the Catholic and = Christian=20 faith is pronounced, that Creed which every Christian must = serve all=20 his life and for which he is obliged to sacrifice his life = if the=20 occasion should arise. He listens carefully. But it is a = corrupted=20 Creed he hears; this is some new and unknown Creed! Has he = really=20 heard it, or is he perhaps the victim of some nightmare? He = does not=20 believe his ears; he begins to doubt his senses. He makes = inquiries,=20 begs for explanations. He thinks that perhaps he has entered = the=20 gathering of some schismatics who are denying the = territorial=20 Church. But alas no! He is hearing the voice of that = territorial=20 Church herself. The entire patriarchate, the whole vast = world itself=20 has lost its unity. The afflicted traveler laments; they = console=20 him. "But we have only added a trifle," they say to him, = just as the=20 Latinists say to us now. "If it's a trifle, then why was it = added?"=20 "But it is a purely abstract matter." "How then can you be = sure that=20 you have understood it?" "Well, it's just our local = tradition." "But=20 how could it have found a place in the Ecumenical Creed, = contrary to=20 the written decree of an Ecumenical Council forbidding any = such=20 change?" "Well, this is a Church-wide tradition, the meaning = of=20 which we have put into words, guided by local opinion." "But = we do=20 not know such a tradition; and in any case, how can a local = opinion=20 find a place in an Ecumenical Creed? Is not the explanation = of=20 divine truths given to the whole Church together? Or have we = somehow=20 deserved excommunication from the Church? Not only have you = not=20 thought of turning to us for counsel, you have not even = taken the=20 trouble of notifying us of the change. Or have we already = fallen so=20 low? And yet not more than one century ago the East produced = the=20 greatest of Christian poets and perhaps the most glorious of = her=20 theologians: John of Damascus. And even now there are = reckoned among=20 us, confessors, martyrs for the faith, learned philosophers = full of=20 Christian understanding, ascetics whose whole lives are an=20 uninterrupted prayer. Why, then, have you renounced us?" But = no=20 matter what the poor traveler may say, the deed is done, the = breach=20 confirmed. By this very act (i.e., the arbitrary = changing=20 of the Creed) the Roman world clearly declared that in = its eyes=20 the East was nothing more than a world of helots in = questions of=20 faith and doctrine. For one entire half of the Church,=20 ecclesiastical life was at an end.

I am not touching the heart of the question, = but let=20 the believers in the sacredness of dogma and in the divine = spirit of=20 brotherhood which was bestowed by the Saviour on the = apostles and on=20 all Christians, let them ask if clarity of = understanding=20 and the divine grace which reveals the meaning of sanctity = are to be=20 obtained by neglect of one's brothers and by disowning the = innocent.=20 My task is simply to indicate the origin of the Protestant=20 principle.

It is impossible to ascribe this = modification to=20 papism alone. This would be to render it too high an honor, = or, from=20 another viewpoint, too great an insult. Although the See of = Rome=20 apparently became wedded to its unique opinions, along with = the=20 territorial Churches under its care, still it firmly clung = to the=20 memory of unity. It persisted for some time; but then it was = threatened by schisms, and temporal power began to press = upon it=20 with insistent demands. And so finally it yielded, perhaps = rejoicing=20 inwardly that it was now delivered from future = obstructionism on the=20 part of the independent Churches of the East. However that = may be,=20 the change was the deed not of one pope but of the whole = Roman=20 world, and this deed was justified not at all by belief in = the=20 infallibility of the Roman Bishop, but by the feeling of = territorial=20 pride. The belief in infallibility came later on; at the = time when=20 the rupture was accomplished, Pope Nicholas I was still = writing to=20 Photius that in questions of faith the least of Christians = had the=20 same voice as the first among bishops. Let those=20 who are unacquainted with the documents of this great = litigation=20 consult a biography of Photius, if only the one prepared by = the=20 Jesuit Jaeger. This work is not notable for its = scrupulousness, but=20 it contains important documents. Let me add: The legality of = a case=20 in no way depends on the scrupulousness of its advocates; = moreover,=20 in the present situation, the conscience of the Pope =97 as = a=20 fabricator of false documents =97 was hardly clearer than = the=20 conscience of the Patriarch =97 a usurper of the episcopal = throne.=20 (Photius became Patriarch of Constantinople in 858, = following the=20 illegal deposition of Ignatius. [Webmaster note: this is = factually=20 incorrect.] Nicholas supported Ignatius, and the dispute led = to an=20 exchange of mutual excommunications and the subsequent = reinstatement=20 of Ignatius in 867. After Ignatius' death in 878, Photius = became=20 Patriarch legally and held office until 886. Through all = this he was=20 regarded as the champion of the Eastern Church against the = claims of=20 papal supremacy. [Trans.] ) But the consequences of = this=20 change were not long in revealing themselves, and the = Western world=20 was carried away on a new path.

Having appropriated the right of = independently=20 deciding a dogmatic question within the area of the = Ecumenical=20 Church, private opinion carried within itself the seed of = the growth=20 and legitimation of Protestantism, that is, of free = investigation=20 torn from the living tradition of unity based on mutual = love. Thus=20 at the moment of its origin, Romanism manifested itself as=20 Protestantism. I hope that conscientious people will be = convinced of=20 this, and that the following conclusions will make it even = more=20 clear.

It was as if the right of deciding dogmatic = questions=20 were suddenly altered. Previously this right had belonged to = the=20 whole Ecumenical Church; now it was assigned to a regional = Church.=20 For a regional Church, the right could be affirmed on two = grounds:=20 by virtue of a freedom of inquiry which had abandoned the = living=20 tradition; or by virtue of the claim of an exclusive = inspiration by=20 the Holy Spirit for a certain geographically defined = territory.=20 Actually, the first of these principles was accepted, but it = was too=20 soon to proclaim it as a right. The former order of = ecclesiastical=20 life was still too well remembered, and the first principle = was too=20 indefinite and therefore too contrary to common sense to = permit an=20 open affirmation.

So the thought naturally arose of = associating the=20 monopoly of divine inspiration with one See, and Western=20 Protestantism was hidden beneath external authority. Such = things are=20 not uncommon in the political world. It could not be = otherwise,=20 since a kingdom of purely rationalistic logic had been set = up in=20 place of the Divine Spirit, who had withdrawn. The newly = created=20 despotism restrained the chaos which had been introduced = into the=20 Church by the original novelty, that is, by the independence = of=20 regional or local opinion.

The pope's authority was substituted for = ecumenical=20 infallibility, and his authority was external. Once a member = of the=20 Church, once a responsible participant in her decisions, the = Christian man had now become a subject of the Church. She = and he had=20 ceased to be one, he was outside her, although he remained = in her=20 bosom. The gift of infallibility assigned to the pope was = placed=20 beyond the influence of ethical conditions, so that neither = the=20 corruption of the whole Christian world nor even the = personal=20 corruption of the pope himself could have any effect on this = infallibility. The pope became a kind of oracle deprived of = all=20 freedom, a kind of statue made of flesh and bones, put into = motion=20 by hidden springs. For the Christian, this oracle fell into = the=20 category of things of a material nature, of things whose = laws can=20 and must be subjected to the investigation of reason alone. = A purely=20 external and consequently rational law had replaced the = living,=20 ethical law which alone does not fear rationalism, since it = embraces=20 not only man's reason but also the whole of his being. Some people assert that papal infallibility is = given to=20 the Church as a kind of reward for her moral unity. In what = way,=20 then, could she be rewarded for the insult borne by the = whole=20 Eastern Church? Others say that infallibility lies in the = agreement=20 between the pope's decision and that of the whole Church = convoked in=20 council, or even if not actually gathered in council. How = then was=20 it possible to accept a dogma not subjected to prior = examination and=20 not even communicated to one entire half of the Christian = world?=20 None of these shifts stands up under serious=20 investigation.

A this-worldly State took the place of the = Christian=20 Church. The single living law of unity in God was displaced = by=20 private laws, bearing in themselves the imprint of = utilitarianism=20 and juridical concerns. Rationalism grew up in the form of = arbitrary=20 definitions: it invented purgatory in order to explain = prayers for=20 the dead; it placed between God and man a balance of = obligations and=20 merits, weighing sins against prayers, crimes against = meritorious=20 exploits; it set up transferences from one man to another,=20 legitimized the barter of illusory merits; in short, it = brought the=20 whole machinery of the banking house into the treasury of = faith. At=20 the same time, the Church-State introduced a state language: = Latin.=20 Then it appropriated to itself the judgment of worldly = affairs; then=20 it took up arm: and began to equip, first, informal bands of = crusaders, and later, organized armies (the orders of=20 knights-religious); and, finally, when the sword was torn = from its=20 hand, it moved into position the highly trained corps of the = Jesuits. It is not now a matter of criticism. Seeking the = sources of=20 Protestant rationalism, I find it disguised in the form of = Roman=20 rationalism and I cannot avoid tracing its development. = Without=20 dwelling on abuses, I am concentrating on the principle. The = Church=20 inspired by God became, for the Western Christian, something = external, a kind of negative authority, a kind of material=20 authority. It turned man into its slave, and as a result = acquired,=20 in him, a judge.

"The Church is an authority," said = Guizot in=20 one of his remarkable works, while one of his adversaries, = attacking=20 him, simply repeated these words. Speaking in this way = neither one=20 suspected how much untruth and blasphemy lay in the = statement. Poor=20 Romanist! Poor Protestant! No =97 the Church is not an = authority, just=20 as God is not an authority and Christ is not an authority, = since=20 authority is something external to us. The Church is not an=20 authority, I say, but the truth =97 and at the same time the = inner=20 life of the Christian, since God, Christ, the Church, live = in him=20 with a life more real than the heart which is beating in his = breast=20 or the blood flowing in his veins. But they are alive in him = only=20 insofar as he himself is living by the ecumenical life of = love and=20 unity, i.e., by the life of the Church. Such is the = blindness of the=20 Western sects that, up to now, not one of them has = understood how=20 radically the ground on which they stand differs from that = on which=20 the original Church has been standing from earliest times, = and on=20 which she will stand eternally.

In this the Latinists are completely wrong. = They=20 themselves are rationalists, and yet they accuse others of=20 rationalism; they themselves were Protestants from the first = moment=20 of their falling away, and yet they condemn the spontaneous=20 rebellion of their rebellious brothers. On the other hand, = while=20 they have every right to return the accusation, the = Protestants are=20 unable to do so because they themselves are no more than = developers=20 of the Roman teaching. The only difference is that they have = adapted=20 it to suit themselves. No sooner did authority become = external=20 power, and no sooner was knowledge of religious truths cut = off from=20 religious life, than the relationship among people was = altered too.=20 Within the Church the people constituted a single whole; one = spirit=20 was alive in all. Now this bond disappeared, another = replaced it:=20 the common, subject-like dependence of all the people on the = supreme=20 power of Rome. No sooner did the first doubt of the = legitimacy of=20 this power arise than unity was destroyed, since the = doctrine of=20 papal infallibility was not founded on the holiness of the=20 Ecumenical Church; nor did the Western world lay claim to a=20 relatively higher level of moral purity at the moment when = it=20 arrogated to itself the right to change (or, as the = Romanists say,=20 to expound) the Creed and disregard the opinion of its = Eastern=20 brothers. No, it simply cited the accidental circumstance of = episcopal succession, as if the other bishops established by = the=20 apostle Peter, regardless of their location, were not just = as much=20 his successors as the Bishop of Rome! Rome never said to the = people:=20 "Only the perfectly holy man can judge me, but such a man = will=20 always think as I do." On the contrary, Rome destroyed every = bond=20 between knowledge and inner perfection of soul; it gave free = reign=20 to reason while at the same time obviously trampling it = under=20 foot.

It would not be difficult to show in the = doctrine of=20 the Reformers the indelible mark of Rome and the same spirit = of=20 utilitarian rationalism which characterizes papism. Their=20 conclusions are not the same; but the premises and the = definitions=20 assumed and contained in these conclusions are always = identical. The=20 Papacy says: "The Church has always prayed for the dead, but = this=20 prayer would be useless if there were not an intermediate = state=20 between heaven and hell; therefore there is a = purgatory."=20 The Reform answers: "There is not a trace of purgatory = either in=20 Holy Scripture or in the early Church; therefore it = is=20 useless to pray for the dead and I will not pray for them." = The=20 Papacy says: "The Church appeals to the intercession of the = saints,=20 therefore this is useful, therefore this = completes=20 the merits of prayer and works of satisfaction." The Reform = answers:=20 "The satisfaction for sins made by the blood of Christ and=20 appropriated by faith in baptism and in prayer is sufficient = for the=20 redemption not only of man but also of all creation,=20 therefore the saints' intercession for us is = useless, and=20 there is no reason to appeal to them in prayer." Clearly the = sacred=20 Communion of Saints is equally incomprehensible to both = sides. The=20 Papacy says: "According to the witness of the apostle James = faith is=20 insufficient, It is hardly necessary to = prove that=20 the apostle James is misinterpreted in this citation. He is=20 obviously ascribing the name "faith" to knowledge, but this=20 certainly does not mean that he is identifying the one with = the=20 other; he wishes to show in this way the complete = illegitimacy of=20 any claim knowledge might have to the name "faith" when it = does not=20 in fact have faith's distinctive marks. = therefore we=20 cannot be saved by faith, and therefore works are = useful=20 and constitute merit." Protestantism answers: "Faith alone = saves,=20 according to the witness of the apostle Paul, and works do = not=20 constitute merit, therefore they are useless." And = so on,=20 and so on.

In this way the warring parties have gone = back and=20 forth at each other with syllogisms through the centuries, = and are=20 still going back and forth at each other, but always over = the same=20 ground, the ground of rationalism; and neither side can = choose any=20 other. Even Rome's division of the Church into the teaching = and the=20 learning Church has been transmitted to the Reform; the only = difference is that in the Roman confession it exists by = right, by=20 virtue of acknowledged law, while in Protestantism it exists = only as=20 a fact; and a scholar has taken the place of the priest.

I have tried to prove that Protestantism is = impossible=20 for us and that we can have nothing in common with the = Reform, since=20 we stand on completely different soil. But in order to make = this=20 conclusion quite plain I will present one more explanation = of a more=20 positive nature. Speaking through Holy Scripture, teaching = and=20 sanctifying through the sacred tradition of the Ecumenical = Church,=20 the Divine Spirit cannot be apprehended by reason alone. He = is=20 accessible only to the whole human spirit under the = influence of=20 grace. The attempt to penetrate into the realm of faith and = its=20 mystery by the light of reason alone is a presumption in the = eyes of=20 the Christian, a criminal and stupid presumption. Only the = light=20 which comes down from heaven and which penetrates the whole = spirit=20 of man can show him the way; only the power given by the = Divine=20 Spirit can raise him to those unapproachable heights where = Divinity=20 is revealed. "Only he can understand a prophet who is a = prophet=20 himself," says St. Gregory the Wonder-worker. Only Divinity = can=20 comprehend God and His everlasting wisdom. Only he who bears = within=20 himself the living Christ can approach His throne without = being=20 annihilated by that glory before which the purest spiritual = powers=20 prostrate themselves in joyful trembling. The right and the = power to=20 contemplate the grandeur of heaven and penetrate its mystery = are=20 given only to the Church, holy and eternal; to the living = ark of the=20 Divine Spirit which bears Christ, her Lord and Saviour; to = her=20 alone, bound to Him by a close and inner unity which neither = human=20 thought can grasp nor human words express. I speak of the = Church in=20 her wholeness, of which the Church on earth is an = inseparable part;=20 since what we call the visible Church and the invisible = Church are=20 not two Churches, but one, under two different aspects. The = Church=20 in her fullness, as a spiritual organism, is neither a = collective=20 nor an abstract entity; she is the Divine Spirit, who knows = Himself=20 and is unable not to know. The whole Church wrote the Holy=20 Scriptures and then gave life to them in Tradition. To put = it more=20 accurately, Scripture and Tradition, as two manifestations = of one=20 and the same Spirit, are a single manifestation. Scripture = is=20 nothing but written Tradition, and Tradition is nothing but = living=20 Scripture. Such is the mystery of this harmonious unity; it = is=20 formed by the fusion of the purest holiness with the highest = reason,=20 and only by way of this fusion does reason acquire the = ability to=20 comprehend things in that realm where reason alone, = separated from=20 holiness, is as blind as matter itself.

Will Protestantism rise on this soil? Will a = man stand=20 on this ground who thinks of himself as a judge of the = Church and=20 thus makes the claim to perfect holiness and perfection of = reason? I=20 doubt if such a man would be received as a welcome guest by = that=20 Church which has as its first principle the doctrine that = ignorance=20 and sin are the inevitable result of isolation, while = fullness of=20 understanding and incorruptible holiness belong only to the = unity of=20 all the members of the Church together.

Such is the teaching of the Ecumenical = Orthodox=20 Church, and I say boldly that no one will find in it the = seeds of=20 rationalism.

But, we are asked, whence comes the power to = preserve=20 a teaching so pure and exalted? Whence the weapons for its = defense?=20 The power is found in mutual love, the weapons in the = communion of=20 prayer; and divine help does not betray love and prayer, = since God=20 Himself inspires both.

Where, then, will we find a guarantee = against error in=20 the future? There is only one answer to this question: = Whoever seeks=20 beyond hope and faith for any guarantee of the spirit of = love is=20 already a rationalist. For him the Church, too, is = unthinkable,=20 since he is already, in his whole spirit, plunged in = doubt.

I do not know if I have succeeded in making = my thought=20 clear, so that my readers will really see the difference = between the=20 basic principles of the Church and those of the Western = confessions.=20 The difference is so great that it is hardly possible to = find one=20 point on which they might agree. It even happens that, the = more=20 similar in appearance are the expressions or external forms, = the=20 more essential is the difference in their significance.

So many of the questions which have been = argued for so=20 many centuries in the religious polemic of Europe find a = simple=20 resolution within the Church; or, to speak more accurately, = for her=20 they do not even exist as questions. Thus, taking it as a = first=20 principle that the life of the spiritual world is nothing = but love=20 and communion in prayer, she prays for the dead, even though = she=20 rejects the fable of purgatory invented by rationalism; she = asks for=20 the intercession of the saints, not ascribing to them, = however, the=20 merits contrived by the utilitarian school, and not = acknowledging=20 the necessity for any intercession other than that of our = Divine=20 Mediator. Thus, aware of her living unity, she cannot even=20 understand the question whether salvation lies in faith = alone or in=20 faith and works together. In her eyes life and truth are = one, and=20 works are nothing but the manifestation of a faith which, = without=20 this manifestation, would not be faith but logical = knowledge. Thus=20 also, feeling her inner union with the Holy Spirit, she = offers=20 thanks to the One Who is Good for every good thing, = ascribing=20 nothing to herself and to man except the evil which, in him, = resists=20 the work of God. Man must be helpless if the power of God is = to be=20 perfected in his soul.

Here I must fix the reader's attention on a = phenomenon=20 which is especially significant. The bifurcation of the = Church into=20 the Teaching Church and the Church of Pupils (this name = really ought=20 to be given to the lower division), while acknowledged as a = basic=20 principle in Romanism (conditioned as it is by the = structural=20 properties of a Church-State with its division into clergy = and=20 laity), has passed into the Reform and is preserved in it as = a=20 result of the abrogation of legitimate tradition or the = encroachment=20 of knowledge on faith. Here then is the common feature of = both=20 Western confessions. Its absence in the Orthodox Church = defines her=20 character in the most decisive way.

In saying this I am not proposing a = hypothesis, not=20 even a logical conclusion from a combination of other = principles in=20 Orthodoxy (I drew such a conclusion and put it into writing = many=20 years ago). Khomyakov is probably = referring here=20 to his article, "The=20 Church Is One," first published in = 1864 but=20 written much earlier, perhaps in the forties. = (Trans.) I am=20 saying much more. The feature which I have pointed out is an = indisputable dogmatic fact. The Eastern patriarchs, having = assembled=20 in council with their bishops, solemnly pronounced in their = reply to=20 the Encyclical Letter of Pius IX that "infallibility resides = solely=20 in the ecumenicity of the Church bound together by mutual = love, and=20 that the unchangeableness of dogma as well as the purity of = rite are=20 entrusted to the care not of one hierarchy but of all the = people of=20 the Church, who are the Body of Christ." Encyclical dated May 6, 1848. This = formal=20 declaration of all the Eastern clergy, which was received by = the=20 territorial Russian Church with respectful and brotherly = gratitude,=20 has acquired the moral authority of an ecumenical sanction. = This is=20 unquestionably the most significant event in Church history = over=20 many centuries.

In the True Church there is no Teaching = Church.

Does this mean that there is no edification = in the=20 Church? There is not only edification, but more edification = there=20 than anywhere else. Every word inspired by the feeling of = truly=20 Christian love, and living faith, and hope, is edification. = Every=20 deed carrying the imprint of the Spirit of God is a lesson. = Every=20 Christian life is a pattern and example. The martyr who dies = for the=20 truth, the judge who judges righteously (not as pleasing = men, but=20 God), the farmer in his humble labor continually being = lifted in=20 thought to his Creator =97 all such men live and die for the = edification of their brothers; and not without reason, for = the=20 Spirit of God puts words of wisdom on their lips such as the = scholar=20 and theologian will never find. "The bishop is at the same = time both=20 the teacher and disciple of his flock," said the modern = apostle to=20 the Aleutian Islands, Bishop Innokenti. Every man, no matter = how=20 high he is placed in the hierarchy, or conversely, no matter = how=20 hidden from view he may be in the shadow of humble = circumstance,=20 both edifies and is edified, for God clothes whom He wills = with the=20 gifts of His infinite wisdom, without regard to person or = calling.=20 It is not just the word that edifies, but a man's whole = life.

The question of edification brings us again = to the=20 question of investigation, since the one presupposes the = other.=20 Faith is always the consequence of revelation recognized as=20 revelation; it is the perceiving of an invisible fact = manifested in=20 some visible fact; faith is not belief or logical=20 conviction based on conclusions, but much more. It is not = the act of=20 one perceptive faculty separated from others, but the act of = all the=20 powers of reason grasped and captivated in all its depth by = the=20 living truth of the revealed fact. Faith is not known only = or sensed=20 only, but is known and sensed together, so to speak; in a = word, it=20 is not knowledge alone but knowledge and life. So, then, the = process=20 of investigation in matters of faith borrows from faith the=20 essential nature of faith, and differs completely from = investigation=20 in the usual meaning of the word. First, in the area of = faith, the=20 world which is under investigation is not a world external = to man,=20 since man himself, and the whole man, with all his fullness = of=20 reason and will, belongs to this world and is an essential = part of=20 it. Second, investigation in the area of faith presupposes = certain=20 basic data, moral or rational, which, for the soul, stand = above all=20 doubt. Actually, investigation in the area of faith is = nothing but=20 the process of the reasonable unveiling of these data; since = full=20 doubt, knowing no limits (if such a thing could really = exist), would=20 not only exclude all possibility of faith but also any = thought of=20 serious investigation. Once admitted by an absolutely pure = soul, the=20 least of these data would give it all the other data by = virtue of an=20 unbreakable although perhaps unrecognized sequence of = deductions.=20 For the Orthodox Christian the sum of these data includes = the whole=20 universe, with all the phenomena of human life and the whole = word of=20 God, both written and expressed in the dogmatic ecumenical=20 tradition.

Thus investigation itself in the area of = faith, both=20 by the variety of data subject to study and by the fact that = its=20 goal lies in living and not merely in abstract truth, = demands the=20 use of all intellectual powers in the will and reason, and = beyond=20 that also the inner investigation of these powers = themselves. It is=20 necessary to take into account not only the world that is = seen, as=20 object, but also the power and purity of the organ of = sight.

The initial principle of such investigation = is the=20 humble acknowledgment of one's own frailty. It cannot be = otherwise;=20 since the shadow of sin already contains the possibility of = error,=20 and the possibility turns into inevitability when a man=20 unconditionally relies on his own powers or the gifts of = grace=20 bestowed on him as an individual. One would have to claim = perfection=20 of the perceptive faculty as well as moral perfection in = order to be=20 in a position to make a truly independent investigation of = the=20 subjects of faith. It would take more than just satanic = pride to=20 make such a claim; one would have to be quite mad. The truth = exists=20 only where there is pure holiness, that is, in the wholeness = of the=20 Ecumenical Church, which is the manifestation of the Spirit = of God=20 in mankind.

Edification, then, is accomplished, not by = Scripture=20 alone, as the Protestants think (nevertheless we thank them = with all=20 our heart for increasing the number of copies of the Bible); = nor by=20 verbal interpretation; nor by the Creed (the necessity of = which,=20 however, we by no means deny); nor by preaching; nor by the = study of=20 theology; nor by works of love; but by all these things=20 together.

Of course Christianity is expressed in = logical form in=20 the Creed; but this expression is not separated from its = other=20 manifestations. Christianity is taught as a learned = discipline under=20 the title of theology; but this is no more than a branch of = the=20 teaching as a whole. Whoever truncates the teaching, that = is,=20 whoever separates teaching in the narrow sense of lecturing = and=20 interpreting from its other forms, errs grievously; whoever = turns=20 teaching into an exclusive privilege descends into = foolishness;=20 whoever makes of teaching a kind of official function, = supposing=20 that the divine gift of teaching is inseparably connected = with this=20 official function, falls into heresy, since in this very way = a new,=20 unheard-of sacrament is created: the sacrament of = rationalism or=20 logical knowledge. The whole Church teaches =97 the = Church in=20 all her fullness. The Church does not acknowledge a Teaching = Church=20 in any other sense.

I hope that I have said enough to prove that = the=20 second charge brought against us by Mr. Laurency, the Comte = de=20 Maistre, and by many others, is just as ill-founded as the = first,=20 and that Protestantism could arise in the Church only by way = of the=20 Roman schism, out of which it inevitably flows.

However, an objection may perhaps be raised = on the=20 strength of my own words. It could be said that in tracing = the=20 genealogy of Protestantism through Romanism I have proved = that the=20 rationalistic soil of the Reform was created first by the = Roman=20 schism; but since this schism (at the moment of its = appearance) was=20 an act of Protestantism, surely it must follow that = Protestantism=20 can arise directly within the Church. I hope, however, that = my=20 answer will justify me. Certainly, by its falling away from = the=20 Church, Rome performed an act of Protestantism; but in those = times=20 the ecclesiological spirit, even in the West, was still so = strong=20 and so opposed to the spirit of the later Reform that = Romanism was=20 compelled to hide its character from the sight of Christians = and=20 from itself too, masking the principle of rationalistic = anarchy it=20 had brought into the midst of the Church by a despotism in = matters=20 of faith. Even if it could be demonstrated, however, that = in=20 former times Protestantism or the Protestant principle = could be=20 generated in the bosom of the Church, it is nevertheless = clear now=20 that this possibility no longer exists.

From the very beginning of the Christian = world, no=20 small number of heresies have arisen to disturb its harmony. = Even=20 before the apostles had finished their earthly task, many of = their=20 pupils were seduced by falsehood. Later on, with each = succeeding=20 century, heresies multiplied. Many of the faithful were torn = away=20 from the Church by Nestorianism and Eutychianism, with all = their=20 ramifications, and especially by Arianism, which provided,=20 incidentally, the occasion for the Roman schism. The = question is=20 raised: Can these heresies be revived? No! At the time when = they=20 arose, the dogmas which they opposed were not yet clothed in = the=20 form of clear definitions, even though they were included = implicitly=20 in the Church's tradition. Thus it was possible for a frail, = personal faith to fall into error. Later, by Divine = Providence, by=20 the grace of His eternal Word and the inspiration of the = Spirit of=20 truth and life, dogma received a precise definition at the = councils=20 =97 and from then on error (in its old form) became = impossible even as=20 a result of personal frailty. Unbelief is still possible, = but not=20 Arianism. The same is true with the other heresies; they too = are no=20 longer possible. They involved misconceptions concerning the = revealed dogma of the inner being of God, or of God's = relationship=20 to human nature; distorting the dogmatic tradition, they = claimed to=20 be the true tradition. These were more or less culpable = errors, but=20 they did not infringe upon the dogma of ecclesiastical = ecumenicity;=20 on the contrary, all the above-mentioned heresies tried to = prove the=20 truth of their teachings by referring to their supposed = acceptance=20 by all Christians. Romanism began at the moment it placed = the=20 independence of individual or regional opinion above the = ecumenical=20 unity of faith; it was the first to create a heresy of a new = type, a=20 heresy against the dogma of the nature of the Church, = against her=20 own faith in herself. The Reform was only the continuation = of this=20 same heresy under another name.

All the Western sects may be defined in this = way; but=20 an error once defined is no longer possible for members of = the=20 Church. Does this mean that members of the Church are immune = to=20 error? By no means. Just as it would be unreasonable to = assert that=20 they are immune to sin. Such perfection belongs only to the = Church=20 in her living wholeness, and cannot be ascribed to anyone=20 individually.

Only the person able to call himself a = living organ of=20 the Spirit of God would have the right to claim = infallibility. But=20 does it follow from this that the faith of an Orthodox = Christian is=20 open to error? No. Since the Christian, by the very fact = that he=20 believes in the Ecumenical Church, lowers his belief (in = questions=20 that have not yet been clearly defined) to the level of a = personal=20 opinion, or to that of a regional opinion if the doctrine = has been=20 accepted by a whole eparchy. However, although an error in = opinion=20 holds no danger for the Church, it cannot be considered = harmless for=20 the individual Christian. It is always a sign and = consequence of=20 moral error or weakness, making a man to some extent = unworthy of=20 heavenly light, and, like every sin, it can be wiped out = only by=20 divine mercy. A Christian's faith must overflow with joy and = gratitude, but also with fear. Let him pray! Let him beg for = the=20 light he lacks! If only he will not lull his conscience to = sleep,=20 like the Reformer who says: "Of course I may be mistaken, = but my=20 intentions are pure and God will take them into account, as = He does=20 my weakness." Or like the Romanist, who says: "Let us = suppose then=20 that I'm mistaken =97 so what? The pope knows the truth for = me, and I=20 submit in advance to his decision!"

I have clarified as well as I could the = difference in=20 character between the Church and the Western confessions. I = have=20 stated plainly the heresy against the dogma concerning the=20 ecumenicity and holiness of the Church contained in both = Latinist=20 and Protestant rationalism. Now I must say a few words about = our=20 relations with these two confessions, their relations with = each=20 other, and their contemporary position.

Since the Reform is nothing but a = continuation and=20 development of Romanism, I must first speak about our = relations with=20 the latter. Is a rapprochement possible? One can only answer = this=20 question with a decisive "No." Truth does not permit = compromises. It=20 is understandable why the papacy has devised the Greek Uniat = Church.=20 The Church-State can, if it sees fit, bestow certain rights = of=20 citizenship upon its former Eastern brothers, as helots in = the realm=20 of faith. It can give these rights to them as a reward for = their=20 humble submission to the authority of the pope, without = demanding=20 from them the oneness of faith expressed in the Creed. Of = course,=20 for the true Latinist such half-citizens can only arouse = pity and=20 contempt. They are far from being real Roman citizens, and = not one=20 theologian, not one teacher would undertake to prove the = logic of=20 their religion. It is an absurdity which is being tolerated = =97 and=20 nothing more. In the eyes of the Church such a union is = unthinkable,=20 but it is in complete harmony with the principles of = Romanism. The=20 Church admits no compromises in dogma or faith. She requires = full=20 unity, nothing less; on the other hand, she gives full = equality,=20 since she recognizes the spirit of brotherliness and not = subjection.=20 Thus a rapprochement is impossible without the full = renunciation by=20 the Romanists of an error which is now more than a thousand = years=20 old.

But would not a council bridge the chasm = separating=20 the Roman schism from the Church? No =97 since a council can = be called=20 only after the chasm has been bridged. It is true that = people=20 intoxicated by false opinions participated in the Ecumenical = Councils; some of them returned to the truth, others were = stubborn=20 in their errors and as a result were finally separated from = the=20 Church. But the point is that these people, in spite of = their=20 errors, did not deny the divine principle of ecumenicity in = the most=20 fundamental dogmas of the faith. They held, or at least = declared the=20 hope of defining in clear terms, the dogma confessed by the = Church,=20 and also hoped to be worthy of the grace of testifying to = the faith=20 of their brothers. Such was the aim of the councils, such = was their=20 significance, such was the concept implied in the usual = introductory=20 formula to all their decisions: "It has pleased the Holy = Spirit...."=20 These words do not express a haughty claim, but a humble = hope,=20 justified or repudiated later by the acceptance or = nonacceptance of=20 the decisions by the whole people of the Church or, as the = Eastern=20 patriarchs put it, by the whole Body of Christ. There were, = from=20 time to time, heretical councils. Why were these councils = rejected,=20 when outwardly they did not differ from the Ecumenical = Councils?=20 Solely because their decisions were not acknowledged as the = voice of=20 the Church by the whole people of the Church, by = that=20 people and within that world where, in questions of faith, = there is=20 no difference between a scholar and an untutored person, = between=20 cleric and layman, between man and woman, king and subject,=20 slaveowner and slave, and where, if in God's judgment it is = needed,=20 a youth receives the gift of knowledge, a word of infinite = wisdom is=20 given to a child, and the heresy of a learned bishop is = confuted by=20 an illiterate cowherd, so that all might be joined in that = free=20 unity of living faith which is the manifestation of the = Spirit of=20 God. Such is the dogma lying beneath the idea of the = council. Now=20 then, why have a council if the Western world has been = deemed worthy=20 of such a clear revelation of divine truth that it has = considered=20 itself empowered to insert its revelation into the Symbol of = Faith=20 without waiting for confirmation from the East? What might a = wretched Greek or Russian helot do at a council seated = alongside=20 these chosen vessels, these representatives of people who = have=20 anointed themselves with the chrism of infallibility? A = council is=20 impossible until the Western world returns to the idea of = the=20 council and condemns its own infringement of the council = principle=20 and all the consequences stemming from this infringement. = Or, to put=20 it another way, until it returns to the original Creed and = submits=20 its opinion, by which the Creed was impaired, to the = judgment of the=20 Ecumenical Faith. In a word, when rationalism is clearly = understood=20 and condemned, then and only then will a council be = possible. So it=20 is not a council which will bridge the chasm; the chasm must = first=20 be bridged before the council can assemble. This=20 was the conviction of the great Mark of Ephesus who, at the=20 Florentine Council, demanded that the Creed be restored to = its=20 original purity and the insertion be declared an opinion = standing=20 outside its formula. Excluded from the list of dogmas, the = error=20 would become harmless. This was what Mark wanted, leaving = the actual=20 correction of the error to God's providence. Thus the heresy = would=20 have been removed and the possibility of communion restored. = But the=20 pride of rationalism has not yet permitted Rome to go this=20 far.

It was noted above that Romanism had been = forced to=20 renounce its own nature, so to speak, as long as it bore = anarchy=20 within itself as a principle and feared its manifestation in = practice. It was compelled to masquerade in its own eyes and = transform itself into despotism. This transformation has not = failed=20 to bring important consequences. The unity of the Church was = free;=20 more precisely, the unity was freedom itself, the harmonious = expression of inner agreement. When this living unity was = rejected,=20 ecclesiastical freedom was sacrificed for the maintenance of = a=20 contrived and arbitrary unity. The spiritual intuition of = truth was=20 replaced by an external token or sign.

The Reform followed another path. Remaining = steadfast=20 to the principle of rationalistic self-determination which = had=20 generated the Roman schism, it demanded its freedom (with = every=20 right), and was forced to sacrifice all semblance of unity. = As with=20 papism, so also with the Reform: everything leads to = externality.=20 Such is the nature of all the children of rationalism. The = unity of=20 papism is an external unity, deprived of living content; the = freedom=20 of the Protestant mind is also an external freedom, without = real=20 content.

The papists, like the Judaizers, base their = position=20 on a sign (or token); Protestants, like the Hellenizers, = base their=20 position on logic. A true understanding of the Church, as = freedom in=20 unity and life in reason, is equally inaccessible to = both.

On the other hand, conflict is possible, = even=20 inevitable, since they occupy the same ground and have the = same=20 rights. Both Romanism and Protestantism have been plunged = wholly=20 (without suspecting it) into that logical antinomy into = which every=20 living thing falls as long as it sees things only from the = logical=20 point of view. But what are the results of the conflict? In = all=20 truthfulness, there is nothing comforting here for either = side. Both=20 are strong in attack and weak in defense, since both are = equally=20 wrong, and equally condemned by reason and the witness of = history.=20 At every moment each of the warring parties can pride itself = on a=20 spectacular victory; but in the meantime both are constantly = defeated, and the field of battle is left to unbelief. If = the need=20 for faith had not compelled many people to close their eyes = to the=20 inconsistency of a religion accepted only because it was = impossible=20 to get along without it, and if the same need had not = compelled even=20 those who do not seriously believe in religion to continue = to hold=20 on to what they once accepted, unbelief would long ago have=20 conquered the field.

Since the conflict between the Western = confessions has=20 been conducted on the soil of rationalism, one cannot even = say that=20 faith has been its real subject. Beliefs and = convictions,=20 no matter how sincere or passionate, have yet to deserve the = name of=20 faith. Nevertheless, as a subject of study this conflict is=20 extraordinarily interesting and profoundly instructive. The=20 characteristics of the parties are defined in it = clearly.

A criticism that is serious but dry and = imperfect; a=20 learning that is broad but unsubstantial because of its lack = of=20 inner unity; an upright and sober morality worthy of the = first=20 centuries of the Church, combined with a narrowness of = vision set=20 within the limits of individualism; ardent outbursts of = feeling in=20 which we seem to hear a confession of their shortcomings and = their=20 lack of hope in ever attaining atonement; a constant lack of = depth=20 scarcely masked by a fog of arbitrary mysticism; a love of = the truth=20 combined with an inability to understand it in its living = reality;=20 in a word =97 rationalism within idealism: such is = the fate=20 of the Protestants. A breadth of view that is large enough, = yet=20 quite insufficient for true Christianity; an eloquence that = is=20 brilliant but too often marred by passion; a bearing that is = majestic but always theatrical; a criticism that is almost = always=20 superficial, catching at words and not probing far into = meaning; an=20 illusory display of unity with an absence of real unity; a = certain=20 peculiar poverty of religious need, which never dares to = raise its=20 sights to higher levels and is always ready to settle for a = cheap=20 satisfaction; a certain uneven depth, hiding its shoals in = clouds of=20 sophisms; a hearty and sincere love for external order = combined with=20 a disregard for internal order, i.e., truth; in a word =97=20 rationalism within materialism: such is the fate of = the=20 Latinists. Nor do I mean to accuse all the writers of this = party of=20 deliberate falsehood, or to say that none of their opponents = deserves the same reproach; but the inclination of the = papist party=20 to sophisms, its systematic side-stepping in the face of = real=20 objections, its feigned ignorance =97 which has finally = become a=20 regular habit of textual distortions, omissions, and = inaccuracies in=20 quotation =97 all this is so well known that it is beyond = dispute. Not=20 wishing, however, in such an important accusation, to limit = myself=20 to simple assertions, and having made it a rule for myself = never to=20 cite facts which are in any way doubtful, I will remind my = readers=20 of the long-drawn-out affair of the False Decretals, upon = which the=20 theory of papal supremacy rested until the belief became so=20 entrenched that it was possible to remove the false props; I = mention=20 also the false Deeds of Donation which formed the basis for = the=20 temporal power of the Roman primate; and the endless series = of=20 deliberately mutilated editions of the holy fathers. Close = to our=20 own time, I mention the fact that the work of Adam = Zernikavius, in=20 which it is demonstrated that all the testimony drawn from = the works=20 of the holy fathers in support of the addition to the Creed = was=20 intentionally altered or misquoted, still stands unrefuted. = Finally,=20 moving into our own time, I point to the writings of the = eloquent=20 proto-sophist Comte de Maistre, Cf. the = argument=20 in defense of Romanism drawn by de Maistre from the works of = St.=20 Athanasius: "The whole world," says St. Athanasius to the = heretics,=20 "calls the true Church the Catholic Church. This alone is = enough to=20 prove that you are heretics." "But which Church is it," de = Maistre=20 asks, "that all Europe calls Catholic? The Church of Rome.=20 Consequently all other Churches are in schism." But surely = St.=20 Athanasius was talking to Greeks, who clearly understood the = meaning=20 of the word "catholic" (as "world-wide," "ecumenical"), so = that his=20 argument had full force. But, I ask, what does this prove in = the=20 case of modern Europe, where the word has lost all meaning? = Let them=20 ask about the world-wide or ecumenical Church in England, or = Germany, or especially in Russia, and listen carefully to = the=20 answers! and to the remarkable work of Newman ("On = the=20 Development of Christian Doctrine"). In = this work=20 Newman supplements Moeller's theory about the gradual = perfecting and=20 development of the Church. "All her doctrine," he says, "was = contained implicitly in her primitive teaching, and was = gradually=20 developed out of it, or more accurately, gradually acquired = a=20 clarity of logical expression. Thus it was with the basic = dogma of=20 the Trinity, thus also with the doctrine of papal supremacy = in=20 matters of faith, and so on." And so Newman pretends that he = has=20 never heard about the apostasy of Pope Liberius, or about = the=20 condemnation of Pope Honorius by an Ecumenical Council and = the=20 acceptance of this condemnation by the whole West. What is = important=20 here is not the fact that Honorius erred, nor does it matter = whether=20 this was proved or not; what is important is that an = Ecumenical=20 Council acknowledged the possibility of papal fallibility, = something=20 Newman could not help but know. Thus the new doctrine of=20 infallibility was not a development of ecumenical doctrine, = but its=20 direct contradiction. The author's silence and pretended = ignorance=20 on this point is nothing more than a barefaced lie. = It should=20 be noted that this last writer was scrupulous indeed as long = as he=20 confessed Anglicanism, but after converting to Romanism out = of=20 scrupulousness (so I assume), there was a sudden loss of = scruple.=20 However, in pointing out the falsity which always marks the = Roman=20 polemic, I by no means wish to condemn too harshly the = writers who=20 have taken part in it, and I will not dwell on the question = of the=20 extent of their moral responsibility.

Neither Orthodox writers nor the defenders = of=20 Protestantism are above reproach in this matter, although = occasions=20 for just complaint are encountered much less frequently with = them=20 than with the Latinists; and the degree of personal guilt is = far=20 from being the same. A falsehood coming from the pen of an = Orthodox=20 writer is an absurd infamy, definitely harming the cause = which he is=20 undertaking to defend; in the case of a Protestant, a = falsehood is a=20 culpable absurdity and at the same time completely = unprofitable; but=20 with the Romanist, falsehood is a necessity, and to a = certain extent=20 forgivable. The reason for this difference is clear. = Falsehood is=20 essentially opposed to Orthodoxy, as it is to truth. In=20 Protestantism, the realm of searching for truth, falsehood = is simply=20 out of place. In Romanism, however, the teaching which = denies its=20 own root principle, falsehood is inevitable. Here is the = real source=20 of that moral corruption which, in the Roman confession, = perverts=20 the brightest minds and discredits the loftiest intellects = (we need=20 only recall the remarkable Bossuet).

The moral exhaustion of the two parties = becomes more=20 and more apparent every day. A horror in the face of common = danger=20 is overwhelming the rationalistic sects of the West: Papism = and the=20 Reform. They still go on struggling with one another (they = are=20 unable to stop) but they have lost all hope of victory, = having more=20 or less clearly recognized their own inner weaknesses. = Unbelief=20 rapidly grows up before them, not that unbelief of the = powerful, the=20 rich, and the learned which marked the eighteenth century, = but the=20 unbelief of the masses, the scepticism of ignorance. Such = are the=20 legitimate offspring of the open or hidden rationalism which = has=20 passed for faith in the European world for hundreds of = years.

I have fulfilled my duty. I have defended = the Church=20 against false accusations which I do not consider, however, = to be=20 deliberate slanders. In order to make my refutation = intelligible I=20 have had to develop the distinctive features both of = Orthodoxy and=20 of the Western schism, which is nothing but patched up = rationalism,=20 and to present the contemporary religious question in the = light in=20 which it appears to us. As I said at the beginning, I have = not tried=20 to gloss over my hostility of thought by an affected = moderation of=20 terms. I have boldly put forward the Church's teaching and = her=20 attitude toward the different forms of the schism. I have = openly=20 expressed my opinion about the conflict between the sects. I = dare to=20 hope, however, that no one will accuse me of malice or = conscious=20 injustice.

I repeat: I have fulfilled my duty in = answering the=20 charges brought against the Church =97 not only my duty in = relation to=20 the Church, but still more in relation to you, my readers = and=20 brothers, who have unfortunately been separated from us by = an error=20 which arose in ages long passed out of view. No fear of any = kind, or=20 any sort of calculation, has constrained my pen, nor have I = written=20 out of any hope of profit.

Readers and brothers! A ruinous legacy has = come down=20 to you from the ignorance and sinfulness of past age =97 the = embryo of=20 death; and you are suffering punishment for it without being = directly responsible, since you have had no definite = understanding=20 of the error involved. You have done much for mankind in = science and=20 art, in constitutional law and in the civilization of = peoples, in=20 the practical realization of the meaning of truth and in the = practical application of love. More than that, you have done = all you=20 could for man in his relation to God, preaching Christ to = people who=20 had never before heard His Divine Name. All honor and thanks = to you=20 for your immeasurable labors, the fruits of which mankind is = gathering now and will continue to gather in the future. But = as long=20 as it still inspires you, this ruinous legacy will kill your = spiritual life.

The cure is within your power. Of course, as = long as=20 the disease is alive in popular prejudices and in the = ignorance of=20 the means to stop its spread (and this will last a long = time), it is=20 impossible to expect the healing of the masses; but the cure = is=20 accessible now to private individuals. If any one of my = readers is=20 convinced of the truth of my words, of the validity of my = definition=20 of the origins of the schism and its rationalistic = character, then I=20 beg him to consider. If he will make but one acknowledgment = of the=20 truth, then he must accept all the practical consequences = flowing=20 from it; if he will make but one confession of error, he = must then=20 repair it, to the extent that this is possible.

I beg him to undertake a moral exploit =97 = to tear=20 himself away from rationalism, to condemn the = excommunication which=20 was once pronounced upon his Eastern brothers, to reject all = the=20 later decrees flowing from this falsehood, to accept us once = more in=20 his communion with the rights of brotherly equality, and to = restore=20 in his soul the unity of the Church, so that by this fact he = might=20 have the right to repeat with her: "Let us love one another, = and=20 with one mind confess the Father, and the Son, and the Holy=20 Spirit."

The disease carries death within itself, but = the cure=20 is not difficult; it only requires an act of justice. Will = people=20 want to undertake this exploit, or will they prefer to = perpetuate=20 the reign of falsehood, deluding their own consciences and = the minds=20 of their brothers?

My readers, judge for yourselves!

Translated by Asheleigh E. = Moorhouse
April,=20 1964


		A Complete Source for Orthodox=20 Christian Books Icons Music Jewelry<= /A> Gifts=20 Devotion= al=20 Items