Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

Petr A. Borits

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

From the author

The 20th century is the century of technical development and technological advances. Man overcame his impotence before nature and reached a high level of civilization. We can say that we live in a time when the whole world is united. There are no longer remote places that took months to get to. We no longer speak, as it was in the past, of East and West as separated by many kilometers. Now there is no distance between them. People have become easy to get acquainted with and also easy to communicate with people of other nationalities and religions. Such ease of communication, fraternization and friendship, which distinguishes modern man, is no doubt an encouraging sign of the progress made by man.
However, in the spiritual realm there are small and big problems. Many foreigners (usually Catholics and Protestants) who visit Greece and its famous monuments, among which there are Christian monuments (Holy Mountain, Meteora, etc.) that have been admired for several centuries, ask with doubt:
Is this really the Christ whom we and you worship? What separates us?
What is Orthodoxy, which you defend so devotedly?
On the pages of this book, we will try to briefly but intelligibly answer the following questions:
1. What is Orthodoxy?
2. What causes schism between Churches?
3. What other differences exist between the Churches that still separate them to this day?
4. What are the prerequisites for true and divine union?

I. What ?

1. Pope Supremacy

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

2. Filioque

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

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

1. Infallibility

As already mentioned, the Eastern Apostolic Church believes that Christ is the truth ("I am the way, the truth and the life"), which is expressed through the Church, which is His body. The Apostle Paul clearly stated that the Church "is the pillar and ground of the truth" (; 15). The truth given to us by Christ is preserved and expressed by the Church of Christ. The Russian theologian Archpriest S. Bulgakov said that "infallibility belongs to the Church." The Fathers of the Church never trusted themselves or an individual person endowed with power, since the great fathers also made mistakes in certain matters or deviated from the unanimity with the faithful. And so they trusted only the Church, its Ecumenical Councils.
Even the promise of Christ, “Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them” (; 20) proves that Christ is present not where one person makes a decision, but when two or more gather and ask for divine enlightenment. Nowhere in the New Testament is it said that Christ endows a certain individual with privileges and rights, this is not said about the apostle Peter, whose exclusive successor the pope considers himself to be, but, on the contrary, it is said about catholicity.
Although the Roman Church deviated from Orthodoxy several centuries ago, it was only in the 19th century, to the surprise of the Christian world, that she declared that the Bishop of Rome was infallible.
The Orthodox Eastern Church does not know a single person on earth who would be infallible, except for the Son and the Word of God who became Man. Even the Apostle Peter denied the Lord three times, and the Apostle Paul twice accused him of deviating from the truth of the Gospel.
When the question arose whether Christians should observe the instructions given by the prophet Moses, what did the apostles do? Acts says: "The apostles and presbyters have assembled to consider this matter" (; 6). They did not ask the advice of the Apostle Peter, as the only bearer of truth and vicar of Christ on earth, as the pope would like to see him, but they convened a council, which was attended by the apostles and presbyters. This behavior of the apostles deserves special attention, because they knew the Lord in the days of His earthly life, learned from Him the saving truth of the Gospel, were saturated with divine inspiration, and on the Day of Pentecost were baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Isn't this proof that the truth is declared only by the Church, and that only the Church should decide questions about the salvation of its members.
Isn't it blasphemy to put the pope above the synod - after all, even the apostles did not demand this privilege?
Need more proof that the pope came to this because of his haughty conceit, absolutism and denial of the true spirit of the gospel, and thereby fell into many heresies? Can a Christian doubt that the pope is making a mistake, deviating from the truth, when he insists on his infallibility?
Let us recall with what words the apostles expressed the results of their Council: “Be pleased with the Holy Spirit and us” (; 28), i.e. The Holy Spirit was present during the discussion of issues and directed the thoughts of the members of the Council, who spoke as equals among equals. None of them claimed infallibility or primacy, which the pope so insistently demands, thus confirming how far he deviated from the spirit and tradition of the apostles.
The infallibility of the pope is denied not only by Orthodox but also by well-known Catholic theologians, for example, Hans Küng refuses to accept the primacy and infallibility of the pope (Boston Sunday Globe, November 16, 1980). Even the council at Constance declared that the pope was not infallible, and emphasized that the pope was only one of the bishops.
Moreover, examples from history show that we cannot accept the dogma of infallibility or the primacy of the pope, because many popes have been anathematized or deposed by councils of bishops. It is known that Pope Liberius (4th century) supported Arianism, and Zosimus (5th century) supported heresy, denying original sin. The Fifth Council condemned Virgil for his wrong views. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (7th century) condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic who had fallen into the Monothelite heresy; the popes, Honorius' successors, also condemned him.
Such facts became the reason that the Christians of the West began to protest against innovations and demand a return to the church way of the first centuries of Christianity. In the 17th century, the learned theologians of Galia made the same protest, and in the 70s of the 19th century, the protest of the Christian consciousness against the dogma of papal infallibility, proclaimed by the Vatican Council, was expressed by the clergy and theologians of Germany. The consequence of this protest was the formation of a separate religious community of Old Catholics (Old Catholics), who abandoned the pope and are independent of him.
The Russian theologian Archpriest S. Bulgakov wrote about this that “the Roman Catholic bishops, with their dogma of infallibility, dogmatized and signed a document that is canonical suicide.”
Indeed, with this new dogma, unprecedented in church history, the Roman Catholic Church abolished the power of the Ecumenical Councils, because their power and infallibility were made dependent on the Bishop of Rome, who for this reason is not a bishop of the Church. He became a fantastic and incredible figure, standing above the bishops and above the Church, which allegedly cannot exist without him. In other words, the Pope has replaced the Church.
An impartial Christian in search of the truth will not doubt that the pope is mistaken in this matter, nor will he deny the non-ecclesiastical and worldly reasons that caused such a desire for power.
Deviation from the right path and ambitious moods indicate to the true Christian that any dogma that comes from the Roman Church is false from the very beginning.

2. On the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos

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

3. Purgatory

Another new and incorrect teaching of the Roman Catholics is the doctrine of the overdue merits of the saints. They teach that the good deeds or merits of the Holy Virgin and the saints exceed the amount needed to save them, and therefore the "extra" merits can be used to forgive other people. Of course, these merits are distributed by the pope himself, who invented many ways to collect money using this supposed right to forgive sins.
However, the Bible clearly warns us that each person will be judged according to what he did while living in the body, good or bad. (; ten). The sins of everyone can be cleansed by sincere repentance, and not by the overdue merits of the good deeds of the saints.
Also non-Orthodox is the dogma of purgatory, where the souls of sinners stay for a short or long time, depending on the number and severity of sins, in order to be cleansed.
However, the Lord spoke only about eternal fire, in which sinful and unrepentant souls would be tormented, and about the enjoyment in the eternal life of the righteous and those who repented. Nowhere did the Lord speak of an intermediate state where the soul must be cleansed in order to be saved. The Church believes the words of the Gospel that both the righteous and sinners await the resurrection of the dead, and that they are already in heaven or hell, depending on good and bad deeds, awaiting the final judgment. The apostle Paul says: “And all these, who were testified in faith, did not receive what was promised, because God provided something better for us, so that they would not reach perfection without us.” ().

4. Divine Eucharist

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

5. Baptism

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

6. Holy anointing

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

Notes

G. Metallinos "What is Orthodoxy?" With. 19.

The emergence of Orthodoxy Historically, it so happened that on the territory of Russia, for the most part, several Great world religions have found their place and have peacefully coexisted from time immemorial. Paying tribute to other Religions, I want to draw your attention to Orthodoxy as the main religion of Russia.
Christianity(originated in Palestine in the 1st century AD from Judaism and received a new development after the break with Judaism in the 2nd century) - one of the three main world religions (along with Buddhism and Islam).

During the formation Christianity broke up into three main branches:
- Catholicism,
- orthodoxy,
- Protestantism,
in each of which the formation of its own, practically not coinciding with other branches, ideology began.

ORTHODOXY(which means - to praise God correctly) - one of the directions of Christianity, isolated and organizationally formed in the XI century as a result of the division of churches. The split occurred in the period from the 60s. 9th century until the 50s. 11th century As a result of the split in the eastern part of the former Roman Empire, a confession arose, which in Greek began to be called orthodoxy (from the words “orthos” - “straight”, “correct” and “doxos” - “opinion”, “judgment”, “teaching”) , and in Russian-speaking theology - Orthodoxy, and in the western part - a confession, which its followers called Catholicism (from the Greek "catholikos" - "universal", "universal"). Orthodoxy arose on the territory of the Byzantine Empire. Initially, it did not have a church center, since the church power of Byzantium was concentrated in the hands of four patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. As the Byzantine Empire collapsed, each of the ruling patriarchs headed an independent (autocephalous) Orthodox Church. Subsequently, autocephalous and autonomous churches arose in other countries, mainly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

Orthodoxy is characterized by a complex, elaborate cult. The most important postulates of Orthodox doctrine are the dogmas of the trinity of God, the incarnation, redemption, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. It is believed that dogmas are not subject to change and clarification, not only in content, but also in form.
The religious basis of Orthodoxy isHoly Scripture (Bible) and sacred tradition.

The clergy in Orthodoxy is divided into white (married parish priests) and black (monastics who take a vow of celibacy). There are male and female monasteries. Only a monk can become a bishop. Currently in Orthodoxy highlighted

• Local Churches
• Constantinople
• Alexandria
• Antioch
• Jerusalem
• Georgian
• Serbian
• Romanian
• Bulgarian
• Cypriot
• Helladic
• Albanian
• Polish
• Czecho-Slovak
• American
• Japanese
• Chinese

The Russian Orthodox Church is part of the Churches of Ecumenical Orthodoxy.

Orthodoxy in Russia

The history of the Orthodox Church in Russia still remains one of the least developed areas of Russian historiography.

The history of the Russian Orthodox Church was not unambiguous: it was contradictory, replete with internal conflicts, reflecting social contradictions throughout its path.

The introduction of Christianity in Russia was a natural phenomenon for the reason that in the VIII - IX centuries. the early feudal class system begins to emerge.

Major events in history Russian Orthodoxy. In the history of Russian Orthodoxy, nine main events, nine main historical milestones can be distinguished. Here's what they look like in chronological order.

First milestone - 988. This year's event was called: "The Baptism of Rus". But this is a figurative expression. But in fact, the following processes took place: the proclamation of Christianity as the state religion of Kievan Rus and the formation of the Russian Christian Church (in the next century it will be called the Russian Orthodox Church). A symbolic action that showed that Christianity had become the state religion was the mass baptism of the people of Kiev in the Dnieper.

Second milestone - 1448. This year the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) became autocephalous. Until this year, the ROC was an integral part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Autocephaly (from the Greek words “auto” - “self” and “mullet” - “head”) meant complete independence. This year, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, nicknamed the Dark One (in 1446 he was blinded by his rivals in the interfeudal struggle), ordered not to accept the metropolitan from the Greeks, but to choose his metropolitan at the local council. At a church council in Moscow in 1448, Ryazan Bishop Jonah was elected the first metropolitan of the autocephalous church. The Patriarch of Constantinople recognized the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire (1553), after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the Russian Orthodox Church, being the largest and most significant among the Orthodox Churches, became a natural stronghold of Universal Orthodoxy. And to this day the Russian Orthodox Church claims to be the "Third Rome".

Third milestone - 1589. Until 1589, the Russian Orthodox Church was headed by a metropolitan, and therefore it was called a metropolis. In 1589, the patriarch began to head it, and the Russian Orthodox Church became a patriarchy. Patriarch is the highest rank in Orthodoxy. The establishment of the patriarchate raised the role of the Russian Orthodox Church both in the internal life of the country and in international relations. At the same time, the importance of tsarist power also increased, which no longer relied on the metropolis, but on the patriarchy. It was possible to establish a patriarchate under Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich, and the main merit in raising the level of church organization in Russia belongs to the first minister of the Tsar, Boris Godunov. It was he who invited the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah to Russia and obtained his consent to the establishment of a patriarchate in Russia.

The fourth milestone - 1656. This year, the Moscow Local Cathedral anathematized the Old Believers. This decision of the council revealed the presence of a schism in the church. The denomination separated from the church and became known as the Old Believers. In its further development, the Old Believers turned into a set of confessions. The main reason for the split, according to historians, was the social contradictions in Russia at that time. The Old Believers were representatives of those social strata of the population who were dissatisfied with their position. Firstly, many peasants became Old Believers, who were finally enserfed at the end of the 16th century, abolishing the right to transfer to another feudal lord on the so-called “St. George's Day”. Secondly, a part of the merchant class joined the Old Believer movement, because the tsar and the feudal lords, with the economic policy of supporting foreign merchants, prevented the development of trade for their own, Russian merchant class. And finally, some well-born boyars, dissatisfied with the loss of a number of their privileges, joined the Old Believers. The reason for the split was the church reform, which was carried out by the higher clergy under the leadership of Patriarch Nikon. In particular, the reform provided for the replacement of some old rites with new ones: instead of two-fingered rites, three-fingered rites, instead of earthly bows in the process of worship, half-length ones, instead of a procession around the temple in the sun, a procession against the sun, etc. The breakaway religious movement advocated the preservation of the old rites, this explains its title.

Fifth milestone - 1667. The Moscow Local Council of 1667 found Patriarch Nikon guilty of blaspheming Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, deprived him of his rank (proclaimed a simple monk) and sentenced him to exile in a monastery. At the same time, the cathedral for the second time anathematized the Old Believers. The Council was held with the participation of the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch.

Sixth milestone - 1721. Peter I established the highest church body, which was called the Holy Synod. This government act completed the church reforms carried out by Peter I. When Patriarch Adrian died in 1700, the tsar “temporarily” forbade the election of a new patriarch. This “temporary” term for the abolition of the election of the patriarch lasted 217 years (until 1917)! At first, the church was led by the Theological College established by the tsar. In 1721, the Holy Synod replaced the Theological College. All members of the Synod (there were 11 of them) were appointed and removed by the tsar. At the head of the Synod, as a minister, a government official appointed and dismissed by the tsar was placed, whose position was called “chief procurator of the Holy Synod”. If all members of the Synod were required to be priests, then this was optional for the chief prosecutor. So, in the 18th century, more than half of all chief prosecutors were military people. The church reforms of Peter I made the Russian Orthodox Church part of the state apparatus.

Seventh milestone - 1917 . This year the patriarchate was restored in Russia. On August 15, 1917, for the first time after a break of more than two hundred years, a council was convened in Moscow to elect a patriarch. On October 31 (November 13, according to the new style), the cathedral elected three candidates for patriarchs. On November 5 (18) in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the elder monk Alexy drew lots from the casket. The lot fell on Metropolitan Tikhon of Moscow. At the same time, the Church experienced severe persecution from the Soviet authorities and underwent a series of schisms. On January 20, 1918, the Council of People's Commissars adopted a Decree on freedom of conscience, which “separated church from state.” Every person received the right to “profess any religion or not profess any.” Any infringement of rights on the basis of faith was prohibited. The decree also "separated the school from the church." The teaching of the Law of God was forbidden in schools. After October, Patriarch Tikhon at first spoke out with sharp denunciations of Soviet power, but in 1919 he took a more restrained position, urging the clergy not to participate in the political struggle. Nevertheless, about 10 thousand representatives of the Orthodox clergy were among the victims of the civil war. The Bolsheviks shot priests who served thanksgiving services after the fall of local Soviet power. Some of the priests accepted Soviet power and in 1921-1922. started the renewal movement. The part that did not accept this movement and did not have time or did not want to emigrate went underground and formed the so-called "catacomb church". In 1923, at the local council of the Renovationist communities, programs for the radical renewal of the Russian Orthodox Church were considered. At the council, Patriarch Tikhon was deposed and full support for the Soviet government was proclaimed. Patriarch Tikhon anathematized the Renovationists. In 1924, the Supreme Church Council was transformed into a Renovationist Synod headed by the Metropolitan. Part of the clergy and believers who found themselves in exile formed the so-called "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad". Until 1928, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia maintained close contacts with the Russian Orthodox Church, but these contacts were subsequently terminated. In the 1930s, the church was on the verge of extinction. Only since 1943 did its slow revival as a Patriarchate begin. In total, during the war years, the church collected over 300 million rubles for military needs. Many priests fought in partisan detachments and the army, were awarded military orders. During the long blockade of Leningrad, eight Orthodox churches did not cease to operate in the city. After the death of I. Stalin, the policy of the authorities towards the church became tougher again. In the summer of 1954, the decision of the Central Committee of the party to intensify anti-religious propaganda appeared. At the same time, Nikita Khrushchev made a sharp speech against religion and the church.

The emergence of Orthodoxy

In the 7th-11th centuries, between old Rome and the new, religious rivalry unfolds. Constantinople was right legally, Rome - by virtue of tradition. Popes and patriarchs increased their titles and lands until they came close to each other. In the 9th century, things came to mutual curses, but after a while communion was restored, and in the 11th century, in 1054, the united Christian Church was finally divided into two parts - Western and Eastern. Each half developed independently, by virtue of internal reserves. The name of the Catholic Church was assigned to the Western part, due to the fact that the popes had the title of Ecumenical (All-Rome) bishops, “katholikos”, in Greek, means Ecumenical.

Over a thousand years of separation, these parts of the Church have significantly diverged in the principles of internal organization. The Roman Church chose the path of strengthening papal authority. Initially, the highest governing body in the Western and Eastern Churches was the Council or Assembly. The cathedrals were attended by patriarchs, metropolitans, bishops, priests, representatives of the emperor, ordinary citizens of the empire. This was the democratic principle of government.

The Council was headed by Jesus Christ Himself, He is the true head of the Church. Although Christ was not visible with the disciples, He actually led the Church. In the East, this principle of government has been preserved to the present day. All fifteen Local (local) Orthodox Churches are governed by Councils.

In the West, they acted differently, strengthening the papal power. Gradually, the pope became the head of the Roman Church, to whom the cardinals, bishops and clergy swore allegiance, as vassals to the king. The last full Council of the Western Church took place in the XIV century. He represented some more power, but after that, the Councils in the West, although they were held, did not have real power, since they simply fixed ready-made legislative acts adopted by the pope. The power of the Roman High Priest, "the servant of the servants of God," increased over the centuries.

At first, he was the first among equals, as the Eastern Patriarchs, then the visible head of the Church, after the only head, the vicar of God on earth, and, finally, after the Second Vatican Council, he legally acquired the authority of God. Now, according to the church decrees of the See of Rome, the pope can change the action of God, he is infallible in his opinion and actions if they are proclaimed from the pulpit, the word of the pope is always and in everything right, even if the entire Catholic Church as one person says "no". He is higher than the Council, higher than state power, he alone is the Catholic Church, according to the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, held in the middle of the 20th century.

The Orthodox Church has preserved the ancient Greek principle of government, the democratic Council. Patriarchs in the East are now only the first among equals, nothing more. They are bishops, like other bishops of the Orthodox Church, and have full power only within their diocese or district, in the internal affairs of other bishops, the patriarchs have no right to interfere. The power of the patriarch does not extend to the entire Local Church. Only the Ecumenical (General) Council, of which there were seven in the history of the Church, has the right to decide matters of a church-wide scale.

At this historical stage, the reunification of the two branches of the once united Church is practically impossible, due to different principles of the internal structure. Reunification is real only with equal control systems, which reflect the dogmatic (doctrinal) content. This depends entirely on the Pope, since only he, having voluntarily resigned some of his powers, may wish to unite with the Eastern Churches. Legally, any unions of the Catholic Church with other religious associations mean their automatic accession to the Roman throne. Naturally, the Eastern Patriarchs will not agree to this, because in this case they will have to recognize the infallibility and primacy of the pope, and not Christ, which contradicts the doctrinal truths of Orthodoxy.

In general, the very term "Orthodoxy" arose quite early, in the 4th-6th centuries. Orthodoxy or to glorify (God) correctly means an unchanging creed that has been kept since the time of Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy, or Orthodoxy, also means traditionalism. In other words, the Orthodox Church is a Traditional Church that preserves ancient traditions, it is a conservative and unnamed Church. The term "Orthodox" arose in connection with heresies and sects, which also called themselves Christians, but in fact they were not. Since ancient times, everyone who adhered to traditional views on religion, who invariably contained the teachings of the apostles, called themselves Orthodox. In times of schisms and intra-church upheavals of the Christian Church. The popes of Rome in the 8th century called themselves the Orthodox guardians of the faith of the apostles. This was stated in writing by Pope Leo X, who ordered the traditionally Orthodox dogma to be carved on stone slabs and put on public display in Rome.

In the early Middle Ages, the See of Rome unshakably adhered to Orthodoxy, and Eastern Bishops sometimes resorted to its authority. From the 4th-7th centuries, all the richness of the philosophical and theological thought of the Church was concentrated in the East. At this time, the East was immeasurably higher culturally and educated. The West simply perceived and copied, and more often simplified the scientific and cultural achievements of the East. There were no theological debates, since there was no own philosophical school.

One of the points of disagreement between the Eastern and Western part of the Christian Church in 1054 was the Balkan issue. Legally, the Balkans and Eastern Europe belonged to Rome, but this was the outskirts of the empire, a wilderness that no one claimed. In the second half of the 9th century, the church mission of Constantinople was sent to the Balkans, headed by Constantine (in monasticism Cyril) and Methodius. They went to the Slavs, a warlike people to whom Byzantium paid tribute from time to time. The mission to the Balkans was successful. In addition to religious rivalry, East and West clashed politically. In the early Middle Ages, there was a division of spheres of influence in Europe. Byzantine culture and religion was adopted by Eastern Europe, which gravitated toward Constantinople politically. From the 4th to the 11th centuries, Byzantium was the strongest and most powerful state in Europe.

Orthodoxy came to Russia through Prince Vladimir, who conducted successful negotiations with Byzantium. The political union with Constantinople was secured by the marriage of Prince Vladimir with the Greek Princess Anna. Prince Vladimir and his retinue converted to Christianity and, having arrived at home, baptized Kyiv and its environs. This happened in 988 and was named in history "the baptism of Russia." Kievan Rus entered the community of Christian states of Western Europe, into European civilization. The baptism of Kyiv was carried out by priests who arrived from Greece, who ordained several Russians as priests.

There is historical evidence that Christianity penetrated Russia much earlier, from Scandinavia, where it came from the Eastern Roman Empire. Some historians claim that on the Kyiv mountains, there was a disciple of Jesus Christ - the Apostle Andrew. The newly formed Church was headed by Greek metropolitans, and the Russian Church was a Greek metropolis until the 15th century.

Some argue that Jesus spent some time in the Balkans during his adolescence. Initially, the smallest and hopeless, the Russian Metropolis became the largest, territorially and economically superior to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In the middle of the 15th century, the Russian Metropolis became a patriarchy, an independent Local Church. At the same time, Constantinople fell, the Byzantine Christian Empire disappeared.

The only powerful Orthodox state remained the Moscow principality, which soon became a kingdom. The Russian tsars accepted the mission of the defenders of Orthodoxy and in the 16th century the political and religious theory "Moscow - the Third Rome" was created. The Russian Tsar was recognized by the majority of the Slavs and Greeks as their state, and there was already talk of moving the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire to Moscow. But, the Greeks said “no”, and this idea was not destined to come true.

The Catholic Church was engaged in active missionary activity, the emissaries of the pope fell on the newly discovered lands. But, Catholicism was torn apart by internal contradictions generated by the all-consuming power of the pope. The peak of papal power falls on the 13th century, when the kings of Western Europe trembled before the pope. The pope could refuse the coronation and release the subjects from the oath to the king. Gradually, discontent began to grow, the feudal lords resisted church guardianship.

The confrontation resulted in a religious trend, called Protestantism. In the 16th-17th centuries, Protestants waged wars with the papal throne and the armies of Catholic sovereigns. The ideologists of Protestantism were Martin Luther in Germany, Calvin in Switzerland, King Henry VIII in England. The religious creeds founded by them were called Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anglicanism. They denied the infallibility and omnipotence of the pope, as well as everything connected with it.

As for Anglicanism, in this case things were much simpler. King Henry VIII did not receive permission from the pope for a divorce and refused to obey him. Representatives of the Roman throne were expelled from England, proteges of the king were ordained in their place, and later a creed was formed, which at first did not differ from the Catholic one. Protestantism swept a large part of Europe, so that the papacy had to actively defend itself. Thus, Catholicism, like the once Christian Church, was divided into two parts. Protestantism broke up into several more currents, which we have already talked about: Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anglicanism. Anglicanism became the state religion of England, and Protestantism came to North America and spread to all of Europe.

At the present time, Protestantism has lost, with the exception of the English Church, its solidity. Each trend split into many directions. Different directions have gone so far that they can be called Christianity very conditionally. And besides that, all three branches of Christianity - Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism have a lot of sects.

Sects deny the traditional Churches, the priesthood, many sacraments, rituals, icons, crosses, sometimes temples. Sects are a constant phenomenon in the history of Christianity; they always accompany the Church. Usually sects exist for a short time, in comparison with the Church, they quickly outlive themselves and disappear. Already in the early years of Christianity there were sects. In the 1st century, the sect of the Nicolaitans was infamous, which no one remembers now. The Church was shaken by schisms, representing the separation of a part from the whole Church, while preserving the dogma of the latter. They were also short lived.

Summing up, we can say that now Christianity is represented by three branches - Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as many schisms and sects. As for the sects, they are called Christian for propaganda purposes; in fact, their creeds contain very little of the Apostolic Tradition. Protestantism and Catholicism have some peculiarities in their doctrine that distinguish them from the original Christian doctrine of the time of the One Church.

The Orthodox, or Orthodox (Traditional) Christian Church, of all the above branches of the one Church, is more conservative. It was precisely this quality that was distinguished by Jesus, Who bequeathed, on the eve of the ascension, to his disciples and followers to preserve the Church in the form in which Christ left it. The Church is destined to be the standard of faith and morality for all mankind. It should be an ideal to strive for.

The Orthodox Church has preserved the purity of Christian doctrine. Saints still live in it, healing of the sick takes place, icons stream myrrh. As for the concept of the purity of faith, the presence of too complex paraphernalia hinders the understanding of faith.

The same thing happened in the Catholic Church, although in the last century, the validity of the canonization of saints raises some doubts. The fidelity of the decision to canonize (recognize as saints) the leaders of the Catholic Church is quite relative, since the life of these people, their faith and moral qualities, can be assessed in different ways.

Protestantism is generally devoid of the relics of saints, they are not there, not to mention sects. The recognition of the holiness of a believer is not someone's decision, or the opinion of a group of interested persons, but the fact that God Himself designates the properties of holiness. People who died a long time ago are in an incorruptible state. Their bodies do not decompose, are not subject to decay, and sick people are healed from them. Saints, even during their lifetime, were known for their righteousness and purity of life, spiritual advice and good deeds.

The fact of the presence of relics (non-decaying bodies) of saints in the Church is considered by Orthodox Christians as evidence of the recognition of this Church by Christ Himself, for He was the first to conquer death, His Body became incorruptible and acquired special qualities. The recognition of the Church by God, by means of the manifestation in her of the relics of the saints, means that the dogma also corresponds to and is equal to the purity of the Church created by Christ. This is the very Church, the head of which is Christ.

What true Orthodox believers strive for is to conform to it internally.

This text is an introductory piece. From the book Ecumenical Councils author Kartashev Anton Vladimirovich

From the book Faith of the Church. Introduction to Orthodox Theology author Yannaras Christos

Criterion of Orthodoxy It is necessary, however, to state that heresy reveals itself not only as a fact of life (that is, schism), but also as a theoretical doctrine. Heretics teach about "truth" that is not confirmed by the experience and faith of the Catholic Church. It is the discrepancy

From the book Introduction to Theology author Shmeman Alexander Dmitrievich

2. "Golden Age" of Orthodoxy From the IV century. A new era begins in the history of Christianity. Externally, this is the era of secularization, i.e., the reconciliation of the Church with the state; inside the Church, it is the beginning of a long period of theological disputes that led to a more precise definition

From the book Son of Man author Smorodinov Ruslan

Around Orthodoxy After Soviet atheism, Orthodoxy in Russia is being revived, but disputes between believers and non-believers continue. Atheists point to contradictions in the Bible, for example: “The wrath of the Lord again kindled against the Israelites, and he excited David in them to say:

From the book Orthodoxy author Ivanov Yuri Nikolaevich (2)

From the book Anthropology of Orthodoxy author Khoruzhy Sergey Sergeevich

ANTHROPOLOGY OF ORTHODOXY Introduction Christian anthropology has a paradox in its situation. Christianity as such is anthropological in its very essence: the Gospel of Christ is a revelation about man, speaking about the nature, destiny and way of salvation of man. But, contrary to this, in

From the book The Church is One author Khomyakov Alexey Stepanovich

11. Unity of Orthodoxy And by the will of God, St. After the falling away of many schisms and the Roman patriarchate, the Church has been preserved in the dioceses and Greek patriarchates, and only those communities can recognize themselves as fully Christian, which maintain unity with the Eastern

From the book Contemplation and Reflection author Theophan the Recluse

The Rite of Orthodoxy It rarely happens that the Rite of Orthodoxy, which takes place on the Sunday of the first week of Great Lent, passes without reproaches and reproaches from the wrong side or the other. Church anathemas seem inhumane to others, shy to others. All such presentations

From the book Why are Orthodox so stubborn? author Kuraev Andrey Vyacheslavovich

POLEMICITY OF ORTHODOXY - You do not refuse if you are called an inquisitor and a retrograde. Why? - Just the work of the inquisitor, I consider a very worthy type of work. On one condition: that the state does not loom behind the back of the inquisitor. The word

From the Liturgical Book author (Taushev) Averky

Week of Orthodoxy In the first week of Great Lent, the Triumph of Orthodoxy is celebrated, in memory of the restoration of the veneration of St. icons under Empress Theodora in 842. In the cathedrals on this day, according to the liturgy, the Chin of Orthodoxy is performed, consisting of the Prayer Singing for

From the book Herman of Alaska. Luminary of Orthodoxy author Afanasiev Vladimir Nikolaevich

The luminary of Orthodoxy “Chosen wonderworker and glorious saint of Christ, Our God-bearing Father Herman, Alaska is the adornment and joy of all Orthodox America, we sing to you all these praises. You are like a heavenly patron of our Church and an omnipotent prayer book before God,

From the book Apologetics author Zenkovsky Vasily Vasilievich

True Orthodoxy. The Orthodox Church, faithful to Holy Tradition, has not departed in any way from that fullness of truth which has been revealed in the history of the Church through the ecumenical councils. This is the source of the truth of Orthodoxy, which, both in dogmas and in canonical provisions,

From the book Rites and Customs author Melnikov Ilya

Culture of Orthodoxy People who were brought up on the traditions of Orthodoxy, who took part in the Church Sacraments and attended divine services in churches, were gradually saturated with the very spirit of Christianity. A person baptized in infancy and brought up in the Orthodox

From the book Rules of conduct in the temple author Melnikov Ilya

Culture of Orthodoxy People who were brought up on the traditions of Orthodoxy, who took part in the Church Sacraments and attended divine services in churches, were gradually saturated with the very spirit of Christianity. A person baptized in infancy and brought up in the Orthodox

From the book Collection of articles by N. Berdyaev author Berdyaev Nikolay

From the book Salt that has lost its power? author Bezhitsyn A.

Infamy of Orthodoxy There are people in our country and beyond its borders who believe that the past and present testify not to the triumph, but to the complete infamy of Orthodoxy in Russia. There are, of course, also converse assertions, some hierarchs go so far as to

One of the three main branches of Christianity (along with Catholicism and Protestantism). It has spread mainly in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. It was originally the state religion of the Byzantine Empire. Since 988, i.e. For more than a thousand years, Orthodoxy has been the traditional religion in Russia. Orthodoxy shaped the character of the Russian people, cultural traditions and way of life, ethical norms (rules of conduct), aesthetic ideals (patterns of beauty). Orthodox, adj - something that is related to Orthodoxy: an Orthodox person, an Orthodox book, an Orthodox icon, etc.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

ORTHODOXY

one of the directions of Christianity, along with Catholicism and Protestantism. It began to take shape from the 4th century. as the official religion of the Byzantine Empire, completely independent from the moment of the division of the Christian church in 1054. It did not have a single church center, subsequently several independent Orthodox churches took shape (currently there are 15), each of which has its own specifics, but adheres to a common system of dogmas and rituals . Holy Scripture (Bible) and Holy Tradition (the decisions of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils and the works of the Church Fathers of the 2nd-8th centuries) form the religious basis of P.. The basic principles of P. are set out in the 12 points of the creed adopted at the first two ecumenical councils in Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). The most important postulates of Orthodox doctrine are the dogmas: the trinity of God, the incarnation, redemption, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. Dogmas are not subject to change and refinement, not only in content, but also in form. The clergy is recognized as a mediator endowed with grace between God and people. P. is characterized by a complex, detailed cult. Services in P. are longer than in other Christian denominations. An important role is given to holidays, among which Easter occupies the first place. See also Russian Orthodox Church, Georgian Orthodox Church, Polish Orthodox Church, American Orthodox Church.

Unlike Catholicism, which mortified Christianity and turned it into a decorative screen for sin and vice, Orthodoxy has remained a living faith, open to every soul, up to our time. Orthodoxy offers its members a wide scope for learned theologising, but in its symbolic teaching it gives the theologian a foothold and a scale to which it is necessary to conform, in order to avoid contradiction with the "dogmas" or with the "faith of the Church", any religious reasoning. So, Orthodoxy, unlike Catholicism, allows you to read the Bible in order to extract more detailed information about faith and the church from it; however, in contrast to Protestantism, it considers it necessary to be guided in this by the interpretative works of Sts. Church Fathers, by no means leaving the understanding of the word of God to the personal understanding of the Christian himself. Orthodoxy does not elevate the doctrine of the human, which is not in the Holy. Scripture and Holy Tradition, to the degree of God-revealed, as is done in Catholicism; Orthodoxy does not derive new dogmas from the former teaching of the Church through inference, does not share the Catholic teaching on the higher human dignity of the person of the Mother of God (the Catholic teaching on Her "immaculate conception"), does not ascribe to the saints super-due merits, all the more does not assimilate divine infallibility to a person, even if he was the Roman pontiff himself; The Church in its entirety is recognized as infallible, inasmuch as it expresses its teaching through the Ecumenical Councils. Orthodoxy does not recognize purgatory, teaching that satisfaction for the sins of people to the truth of God has already been brought once and for all by the suffering and death of the Son of God; accepting the 7 Sacraments, Orthodoxy sees in them not only signs of grace, but grace itself; in the Sacrament of the Eucharist he sees the true Body and true Blood of Christ, into which bread and wine are transubstantiated. Orthodox pray to the reposed saints, believing in the power of their prayers before God; honor the incorrupt remains of saints and relics. Contrary to the reformers, according to the teaching of Orthodoxy, the grace of God acts in a person not irresistibly, but in accordance with his free will; our own deeds are reckoned to our merit, though not in themselves, but by virtue of the assimilation by the faithful of the merits of the Savior. While disapproving of the Catholic doctrine of ecclesiastical authority, Orthodoxy recognizes, however, the ecclesiastical hierarchy with its grace-filled gifts and allows the laity to participate in the affairs of the church. The moral teaching of Orthodoxy does not give relief to sin and passions, as does Catholicism (in indulgences); it rejects the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, requiring every Christian to express his faith in good works. In relation to the state, Orthodoxy does not want to rule over it, like Catholicism, nor to submit to it in its internal affairs, like Protestantism: it strives to preserve complete freedom of activity, not interfering with the independence of the state in the sphere of its power.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

The issue of religion is discussed and studied in every state and society. Somewhere it is especially acute and is quite conflicting and dangerous, somewhere it is more of a small talk in your free time, and somewhere it is a reason to philosophize. In our multinational society, religion is one of the exciting issues. Not every believer is well aware of the history of the emergence of Orthodoxy and its origins, however, when asked about Orthodoxy, we all unequivocally answer that Orthodoxy is the Christian faith.

The emergence and development of Orthodoxy

Many scriptures and teachings, both ancient and modern, state that the Orthodox faith is true Christianity, citing their arguments and historical facts. And the question - "religion Orthodoxy or Christianity" - will always excite believers. But let's talk about accepted concepts.

Christianity is the largest form of social consciousness in the world, preaching the life path and teachings of Jesus Christ. According to historical data, Christianity originated in Palestine (which was part of the Roman Empire), in the 1st century.

Christianity was widespread among the Jewish population, and in the future it gained more and more recognition among other peoples, the so-called "pagans" at that time. Thanks to educational and propaganda activities, Christianity went beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire and Europe.

One of the ways of the development of Christianity is Orthodoxy, which arose as a result of the division of churches in the 11th century. Then, in 1054, Christianity split into Catholicism and the Eastern Church, and the Eastern Church was also divided into several churches. The largest of them is Orthodoxy.

The spread of Orthodoxy in Russia was influenced by its proximity to the Byzantine Empire. From these lands, the history of the Orthodox religion begins. Church power in Byzantium was divided due to the fact that it belonged to the four patriarchs. The Byzantine Empire disintegrated over time, and the patriarchs uniformly headed the newly created autocephalous Orthodox churches. In the future, autonomous and autocephalous churches spread to the territories of other states.

The fundamental event in the formation of Orthodoxy in the lands of Kievan Rus was the baptism of Princess Olga - 954. This later led to the baptism of Russia - 988. Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich called all the inhabitants of the city, and a rite of baptism was performed in the Dnieper River, which was performed by Byzantine priests. This was the beginning of the history of the emergence and development of Orthodoxy in Kievan Rus.

The active development of Orthodoxy in the Russian lands has been observed since the 10th century: churches, temples are being built, monasteries are being created.

The principles and morals of Orthodoxy

Literally, "Orthodoxy" is the correct glorification, or the correct opinion. The philosophy of religion consists in faith in the one God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (God the Trinity).

The foundation in the doctrines of Orthodoxy is the Bible or "Holy Scripture" and "Holy Tradition".

The relationship between the state and Orthodoxy is quite distributed and understandable: the state does not make adjustments to the teachings of the church's religion, and the church is not aimed at controlling the state.

All principles, history, and laws are hardly present in the thoughts and knowledge of every Orthodox person, but this does not interfere with faith. What does Orthodoxy teach at the philistine level? The Lord is the bearer of the highest mind and wisdom. The teachings of the Lord are irrefutably true:

• Mercy is the effort to alleviate sorrows unfortunately on one's own. Both sides need mercy - the giver and the receiver. Mercy is helping the needy, a deed pleasing to God. Mercy is kept secret and not distributed. Also, mercy is interpreted as being loaned to Christ. The presence of mercy in a person means that he has a good heart and he is morally rich.
• Fortitude and vigilance - consists in spiritual and physical strength, constant work and development, vigilance for good deeds and service to God. A persistent person is one who brings any matter to the end, walking hand in hand with faith and hope, without losing heart. Keeping the Lord's commandments requires labor and perseverance. Human kindness alone is not enough to spread goodness; vigilance and fortitude are always needed here.
• Confession is one of the Lord's sacraments. Confession helps to receive the support and grace of the Holy Spirit, strengthens faith. In confession, it is important to remember each of your sins, to tell and repent. He who listens to confession assumes the duty of forgiveness of sins. Without confession and forgiveness, a person will not be saved. Confession can be considered a second baptism. When committing sins, the connection with the Lord, given at baptism, is lost; at confession, this invisible connection is restored.
• The Church brings the grace of Christ into the world by teaching and preaching. In the communion of his blood and flesh, he unites man with the creator. The Church will not leave anyone in grief and trouble, will not reject anyone, forgive the repentant, accept and teach the guilty. When a believer passes away, the church will also not leave him, but will pray for the salvation of his soul. From birth to death, throughout life, in any situation, the church is nearby, opening its arms. In the temple, the human soul finds peace and tranquility.
• Sunday is the day of service to God. Sunday must be sacredly honored and the works of God done. Sunday is a day when it is worth leaving everyday problems and everyday fuss and spending it with prayer and reverence for the Lord. Prayer and visiting the temple are the main activities on this day. You need to beware of communicating with people who like to gossip, swear, snitch. He who sins on Sunday aggravates his sin 10 times.

What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism?

Orthodoxy and Catholicism have always been close to each other, but at the same time fundamentally different. Initially, Catholicism is a branch of Christianity.

Among the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the following can be distinguished:

1. Catholicism professes that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Orthodoxy confesses that the Holy Spirit comes only from the father.
2. The Catholic Church takes the main position in religious enlightenment leading to the fact that the mother of Jesus - Mary, was not touched by original sin. The Orthodox Church believes that the Virgin Mary, like everyone else, was born with original sin.
3. In all matters of faith and morality, Catholics recognize the primacy of the Pope, which Orthodox believers do not accept.
4. Adherents of the Catholic religion make gestures describing the cross from left to right, adherents of the Orthodox religion - on the contrary.
5. In Catholicism, it is customary to commemorate the dead on the 3rd, 7th and 30th day from the day of death, in Orthodoxy - on the 3rd, 9th, 40th.
6. Catholics are ardent opponents of contraception, the Orthodox accept some of the types of contraception used in marriage.
7. Catholic priests are celibate, Orthodox priests are allowed to marry.
8. Mystery of marriage. Catholicism rejects divorces, while Orthodoxy allows them in some individual cases.

Coexistence of Orthodoxy with other religions

Speaking about the attitude of Orthodoxy to other religions, it is worth emphasizing such traditional religions as Judaism, Islam and Buddhism.

1. Judaism. Religion exclusively of the Jewish people. It is impossible to belong to Judaism without Jewish origin. For a long time, the attitude of Christians towards Jews has been quite hostile. Differences in understanding of the person of Christ and his history strongly divide these religions. Repeatedly, such hostility led to cruelty (the Holocaust, Jewish pogroms, etc.). On this basis, a new page began in the relations of religions. The tragic fate of the Jewish people forced to reconsider the relationship with Judaism, both at the religious and political levels. However, the general basis, that God is one, God the Creator, a participant in the life of every person, today helps such religions as Judaism and Orthodoxy to live in harmony.
2. Islam. Orthodoxy and Islam also have a complicated history of relations. The Prophet Muhammad was the founder of the state, military leader, political leader. Therefore, religion is very closely intertwined with politics and power. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is a free choice of religion, regardless of nationality, territoriality and the language a person speaks. It should be noted that in the Koran there are references to Christians, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, these references are respectful and respectful. There are no calls for negative attitudes or censure. At the political level, there are no conflicts of religions, but this does not exclude confrontations and enmity in small social groups.
3. Buddhism. Many clergy reject Buddhism as a religion because it lacks an understanding of God. Buddhism and Orthodoxy have similar features: the presence of temples, monasteries, prayers. It is worth noting that the prayer of an Orthodox person is a kind of dialogue with God, who appears to us as a living Being, from whom we expect help. Buddhist prayer is more of a meditation, reflection, immersion in one's own thoughts. This is a rather kind religion, cultivating kindness, calmness, and will in people. In the entire history of the coexistence of Buddhism and Orthodoxy, there have been no conflicts, and it is impossible to say that there is potential for this.

Orthodoxy today

Today, Orthodoxy ranks third in terms of numbers among Christian denominations. Orthodoxy has a rich history. The path was not easy, a lot had to be overcome and experienced, but it is thanks to everything that has happened that Orthodoxy is in its place in this world.

The modern religion Orthodoxy is not just a religion that unites millions of people around the world. It is a religion that has always supported enlightenment, education, science and advancement.