New Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Synodal Biblical Theological Commission published a draft catechism for general church discussion. Should such issues be included in the Catechism at all?

From a new theological consciousness to a new Catechism

As already noted, one of the most characteristic features of the Draft New Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church is its theological uncertainty, which may be more accurately described as polysemy, because the ambiguity here is generated by ambiguity, the simultaneous presentation of two (or more) points of view on certain issues of dogma (although, of course, not for all, in particular, in triadology, the authors do not go for this kind of dialogism and democracy). Of course, such a method is conscious in nature, that is, it is conceptual. But this concept itself, as applied to a church doctrinal document, is rightly assessed as unsuccessful or even unacceptable, because the Catechism, as a statement of the main points of faith, by definition, must exclude a pluralistic approach.

Theological pluralism presupposes that theologians (private theological opinions) are given equal importance with the dogmatic teaching of the Church, that is, with the carefully calibrated formulas of the correct faith, the definitions of the councils, which have gone through centuries of reception and are recognized by all Local Churches as the only truth of Orthodoxy. In fact, this means hidden adogmatism, that is, the rejection of the orthodox principle of the dogmatic standard, the uniqueness of the postulate on each issue of faith (a member of the Creed), and the adoption of the principle of apophatic inexpressibility of Christian truths, their transcendental “mystery”, inaccessible to human knowledge or verbal expression, or accessible only partially, in the polyphony of meanings, in particular. The work of this concept of the new Catechism can be clearly seen in the presentation of the teachings on original sin and the Atonement.

We can say with sufficient confidence that the “Dogmatic Theology” of Fr. Oleg Davydenkov, where the designated principle of moderate apophaticism is formulated in general (“Dogma, the purpose of which is to protect the purity of the Orthodox dogma, protects the revealed truth from distortion, but does not give its exhaustive interpretation. According to V. N. Lossky, “at every moment of its historical of being, the Church formulates the Truth of faith in her dogmas: they always express the fullness that is intelligible in the light of Tradition, which nevertheless they can never fully reveal ""), and specifically in the doctrine of the Atonement ("Despite the fact that modern theologians have the expression " the dogma of redemption", soteriology is a little dogmatized area of ​​theology, which is the reason for the variety of ways to explain the redemptive feat of Christ. With regard to the most famous and most systematized attempts to interpret the redemptive work of Christ the Savior in modern theology, the name "theory of redemption" is used "). The new Catechism is undoubtedly guided by the same principle, which means that instead of the dogma of the Redemption, the Russian Orthodox Church is now going to profess the “theory of redemption,” and not even one. Accordingly, indicated in the work of Fr. Oleg, the primary source of this kind of dogmatic consciousness (that is, "modern theology") is also a tuning fork for the authors of the Catechism. The logic here is clear: since the catechism is new, then its theology must be modern. True, this means that the most prominent of the theologians of recent times (for centuries, approximately) act as the new Fathers of the Church, or at least stand on a par with them (since their theology is taken as a guideline for compiling the catechism of the Local Church).

We have previously noted a similar ambiguity in the ecclesiology of the Project, which has the same genealogy: “The doctrine of the Church is one of the most mysterious and ineffable dogmas of the Christian faith: here the “great mystery of piety” lies before us in its yet unfulfilled, unfulfilled fullness. And it is no coincidence that neither the apostles, nor the holy fathers, nor the Ecumenical Councils gave complete definitions of churchness and only in symbols and likenesses revealed what appeared to them with direct self-reliance in the inspired experience of faith. As one of the Orthodox theologians recently put it, “there is no concept of the Church, but there is She Herself, and for every living member of the Church, Church life is the most definite and tangible thing that he knows,” — a believer can confess his living knowledge and now cannot do otherwise, as in images and comparisons consecrated by apostolic, patristic and liturgical use ”(Arch. George Florovsky. Two Testaments). Now we can trace how this mechanism of conscious semantic pluralism operates in the anthropology and soteriology of the document under consideration.

So, the dogmas of original sin and the Atonement in the Russian Orthodox Church will not be completely absent now, but their status will be lowered to the position of one of the “theories” among others, or their “mix”, with a predicate that is fundamentally not completely understandable ( predicate) of the object of the utterance. The Project simultaneously (according to the principle of theological post-structuralism) presents three main points of view that have arisen in Russian theology since it entered the phase of “modernity” as romantic anti-scholasticism, “neo-patristic revival”, liberation from the medieval “Latin captivity”; that is, these are the so-called "legal", "moral" and "organic" theories. Meanwhile, only the first of these "theories" has a historical dogmatic status. That is, it has always been the dogma of the Church as such. The main provisions of this doctrine were formulated in the anti-Pelagian controversy of Bl. Augustine and in the definitions of the Carthaginian Local Council of 419 (“For it was said by the apostle: by one man sin into the world is out, and death is by sin: and tacos (death) into all men are out, in it all have sinned (Rom. 5, 12), for according to this rule of faith even infants, who are not yet capable of committing any sins of their own accord, are truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that through regeneration, what they are will be cleansed in them. occupied from a dilapidated birth ”(124 pr.)), who passed the reception of the III Ecumenical. The more than a thousand-year-old faith of the Eastern Church in this meaning of original sin and Atonement is spoken of in the Dogmatic Epistle of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Church of 1723, the Confession of St. Peter (Graves) (about the general church normative status of which the Project itself, among other things, testifies: “The approval took place on March 11, 1643 at the Council of Constantinople; Patriarch Parthenius I of Constantinople presided; the Council’s charter was also signed by three other Eastern patriarchs” (p. 6)), "Large Catechism" of St. Philaret (Drozdov), "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Met. Macarius (Bulgakov) and even just a translation of the Epistle to the Romans into Slavic of the Saints Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius (“in him all have sinned”), identical in meaning to its Synodal translation edited by St. Filaret.

Whereas in the new Catechism this traditional interpretation of the dogma of original sin turns out to be not so much “diluted” with other (“organic”) interpretations as generally pushed into footnotes: “The fall of Adam in theological literature is sometimes called “original sin”, that is, the first, original a sin followed by all other sins” (p. 52). Indeed, in “theological literature” (not only “modern”, but also patristic) not everyone used the term “original sin”, however, it is the conventionally “legal” meaning of “ancestral sin” (that is, as the sin of “original”, hereditary which imposes not only an "immaculate" state of corruption and mortality, but also a punishable state of sinfulness on every bearer of the nature of fallen Adam) has historically been established in the Church as dogmatic. “King David exclaims: Behold, I was conceived in iniquity, and my mother bore me in sin (Ps. 51:7). Obviously, neither the personal sin of the king-prophet, nor the sin of his parents, can be taken into account here, since David's parents were legally married and belonged to the number of the Old Testament righteous. Therefore, “iniquity” and “sin”, in which David was conceived and born, should be understood as hereditary sinfulness, which, starting from Adam, successively spreads from parents to children ... Augustine, especially the circumstances of his dispute with Pelagius, were well known in the East. The Third Ecumenical Council of 431, having condemned the heresy of Pelagius and Celestius (canons 1 and 4), thereby expressed its positive attitude towards the teachings of the blessed. Augustine. The only Eastern theologian who took a negative attitude to this term [original sin] and wrote a special polemical treatise against it was the famous heresiarch Theodore of Mopsuestia. See: Contra defensores peccati originalis // PG. T. 66. Col. 1005-1012)" . “For one to be punished through the fault of another does not seem quite fair, but for one to be saved through the other, this is more decent and in accordance with reason. If the first happened, then all the more so should the last ... One sin had the power to bring death and condemnation, and grace blotted out not only this single sin, but also other sins that followed it ... So that you, hearing about Adam, would not think, that only the sin that Adam brought was blotted out (the apostle) and says that many crimes were forgiven ... More numerous blessings were granted and not only original sin was destroyed, but all other sins, this (the apostle) showed with the words: “ a gift from many sins for justification ”... We were delivered from punishment, put off all evil, were reborn from above, rose again after the burial of the old man, were redeemed, sanctified, brought into adoption, justified, became brothers of the Only Begotten, became His joint heirs and co-corporeal with Him, entered into the composition of His flesh and united with Him as the body is with the head ... Christ paid much more than we owed, and as much more as the sea is infinite in comparison nii with a small drop. So, do not hesitate, man… if everyone was punished for the crime of Adam, then everyone can be justified by Christ… The point is that by the disobedience of one person, many became sinners. Of course, there is nothing incomprehensible in the fact that all who descended from him who sinned and became mortal became mortal also; but what sequence can there be in the fact that from the disobedience of one the other became sinful? Then, after all, it will turn out that the latter is not subject to punishment, since he did not become a sinner of himself. So, what does the word “sinners” mean here? It seems to me that it means people who are subject to punishment and condemned to death ”(St. John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Epistle to the Romans. Conversation 10).

And this necessary, according to Chrysostom, meaning of the dogma of original sin is leveled in the Project by "organic theory". The latter is a soteriology of purely "damage and restoration of nature", in fact, abandoning the Gospel-Biblical category of "God's wrath" as a volitional punishing action of God. Under the influence of pagan philosophy (both ancient and modern), the change in human nature is considered here as a kind of impersonal mechanism, an ontological law of nature itself, like karma. What entails a similar change in the orthodox understanding of the dogma of the Redemption (that is, its reduction to the Neoplatonic cosmogony of "restoration of nature" in its original form). “Sin is primarily a disease of human nature. Therefore, redemption is conceived as liberation from illness, as healing, transfiguration and, ultimately, the deification of human nature. Accordingly, theosis (deification) in the inertia of the same latent Neoplatonism begins to be thought here cosmogonically, as something natural, ontologically necessary.

While traditional soteriology fundamentally distinguishes between both phases of the “house-building of our salvation”: firstly, in fact, the Atonement of iniquity (“forgiveness of sin” and “destruction of handwriting” (Col 2:14)) and, secondly, the grace-filled resuscitation of the fallen nature, healing of damaged nature (“Lord, cleanse our sins, Lord, forgive our iniquities, Holy One, visit, heal our infirmities”). Having fallen into the forefathers, the human race became engaged to Satan, from the children of God it turned into a “child of wrath” (Eph 2:3), because the sinner, as a violator of the will of God, does the will of the devil, and already has the devil as his father and master (Jn 8: 44). This “sin dwelling in me,” “evil that is present with me,” “the law of sin” (Rom. 7:20-25) are the characteristics of original sin. In the fall of the first people, not only their (our) nature changes, but also the action of God in relation to man - from goodwill (giving all kinds of blessings) to "wrath" (the action of punishment). After the Atonement of the “sins (iniquities) of the world”, this action again changes to “mercy” (blessing and grace, the miraculous salvation of the irrevocably lost). The sinful human race, condemned to eternal death, is merciful to the All-good, the grace taken away for original sin is returned to the new humanity redeemed in the New Adam. From the mortality and corruption of the fallen Adam, our mortality and corruption (damage to nature), from the sin and guilt of Adam, our sinfulness and guilt (damage to the will). Guilt and sin are redeemed and released (forgiven by the will of God), mortality and corruption of nature are healed (reborn, renewed) by grace (the action of the Divine nature). Just as in the state of the old Adam we are partakers of both Adam's crimes, and his guilt, and his condemnation (death), having believed and been baptized, we are partakers of justification in Christ, and His righteousness, and His grace. Atonement (justification) is imputed in Christ, because condemnation (crime) was imputed in Adam. There were heirs of guilt, sinfulness and death (equated with the sons of the accursed devil), became heirs of justification, holiness and life. “We must believe that the seed of all passions lies in original sin, that we are born with an inclination to all types of sin: and therefore we should not be surprised at the manifestation and uprising of a single passion, as something unusual and strange” (St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov) Ascetic Experiences V.1 A Christian's Attitude to His Passions. “At baptism, a person is forgiven the original sin, borrowed from the forefathers, and his own sins committed before baptism. At baptism, a person is granted spiritual freedom: he is no longer violated by sin, but can freely choose good or evil. At baptism, Satan, who lives in every person of a fallen nature, is expelled from a person; it is left to the arbitrariness of a baptized person either to remain the temple of God and be free from Satan, or to remove God from oneself and again become the habitation of Satan ”(St. Ignatius (Bryanchaninov). Ascetic experiments. V.2. A word about the various states of human nature in relation to good and evil).

This traditional meaning of the dogma of original sin is weakened and thus distorted in the Project, where, as was said, the emphasis is on the self-evident "organic" (natural) inheritance of Adam's fallen nature: "The consequences of the fall from one person spread to the whole human genus. “As by one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, so death spread to all men,” says the apostle Paul (Rom. 5:12). Adam's sin, according to St. John Chrysostom, caused "general damage" to human nature (Conversations on the Epistle to the Romans. 10. 1) ”(p. 53). However, St. John, as we have seen, speaks not only of this, but of the becoming of all, thereby, “sinners,” as precisely under the jurisdiction of the Creator. Perhaps only one paragraph in the Project recalls the former “theory” of original sin: “Being a descendant of Adam and inheriting his nature, every person is involved in sin from the very moment of his birth: “We are all (born) from Adam who sinned as sinners, from a criminal - criminals, from the slave of sin - slaves of sin, from the damned and the dead - the damned and the dead; from the one who gave consent to the devil, who was enslaved to him and lost his freedom of will - and we are his children, over whom the devil tyrannically rules and dominates ”(p. 53 / St. Simeon the New Theologian, Words catechumens. 5. 406-413). Let us repeat once again that such a meaning of this dogma has been confessed in the symbolic books of the Church throughout the centuries: “We believe that Holy Baptism, commanded by the Lord and performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, is necessary. For without it no one can be saved, as the Lord says: Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Therefore, infants also need it, for they are also subject to original sin and without baptism they cannot receive remission of this sin ... But if infants have a need for salvation, then they also need baptism. And those who have not been reborn, and therefore have not received remission of their ancestral sin, are necessarily subject to eternal punishment for this sin, and therefore are not saved. So, babies need to be baptized... Briefly, the effects of baptism are as follows: first, remission is granted through it in the sin of the ancestor and in all other sins committed by the person being baptized. Secondly, the baptized person is freed from eternal punishment, to which everyone is subject both for inborn sin and for their own mortal sins ”(Epistle of the Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, 1723).

Finally, the very Dogmatics of Prot. Oleg Davydenkova (who, as we found out, is in many respects the prototype of the Project) denounces the “submission of material” in the new Catechism on this issue: “Despite the fact that original sin is not a personal sin, it cannot be recognized as some kind of morally neutral reality. As a union with the devil, this state is deeply contrary to the Divine plan for man and therefore cannot be the subject of Divine favor, for it is absolutely impossible for God, without denying Himself, to recognize the right of evil to exist in the world. Thus, all the descendants of Adam, as bearers of a fallen nature, are children of God's wrath by nature (Eph. 2:3) and are subject to condemnation. Therefore, along with original sin (ἁμαρτία), condemnation (κατάκριμα) also passes to all the descendants of Adam (see: Rom. 5:18). Condemnation finds its expression in the fact that all people, as descendants of Adam and Eve, a) are subject to the law of corruption and death; b) they cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven (see: John 3:5), as carriers of a sinful state of nature, i.e., contrary to Divine institutions. Thus, according to its results, original sin is actually equated with the transgression of the law of God. The exposure of each of Adam's descendants to this punishment is called the imputation of original sin." Thus, even with regard to labor, Fr. Oleg has to state in the new Catechism a significant aggravation of the designated pluralism, because such a formulation of original sin for the last document would already be too unambiguous, breaking out of the general polysemy. "This [legal] theory is attractive in its simplicity and clarity of formulation, which appeals to people with a rationalist mindset." This means that the authors of the Project already have a different (irrationalist) mindset, or (in theological terms) are carriers of post-scholastic as adogmatic consciousness.

If the dogma of original sin is practically “neutralized” (cleared from “medieval” semantic radicalism) in the Catechism, then the dogma of the Redemption (its traditional “legal” meaning), due to their direct interconnection, turns out to be presented in approximately the same proportions with other “theories” . “The earthly life of the Lord Jesus Christ, His suffering on the Cross, death, descent into hell, Resurrection and Ascension to heaven - all these events had a redemptive meaning” (p. 66). It is simply the quintessence of theological pluralism. Here is the "moral" theory of the Atonement of Met. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (whose dogmatic meaning even he himself eventually abandoned), and the historically dogmatized "legal" theory and, of course, "organic" theory gain the right to exist. Moreover, the latter theory (as the most “modern” and assessed as itself reconciling the “extremes” of the other two) is actually recognized as the most consistent with the Tradition (it is characteristic that in the work of Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov, the presentation of only the “organic theory” does not have a subheading “ shortcomings of this theory”: that is, there are already solid advantages here). “The Son of God, having become man, took upon Himself suffering for the sins of the whole world, died for people, and thereby freed people from the inevitability of eternal torment beyond the threshold of death. He returned to humanity, who was in slavery to the devil, freedom and the possibility of eternal blessed life with God, which people had lost due to the fall. The price paid for salvation was great: “You were bought with a price,” says the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23), recalling that the payment for the redemption of man from the power of the devil was the death of the God-man. The name “Redeemer” in the church tradition has become one of the names of Jesus Christ” (p. 66). And in this “one of the names” of the Savior, as one of the many meanings of the Atonement, the circle begins on p. 52 (“the fall of Adam in the theological literature is sometimes called “original sin”), One dogmatic concept has many meanings and means that it does not have the meaning of a dogma as an immutable postulate of faith.

The question is, will this pluralism be remedied as a result of the stated consideration of feedback before the allotted time? - Already now we can assume that no, it will not. Why? – All for the same reason of the conceptual nature of this pluralism. The Catechism is just that. It should be so, according to the intention of its authors, and in this sense it was very successful. The scatter of meanings, apparently, is associated here, among other things, with the breadth of the catechesis networks set up, for a better (greater) “catching of people”. Therefore, some individual “wishes” can be taken into account, a bit of archaic “legalism” or, conversely, modernist “organism” can be added, that is, the proportion of the theological opinions presented can be slightly changed, but not the principle of “balanced sides”. For example, one could recommend (ask, plead) to add to the text of the Catechism at least the above wording of Prot. Oleg Davydenkov (after all, a representative of a trustworthy theological "modernity") about "the sanity of original sin." But the fact of the matter is that it, this formulation, is too categorical in its judgment for this project (that is, it is no longer a document, but those great reforms, of which the new Catechism is only a part). The addition of such a “radical” in meaning (as befits a dogma) fragment will upset the carefully built balance of “theories”, which will lead to a chain reaction, that is, the need to reconcile the straightforwardness of this judgment with general allegory, or simply come into irreconcilable contradiction with other “theories” , actually denying such a meaning of the dogma of original sin. Therefore, it will be necessary to redo everything, or almost everything, that is, in fact, to write anew, based on a different concept.

Thus, if this Project is adopted at the next Bishops' Council, then at the end of the year we will receive a completely Protestant in type, "tolerant" confession of the Russian Orthodox Church: believe as you like (in the proposed list of meanings), the truth is still a "secret" , covered with a fog of inexpressibility, its “charismatic boundaries” are wider than traditional dogmatic ones (as the “invisible boundaries” of the Church are “wider than the canonical ones”)…

P.S.

Of course, not all the mysteries of God are revealed to the Church itself, but only those that are necessary for salvation. “We know in part, and we prophesy in part, when that which is perfect comes, then that which is in part will cease” (1 Cor. 13:9-10). But what are we talking about? “We are talking about the amount of knowledge, not its quality. Inexhaustible are the depths of Divine wisdom, revealed in the Holy Scripture itself. But does this mean that the very postulates of faith become inexhaustible in meaning from this? - Vice versa. Not everything is open, but what is open is revealed to us in its entirety of meaning. Therefore, it is accepted on faith as a dogma, as an indisputable truth, as an axiom of the dogma, as the law of God Himself, “who is able to establish you ... according to the revelation of the mystery, about which from time immemorial it was silent, but which is now revealed, and through the prophetic writings, by command eternal God, proclaimed to all peoples to subdue their faith” (Rom. 14:24-25); “We preach the wisdom of God, secret, hidden, which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the authorities of this age knew ... But God revealed [this] to us by His Spirit” (1 Cor. 2: 7-10). Open is completely open, not partly open, otherwise it could not lead us to salvation, forcing us to waver in faith.

Thus, theological pluralism, by transferring the gospel principle of the secrecy of Divine truth and its partial revelation in Holy Scripture to those truths that were revealed in it by God Himself, no longer “asserts” us “in faith” in these truths, or the dogmas of the Church (for which they were discovered), and does not “conquer” us with it, but, on the contrary, shakes this faith and this humility. That is, there is either speculation or thoughtlessness. Because if this trend continues, then imperceptibly into the sphere of dogmatic theology, following the theologians, heresies will also begin to penetrate (and this is partly already happening). The principle of theological tolerance, total polysemy and pluralism, which is the basis of the new Catechism, creates all the conditions for this. If the traditional dogmas (the upper pole of Christian epistemology) are lowered and equalized in meaning with the theologians (as conditionally “average”), then heresies (the lower pole of Christian epistemology) will inevitably rise to the same “average” level. In other words, there is a process of post-structuralist (“Babylonian” – in terms of Scripture) omnipresence, typical of the postmodern era, only in theology, in the very teaching of the Church, and therefore in her life. Gradually (slowly but surely) non-canonical practice coming into circulation is a clear illustration of this.

Alexander Buzdalov

On September 9, 2017, the well-known Orthodox publicist and missionary Father Georgy Maksimov published a review of the draft Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church, posted with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia on the official website of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church for general church discussion. Knowing Fr. Georgy for quite a long time, both through joint work in the Inter-Council Presence and through his numerous works, I was quite surprised, if not shocked, by the tone of his response. Here are just a few quotes:

“Correcting this text is like treating a dead person… an attempt to create a New Catechism has completely failed… It’s like if you ordered a natural science article to be written, and they brought you a poem about Chizhik-Pyzhik… take it out of sight… isn’t this a complete failure?.. unreadable “brick”, the mere sight of which will frighten off the target audience ... it turned out to be just a crudely molded chimera from a mediocre reference book, an unfinished biblical symphony and an official report ... a mockery of the reader ... I remember one elderly poetess assured me that she writes poetry solely on inspiration from God: “ Every line in them is from Him, not mine.” And the verses were cheesy-predryannye! I wanted to tell her that the Lord would definitely have turned out better, but he didn’t, he took pity on the old woman. I won’t feel sorry for the authors of the “project”… the text will still remain mediocre…” and so on. Priest G. Maksimov directly admits that one of the paragraphs of his text is a joke (very inappropriate and indecent, we note).

The rough, sometimes even cheeky tone of Father George indicates that the text prepared by him is not a review at all, but a certain amount of simmering anger that he decided to pour out both on the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission and on the hierarchies that participated in the preparation and publication of the project. Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church. He recommends not accepting the text of the new Catechism at all, but showing "humility" by recognizing that "theologians are gone in our Church."

In this regard, I would like to point out the history of the creation of the project proposed for general church discussion. It is not a whim of the Synodal Biblical Theological Commission or its individual members, but the implementation of the decision of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2008 and the instructions of the Holy Synod given in 2009. Both the members of the SBBK and the professors of theological academies worked on the text. And the point is not that one of them is allegedly trying to “surpass our great fathers of the past”, but that the Church considered it necessary to set the task of creating a doctrinal document at this time. And this Church is the same Church of Christ, the Church of the great fathers.

By giving his blessing for the publication of the draft Catechism for discussion, His Holiness made it clear that the text of the document was open to revision and changes. As far as I know, reviews, including critical ones in relation to various sections of the project, have already been compiled quite a lot. Being a participant in the work on it in the commission, I can confidently assume that constructive concerns will be taken into account. However, Father George is not constructive. He unrestrainedly insults the members of the SBBC, many of whom have been working in the theological field for decades and have earned well-deserved church-wide respect, accusing them not only of incompetence, but also of modernism, renovationism, and the desire to adjust the teachings of the Church to the opinion of the liberal public. Time after time, Father George puts some strange thoughts into the heads of the members of the SBBC, literally “quoting” the hidden subtexts of the provisions of the draft Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church, which allegedly guided its authors in an effort either to adjust to the opinion of non-believers and the liberal intelligentsia, or to deceive the inexperienced Orthodox believer. I have to admit: such a reception by Father George is nothing more than manipulation of his reader. Hopefully not conscious.

Let me return to my own experience of participating in the discussion when writing the draft Catechism. If we accept the distinction between liberals and conservatives proposed by Father George, I always strive to defend a conservative point of view, or rather, I believe that in theology (and not only) it is necessary to base any position on the teachings of the holy fathers of the Orthodox Church. So, in the process of discussing the draft Catechism, I repeatedly made corrections, criticisms, and suggestions. The vast majority of them were taken into account. By the way, I consider it necessary to note that there was no pressure from the chairman of the commission, the work proceeded in the most constructive manner.

Now I would like to consider some of Father George's critical remarks on the text of the document under discussion, separating them from the emotional component of his response.

First of all, I consider it my duty to dwell on the claim to the following sentence of the draft Catechism: “Doctrinal writings of the 17th-19th centuries, sometimes called “symbolic books”, have authority to the extent that they correspond to the teachings of the holy fathers and teachers of the Ancient Church.” The fact is that such a position, called by Father Georgy “a mockery of the reader,” was fixed largely as a result of my remarks. I am convinced that with a deeply respectful attitude towards the majority of symbolic books, we cannot recognize some of the provisions of one of them as corresponding to patristic teaching and consider them as unconditional authority for an Orthodox Christian. We are talking about the Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1723. This epistle contains two very dubious theses that cannot in any way be accepted as a general church teaching: 1) that not all laity can read Holy Scripture and 2) that heretics "received a perfect baptism." So the restriction of the authority of the doctrinal writings of the 17th-19th centuries by their correspondence to the teachings of the holy fathers has no liberal or modernist basis.

As regards Fr. Georgy’s claim to a departure from the question-answer form of the Catechism and the derivation from this conspiracy theory regarding the secret intentions of the members of the SBBK, I can report that one of the first defenders of such a departure was Arkady Markovich Mahler, known for his conservative church position. I can also remind you that such patristic doctrinal texts as the “Catechetical and Mystery Teachings” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” of St. John of Damascus do not have a question-and-answer form, but on this basis, hardly anyone will dare to reproach the fathers in the unwillingness to give a concrete and clear exposition of the dogmatic teaching of the Holy Church.

I cannot ignore Father Georgy's strange reproach to the size of the proposed Catechism of the Russian Church. I think this is pure nit-picking, unfortunately once again confirming a biased attitude. Many Orthodox Christians are just interested in a fundamental doctrinal document, which one could, among other things, resort to for an exhaustive church answer on one or another theological issue.

If Father George is concerned about the conformity of the future Catechism with the teachings of the holy fathers, then the claims that the text he criticizes contain too many quotations from the holy fathers are completely incomprehensible! It seems to me that not only the existing quotations should be kept, but also added where there are few or none at all.

Or such an example. The placement of certain provisions of the teaching of the Church in more appropriate sections, the combination in one section of the doctrine of the Mother of God, indeed, can be a rational proposal. But this is a purely technical point, and not a reason to mock the brothers and show their "superiority". Another claim: the phrase "The Church teaches", "The Church believes" is heard in the document very often. We can agree that in some places it is possible to do without it. But the conclusion of Father George that the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission deliberately inserted these words into the text in order to show the atheists and non-believers that its members slyly separate themselves from the Church in this way, that in fact they think in a completely different way, is an unjustified grave accusation and insult. “The Church teaches” means that we do not teach from ourselves, but we testify to the inspired teaching of the Holy Mother Church. By the way, in the documents adopted earlier by the Council of the Church, such a phrase was also used, but it never occurred to anyone on this basis to doubt the purity of the faith of the Councils of Bishops. Just like, for example, blaming St. John of Kronstadt, who wrote: “The Orthodox Church teaches that the only motivation for the creation of the world should be recognized as the infinite Goodness of the Creator… The Orthodox Church also believes and confesses that the Eucharist is at the same time the true, real Sacrifice.”

There are some theological aspects in Father George's remarks that should be considered. Yes, it is possible to correct the definition of Holy Tradition, although there are no hidden heretical overtones in the existing version. Of course, it is necessary to refrain from mentioning the “mystery” of the posthumous fate of non-Christians, which is in conflict with other sections of the very draft of the Catechism, which unambiguously indicate that salvation is found only in the Church, that its necessary condition is faith in the Resurrection of Christ. Also, the reference to the “overcoming” of the devil’s temptations by the Savior (indeed, it is necessary to speak not about “overcoming”, but about “rejection”), that the Incarnation became possible “thanks to” the consent of the Blessed Virgin, should also be recognized as errors in the text. Extremely unfortunate, allowing for free interpretation, is the introduction into the Catechism of a distinction between "not losing its meaning" and "obsolete" in the works of the holy fathers. Controversial, and therefore still not worthy of reflection in such a general church doctrinal document as the Catechism, is the concept mentioned by Father George about the private opinions of the Fathers of the Church.

However, I repeat, the main problem of priest G. Maksimov is that he clothes even fair remarks to the text of the Catechism draft in a mocking and sarcastic form and accompanies unfounded accusations of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of a desire to impose heresy, renovationism and modernism - doing this with undisguised aim to completely destroy the very possibility of the appearance of a modern Catechism of the Russian Church. I don’t know if Father George understands this, but his “review” that goes beyond all conceivable limits unnecessarily brings confusion into church life, already sows (judging by the comments in the blogosphere) distrust of the hierarchy. I hope that respected Father George will have the courage to admit the perniciousness of such actions and turn off the dangerous road of "accusation" that has killed many talented theologians in the history of the Church.

Modernist catechisms appear at the end of the 19th century and expound the teachings of various currents of modernism. All of them are called to replace the Long Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church (St. Philaret of Moscow).

The idea of ​​creating a new catechism as part of the reform of the Russian Orthodox Church was voiced at the Bishops' Council in 2008. At the same time, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church instructed the Synodal Theological Commission, in cooperation with other synodal structures, to begin preparing the publication. In 2009, the composition of the working group for work on the catechism was approved, headed by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) .

Patriarch Kirill, in his report at the Council of Bishops on February 2–3, 2016, said: “Given the doctrinal status and the large amount of text, it should not be discussed in the public space (?!!) – on the Internet, in blogs. It should be wide enough, but at the same time - without unlimited publication of a project that has not yet been approved.

Despite the secrecy and the presence of a signature stamp "strictly confidential", a text was leaked to the network, which, as expected (and judging by the design, it is so), is a draft of a new catechism of the ROC MP: http://antimodern.ru/wp-content/uploads/...pdf

There is an opinion that Bishop Hilarion (Alfeev) decided to perpetuate his name in church history by becoming the main author of the catechism, and thereby put himself on a par with St. Philaret and Peter Mogila. At least it is known for certain that he is the author of the preface to the new Catechism.

It should be recalled that already at the beginning of work on a new catechism, Vatican Radio welcomed the initiative from an ecumenical point of view: “Precisely because it will replace outdated, distorted ideas about faith, as well as incorrect ideas about evangelical and Catholic theology.” And they personally praised the head of the commission: "Hilarion's outlook is too broad to speak incorrectly on these issues."

Metropolitan Reformer

The preliminary version of the catechism took 320 printed pages and is divided into three parts (+ introduction). The main sections are: "Faith and Sources of Christian Doctrine", "God, the World and Man", "The Church and Her Worship" and "Life in Christ". The list of specific authors is not indicated, but the main compiler is easily guessed.

So, on page 15 of the new catechism we see the following paragraph:

“There is a verbal expression of Tradition, whether in written or oral form, but there is also that spiritual reality that cannot be expressed in words and which is preserved in the experience of the Church, passed down from generation to generation. This reality is nothing else than the knowledge of God, communion with God and the vision of God, which were inherent in Adam before being expelled from paradise, the biblical forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the seer Moses and the prophets, and then “eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” (Lk. 1: 2) to the apostles and followers of Christ. The unity and continuity of this experience, preserved in the Church up to the present time, is the essence of Church Tradition.

Let us compare this text with an excerpt from the book of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) “Orthodoxy. Volume 1":

Thus, there is a verbal expression of Tradition, whether written or oral, but there is also that spiritual reality which cannot be expressed in words and which is preserved in the tacit experience of the Church, passed down from generation to generation. This reality is nothing else than the knowledge of God, communion with God and the vision of God, which were inherent in Adam before being expelled from paradise, the biblical forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the seer Moses and the prophets, and then the eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word (see: Lk. 1 :2) - apostles and followers of Christ. The unity and continuity of this experience, preserved in the Church up to the present time, is the essence of Church Tradition.

There are many similar direct parallels between the works of Vladyka Hilarion and the content of the catechism. Despite the declared catholicity and the participation of many modern authoritative theologians, the text is largely Hilarion's personal brainchild, and certainly not a single line that he did not approve could leak into it.

The author's style of the young metropolitan is peculiar: the reader is invited to think over several mutually exclusive opinions on one issue, while the author himself does not give an unambiguous answer, what is the truth? It is good when a person gets an incentive to reflect on a spiritual topic and draw his own conclusions. But is it appropriate in doctrinal matters, where the Holy Tradition transmitted over the centuries and strict adherence to church dogma have always come first?

Other controversial points in the document are set out in the same way. It will not be easy to directly convict its authors of heresy, but the team led by Bishop Hilarion performed the task of blurring the framework of the dogmas of faith perfectly.

Here is a typical example of the dialectical approach in the new catechism:

“Having torn himself away from the Source of Life, man voluntarily subjected himself to suffering, disease and death. “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” says the apostle Paul, “so death spread to all men” (Rom. 5:12). “God did not create death,” says the Book of Wisdom of Solomon (Wisdom 1:13). According to the definition of the Local Council of Carthage in 419, “if anyone says that Adam, the primordial man, was created mortal, so that at least he did not sin, he would die in his body ... not as a punishment for sin, but out of the necessity of nature, let him be anathema.” According to the Holy Martyr Theophilos of Antioch, God created man neither mortal nor immortal, but capable of both.

Can a new believer draw an unambiguous conclusion about the immortality of Adam from this catechism, which (according to Vladyka Hilarion himself) is intended, first of all, to clearly explain the difficult moments of the dogma? Obviously not, but there is a far more dangerous ambiguity in the document.

(P) the evolution of modernists in the new catechism

The Biblical and Theological Commission of the ROC MP included the evolutionary views of modernists (such as the mouthpiece of the Judeo-Renovationism, Father Alexander Men) in the text of the draft New Catechism. In the proposed Project (http://antimodern.ru/new-katehisis-text/) the false doctrine of the so-called day-epoch of Shestodnev is pedaled, i.e. the creation of the world in stages over many millions of years (pp. 60–61, 63).

1) In addition to arbitrary reasoning at the beginning, which eliminates the need to follow the Fathers in interpreting Scripture, the following attempts are made to defend this false teaching:

“Blessed Augustine says: “What kind of days (creations) – it is either extremely difficult for us to imagine, or even completely impossible, and even more so it is impossible to talk about it. We see that our ordinary days have evening due to the setting of the sun, and morning due to the rising of the sun; but of those days the first three passed without the sun, whose creation is spoken of on the fourth day” (200)” (quoted from p. 61 of the new catechism).

However, Saint Augustine also wrote this:

“However, remembering what I wanted most of all, but could not do, namely, to understand everything at first in a literal, and not allegorical sense, and without finally despairing that it can be understood in this way, I am in the first part of the second book expressed this idea as follows: “It goes without saying,” I said, “that anyone who wants to take everything that is said in a literal sense, that is, as the letter sounds, and at the same time can avoid blasphemy and speak everything in accordance with catholic faith, not only should not arouse rejection in us, but, on the contrary, should be revered by us as a glorious and laudable interpreter. If, however, it seems impossible to understand in a pious and worthy manner what is written except as spoken allegorically and in riddles, then, following the authority of the apostles, who solve so many riddles in the Old Testament books, we will adhere to the method that we have outlined for ourselves with the help of Him Who commands us to ask, seek and knock (Matt. 7:7), explaining all these images of things in accordance with the catholic faith, as referring either to history or to prophecy, but at the same time without prejudging a better and more worthy interpretation on our part, or from those whom the Lord honors.” So I wrote then. At the present time, the Lord deigned that, having peered into the matter more carefully, I would not in vain, as it seems to me, come to the conclusion that I can explain what is written in my own (i.e., literal. - Red.), and not in an allegorical sense; (and just so) we are researching both what was discussed above, and what we are talking about now ”(On the book of Genesis, book 8, chapter 2).

At the same time, St. Augustine explicitly rejected pagan constructions about millions of years of existence of the world:

“They are also deceived by some extremely false writings, representing that history embraces many thousands of years, while according to the Holy Scriptures, from the creation of man, we still do not count even the full six thousand years. […] It is said that the Egyptians once had such short years that each of them was limited to four months; so that a fuller and more correct year, which both we and they now have, is equal to three of their ancient years. But even so, Greek history, as I said, cannot be reconciled with Egyptian history in terms of reckoning. Therefore, one should rather believe the Greek, since it does not exceed the true number of years contained in our Holy Scriptures ”(On the City of God, book 12, chapter 10).

The agreement of the Fathers about the day of creation tells us that these were days of 24 hours. For quotations, see the website “Patristic Understanding of the Six Days” (http://hexameron.cerkov.ru/).

“It is not said about the seventh day, “and there was evening and there was morning,” as about other days, from which it can be concluded that the seventh day is not yet completed. With this understanding, the entire history of mankind, which continues to this day, corresponds to the seventh day, on which God rested "from all His works." If the seventh day lasts for millennia, then it can be assumed that the previous “days” of creation could have been very long periods of time” (quoted from p. 61 of the new catechism).

However, the Holy Fathers teach that the 7th day is over:

Saint Theophilus of Antioch: “God created man on the sixth day, and revealed his creation after the seventh day, when He also made paradise in order to settle him in the best and most excellent place of residence” (St. Theophilus of Antioch, letter to Autolycus, book 2, part 23).

Saint Ephraim the Syrian: “God gave the seventh day so that the servants, even against the will of their masters, would have rest; and, moreover, with a temporary Sabbath given to a transitory people, I wanted to present the image of the true Sabbath, which will be in the world of endless. Moreover, since it was necessary to establish weeks of days, God magnified with a blessing that day that was not glorified by the works of creation, so that the honor given to it through this would be compared with other days, and the sevenfold number of days required for the world would be completed ”(Interpretations on Holy Scripture on the book of Genesis, chapter 2).

St. Simeon the New Theologian: “But why didn’t God create paradise on the seventh day, but planted it in the east after He finished every other creation? Because He, as the seer of all kinds, arranged the whole creation in order and orderly following; and he determined seven days to be in the form of the ages that had to pass later, in time, and he planted paradise after those seven days, so that it would be in the image of the age to come. Why didn't the Holy Spirit count the eighth day along with the seven? Because it was incongruous to count him together with the family, which, circling, produce so many and so many weeks, years and centuries; but it was necessary to put the eighth day outside the seven, since it has no circulation ”(Words. Word 45, part 1).

Rev. Joseph Volotsky: “This age was called seven-numbered because He created this world in six days, creating, forming and variously decorating it, and on the seventh day, that is, on Saturday, He rested from work. Sabbath in Hebrew means "rest." After Saturday, the first day begins again, that is, Sunday, and again reaches the seventh day, that is, until Saturday, and thus the week turns - from Sunday it begins and continues until Saturday. And so God commanded the whole world in this age to build on these seven days” (Illuminator, Word 8).

The six days of creation and the seventh day (Saturday) were the "standard" of our revolving weeks, and, therefore, were the usual seven days in duration: http://hexameron.cerkov.ru/#_ftn31

3) Another pearl:

“A common misconception is an attempt to oppose the Six Days to the data of science about the origin of the world. Scientific theories of the origin of the world cannot refute the existence of a Creator in the world, the recognition of whose existence is an object of faith” (quotation from p. 63 of the new catechism).

The second assumption does not prove the first. The Holy Fathers did not hesitate to criticize the false teachings about the million-year geology (http://hexameron.cerkov.ru/#_ftn27) and the evolutionary constructions of the new time (http://hexameron.cerkov.ru/#_ftnref25).

St. Theophan the Recluse, for example, said that Darwin and all his followers were already under anathema:

“Now we have a lot of nihilists and nihilists, natural scientists, Darwinists, spiritualists and Westerners in general - well, do you think the Church would have kept silent, would not have raised its voice, would not have condemned and anathematized them, if their teaching had been something new? On the contrary, a council would certainly have been, and all of them with their teachings would have been anathematized; only one point would be added to the present rite of Orthodoxy: “Anathema to Buchner, Feuerbach, Darwin, Renan, Kardec and all their followers!”. Yes, there is no need for a special cathedral, for any addition. All their false teachings have long been anathematized in the points mentioned above.

Do you see now how wisely and prudently the Church acts when she forces us to make the present call and listen to it! They say it's out of date. On the contrary, now something and modern. Maybe a hundred and fifty years ago it was not up to date, but at the present time, not only in the provincial cities, but in all places and churches, it would be necessary to introduce and perform the rite of Orthodoxy, but to collect all the teachings that are contrary to the word of God, and to announce to everyone so that everyone knows what to fear and what exercises to run. Many are corrupted by the mind only out of ignorance, and therefore a public condemnation of pernicious teachings would save them from destruction. Whoever is afraid of the action of anathema, let him avoid the teachings that bring under it; whoever fears it for others, let him bring them back to sound doctrine. If you, who do not favor this action, are Orthodox, then you are going against yourself, but if you have already lost sound teaching, then what do you care about what is done in the Church by those who support it? After all, you have already separated from the Church, you have your own convictions, your own way of looking at things - well, live with them. Whether or not your name and your teaching are pronounced under anathema is all the same: you are already under anathema if you philosophize contrary to the Church and persist in this philosophizing. But you will have to remember it when you, lying in a coffin cold and lifeless, need a permissive prayer ”(Contemplation and Reflection. Order of Orthodoxy).

False Isaac Sirin in a new false catechism

We offer an analysis of quotations from the catechism, which are excerpts from the false second volume, falsely attributed to St. Isaac the Sirin, about whom many Orthodox publicists have criticized over the years.

But despite this, heretics and modernists, participating in the revision of the Orthodox teaching under the guise of publishing a "modern" and "actual" catechism, are trying to document another heresy.

For clarity, here is a quote that makes it clear who is the apologist and the ideological inspirer of the inclusion of such false doctrine in the Doctrine of the Church Document:

“... In his theological search, Isaac the Syrian, of course, went further than traditional Christian dogmatics allows, and looked into places where access to the human mind is closed. But Isaac was not the only one who believed in universal salvation - among his predecessors, in addition to the teachers of the Syrian Church mentioned above, was St. Gregory of Nyssa, who said: “Finally, after long periods, evil will disappear, and nothing will remain outside the good. On the contrary, even those who are in hell will unanimously confess the Lordship of Christ.” The teaching of Gregory of Nyssa about the salvation of all people and demons, as you know, was not condemned by any Ecumenical or Local Council. On the contrary, the VI Ecumenical Council included the name of Gregory among the “holy and blessed fathers”, and the VII Ecumenical Council called him “father of fathers”. As for the Council of Constantinople in 543 and the Fifth Ecumenical Council, at which Origenism was condemned, it is highly significant that, although the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa on universal salvation was well known to the Fathers of both Councils, it was not identified with Origenism. The Fathers of the Councils were aware that there is a heretical understanding of universal salvation (an Origenistic apocatastasis “connected” with the idea of ​​the pre-existence of souls), but there is also an Orthodox understanding of it, based on 1 Cor. 15:24–28. St. Maximus the Confessor offered his interpretation of the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa on universal salvation. Among the other ancient Fathers of the Church, the idea of ​​universal salvation, apparently, was not excluded by St. Gregory the Theologian, who, implicitly referring to the teaching of Gregory of Nyssa on apokatastasis, spoke of the possibility of interpreting the posthumous punishment of sinners “more philanthropicly and in accordance with the dignity of the Punisher.” Elsewhere, Gregory the Theologian directly says that “God will be all in all during the restoration (apokatastasis) ... when we become wholly god-like, containing the Whole God and only Him” ”( Bishop of Vienna and Austria Hilarion. Eschatology of St. Isaac the Syrian in the light of Orthodox Tradition).

Even after a cursory glance, it becomes clear that this draft of a new catechism cannot be accepted as doctrinal church document. Among other things, it is necessary to dwell on the problem of quoting the false second volume, attributed to St. Isaac Sirin, in this proposed project.

In 1909, the Catholic Lazarist P. Bejan published the newly found fragments attributed to St. Isaac. In 1918, during the First World War, the manuscript used by Bejan was lost. But in 1983, Western professor S. Brock discovered a manuscript with writings attributed to Rev. Isaac, and identified in it fragments previously published by Bejan, these texts were called by Brock the second volume of Isaac the Syrian and published in 1995. These texts contain many heresies and blasphemy, so they cannot belong to a saint of the Orthodox Church.

The author of the false second volume calls the doctrine of the eternity of Gehenna torments blasphemous, teaches about the salvation of even demons, denies the dogma of the Redemption, teaches about God's creation of the world already with sin, refers to the heretics Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, calling the latter "the wisest", "the great teacher church”, etc., professes Nestorian Christology, extols the heretic Evagrius. In one of the conversations, the author of the false second volume even pronounces an excommunication (according to Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev), an anathema) on those who deny the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia.

In their own genuine the works of the Rev. Isaac, confesses the eternity of hellish torment, the dogma of the Redemption, refers not to heretics, but to the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, etc.

A part of the false second volume was translated into Russian by Met. Hilarion (Alfeev) (then still a hieromonk) in 1998, attributed to Ven. Isaak and published by Oleg Abyshko. […] As of 2013, this translation has gone through seven editions, i.e., about a publication in several years, which does not seem to meet real demand and is supported artificially.

In the alleged draft of the catechism, quotations from the false second volume occur in the following places:

Page 54, sn. 160: Isaac the Syrian, St. On Divine Mysteries. 39.22.

Page 54, sn. 167: Isaac the Syrian, St. Knowledge chapters. 4. 79–80.

Page 58, sn. 182: Isaac the Syrian, St. On Divine Mysteries. 38. 1–2.

Page 64, sn. 218: Isaac the Syrian, St. On Divine Mysteries. Conversation 10. 24.

Page 82-83, sn. 317: Isaac the Syrian, St. Knowledge chapters. I.49.

Page 83, sn. 318: Isaac the Syrian, St. About divine mysteries. 40. 14.

Page 105, sn. 409: Isaac the Sirin, St. Knowledge chapters. III. 74–75.

Page 105, sn. 412: Isaac the Syrian, St. About divine mysteries. 39.4.

Page 65, sn. 219: Isaac the Syrian, St. On Divine Mysteries. Conversation 10. 24.

Page 65, sn. 220: Isaac the Syrian, St. On Divine Mysteries. Conversation 10. 24.

It should also be noted that in the false second volume there is one text (discourse 17, possibly with some heretical corrections), which in its original form belong to St. Isaac, since they are found in the Greek Orthodox translation of the authentic works of the saint (in the Russian translation this word is 32). But, as can be seen above, this conversation is not quoted anywhere in the text under consideration.

Let us add that one of the appendices to the catechism is the document "Basic principles of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards heterodoxy", which fixes a clear turn of our first hierarchs towards the "heresy of heresies" - ecumenism. Together with the “millennium meeting” of the patriarch and the pope and the hasty preparations for the Pan-Orthodox Council scheduled for this summer (the very fact of the organization of which and the documents to it cause Orthodox concern), the adoption of the modern catechism looks like another attempt to undermine the foundation of the Church, the basis of which has always been following the canons, dogmas and ancient traditions. The verdict of this supposed version of the catechism circulating on the net was very aptly formulated by one priest: “It is best for this catechism to remain 'strictly confidential'. Forever and ever".

http://www.blagogon.ru/digest/696/

The Orthodox community, the laity and the clergy, rejected the draft of the key dogmatic document of the Russian Church.

The Council of Bishops, scheduled for the end of November this year, has every chance of going down in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church as a particularly significant one. In addition to the most important issue for the Orthodox about the recognition (or non-recognition) of the authenticity of the remains of the last Russian emperor Nicholas II and his family, the hierarchy will have to approve the text of the doctrinal document, which is designed to become an assistant to all new converts to Orthodoxy - the Catechism of the Russian Orthodox Church. And if this very voluminous 350-page the document was posted on the Internet by the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission(SBBK) and everyone is blessed to send feedback on it before November 1, it would be a real sin not to talk about it conciliarly, openly, in the Russian tradition.

Conference on the project of the Catechism, organized by the Cultural and Educational Foundation of St. Basil the Great and the International Foundation for Slavic Literature and Culture, brought together many lay people, a number of well-known priests and religious scholars, among whom it is worth noting Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, abbot Kirill Sakharov, archpriest Anatoly Chibrik, archpriest Konstantin Bufeev, Chairman of the Union "Christian Revival" Vladimir Osipov, publicist Vladimir Semenko.

Around what, in fact, the fuss flared up, why such large-scale public hearings were required, why is this important at least for everyone who considers themselves Orthodox? Back in February last year "The Bell of Russia", the main compiler and coordinator of which is the chairman of the SBBC, Metropolitan Volokolamsk Hilarion.

In a year and a half, of course, a lot was edited, 320 pages turned into 350, but the main conclusion on the content that we have already made remains completely fair (quote from the old material - approx. ed.): “It will not be easy to directly convict its authors of heresy, but the team led by Bishop Hilarion performed the task of blurring the framework of the dogmas of faith perfectly.”

Now that the text has been officially promulgated, many representatives of the clergy and laity simply cannot remain silent. As will be shown below, we are talking about fundamental, fundamental changes in the very essence of the Orthodox dogma, which are promoted by the reformers. In the name of what goals and interests do they need to start changes in the ROC?

“The very volume of the text, its correspondence to the genre of the catechism, our Orthodox tradition, as well as the fact that it includes various synodal documents that were previously adopted, which are not supposed to be discussed at all, raises great doubts. In particular, the section on the relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with non-Orthodox confessions raises serious doubts. There are many other dogmatic questions concerning the actual revision of the Holy Tradition" , - Orthodox publicist Vladimir Semenko started the discussion.

Representatives of the official structures of the Russian Orthodox Church, including members of the SBBK, ignored this conference. Although I would still like to hear firsthand what is so bad about the "Large Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church" of St. Filaret Drozdov, Metropolitan of Moscow, published in 1823. Also at the disposal of the Orthodox there is a detailed exposition of the Orthodox faith John of Damascus, there is a textbook "Law of God" by archpriest Sergius Sloboda. All of them were written by specific prominent people, while this Catechism does not have a list of authors. It is also extremely difficult to call it “the fruit of the conciliar mind of the Church” - therefore, we affirm our earlier conclusion - first of all, it reflects the personal views on Orthodoxy of the chairman of the SBBC, Metropolitan Volokolamsky Hilarion and his associates.

Initially, the catechism as a genre of religious literature has always been focused on an accessible statement of faith for new converts or those preparing for baptism. However, the document under discussion seems to have been specially written in such crafty, ambiguous and clumsy language that it will be extremely difficult for even experienced Orthodox to perceive it.

Missionary priest Georgy Maximov in hisarticle, which is recommended to read separately , made a detailed analysis of the new Catechism, noting, in particular, that "the entire doctrine of the Holy Tradition is expressed in it non-Orthodox", and also pointing out numerous deviations from the dogmas of Orthodoxy "for the sake of the liberal public." His verdict is as follows - the most correct would be to approve the wording: "It is forbidden to publish the text (of the Catechism) in whole or in parts."

Archpriest Anatoly Chibrik from Chisinau, who does not commemorate Patriarch Kirill at services and is known for his irreconcilable anti-ecumenical position, at the conference called on the hierarchy to confession.

“The adoption of this document is a landmark event for us. I fully agree with the position of Fr. George Maksimov that this Catechism is simply impossible to read. It is written heavily, does not have simplicity, does not contain unambiguous meanings. Orthodoxy is the doctrine of the salvation of man, but here there is only a beautiful “saving wrapper”, and the inside is empty.

I'm not afraid of big words - there is a noticeable tendency to please the world, the public, those in power. Very few of the hierarchy today are able to reject the gifts of the rulers, since these people do not live a full church life, do not resist various temptations. At sermons, they are very fond of talking about church martyrs, but they themselves do not show any martyrdom - neither in deeds, nor in life, nor in anything else. Therefore, I call on all those who still have the courage to rise up and say their word in defense of the faith, in defense of our land.

I have no condemnation towards fathers who have not taken radical steps. But let them testify to the faith, let them engage in confession - it is no longer possible to remain silent, because the Judgment of God awaits us all. What do you say? After all, there are diocesan meetings… If one priest stands up and says: “It’s a shame for the Church to accept such documents!”, a second rises up behind him, then another one – who can impose his will on us?”, - summed up about. Anatoly.

Rector of the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Arkhangelsk-Tyurikovo, Archpriest, who took the floor Konstantin Bufeev emphasized the secularism and worldly spirit that comes from the very title of the document:

“I want to pay attention to one, fourth letter in the title. Catechism - so it is customary to write according to secular standards. The letter "this" in Greek worship is pronounced, of course, as "and". There is a liturgical book - "Oktoikh", the root is the same as in the catechism, and the letter "i" is always written and pronounced there. Filaret of Moscow also wrote the Catechism, not the Catechesis, because he was a man of a spiritual tradition, not a secular one. So already by this spelling we can determine whether the leaven of its authors is worldly or church. We already have the Catechism, but we don't need any Catechism.

You can point out individual dogmatic errors, powder something, but this will not change the spirit of the document. The new work is compiled as a completely non-ecclesiastical, secular source. And here, excuse me, there is something to compare with - again with the Catechism of St. Filaret. His "heir" loses both in content and form. And, unfortunately, it is not possible to fix it. So I suggest that this project be titled as a guide or manual on some dogmatic issues. And let it not be offered to beginners, schoolchildren, students in any case as a book that we all need for churching ”, - said about. Konstantin.

For many years, Father Konstantin has been deeply researching the issue of the creation of the world by God the Creator and the Old Testament story about the Six Days, arguing from theological positions with official science, which considers that the world is billions of years old. He drew the attention of the conference participants to the fact that the day in the new Catechism is unprovenly defined as "an indefinite period of time." That is, the authors make a clear hint that God created man and the whole world around him not in six days, but in an “indefinitely long period of time” - with a reference to the theory of evolution. There is an obvious contradiction with the Orthodox dogma.

It seems that all the theological innovations introduced into the Catechism were aimed solely at smoothing out sharp corners in issues of ecumenism, personal sin and posthumous salvation for the heterodox (which will be discussed in more detail below), as well as liberalizing the topic of marriage and affirming "private theological opinions ” together with the principle of “the consent of the Holy Fathers”. However, there is not a word in the text about modern challenges to Orthodoxy - globalism, transhumanism, the predominance of science over faith, total electronic control, the abolition of cash, the transformation of a person into a puppet of usurious bankers. How far are we now from the end times described in Revelation John the Evangelist? How often do the powers that be call on humanity to unite “in the name of peace and security” (as Revelation says, after that humanity can “come to ruin”)? Our reformers stubbornly refuse to catechize young people by telling them about the problem of dehumanization in the digital world.

“There is not a word in the Catechism about the dangers of the total digitization of people, the conversion of all documents into numbers, names into personal codes. And the translation is non-alternative. For example, when trying to register in a number of offices through a regular paper application, they told me: “But you are not in the system.” Let's say now the president and the government, whom we trust, is in power. And what will happen tomorrow if, God forbid, some extremist-totalitarians seize power? There have been many such examples in history. We will all be at their fingertips, we can simply be “excluded” from the system. This is the same electronic concentration camp, these are the dangers of globalism. Why didn't anyone say a word about this in the Catechism? About the signs of the last times, when it will be impossible to buy and sell anything without electronic printing? , - asked the head of the St. Basil the Great Vasily Boyko-Veliky.

Deacon Evgeny Morgun told the audience about the heretical wording “incomplete communion” regarding the heterodox who fell into the bowels of the Russian Orthodox Church shortly after the Second Vatican Council.

“The document under discussion systematically repeats many of the dogmatic mistakes of our theologians. It initially uses incorrect methods for classifying different groups of concepts and phenomena, therefore, at the output we get erroneous conclusions and even the ability to adjust any particular conclusions to the teachings of the Church.

For example, in the section on communion with the non-Orthodox, the heretical wording "incomplete communion" is used, which arose from a misunderstanding of the acceptance of the non-Orthodox into Orthodoxy by economy - through repentance. This can indeed happen by the grace of the Church, but the conclusion that for this reason there is “incomplete communion” between the Russian Orthodox Church and the heterodox is completely false”- concluded Yevgeny Morgun.

The section of the Catechism devoted to the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards heterodoxy requires separate explanations. It is written extremely slyly and ambiguously, like the entire document, but here this downright Catholic Jesuitism is rushing from all the cracks. On the one hand, the further need for the participation of the Russian Church in the ecumenical movement in the name of the good goal of “reunification of all Christians” is affirmed, it is recommended to conduct constant theological dialogues with the heterodox, to exchange seminarians, delegations, publications, teachers and theologians, the Orthodox are recommended to study (!) heterodoxy more deeply - apparently, all this is exclusively for missionary purposes. In addition, it is noted that “the Orthodox Church does not pass judgment on the degree of preservation or damage of the grace-filled life in heterodoxy, considering this the mystery of Providence and the judgment of God.”

And right there, as if to calm the flock, the text of the Catechism says that “true unity is possible only in the bosom of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. All other "models" of unity seem unacceptable." It is also very correctly written that the Lord Jesus Christ himself commanded the Orthodox Church the mission of “witnessing the Truth before the non-Orthodox world.”

And in the next paragraph, another catch for especially zealous zealots of the faith: "Insults against the heterodox are unacceptable." Is characterizing them as heretics an insult, I wonder? I remember that Vladyka Hilarion proposed to abandon this definition once and for all, and he himself no longer calls Protestants or Catholics that way...

For those who continue to resist the “theological dialogues”, another “club” has been prepared, just to be sure: “The Church condemns those who, using unreliable information, deliberately distort the tasks of witnessing the Orthodox Church to the non-Orthodox world and deliberately slander the Hierarchy of the Church, accusing it of “treason against Orthodoxy.” Canonical punishments should be applied to such people, who sow the seeds of temptation among ordinary believers.

Here it is, it turns out. Bans can be applied, for example, to those who protest against the participation of the ROC in the World Council of Churches. According to the charter of this organization, where everything is initially run by ultra-liberal Protestant denominations, "not a single teaching of a member church of the WCC can claim to be absolute truth." And in the Havana Declaration of Patriarch Kirill and the Pope Francis dated February 12, 2016, there is the most entertaining paragraph No. 24, which makes sense to quote verbatim:

“Orthodox and Catholics are united not only by the common Tradition of the Church of the first millennium, but also by the mission of preaching the Gospel of Christ in the modern world. This mission presupposes mutual respect for members of Christian communities and excludes any form of proselytism.

We are not rivals, but brothers: from this understanding we must proceed in all our actions in relation to each other and to the outside world. We call on Catholics and Orthodox in all countries to learn to live together in peace, love and like-mindedness among themselves (Rom. 15:5). It is unacceptable to use improper means to force believers to move from one Church to another, disregarding their religious freedom and their own traditions. We are called to put into practice the covenant of the apostle Paul and "to preach the gospel not where the name of Christ was already known, lest we build on someone else's foundation" (Rom. 15:2)".

It turns out that here the spheres of influence between the Churches are, as it were, already divided (by the way, Catholics, like other non-Orthodox, are naturally also called the Church in the text of the Catechism). There is not even a word about the canonical territory of the ROC MP in Ukraine and Belarus, which are now actively spudded by the Uniates (in the Zapadenshchina, including by “squeezing out” Orthodox parishes). Bringing "the light of the Truth of Orthodoxy" in this practical declaration is dryly called proselytism and is prohibited. In practice, no one stutters in dialogues with the same Vatican about some kind of “Orthodox mission” or the conversion of those who have gone astray into the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church (which in some places in the Catechism is rightly called the “universal, ecumenical and only Church of Christ”). In the meantime, in violation of the canons, the Orthodox are now conducting joint prayers with just anyone. This is Jesuitism in its purest form.

Our hierarchy will also have to deal with the documents for the "holy and great" Crete Cathedral, to which the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church originally planned to go. Therefore, at the beginning of 2016, the Council of Bishops accepted in one block a whole corpus of the most important texts, long and openly prepared by ecumenists under the leadership of a 33 degree Freemason, Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew. So far, the Orthodox bishops have not canceled the approved unanimously (with the exception of the Bishop of Banchensky Longina, who now does not remember Patriarch Kirill, who tried to ask a question at that council, but he was quickly “shushed”) a document with the following text: “The Orthodox Church has participated in the ecumenical movement since its foundation…”

There is absolutely nothing to be proud of here. For Orthodox, who are not in the subject, participation in the ecumenical movement is explained by the super-importance of the return of all to the Ecumenical (i.e. supposedly the One Orthodox) Church. In fact, the term "ecumenism" from the Greek "oecumene" (universe) was coined in 1910 by an influential Freemason John Mott who fed the clan Rockefeller, which, in turn, was one of the main sponsors of ecumenism.

Ecumenism as the idea of ​​creating a fundamentally new, global religion originated in the second half of the 19th century among influential British Protestant Masons. Sir is considered its pioneer. George Williams, Secretary of the International Youth Christian Organization (YMCA). One of its main tasks is postulated "to achieve the unity of Christians."

And at the beginning of the 20th century. At the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, initiated by the YMCA, the term "ecumenism" was used for the first time, introduced by its new general secretary, John Mott, who later became the main inspirer of the first ecumenical conferences. Soon the World Christian Council of Life and Work and the World Conference on Faith and Order are formed, which later unite into the World Council of Churches.

In Le Temple (the official organ of Scottish Ritual Freemasonry, named in memory of the Templars) in No. 3, September-October 1946, in an article "Unification of Churches" contains the following recognition by Freemasonry of its merits in this area:

“The problem raised by the project of the unification of churches ... is of close interest to Freemasonry and is close to Freemasonry ... If this unification ... is on the right track, then our Order owes a little to this. In any case, when the first ecumenical congresses arose, the intervention of our Anglo-Saxon Scandinavian brethren was decisive and their activity was tirelessly directed towards the organization of Christian unity.

The doctrine of ecumenism had and has nothing to do with Orthodoxy, although in 1991 the future Patriarch Kirill (then still a metropolitan) in a notorious interview from the WCC conference in Canberra, Australia (with dances of shamans and other charms) called this structure “his home for Orthodox who want this house to be the cradle of a single church.”

On the contrary, canonical Orthodoxy has always been an irreconcilable opponent of the builders of the new world order, which the priests directly stated back in 1948 at the Moscow Pan-Orthodox Conference. The main goal of ecumenism is to decompose, dissolve in itself and gradually erase from memory the true teaching of Christ and the Tradition of the Holy Fathers. And it is very strange that after some 30-40 years our clergy suddenly began to consider themselves an organic part of this movement.

Here is what the archbishop said about ecumenism Seraphim (Sobolev), last year, by the decision of the Bishops' Council, canonized (another Jesuit slyness - both ours and yours):

“It is not surprising that at the Stockholm Ecumenical Conference in 1945 and the Lausanne Ecumenical Conference in 1927, 80% of the participants were members of the YMCA Masonic organization, led by the same Dr. John Mott. From this it is clear who is behind the ecumenical movement. Behind him are the primordial enemies of the Orthodox Church - the Masons. Ecumenism is the general name of pseudo-Christianities, false churches of Western Europe. It contains the heart of all European humanisms, headed by Papism. All these false Christians are nothing but a kind of heresy adjoining another heresy. Her common gospel name is pan-heresy.

A similar opinion was expressed at the ROCOR Council of Bishops by the future Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov): "IVKA (similar to YMCA, a Christian organization for girls - approx. ed.) and Scouting, created and organized by Freemasonry, prepared entire generations of people with a special de-Christianized worldview, thanks to which the World Council of Churches could arise, which actually calls itself the true Church.

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin spoke about the false teachings contained in the draft Catechism:

“The liberal adaptive tradition, which gained weight through all sorts of Renovationists and has now proclaimed itself the main one in our theology, clearly manifested itself in this Catechism. I do not know how one can use this text for catechesis. I think that it was made according to Catholic patterns in order to adapt it to the fashion, customs and sins of modern man. And then to say - this is what today is allowed to be presented as Orthodoxy. Everything else is a collection of personal opinions. May this not happen to us!

I am not a historian of the Church, but in my opinion the very selection of the Doctors of the Church from the general host of saints, from the works of the Ecumenical Councils - this is very similar to the Catholic approach. They want to keep only those "private theological opinions" that are close to our liberal theologians. From the Holy Tradition it is proposed to throw out the entire Russian heritage of the saints, all the works of ascetics who are not theologians. It is proposed to look at them adjusted for the spirit of past eras, in fact, not to be taken seriously. I think that the authors of the project are striving to declare all the sacred heritage, which requires a revision of the life of society and the state, "private opinion." This is ignoring the entire experience of Orthodox civilization.

In addition, the text contains the anti-evangelical doctrine of "soteriological agnosticism" - that is, the doctrine that we allegedly do not know whether atheists or non-believers will enter the Kingdom of God. This teaching, along with the heresy of apocatastasis (all salvation, extremity of hellish torment), is present in the text. And this is a very difficult problem. They try to tell us so carefully or rudely that it is not necessary to be a Christian in order to be saved.

This is not just a theoretical dispute, it is a crime against people who are called to Christ and at the same time hear the anti-Christian answer: “But we don’t know if the Gentiles will be saved.” The Gospel says: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” What did Christ say to sinners and unbelievers? “Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” There can be no jubilation here, no cunning reasoning should be. It is necessary to say directly, in the gospel way: "Yes, yes or no, no."

The Church of Christ simply has no right to teach otherwise. We will answer before God for whether we gave the new generations the opportunity to come to Christ, or clouded their heads with pseudo-philosophies., - denounced Fr. Vsevolod authors of the Catechism.

We hope that now the importance of the evaluation of the presented document by the Council of Bishops raises fewer questions among the uninitiated. The organizers of the conference promised to send their version of the Catechism of the Orthodox Church to the SBBC, taking into account modern challenges. I would like the hierarchy to finally feel the concern of the clergy and laity with what is happening inside the Church. In the light of internal Russian and world events, we have much more pressing problems than ideological theological reforms-modernizations. Especially when the implementation of such reforms is absolutely capable of provoking a new split.

Ivan Nikitin

Collage: "Bell of Russia"

One of the first subjects studied within the walls of theological schools and seminaries (now under the Bologna system - at the undergraduate level) is the catechism. This discipline is studied according to the book of the same name by Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), which has not changed for more than a hundred years. This catechism contains the foundations of the Orthodox dogma, presented in the form of questions and answers, supported by quotations. Holy Scripture. The material is presented on the basis of an explanation of the Creed, the prayer "Our Father", the Beatitudes and the Ten Commandments. The Catechism is presented in two editions: short and lengthy. Since the Church of Christ is a divine-human organism, having both heavenly (divine) and earthly (human) components, both natures of the Church are fully disclosed in the catechism, and the first was taken as a basis.
The Orthodox catechism is offered for study by every Christian, especially its short version, but in practice its use is most often limited as a textbook for theological educational institutions. Most Christians, in order to study the foundations of the Orthodox Faith, prefer the book of Archpriest Seraphim Slobodsky "The Law of God", which, despite its larger volume compared to the lengthy catechism, has become more popular among the laity due to its simplicity of presentation and accessibility for understanding compared to the citation-dogmatic style of the catechism. Thus, the catechism and the Law of God formed different target audiences.
Recently, with the blessing of Patriarch Kirill, the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission laid out a draft of a new catechism for general church discussion, which in its structure is fundamentally different from the catechism of Metropolitan Filaret. The text of the new catechism is presented in six parts with a preface:



4. Fundamentals of the social concept of the ROC.
5. Fundamentals of the teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church on dignity, freedom and human rights.
6. The basic principles of the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church towards heterodoxy.
The total volume of the catechism increased significantly and exceeded the lengthy catechism of Metropolitan Philaret, while losing the question-answer style of presentation inherent in catechisms. If a lengthy catechism has a short version, then for a new catechism with its even larger volume, it is all the more appropriate to develop an abbreviated version.
The very name "catechism" is presented in the Western Latin tradition, and not in the Eastern Orthodox "catechism". Similarly, the inclusion of theology as a science in the state higher certification system is spelled out in the Western style - theology. The adaptation of spiritual education to dubious Western standards (the Bologna system) also raises a number of questions among specialists.
Despite the abundance of quotations from the Holy Scriptures and the holy fathers, when analyzing the content, there is a noticeable shift in emphasis from the inner content of faith to an external description, the presentation of the Orthodox dogma is reduced to a rational textbook description of moral norms, and the Church is seen as a religious institution in contact with the outside world and society. Also noticeable is a certain suppression and smoothing of polemical questions of faith. Such a concept of presentation, as well as the mention of "according to ... dogma" are more characteristic of modern secular textbooks, which preach tolerance (indifference to the truth) and study Orthodoxy as one of many religions.
The whole text of the catechism causes a lot of criticism. If we collect numerous comments and sum up the various responses to the draft catechism, then they will significantly exceed the volume of the catechism, the text of which is difficult to read even for those with a theological education. And what about the catechumens who need a brief, but simple and accurate presentation of the foundations of the Orthodox faith?
In the chapter "The World" the days of creation and the six days are in quotation marks. There is no doubt in the patristic tradition of Bible interpretation that God created the world in six days. And in the new catechism, an attempt is noticeable to adapt the Orthodox dogma to the near-scientific evolutionary theory of the creation of the world over millions of years.
In the chapter “Man”, in the section on the fall, there is no important information about the fundamental difference between the Orthodox understanding of original sin and the consequences of the fall, and, accordingly, salvation from the Catholic and Protestant ones, which, for example, was well stated by Archimandrite (future patriarch) Sergius (Stragorodsky) in his dissertation "Orthodox doctrine of salvation."
In the chapter “Organization of the Russian Orthodox Church”, in the section about the patriarch, it is rightly stated that he is “first among equals”. However, it is further stated that he "has a number of exclusive rights" in relation to other dioceses. There is no mention of the exclusive rights of the patriarch in the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, this idea is alien to Orthodoxy, based on catholicity, but characteristic of the spirit of papism in Catholicism. The title of the patriarch first indicates his department - the city of Moscow, of which he is the bishop, and then it is indicated that he is the primate of "all Russia". In the same order, information about the patriarch should be stated in the catechism.
In the chapter "Law and Grace" it is written: "The God-man Jesus Christ did not abolish the God-revealed Old Testament law, but perfected and supplemented it." This formulation proposes to consider the New Testament as an addition to the Old. But such an interpretation is a repetition of the ancient heresy of the Judaizers, condemned in the first centuries of Christianity, and in the middle of the second millennium condemned here in Russia as the heresy of the Judaizers. Saint John Chrysostom in his words against the Jews who crucified Christ boldly denounced their apostasy. In our time, Metropolitan Anthony (Melnikov), in his open letter "The Guard of Zionism," competently outlined the topic of Orthodoxy's relationship to graceless Talmudic Judaism, which has nothing in common with Old Testament Judaism.
In the new catechism, the important topic of the schism of 1054 is very briefly and superficially stated, moreover, in small text in the paragraph about the primacy of honor. It would be worthwhile to set out in much more detail the theme of the falling away of Catholicism from Orthodoxy and the subsequent numerous distortions and innovations in Catholicism, which eventually led to the isolation of a huge number of Christians from Catholicism and the emergence of various Protestant sects. The patristic heritage and the conciliar opinion of the Church unequivocally regards Catholicism as a heresy, this became especially evident after Vatican Councils I and II.
As the last three parts, the relevant documents adopted at the Councils of Bishops were included. It is obviously unnecessary to include such documents in the catechism in its entirety, especially considering that their discussion is not allowed. There is no need to increase the volume of the catechism with content that is not in demand during the announcement, and if it is included, then only in an abbreviated concise presentation. The preface to the catechism says that this document is intended, among other things, to prepare for the Sacrament of Baptism, but in such a volume the catechism will be clearly unsuitable for use for its declared purpose.
The document "Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church", adopted back in 2000, as well as a draft of a new catechism, should be presented for general discussion in order to finalize and make additions. For example, it lacks a section devoted to the Orthodox assessment of the modern model of the economy. In 2015, the Commission of the Inter-Council Presence, chaired by Metropolitan Juvenaly, filled this gap and developed a corresponding document “The Church and the Economy in the Conditions of Globalization”, which gives an Orthodox assessment of the ideology of neoliberal globalism and condemns usury (not to be confused with a forged document in the Protestant spirit “Economy in the Conditions of Globalization: Orthodox ethical view). This document should be considered and included in an abridged version of the catechism as an addition to the foundations of the social concept.
At the end of the document on attitudes towards heterodoxy, those who criticize the ecumenical dialogue, thereby undermining the authority of the church authorities, are severely condemned. But the seeds of temptation among Orthodox Christians are sown not so much by critics of ecumenism as by active participants in ecumenical dialogues, whose words and deeds sometimes contradict the patristic attitude towards heterodoxy and the conciliar opinion of the Church, which causes justified fears among Orthodox Christians. Moreover, ecumenical dialogues are often conducted in secret not only from the laity, but also from the clergy, including the episcopate.
In fairness, it is worth mentioning at least the Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1948, at which representatives of all the Local Orthodox Churches unambiguously condemned Catholicism and refused to participate in the ecumenical movement, which the supporters of ecumenical dialogues do not like to recall now. But what is really unacceptable is to use fair criticism of ecumenism as a pretext for calling for a schism in the Church.
The one-sided presentation of information, the blurring of a clear Orthodox dogma, and excessive tolerance raise the suspicion that the task of the catechism is not to pronounce, but to codify the Orthodox dogma (rejection of "outdated" norms and the declaration of a new standard) and the gradual adaptation of the consciousness of an Orthodox Christian to modern ecumenical trends that contradict the patristic teaching and tradition of the Church. Numerous reviews of priests, theologians, teachers of theological universities and laity about the draft of the new catechism have already been published, among which there are no positive ones.
In general, the catechism is overloaded with information, while there is not enough accurate and unambiguous description of the entirety of the Orthodox dogma, there is a certain one-sidedness in the selection and presentation of the material, there is no polemical component with a certain ecumenical bias. The optimal composition of the catechism consists of four parts:
1. Fundamentals of Orthodox dogma.
2. Fundamentals of the canonical structure and liturgical life.
3. Fundamentals of Orthodox moral teaching.
4. The Church and the world (outline of other documents).
The main issue remains the goal-setting of the new catechism - what caused the need to develop a new doctrinal document. Obviously, it is impossible to change or add anything in Orthodoxy - everything necessary is set forth in the Gospel and revealed in the works of the holy fathers, who embodied the Gospel in their lives.
The only reason for compiling new doctrinal documents is the emergence and spread of new heresies and distortions of the Orthodox dogma, demanding a conciliar response to the Church. One such contemporary challenge to Orthodoxy is ecumenism. However, the new catechism not only fails to stand up for Orthodoxy, but, on the contrary, purposefully passes over in silence important polemical questions and, in a certain sense, tries to adapt the Orthodox dogma to the new ecumenical trends. A thousand years ago, St. John of Damascus wrote "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith." The new catechism is essentially "an inaccurate statement of the Orthodox faith."
Historically, the genre of catechism in Orthodoxy assumes a polemical character and a question-answer form, and only in Catholicism is it a lengthy symbolic book. According to some researchers, the composition of the document is most similar to the Catholic Catechism of 1992 and the Compendium of 2005. This raises a legitimate question and some concern - are the reforms of spiritual education and the codification of the Orthodox dogma being gradually promoted at the present time a desire to unify Christianity under the common near-Christian denominator of Western theology in the spirit of ecumenism?
I would very much like to hope that numerous comments will be taken into account and taken into account and the draft of the new catechism will be significantly improved, or better, completely revised. But even after the necessary revisions and improvements, this document, despite the great work done by the compilers, cannot claim the status of the main doctrinal document - its use is advisable as an auxiliary aid for catechists and missionaries. And for teaching in theological educational institutions, the best solution would be to leave the time-tested catechism of Metropolitan Philaret.
A positive result of a comprehensive discussion of the draft of a new catechism is the unanimity of the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church in assessing this document, which, we hope, will be fully listened to by the hierarchy. Also, a positive consequence of the discussion of the draft of the new catechism can be considered the increased interest of Orthodox Christians in a deeper study of the patristic heritage and Orthodox doctrinal documents, in particular the catechism of Metropolitan Philaret, with the text of which, until now, not all Orthodox Christians were familiar with.