570

Prayer for the blessing of the artos on the Holy Week of Easter // Trebnik: V 2 ch. Ch. 2. Moscow, 1915. L. 9 rev.—10.— 276.

571

Prayer for the Breaking of the Artos on Saturday of the Bright Week // Ibid. L. 10 rev.— P.—277.

572

Further in Florensky's manuscript there is a pencil note that was not included in Ognev's manuscript and in the typewritten copy, although a blank space was left for it: "Speaking of it, it would be necessary to discuss the term transubstantiation, so important in view of our relations with the Anglicans and the Old Catholics. (But we will hint at this definition next time when we try to establish a terminological metaphysics of sanctifications)." The term "transubstantiation" is especially discussed by Florensky in his work "Around Khomyakov" (1916).

"In the treatise "The Experience of the Catechetical Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church"<"Complete Works of A. S. Khomyakov", vol. 2, ed. 5th. Moscow, 1907, p. 14, > written already in the forties or earlier, Khomyakov cautiously remarks about St. John. The Church that "it does not reject the word transubstantiation, but does not ascribe to it the material meaning which is ascribed to it by the teachers of the fallen churches." The following evasive exposition of the Eucharistic dogma is an attempt to evade the term transubstantiation, but however cautious Khomiakov's exposition is, it is impossible to ignore one shade, namely, that in Khomiakov the emotional stress falls on the word faith in the sacrament, and not on the sacrament itself as an object of faith. Khomiakov wants to put the dogmatic question on a pragmatic basis, to put it in a modern way, i.e., in such a way that the concept of the Holy Eucharist in itself is excluded and only the concept of perceiving it, of venerating it, of reverent reflection on it remains. The Protestant smell of these arguments is unmistakable, although the vagueness of the statements makes it possible to avoid Protestant formulasBut in another treatise dating back to 1855, namely in the treatise "A Few Words of an Orthodox Christian on Western Confessions"<Id., pp. 128-132.>, Khomiakov is already more definite or more frank: "He who sees in the Eucharist only remembrance, as well as he who insists on the word transubstantiation or replaces it with the word consubstantiation; in other words, both the one who, so to speak, vaporizes the sacrament, and the one who turns it into a miracle of pure matter, equally dishonor the Holy Supper by approaching it with questions of atomistic chemistry" <Id., pp. 131-132.>. Thus, the Church "does not reject" the word "transubstantiation," but to "insist" on it means "to dishonor the Last Supper," "to turn it into a miracle of pure matter," "to approach it with questions of atomistic chemistry." Strange logic! If to insist on the term "transubstantiation" is no less a mistake than to understand the Holy Eucharist as a realization (i.e., according to the formula pane, in pane, sub pane) or even as a mere remembrance, i.e., to fall into manifest impiety, then how can the Church "not reject" the word "transubstantiation"? In general, how can the Church "not reject" something that is reprehensible to insist on? An obvious case. It either rejects the term here under discussion altogether, or, by admitting it, it allows it to be adhered to, i.e., to insist on it, as soon as there is a need for it, and without it it will be impossible to stop the mouth of the heretic. But Khomiakov wants to avoid definiteness and simply keep silent about a term that in a Eucharistic dispute with Protestants is as decisive and therefore irremovable as the term "consubstantial" in a Trinitarian dispute with Arians, or the term "Mother of God" in a dispute with Nestorians. "There is no such word in the liturgy," remarks Khomiakov, Protestant, <Id., p. 3.>. But does not Khomiakov know that such a trick is unworthy of him, for the same thing was said by the semi-Arians, "without rejecting" the term "consubstantial," referring to its non-existence in the Holy Scriptures. And to complete the analogy, the terms "consubstantial" and "Mother of God," as well as the term "transubstantiation," were indeed used by heretics for their own purposes, using them in a coarse, sensual way. Nevertheless, the Church not only "did not reject" them, but also positively affirmed them, for without them it was impossible to resist the stream of heretical false teaching that eroded church dogma. In the seventeenth member of the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, the Eucharistic dogma is expressed with complete certainty<E. J. Kittei—Monumenta fidei Ecclesiae Orientalis. Jenae, 1850. Pars It pp. 456-463.—For a Russian translation of the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus, see the Kostroma Diocesan Gazette, vol. VIII, 1894, No 18 and 19, unofficial part.>. But this Confession has a canonical significance, for it was confirmed at the Council of Jerusalem (against the Calvinists) in 1672, at which representatives of all the Local Churches, including the Russian one, took part, and then it was strictly confirmed by the Eastern Patriarchs in 1723, who included the Confession of Dositheus in the Epistle to the archbishops and bishops "existing in Great Britain" and to all their clergy < "Kostroma Eparchs. Vedomosti, vol. VIII, 1894, No 16 and 17, unofficial part. also the collection of letters of the Ecumenical Patriarchs, published by the Holy Synod. The Synod in 1846 > worthy of note that, apart from this Confession, the Eastern Patriarchs did not find it necessary to answer anything else. Here we read<A member of the XIII is given according to the translation in the edition of St. Synod.>: "We believe that in this sacred rite (the Holy Eucharist) our Lord Jesus Christ is present not symbolically, not figuratively (τυπικώς, είκονικώς), not by an abundance of grace, as in the other sacraments, not by inspiration alone, as some Fathers said about baptism, and not through the penetration of the bread (κατ* έναρτισμόν, per impanationem=Khomiakov's "fulfillment"), so that the Divinity of the Word enters into the bread offered for the Eucharist essentially (ύποστατικώς), how the followers of Luther explain it rather unskilfully and unworthily; but it is true and true, that after the consecration of the bread and wine, the bread is changed, transubstantiated, transformed, transformed (μεταβάλλεσθαι, μετουσιούσθαι, μεταποιεϊσθαι, μεταρρυθμίζεσαι—transmutetur, transsubstantietur convertatur, transformetur) into the very true body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem of the Ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand of God the Father, has to appear on the clouds of heaven, and wine is transformed, transubstantiated (μεταποεΐσθαι και μετουσιούσθαι—converti as transsubstantiari) into the very true blood of the Lord. We also believe that after the consecration of the bread and wine, it is no longer the bread and wine itself that remains, but the very Body and Blood of the Lord under the form and image of the bread and wine [in the Confession of Patriarch Dositheus: έν τω του άρτου του οΐνου εϊδει και τύπο* ταύτόν ειπείν, υπό τοις το ύ άρτου συμβεβηκόσιν—sub panis et vini specie et figura, id est, sub panis accidentibus; consequently the saying: "i.e., under the accidents of bread"]—the Lord is present in His essence (κατ' ούσίαν, secundum substantiam). Although at one and the same time there are many sacraments throughout the world, there are not many bodies of Christ, and one and the same Christ is truly and truly present. One His Body and one Blood in all the individual churches of the faithful. And this is not because the Body of the Lord, which is in heaven, descends on the altars, but because the bread of the offering, prepared separately in all the churches and transformed and transubstantiated after consecration (μεταποιούμενος και μετουσιούμένος—conversus as transsubstantiatus), becomes one and the same with the body that is in heaven."

Khomiakov, on the other hand, wants to blunt the sharpness of the Eucharistic formula and thus opens the door to Protestant negation; His followers openly explain his intention, and openly deny and even blaspheme the word "transubstantiation." But they will see for themselves by the experience of history that to reject the word transubstantiation in the present tension of Protestantism, modernism, pragmatism, and similar immanentist heresies is to cut the rope of a tightly tightened bale, and they do not foresee the negations that will follow, for such have long awaited their freedom. Then the perpetrators of the dogmatic devastation, who are following the path laid out by Khomiakov, will have to either reintroduce the rejected term, or openly reject the Holy Scriptures. Secrets. No matter how far Khomyakov is from calling the term under discussion "blasphemous", he is still somehow responsible for the latter. Here the road from Khomyakov goes downhill, and to the church teaching — uphill.

But apart from this dogmatic-canonical aspect of the dispute, it must be noted that Khomiakov's philosophically interpretation of the term "transubstantiation" as allegedly containing the concept of the "miracle of atomistic chemistry" is not a Catholic teaching, although it is possible that some theologians have fallen into such impiety. But this impious view is precisely the denial of transubstantiation, for in "atomistic chemistry," however miraculous, the essence of matter, material substance, remains unchanged, is not transubstantiated, but only accidents, only species, change; but in transubstantiation the essence changes, but accidents and species remain. Khomiakov could not but understand this distortion of concepts, but, instead of exposing the false use of words and restoring the right one, he preferred the easiest way – the simple renunciation of church property, just as the semi-Arians avoided the term "consubstantial", among other things, on the false grounds that such a term was falsely used by the Gnostics. However, let the assertion of the validity of the above-mentioned abuse of the term "transubstantiation" remain on the conscience of those who utter it: although the Latins, it is impossible to accuse Protestants, who are obvious enemies of the Church, of any absurdity. In any case, those who are militant for transubstantiation should stipulate that, according to the faith of the Church, "the word transubstantiation (ττ μετουσίωσις λέζει, verbo transsubstantionis) does not explain the image by which the bread and wine are transformed (μεταποιούνται, convertuntur) into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this cannot be comprehended by anyone except God Himself, and the efforts of those who wish to comprehend it can only be the result of madness and impiety, but it is only shown that the bread and wine, after consecration, are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord, not figuratively, not symbolically, not by an abundance of grace, not by the communication or inspiration of the one Divinity of the Only-begotten, and not by any accidental belonging (accident) of the Body and Blood of Christ, In any way, it is a change or confusion, but, as has been said above, truly, really, and essentially, the bread is the truest Body of the Lord, and the wine is the very Blood of the Lord< The Confession of Pat. Dositheus, member. XVII.> —ό&ρτος και όοονος μετά τον αγιασμό ν ού τυπικώς ουδ* είκονικώς ούδέ χάριτι υπερβαλλούση, ττ| κοινωνίρ ή xfj παρουσία της Οεότητος, μόνης τού μονογενούς μεταβάλλεται εις τό σώμα και αίμα τού κυρίου, ουδέ συμβεβηκός τι τού άρτου και τού οίνου εις συμβεβηκός τι τού σώματος και αίματος τού Χριστού κατά τινα τροπήν ή αλλοίωσιν μεταποεΐται, άλλ' αληθώς και πραγματικώς και ούσιωδώς γίνεται ό μεν άρτος αύτό τό αληθές τού κυρίου σώμα, ό δ1 οίνος αυτό, τού κυρίου αιμα, ώς εϊρηται ανωτέρω»<Kimme!—Monumenta fidei Eccl. Orient. Pars, I, p. 462. >.

Thus, all the dangers pointed out by the opponents of the term "transubstantiation." The Church provided, stipulated and classified; And yet, in spite of this, the word "transubstantiation" is repeatedly used in passages that are most essential in their meaning. In particular, it should be noted that this term seems to Khomiakov and his followers in this matter—to introduce "scholastic definitions." As if philosophical language were not a species of language in general, and as if Khomiakov himself did not make use of all sorts of philosophical definitions, his own and those of others, scholastic and Hegelian! To refer to the scholasticism of definitions as such, without indicating exactly why these definitions are bad, means basically to protest against any theology, including Khomiakov's. And if the Holy Fathers had stood on the point of view of this wordlessness, then there could have been no Symbol of Faith. But Khomiakov defends alogism, since it is a question of the sacraments, with which he does not quite get along at all, for here he sees the ghost of "Kushism," and he himself discusses the dogmas of faith, including the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity, when the heavenly is considered outside of its relation to the earthly, i.e., it is considered as a concept, and not as life. Consequently, it is not alogism as such that attracts Khomyakov, but repels the concreteness and immediacy of the spiritual world revealed in the divine service. It was this incorporeality and bloodlessness—probably Hegel's contagion—that were, to a certain extent, a disease of early Slavophilism." Priest Pavel Florensky. Works: In 4 vols. Vol. 2. Moscow, 1996. Pp. 300-305.—277.

573