ISBN 978-5-903298-11-2

Original pdf - http://stavroskrest.ru/library/%D1%83%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%B9-%D1%86%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B8-%D0%BE-%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8-%D0%B8-%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BD%D0%B5

ru Portal Predanie.ru OOoFBTools-2.9 (ExportToFB21), FictionBook Editor Release 2.6 27.06.2014 OOoFBTools-2014-6-27-14-13-2-1284 1.0

INTRODUCTION. V. I. Copynsky and his book "The Teaching of the Ancient Church on Property and Alms"[1]

Vasily Ilyich Oscopynsky was born in 1875 in Kiev, in the family of a priest. His father, Archpriest Ilya Tikhonovich Oscopynsky, became a widower after the birth of his son and became a monk with the name Jerome. In 1885, he was consecrated bishop, and died in 1905 as Archbishop of Warsaw. In his memoirs, he remained as an unusually attentive and benevolent archpastor: "The saint amazed everyone who knew him with his exceptional affability, affectionate speech, devoid of offensive reproach, gentle treatment of a sorrowful, restless and even guilty soul before him. Such warmth and kindness of the soul was felt that sincerity enveloped the person, and he expressed all his innermost things, as to a kind, sympathetic father."

In 1904, Vasily Oscopynsky graduated from the Kiev Theological Academy, defended his master's thesis "Biblical and Patristic Teaching on the Essence of the Priesthood" and became a professor of moral theology at the Kiev Theological Academy and Secretary of the Kiev Philosophical and Religious Society.

In 1911, it was decided to compile a collection of articles about the recently deceased Leo Tolstoy. Copy was also invited to participate. He prepared an article "Gr. Leo Tolstoy and St. John Chrysostom in Their View of the Vital Significance of Christ's Commandments", the main idea of which was that both Tolstoy and John Chrysostom considered the commandments of Christ to be vitally important and requiring fulfillment now, in this earthly life. At the same time, he emphasized that in St. John Chrysostom, in comparison with Tolstoy, this idea is expressed much more vividly and completely. However, against the background of an anti-church information campaign on the part of part of the intelligentsia, which then unfolded in liberal newspapers and magazines, his article was regarded as "defensive" in relation to Tolstoy and "Tolstoyism." Metropolitan Flavian (Gorodetsky) of Kiev, on the basis of a letter from the rector of the Kiev Academy, Bishop Innocent (Yastrebov), passed in the Synod a decision to expel Oscopynsky from the Academy.

The right-wing nationalist newspaper Kolokol wrote that Oscopynsky was fired for "anti-Orthodox literary activity." For the professor of the Theological Academy, such a formulation was a stain on his good name. And Vasily Oscopynsky begins to defend himself. In the pamphlet Why Have I Been Condemned?, a sharp reaction to his dismissal, he writes: "In the face of the supreme Gospel ideal of life, which is recognized as holy and true, a double evaluation of the phenomena of life is always possible, which is the task of moral theology.

I consider the first evaluation of the phenomena of life to be the only legitimate one in Christian ethics as a normative science, and this point of view has always been held, in my mind, by the holy teachers of the Church. I consider the second assessment of life phenomena to be erroneous in essence, and this trend of our science, one might say dominant in our country, I characterize by the term "official" or "official" theology.

Of course, one could find softer epithets than "official" and "official". Moreover, the problem is not at all in the Synod and its "special" theology. And even more so not in the fact that Oscopynsky is a spiteful, arrogant critic. This unusual person made a strong impression on those around him. Well-wishers unanimously spoke of his crystal honesty, unusually sublime way of thinking and ardent love for Christ (interestingly, Oscopynsky collected a unique collection of images of Christ, for which he even bought a camera and became an amateur photographer). Detractors characterized him as a "narrow-minded" person, that is, senselessly getting into trouble. Yes, you can treat Oscopynsky's emotional attacks in different ways. But it should always be borne in mind that he was moved not only by resentment, but by the desire to follow the thought of the Holy Fathers in everything. This is especially noticeable in the most relevant area - the attitude to property, wealth, poverty and almsgiving. And the proof of this is the book "The Teaching of the Ancient Church and on Property and Almsgiving" offered to the readers.

The phenomenon of Copy shows that the Church is always alive, always ready to defend the truth. Bulgakov wrote about Oscopynsky: "if the universal church is alive for him, then it lives in him too." It seems that its place in Orthodoxy can be comprehended in the following way. The Church needs various ministries, including lovers of truth. Their task is to resist the danger of drifting, of gradually sliding down from the heights of true Christianity, closer to the realities of "this age." It was for such a service that the Lord raised the professor of moral theology V. I. Oscopynsky. And he prepared him for this, frankly speaking, very difficult service: he raised him in a family, where Oscopynsky saw with his own eyes what Christian love is, gave him a firm faith in Christ, a talent for preacher, crystal honesty and steadfastness in defending the truth.

In 1917, after the fall of the monarchy, Oscopynsky was reinstated in the Kiev Theological Academy, he again began to give lectures and plunged headlong into church and social life. And here the second tempting moment arises, because of which the name of Oscopynsky is still pronounced with doubt. In the summer of 1917, he tried to influence the process of preparing for the Local Council and published a program of reforms[2] of the "leftist" persuasion. There is the reading aloud of the Eucharistic prayers, and the introduction of the Russian language into liturgical practice, and the increase in the number of bishops by at least 10 times with the abolition of the obligation of the monastic episcopate, and the demand for strict conciliarity in opposition to the idea of patriarchy. Thanks to such a program, many believed, and by misunderstanding, continue to consider him a renovationist. However, this is not the case. When real renovationism took strength under the Bolsheviks, it was absolutely impossible to find the name of Oscopynsky anywhere, neither in the ranks of the active renovationists, nor among their sympathizers. Moreover, there is information that he did not actively accept renovationism and fought against it. In the turbulent summer of 1917, Oscopynsky wrote with pain: "The Russian revolution not only took to the streets without God, but all its waves are definitely devoid of any religious element at all. The whole Russian sea has been stirred, all voices are heard, all theories are preached, agitation and propaganda of various teachings have found fanatical spokesmen, but our church voice is not heard." The unpreparedness, in Oscopynsky's opinion, of the Russian Church for the impending revolutionary cataclysm worried him, and he tried to overcome it, demanding the speedy reforms that would bring believers closer to Christ, as he believed.

However, it should be stated that here the straightforwardness and naïve beauty characteristic of Oscopynsky, or rather, the absence of prophetic vision, were clearly manifested. Thus, he sees in the patriarchy the embodiment of the Byzantine ideology of servility to the state.