Своим ответам старец предпосылает следующее вступление: "Ваше второе писание я получил с особенною радостью через возлюбленного нашего брата, монаха Феофилакта, и прославил Бога за вашу ревность, какую вы имеете о непорочном хранении православной веры и апостольских преданий и правил, содержимых святою Церковью. Эта ревность ваша есть Божия и разумная. Побуждаемые ею, вы проявляете такую любовь ко мне и веру, что несмотря на мою необразованность, обратились ко мне с вопросами, далеко превосходящими мою силу и разум, и более подлежащими соборному рассмотрению Церкви, нежели моему невежественному разъяснению. Между тем, вы написали мне свои вопросы с таким заявлением, что мои ответы и решения примете без всякого сомнения с полным доверием. Очень похваляю вас за ваше усердие, но сами рассудите, как я смогу дать ответы и решения на ваши вопросы, хотя бы я и всем сердцем этого желал, будучи во первых, как я уже сказал, человеком простым и невежественным, а во-вторых, не имея у себя и книг, необходимых для этого дела. И я не знаю, что мне делать: оставить ли ваши вопросы без ответа, или же как-нибудь ответить вам по моему слабому разумению? Пробыв немалое время в таком недоумении, я решил уступить вашей любви ко мне и вере, и ревности вашей, и усердию. Более же всего меня тронуло то, что вы просите и молите меня об ответе святою и живоначальною Троицей. Принимая все это во внимание, я был побежден вашею любовью, и молю всемогущего Христа Бога, да поможет Он мне Своею благодатию дело это и начать, и выполнить по истинному и непогрешимому разуму святой соборной Церкви".

"Итак, первый ваш вопрос заключается в следующем: можно ли истинному христианину иметь у себя и читать книги, запрещенные Церковью и снова святотатственно тайно печатаемые раскольниками и распространяемые ими в народе, или этого не должно делать? Отвечаю: Божественная Церковь заповедует еретических книг не читать и с еретиками не беседовать. В книге православного исповедания на вопрос, какая есть пятая заповедь церковная, имеется следующий ответ: необученным в Священном Писании и в других необходимых науках книг еретических не читать и не слушать вредоносного учения еретиков, даже и не разговаривать, и не обращаться с ними по слову псалмопевца пророка: "Блажен муж, иже не иде на совет нечестивых, и на пути грешных не ста" (Пс.1:1). В другом месте Священное Писание говорит: "Еретика человека по первом и втором наказании отрицайся" (Тит.3:10).

Подобно тому, как сатана будучи тьмою, преобразуется в светлого ангела, так и еретические учения, будучи тьмою и совершенно непричастные свету истины Божией, в глазах людей, необученных в Священном Писании и в науках, часто кажутся имеющими некоторое подобие истины. Вот почему Церковь необученным в Священном Писании и в науках дает заповедь книг еретических не читать и с еретиками не беседовать, чтобы по своей неопытности они не потерпели вреда от их учения. Обученные же в Священном Писании и в науках свободны от этой заповеди. Таковы Святые Отцы, пастыри и учители Святой Церкви. Они не только в Священном Писании благодатию Божией в совершенстве были наставлены, но и все науки внешнего учения в полноте изучили и несравненно превзошли во всякой внешней премудрости не только своих учителей, но и всех древних философов.

е. богословием и философскими доказательствами, как паутинную сеть, разрывали все их еретические хитросплетения и словом истины защищали Церковь Божию от всех еретических нападений.

Поэтому приступающему к чтению раскольничьих книг необходимо не быть лишенному ни разума богословского, ни внешнего учения. Не получившему же соответственных познаний, полезнее повиноваться Богу и церковной заповеди, гласящей: еретических книг не читай и с еретиками не вступай в собеседования".

"Далее вы спрашиваете: если кто имеет некоторые сомнения относительно преданий соборной Церкви и не слушает ее повелений, напр., крестится двумя перстами, а также и в каких-либо других церковных постановлениях сомневается и не хочет покориться — имеют ли таковые надежду спасения, хотя и делали добрые дела, или нет? И можно ли священнику разрешать таковых на исповеди и допускать к причастию Святых Таин, или это безусловно противно истине? Удостоверьте, Бога ради, нас, убогих и окаянных.

Ответ: на этот ваш вопрос считаю уместным рассказать вам случай, бывший на моей памяти. В 1746 году придя в одну обитель, где живут монахи русского племени, я нашел там четырех раскольничьих монахов, проживавших в пустыне недалеко от этой обители. Некоторый иеромонах Осия убеждал их, чтобы они оставили раскол и все свои обычаи, не согласные с церковными, и вошли в общение с Церковью и покорились ей во всем, и через это получили бы несомненную надежду на спасение. Они выражали готовность принять все предания и обычаи церковные, лишь бы только им было дозволено креститься двумя перстами, на троеперстное же православное сложение они ни в каком случае не хотели согласиться. Иеромонах Осия уверил их и пообещал, что он испросит им на это от церковных властей позволение и благословение, лишь бы только они во всех остальных церковных преданиях и обычаях были послушны Святой Церкви. Вполне положившись на его обещание, раскольнические монахи оставили свое пустынное жилище, перешли в названную обитель, стали строить себе кельи, оделись в монашеское платье по обычаю православной Церкви и часто просили Осию поскорее исполнить данное им обещание, но он все откладывал. Наконец, в пост святых Апостолов, по их усерднейшей просьбе, пошел вместе с ними в столичный молдавский город Яссы, где в то время находились свят. патриарх Антиохийский Сильвестр, муж святой и исполненный премудрости Святого Духа, и молдавский митрополит Никифор, грек, муж премудрый.

To renounce their two-fingered constitution and accept the three-fingered ecclesiastical constitution — they do not agree in any case. Having listened to this story with attention, His Holiness the Patriarch and His Eminence the Metropolitan said: "If you wish with all your soul to join the Catholic Church, then you should without any doubt and with all sincerity accept all the apostolic traditions and all the customs of the Church, without any exception; then the Church would receive you into her communion as beloved children with great joy.

But let it not happen that the Church becomes the culprit of the schism! Therefore, know firmly that the Church of God cannot agree to your proposal under any circumstances, and you do not ask more than we do about it, as an impossible thing, but go to your place and no longer remain in the monastery in which you are now, for you, as disobedient to the Church, cannot have communion with the Orthodox monks living there." Hearing such an answer from His Holiness the Patriarch and His Eminence the Metropolitan, the monks departed and, returning to their monastery, grieved greatly against Hieromonk Hosea, who had deceived them with his promise, and, heaping upon him heavy reproaches, returned to their schismatics to their original place of residence.

To this I answer you: in my opinion, the schism can be twofold, either someone himself is in schism, or he leads others into schism, tearing them away from the Church with his God-fighting teaching. Whoever is in such a schism, even if he has done all the good deeds, if he had shed his blood as a martyr for Christ, which undoubtedly surpasses all good works, will in no case be able to atone for this mortal sin, i.e. the schism. If a person cannot atone for his schism even with the blood of a martyr, then what hope can there be for salvation for him, and how can a priest resolve it at confession without his true conversion to the Church, and vouchsafe him Communion of the Holy Mysteries? This is in no way possible, and in any case it will be contrary to the truth of the Holy Church of God. I am not quoting your next question verbatim, but only conveying its essence. The oath and anathema which in former times were conciliarly imposed by the Eastern patriarchs on those who oppose the Catholic Church, i.e., on those who are baptized with two fingers or who do not submit in any other way, was this anathema later permitted by any Eastern council or not? And can any bishops, apart from the Council and without the consent and will of the Eastern Patriarchs, resolve this oath? And if none of the bishops can resolve this anathema without the will of the Eastern Patriarchs, and it is not resolved by the Eastern Patriarchs, then will not some of the Christians in resistance and in their unrepentance die in this conciliar anathema? Woe to us! And will the church commemoration be pleasant for this? Do not deprive us of a true explanation of this either.

Answer: An oath or anathema against those who oppose the catholic Church, i.e. against those who are baptized with two fingers or in some other way resist and do not submit, being conciliarly imposed by the Eastern patriarchs, must remain by the grace of Christ firm, unshakable and unresolvable until the end of time. You also ask: Did any Eastern Council later permit the anathema imposed or not? I answer: Could there be such a Council, with the exception of some one contrary to God and the Holy Church, which would assemble to refute the truth and affirm falsehood? In the Church of Christ there will never be such an wicked Council. You also ask whether any bishops, apart from the Council and the consent and will of the Eastern Patriarchs, can permit such an oath? I answer: this is impossible; For God is not disorder, but peace. Know firmly that all bishops receive the same grace of the Holy Spirit at their ordination and are obliged, as the apple of their eye, to preserve the purity and purity of the Orthodox faith, as well as all the apostolic traditions and canons of the holy Apostles, the Ecumenical and Local Councils, and the God-bearing Fathers, which are maintained by the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. From the same Holy Spirit they received the authority to bind and loose according to the order which the Holy Spirit had established through the holy Apostles in the holy Church. The bishops did not receive such authority from the Holy Spirit to destroy the apostolic traditions and church canons, so it is impossible for either the bishops or the Eastern patriarchs to resolve the above-mentioned anathema against the opponents of the Catholic Church, as it was correctly and in accordance with the holy Councils, and if anyone were to attempt to do this, it would be contrary to God and the Holy Church. You also ask: if none of the bishops can resolve this anathema without the Eastern Patriarchs, then is it not permitted by the Eastern Patriarchs? I answer: Not only is it impossible for any bishop without the Eastern Patriarchs, but also for the Eastern Patriarchs themselves, to resolve this oath, as has already been sufficiently said, for such an anathema is eternally insoluble. You ask: "Will not some of the Christians in their resistance and unrepentance die in this conciliar oath? I answer: In this question of yours there are three perplexities for me. The first is "some of the Christians." Second: "Will they not die in their resistance and unrepentance in this conciliar anathema?" In the first case, I wonder what kind of Christians are these who oppose the Catholic Church without any repentance? Such people are not worthy to be called Christians, but according to a just ecclesiastical judgment they must be called schismatics. True Christians obey the Holy Church in everything.

My third perplexity relates to your words: woe to us! These words of yours put into my soul the thought that you are not those certain Christians who impenitently oppose the Church, and who fear and tremble at the anathema imposed by the Catholic Church on such opponents, and therefore you so carefully ask about it, whether some Eastern council has not permitted it? Fearing to die in anathema and unable to endure the constant pangs of conscience, you cry out: woe to us! If you are true Orthodox Christians, in all things obeying the Church, which gave birth to you by holy baptism, and who are baptized according to the tradition of the holy apostles with the first three fingers of your right hand, and ask me not about yourself, but about others, then the above-mentioned anathema does not apply to you, and therefore you should not have said of yourself so pitifully: woe to us! These words of yours have inspired me with the opinion of you that has been said above, which may be extinguished from my soul! I beseech you, through an incident known to you, to give me a perfect confirmation of your wisdom, for we cannot have any communion with those who oppose the Holy Church and are baptized with two fingers. You also ask: will it be pleasant for them to be commemorated by the Church? I answer: If you speak of those who oppose the Catholic Church, and of those who die in their resistance and unrepentance, then believe me that the Church's commemoration of such will not only be unpleasant, but will also be contrary to both God and the Holy Church, and a priest who dares to commemorate them according to such sins mortally. Commemoration for the dead is the most important part of the bloodless sacrifice offered for Orthodox Christians, both living and dead. If someone, even from among Orthodox Christians, clearly sins and does not repent, then the Holy Church forbids him to offer a bloodless sacrifice until he completely forsakes his sin and sincerely repents. If the Church does not allow the offering of a bloodless sacrifice for an Orthodox open sinner who does not repent, then can she allow it to be offered for the deceased without any repentance in opposition to the Holy Church? He can't. About an obvious sinner, that it is not fitting for him to partake of the Holy Mysteries and it is impossible to offer a bloodless sacrifice for him, St. Simeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, testifies in the following words: "There is no place for unbelievers or those who think differently. Therefore, it is in no way proper for any priest to offer sacrifice or make a commemoration of him who clearly sins and does not repent, since this offering is for his condemnation, just as the reception of the terrible Mysteries is unworthy and without repentance for those who partake of communion, as the divine Paul says" (Corinthians 11:29). The same Simeon, about whom particles should be offered: "Priests should not accept offerings of the faithful who have obviously sinned, as it happens, but first demand repentance. For communion is an offering particle, and it is not fitting, being unworthy, to partake of this sacrifice." The same Simeon that the priest should carefully observe about whom he brings a particle: "

For there is mental communion, and if a person turns out to be diligent in reverence, or even if he is one of the sinners, but repented, then invisibly, as we have said, he receives the communion of the Spirit with his soul. In many cases, as we have seen, he also receives bodily benefits. Wherefore the priest ought to be careful not to accept an offering from every one who wills, nor to bring it to those who sin without any shame, lest he be condemned with them." Hitherto the words of St. Simeon, or rather, the words of the entire holy Catholic Church, for he speaks in accordance with the conciliar wisdom. From these words it follows that those who have died without repentance and in opposition to the Holy Church should in no way be commemorated by the Church. He who dares to make a commemoration of such will give a terrible answer for this, before Christ God on the day of His dreadful judgment.

Your next question: Is it possible to bury and commemorate a person who died in a church schism according to the Christian rite, or is this completely unacceptable due to his unbelief?