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.

But subsequent events have shown that the patriarchate can also be the opposite, a bulwark of the Church's opposition to the atheistic state. That in a year the state would simply outlaw the Church and take a strategic course towards its liquidation – Copy could not foresee this, however, as well as the overwhelming majority of church figures.

But the catastrophe came soon – the ninth wave of the revolution drowned both the "right" and the "left". There is almost no information about the life of Oscopynsky after the revolution. It is known, however, that in 1920 he became blind, presumably

from malnutrition[4]. He died in Kiev in 1933.

***

The new government had its own view of property, and it by no means coincided with the patristic one. And the word "alms" in the twentieth century began to be pronounced with a tinge of contempt. Copynsky's book was crossed out of life, however, like any other that reminds of the Gospel Truth. But in our time, when the questions of property have again become acute, the time has come for this work.

Copymansky's work is the only monograph in Russian theology entirely devoted to the question of property and wealth from the patristic point of view. Its content is based on the teaching of the Holy Fathers of the III-V centuries: Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Bl. Augustine, bl. A good half of the text of the book consists of excerpts from Scripture or patristic tradition (about 300 quotations from the Bible and about 700 from the Holy Fathers). However, like any pioneering work, it is not free from shortcomings. Copynsky, like a bright comet, rushed through the code of our theology, having no predecessors and no disciples or followers. His ideas – the ideas of a fervent believer in Christ and an honest person who has the courage to express impartial and non-universally binding thoughts – are very valuable for our Church. They are especially important in our time, a time of erosion of moral foundations in the field of property ethics and simply the unrestrained pursuit of money. It is very much hoped that the patristic teaching set forth in the book "The Teaching of the Ancient Church on Property and Almsgiving" will be fully in demand both in modern theology and among the Russian people.

Vasily Oscopynsky. THE TEACHING OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH ON PROPERTY AND ALMS