Question: Do Orthodox and Catholics have the same faith? Answer: No, there is a difference between the faith of the Orthodox and the faith of the Catholics, and a big one at that. Question: What is the difference between the faith of the Orthodox and the faith of the Catholics? Answer: The Orthodox have preserved the Christian faith in purity and intactness, as it was revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, preached by the Apostles, as explained by the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church; and the Catholics distorted the faith of Christ with a number of heretical teachings and adopted customs that did not agree with the tradition of the Holy Church. Question: How long has it been since Catholics have been in error in their faith? Answer: Errors among Catholics were discovered as early as the ninth century and have not ceased to appear since then. Question: What did the Church do when it discovered the errors of the Catholics? Answer: The Church exhorted the Catholics, called on them to renounce their errors, but the Catholics persisted. Then the Church tore them away from herself and gave them over to excommunication. Question: Did the Church do the right thing by excommunicating Catholics? Answer: Right, since they have disobeyed the Church, and "if (anyone) does not listen to the Church," the Saviour commanded, "let him be to you as a heathen and a publican" (Matt. 18:15-17)." "Turn away from the heretic," wrote the Holy Apostle Paul in his Epistle to Titus, "after the first and second admonition, knowing that he is depraved and sinful, being self-condemned" (Titus 3:10-11). Question: What errors are currently contained by Catholics? Answer: The main errors of the Catholics are as follows: the Catholics teach that the Pope of Rome is the head of the whole Church and the vicar of God on earth, they assert that the Pope cannot be mistaken when he discusses faith, and therefore they call him infallible, then they believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son, they recognize the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos from Joachim and Anna, they contain the teaching about the superfluous merits of the Saints, do not chrismate and do not commune infants, deprive the laity of communion of the Holy Blood, perform communion on unleavened bread, fast on Saturday, perform divine services in Latin, which is incomprehensible to the people, use organs in divine services, etc.

I. Of the supremacy of the Pope

Question: Do Catholics correctly assert that the Pope of Rome is the head of the entire Church and the vicar of God on earth? Answer: No, it is wrong. The head of the Church is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as the Holy Apostle Paul writes about it, saying that God "subjected all things under His feet, and set Him above all things, the head of the Church, which is His body" (Ephesians 1:22-23). Question: Did not the Lord Jesus Christ place one of the Apostles as the head of the Church on earth in His place? Answer: No, He did not: the Lord forbade the Apostles even to talk about headship and seniority, when He said: "You know that those who are considered princes of the nations rule over them, and their nobles rule over them. But let it not be so among you: but whoever wants to be great among you, let him be your servant; and whosoever will be first among you, let him be the servant of all" (Mark 10:3544).

Question: How can Catholics assert that the Lord has appointed the Holy Apostle Peter as the head of the Church and the vicar of God on earth? Answer: Catholics fall into error because of a misunderstanding of the words of the Savior said to the Holy Apostle Peter: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 14:18-19). Question: What do the words "on this rock" mean? Answer: St. St. John Chrysostom in his 53rd discourse on the Evangelist Matthew says: "On this rock I will build My Church, that is, on the faith of confession. And what is the confession of the Apostle? Here it is: You're the Christ, the Son of the living God." Blessed Augustine in his 2nd treatise on the 1st Epistle of John writes: "What is the meaning of the words: I will build My Church on this rock? They mean: in this faith, - in the words: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Question: What grounds do Catholics cite from the Gospel to prove that the Savior made Peter the head of the Church and His vicar on earth? Answer: First, the Catholics quote the words of the Savior to Peter: "Simon! Simon! Behold, Satan asked to sow you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and thou, having once been converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). From these words, the Catholics conclude that the Apostle Peter was entrusted with the confirmation of the other apostles, or, what is the same, was entrusted with headship and dominion over them. Secondly, the Catholics assert that the Saviour entrusted the Apostle Peter with authority not only over Christians, but also over the Apostles, when he repeated twice: "feed my sheep," he also said, "feed my lambs," which, in their opinion, pointed to the apostles (John 21:15-17). Question: How should we look at the above-mentioned interpretation of the Catholics? Answer: This interpretation is undoubtedly wrong and erroneous. On the one hand, there is no reason to understand by the name of brethren and lambs, whom the Apostle Peter was entrusted with confirming and shepherding, namely the apostles. On the other hand, the apostles themselves never considered Peter to be their supreme head. Question: Where can you see this? Answer: First, from the words of the Lord to the 12 apostles, from which it is clear that they have equal authority and have no other teacher and father for them except Christ. Here are these words: "But do not be called teachers, for you have one Teacher, Christ, and you are all brethren, and call no one on earth your father, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:8-9). Question: But perhaps these words were spoken not only to the apostles, but to all Christians? Answer: No, because the Apostles called Christians their children (John 2:1-18), and themselves fathers, who begot them into spiritual life (1 Cor. 4:15; 2 Cor. 12:14). Question: How else can we see that the apostles did not consider Peter to be their supreme head? Answer: This is evident at least from the fact that at the council in Jerusalem the apostles gave the presidency not to Peter, but to James (Acts 2:10). 15, 13). It is also known that the Apostle Paul once "opposed" the Apostle Peter (Gal. 2:11-14). All this shows that the apostles considered Peter to be their equal brother, but in no way the supreme head over themselves. Question: For what purpose are Catholics trying to prove the headship of the Apostle Peter? Answer: Since the Apostle Peter, in the opinion of the Catholics, was not only the head of the Church, but also the bishop in the city of Rome, the Catholics conclude from this that their Pope of Rome, as the successor of the Apostle Peter, is the head of the whole Church. Question: Was the Apostle Peter really the bishop of Rome? Answer: The latter is highly doubtful. The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians writes: "When James, Cephas (Peter), and John, who were esteemed pillars, gave me and Barnabas the hand of fellowship, that we might go to the Gentiles, and them to the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9), for, says the Apostle above, they saw "that the gospel was entrusted to me for the uncircumcised, as to Peter for the circumcision" (Gal. 2:7). If the Apostle Peter was commissioned by the Lord Himself to preach to the circumcised, i.e. to the Jews, then how could he be a bishop of Roman Christians or pagans? In addition, the Apostle Paul, as is known, wrote an epistle to the Roman Christians, which he would not have done if the latter had been under the leadership of the Apostle Peter, the very head of the Church, as the Catholics assert, especially since the Holy Apostle Paul directly says in his Epistle to the Romans: "I have tried to preach the gospel not where the name of Christ was already known, so that I would not build on someone else's foundation" (Romans 15:15). 20). Question: Did the ancient Christians recognize the Pope of Rome as the head of the entire Church? Answer: No, they did not. It is known that after the death of the apostles, including Ap. Peter, for a long time remained alive Ap. John the Theologian. It is impossible to allow the ancient Christians to place the Pope of Rome above the Apostle John. Question: Did not Christians consider the Pope of Rome to be the head of the Church in later times? Answer: No, they did not. At the Ecumenical Councils, which were the voice of the entire Church, it was determined that the Pope of Rome should have equal rights with the other patriarchs. Question: Which Ecumenical Councils have determined this? Answer: The First Ecumenical Council decreed in its 6th canon: "Let the ancient customs adopted in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis be preserved, so that the Bishop of Alexandria may have authority over all these. Wherefore it is customary for the bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and in other provinces, let the privileges of the Churches be preserved." By this canon, the Pope of Rome was placed on a par with the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and other regional bishops. The same Council commanded in the 7th canon: "Since the custom and ancient tradition have been established that a bishop who dwells in Elia (Jerusalem) should be honored, then let him have the succession of honor with the preservation of the dignity assigned to the metropolia." By this canon, the Patriarch of Jerusalem was placed on a par with the Pope. The Second Ecumenical Council decided in the 3rd canon: "Let the bishop of Constantinople have the privilege of honor according to the bishop of Rome, because this city is the new Rome." By this canon, the Patriarch of Constantinople was placed on a par with the Pope. What was determined at the first two Ecumenical Councils was later confirmed by subsequent Ecumenical Councils. Thus, the Fourth Ecumenical Council decreed in its 28th canon: "We determine and decree on the prerogatives of the most holy Church of Constantinople, the new Rome. For the Fathers duly gave precedence to the throne of Old Rome, since it was a reigning city. Following the same motive, the one hundred and fifty most God-loving bishops granted equal privileges to the most holy see of the new Rome, righteously judging that the city, which received the honor of being the city of the tsar and the synclitus, and having equal privileges with the old royal Rome, will be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs in the same way, and will be second in it." The same was confirmed by the 36th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council: "We determine that the See of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the See of ancient Rome, and, as this, let it be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs, being second in it; after it the throne of the great city of Alexandria shall be numbered, then the throne of Antioch, and after this the throne of the city of Jerusalem." Thus, all regional bishops, or patriarchs, had, according to the definition of the Ecumenical Councils, the same rights and powers. Question: Could the regional bishops, including the Pope of Rome, extend their authority to other churches? Answer: No, they could not. "The regional bishops," commanded the Second Ecumenical Council, "let them not extend their authority over the Churches outside their region, and let them not confuse the Churches" (Canon 2). The same was determined by the 8th canon of the Third Ecumenical Council: "Let it be observed also in other regions and everywhere in the dioceses; that none of the most God-loving bishops extend his authority to another diocese, which was not previously and at first under the hand of him or his predecessors; but if anyone has stretched out and forcibly subjugated any diocese to himself, let him give it up: let not the rules of the father be transgressed, let not the arrogance of the worldly power creep in under the guise of a sacred action." Question: What was the attitude of the Councils to the claims of the Popes of Rome to extend their authority to foreign ecclesiastical regions? Answer: They forbade this on pain of deposing those bishops who would appeal to the court of the popes. Thus, the Local Council of Carthage, confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council, decreed by Canon 139: "If presbyters, deacons, and other lower ranks of the clergy, according to the matters before them, are not satisfied with the decision of their bishops, then let the neighboring bishops hear them, and let their reproaches be resolved by those elected by them with the consent of their own bishops. And if they want to transfer the case to a higher court; then let them be brought only to the councils of Africa, or to the first bishops of their provinces. And those who wish to carry the matter across the sea (i.e., to Rome) should not be received into communion by anyone in Africa." Question: What else do the Latins try to prove the supremacy of their popes? Answer: By the way, they say that in the Old Testament there was one high priest for all believers, which is why in the New Testament there must be one spiritual head of all Christians, who would intercede for all before God. Question: Is it possible to find in the Holy Scriptures? Scripture is a confirmation of such a thought? Answer: No, on the contrary, the Apostle Paul clearly says that the substitutes of the Old Testament high priests, who succeeded one another, will not be the New Testament human high priests, but the one eternal High Priest, our Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:23, 24, 28). Question: What should the Latins answer when they say that Jesus Christ cannot now govern the Church, because He ascended to Heaven, and we need a visible high priest and intercessor for people? Answer: They must be answered with the words of the Apostle Paul that the Lord Jesus Christ "is able always to save those who come to God through Him, being always alive to intercede for them" (Heb. 7, 26). Question: What conclusion should be drawn from the above regarding the Catholic teaching on the supremacy of the Pope of Rome? Answer: The conclusion is that this teaching is contrary to the precepts of the Savior, the Holy Apostles, and the tradition of the Holy Church.

II. On Papal Infallibility

Question: Do Catholics correctly assert that the Pope of Rome cannot be mistaken when he discusses faith? Answer: No, it is wrong, since there were popes who undoubtedly sinned in the faith. Question: Which popes are known to have sinned in the faith? Answer: It is known about Pope Victor (192), who at one time approved of the Montana heresy; it is known about the Pope of Liberia, who agreed to the condemnation of St. Athanasius and decided to accept Arianism in order to be returned from exile and receive his former cathedra (358). Pope Honorius (625) is known, who adhered to the Monothelite heresy, for which he was condemned. Question: Why is it still impossible to recognize the infallibility of the Pope of Rome in his judgment of faith? Answer: Because our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted this infallibility only to the whole Church; an individual can always err in faith and make an erroneous judgment. Question: How did our Lord Jesus Christ command this? Answer: He said, "If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him between you and him alone... But if he does not listen, take with you one or two more, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be confirmed. But if he does not listen to them, tell the Church; but if he will not listen to the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican" (Matt. 18:15-17). Question: Why did the Lord entrust infallibility in matters of faith only to the whole Church, and not to any individual? Answer: Because only the Church, according to the teaching of the Apostle, is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). In addition, the popes were often grave sinners, which the papists do not deny, and such people cannot know God's truth. Question: Where can you see this? Answer: This is evident from the Word of God, which testifies that "wisdom shall not enter into a wicked soul, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin, for the Holy Spirit of wisdom shall depart from wickedness, and shall turn away from foolish speculations, and shall be ashamed of the unrighteousness that is approaching" (Wisdom of Solomon 1:4-5). Question: Did the ancient Church recognize the infallibility of the Roman popes in matters of faith? Answer: No, it did not. Question: Where can you see this? Answer: This is evident from the fact that when heretics appeared in the Church and judgments about the faith began, the Church never relied on the voice of an individual, but always convened Ecumenical Councils. Question: But perhaps the Ecumenical Councils were guided by the voice of the Popes of Rome? Answer: No; the popes did not even appear at the Councils, but sent their deputies, who never occupied a leading position. Question: Which hierarchs presided over the Councils? Answer: At the 1st Ecumenical Council, the chairman was Bishop Hosea of Corduba; at the 2nd stage, the Eastern hierarchs presided one after another: Meletius of Antioch, Gregory the Theologian, Timothy of Alexandria and Nectarios of Constantinople; on the 3rd - St. Cyril of Alexandria; on the 4th - Anatolius of Constantinople; on the 5th - Eutychius of Constantinople; on the 6th - the Greek emperor Constantine Pagonatus himself (668-685); on the 7th - Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Question: Was the infallibility of the popes in the faith recognized, at least in the ancient Western Church? Answer: Not only did the ancient Western Church not recognize the infallibility of the popes in the faith, but even after the separation of the West from the Universal Church, the Latin councils judged and deposed the popes. Thus, the Council of Pisa (1409) deposed Popes Gregory the 12th and Benedict the 12th; the Council of Constance (1414-1418) defrocked Pope John 23. Question: When was the doctrine of papal infallibility proclaimed in the Latin Church? Answer: This teaching was announced at the Vatican Council in Rome in 1870. Question: What should be said about this teaching? Answer: This teaching is newly-invented, contrary to the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and Tradition of the Church.

III. On the Procession of the Holy Spirit

Question: Do Catholics correctly assert that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son? Answer: No, it is wrong. There are testimonies in the Holy Scriptures from which it is clearly seen that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. Question: From what testimonies of the Holy Scriptures? Scripture shows that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father? Answer: The Lord Jesus Christ said to the Apostles: "When the Comforter comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father" (John 15:26). Here it is stated directly and clearly that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. Question: But maybe the Holy Spirit comes to believers from the Son? Answer: No, the words of the Savior do not allow us to think so. "And I," said the Saviour, "will pray the Father, and give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever" (John 14:16). From these words it is no less clearly revealed that the Holy Spirit proceeds to believers from one Father, while the Son of God only intercedes for this before His Heavenly Father. Question: How, therefore, should we teach about the procession of the Holy Spirit? Spirit? Answer: It should be taught thus: the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the prayers of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as He said later in the same conversation with His disciples: "The Comforter, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name" (John 14:26). Question: If the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, then how can we understand the words of the Savior about the Holy Spirit, said to the Apostles: "He will glorify Me, for He will receive of Mine, and will declare it to you" (John 16:13-14)? Answer: From the further words of Christ it is clear that this saying should be understood not literally, but approximately. Thus the Saviour Himself explained when He said: "All that the father hath is Mine; therefore I have said that He will take from Me and declare it to you" (Jn. 16, 15). This means that the Holy Spirit takes the truth from the Father proper, but since everything that the Father has, the Son also has, we can roughly say that the teaching that the Holy Spirit will proclaim from the Father is the same that the Son of God proclaimed. Question: But if everything that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son, then is it not possible to say that the procession of the Holy Spirit? Does the Spirit come from both the Father and the Son? Answer: By no means, because the Son has everything about the Father, except the unbegotten and except the coming out of the Holy Spirit, just as the Holy Spirit has everything from the Father, except for the non-origin and except the birth of the Son. Therefore, just as it cannot be said that the Son is born of the Father and the Spirit, so it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. Question: From what narrative of the Gospel is it evident that St. Can't the Spirit come from the Son? Answer: From the account of the Baptism of the Lord, where it is said that the Spirit of God "descended like a dove, and descended upon Him (Jesus Christ)" (Matt. 3:16; Mk. 1:10; Lk. 3:22; Jn. 1:33). If the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son of God, then why would He descend upon Him from the Father? Question: If the Holy Spirit does not proceed from the Son, then how should we understand the passages in the Holy Scriptures? Scriptures, which speak of the Spirit of the Son (Gal. 4:6) and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:19; Rom. 8:9). Answer: In the above passages it is not about God the Holy Spirit, but about those spiritual gifts that should be characteristic of people who believe in Christ. Thus, the Holy Apostle Paul wrote that "Christians did not receive the spirit of slavery, that they might live again in fear, but received the spirit of adoption, by which we cry out, Abba Father" (Romans 8:15). Question: Is it possible to teach about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son on the basis of the words of the Savior: "The Comforter whom I will send... from the Father"? Answer: No, you cannot. First, by saying "I will send," the Saviour added "from the Father" and thereby showed that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father; secondly, if we teach about the procession of the Holy Spirit only on the basis of the words "I will send", then we will have to speak of the procession of the Son from the Spirit, since in the Scriptures there are testimonies about the sending of the Son by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 48:16; Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18). Question: How did the ancient Church teach about the procession of the Holy Spirit? Answer: The ancient Church taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. Thus, the Holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council decreed: "We also believe in the Holy Spirit, the Life-Giving Lord, Who proceeds from the Father." Question: Did Christians have the right to make their own additions to this definition of the Second Council on the Holy Spirit, as, for example, the Catholics added the words "and from the Son"? Answer: No, they did not. "If any of all," commanded the Fathers of the 6th Ecumenical Council, "does not uphold and does not accept the above-mentioned dogmas of piety, and does not think and preach in this way, but attempts to go against them, let him be anathema, according to the definition previously set forth by the above-mentioned holy and blessed fathers, and let him be expelled and expelled from the Christian class, as alien. For we, in accordance with what has been determined before, have completely decided to add something below, to subtract something below, and could not in any way" (6th Ecumenical Council, Canon 1). Question: When did the Catholics add "and from the Son" to the Creed? Answer: It is difficult to determine this time with precision, but there is no doubt that for a very long time the Catholics, like the Orthodox, read the Symbol of Faith without the words "and from the Son." It is known that as early as 809, Pope Leo III ordered two silver plaques to be placed in the Church of St. Peter in Rome; on one of them the Creed was written in Latin, and on the other in Greek, without the addition of the words "and from the Son" on both boards. Question: On the basis of all that has been said, what should be said about the teaching of the Catholics that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son? Answer: This teaching is newly-invented, contrary to the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and the Holy Scriptures. Tradition and therefore heretical.

IV. On the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos

Question: Do the Catholics teach correctly when they assert that the Most Holy Theotokos in Her conception from the righteous Joachim and Anna was free from original guilt for the sake of the future merits of Jesus Christ? Answer: No, it is not correct. From the Holy Scriptures we know that the guilt of our forefather Adam must be passed on to all people: "As by one man sin entered into the world," writes the Apostle Paul, "and death by sin, so death passed on to all men, because in him all sinned" (Romans 5:12). This means that every person who descended from Adam in a natural way is born in sin, because in Adam, according to the words of the Apostle, all people sinned. Question: Could not the Most Holy Theotokos be an exception to this law? Answer: No, it could not. Our Lord Jesus Christ was an exception, but He, firstly, was conceived in an unusual way – from the Holy Spirit, and, secondly, the same Apostle directly says of Christ that He appeared only "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:9). As for the Most Holy Theotokos, there is nothing of the kind in the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures do not say. Question: Do we not belittle the glory of the Most Holy Theotokos by rejecting the immaculate nature of Her conception? Answer: No, for we venerate the Most Holy Theotokos, more honorable than the Cherubim and more glorious than the Seraphim, but She did not have this glory from the beginning, but from the time when She Herself immaculately conceived and gave birth to the Son of God. Question: Where can you see this? Answer: From Her own words, for only after the conception of the Lord Jesus Christ did She say: "From henceforth (that is, from that day) all generations shall bless Me" (Luke 1:48). Question: If the Most Holy Theotokos in Her conception was not free from original guilt, then how should we understand the expression of the Liturgical Book: "And let us honor Her holy conception," "We brightly celebrate the Most Glorious Conception of the Theotokos" (December 9), as well as the words of the sedaln on the feast of the Introduction: "Before conception the Pure One was sanctified by God"? Answer: In these expressions there is no indication at all that the Most Holy Theotokos in Her conception was free from original guilt. The first two expressions are a reverent glorification of the event of the conception of the Most Holy Theotokos, as having occurred, in the words of the Liturgical Book, "from barren barrenness, according to the promise"; and the third testifies to the fact that the Most Holy Mother of God, even before Her conception, was destined to appear as the Most-Pure Mother of Christ God. Question: How can we prove that this is so? Answer: By the fact that similar praises are applied to the conception of John the Baptist, which is also celebrated by the Church (September 23) and is called all-honorable and divine. Question: How long ago did the Catholics have a teaching about the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Theotokos? Answer: No, recently. This teaching was announced in 1854 by Pope Pius IX. Question: What should be said about this teaching? Answer: This teaching is newly-invented, contrary to the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and the Holy Scriptures. Tradition and therefore heretical. V.

Question: Is this teaching correct? Answer: No, it is wrong, because it contradicts the Word of God. Question: What is the main mistake of the Catholics who preach this teaching? Answer: The main mistake of the Catholics is that, in their opinion, eternal bliss is given by God to people for their merits in a virtuous life, as something due that a person can demand. In fact, far from it. No matter how righteous and holy a person is, no matter how many good deeds he has done, he can never say that he deserves the Kingdom of Heaven. On the contrary, he must always remember that if he is granted eternal bliss, it will not be as something he deserves, but as a gift of God's ineffable mercy. That is why the Holy Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Romans: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23). Question: Why can't a person receive eternal bliss as something he fully deserves? Answer: Firstly, because the merits of people in comparison with eternal bliss are too insignificant (1 Corinthians 2:9; 1 John 3:2), and secondly, man achieves them not by his own strength, but with the help of Divine grace. This truth was testified to by the Saviour Himself when He said to His disciples: "Abide in Me, and I in you. As a branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it is on the vine, so neither can you, unless you are in Me. I am the vine, and you are the branches; whoever abides in me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me ye can do nothing" (John 15:4-5). Question: Does the Holy Fathers also teach about this? Answer: Yes, there is. St. Irenaeus writes: "As dry land, not receiving moisture, does not bear fruit, so we could not bring forth the fruits of life without the gracious rain from above. Therefore we need the dew of God, so that we do not burn and become barren." "Let us convince ourselves," writes St. John Chrysostom, "that even if we try a thousand times, we will never be able to do good deeds if we do not use the attraction from above." "Just as the bodily eye," says Blessed Augustine, "cannot see without the help of light, so a man, even if he is completely justified, cannot live righteously, unless he is helped from above by the eternal light of righteousness." Question: How, then, should people look at their good deeds? Answer: "When you have done all that is commanded you," the Saviour commanded the Apostles, "say, We are servants, worthless because we have done what we ought to have done" (Luke 17:10). Question: Is there an indication in the Gospel that the Kingdom of Heaven is given to people not for a certain number of good deeds, but mainly by the mercy of God? Answer: Yes, there is. In the Lord's parable about the servants who worked in the vineyard, it is narrated that the slaves did not work the same number of hours, but by the goodness of God they all received the same reward (Matt. 20:1-15). The latter testifies to the fact that the Kingdom of Heaven is attained by man not for a certain amount of work in virtue, as something due, but as a gift of the mercy of the Lord God. Question: From what words of the Gospel can it be seen that the merits of the Saints cannot replace our duties and make up for our shortcomings? Answer: From the words of Christ's parable about the ten virgins: "The foolish (virgins) said to the wise, 'Give us your oil, because our lamps are going out.' And the wise answered, "Lest there be no lack both among us and among you, it is better to go to those who sell, and buy for yourselves" (Matt. 25:80). Question: On the basis of what has been said, what should be said about the teaching of the Catholics about the supernatural merits of the Saints? Answer: This teaching is contrary to the Word of God and therefore heretical.

VI. Deprivation of Infants of the Gifts of Holy Chrismation

Question: Do Catholics do the right thing when they anoint children not immediately after baptism, but after a certain time? Answer: No, it is wrong, because the Church since the time of the Apostles has preserved the custom of performing the sacrament of chrismation on children immediately after baptism. Question: How did the Holy Fathers teach about this? Answer: St. Cyprian commanded: "The one who has been baptized must still be anointed, so that having received the chrysma, that is, the anointing, he may be anointed by God and have in himself the grace of Christ." "It behooves those who are enlightened after baptism to be anointed with heavenly anointing," the Fathers of the Council of Laodicea determined, "and to be partakers of the Kingdom of God." Question: Why is it necessary to anoint children immediately after baptism? Answer: In chrismation, Divine powers are given to a person, which grow and strengthen him in the spiritual life. Naturally, these forces are especially necessary for a person when he has just entered a new spiritual life and needs reinforcement and support. "If you protect yourself with a seal," teaches St. Gregory the Theologian, "you will secure your future with the best and most effective aid, marking soul and body with chrismation and the Spirit, as Israel of old did with the night and protecting the firstborn with blood and anointing: then what can happen to you?" Question: Is it possible to grow in spiritual life without having the seal of chrismation on oneself? Answer: No, you cannot. That is why, as the book of Acts relates, "the apostles who were in Jerusalem, when they heard that the Samaritans had received the word of God, sent Peter and John to them, who came and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For He had not yet descended upon any of them, but only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:14-16). "Those who are not anointed with myrrh," writes St. Symeon of Thessalonica, "know below God, know below the angels, and are not sealed, and do not sign Christ with them." Question: Has it always been the custom of Catholics not to anoint children immediately after baptism? Answer: No, at first, both the Catholics, as well as the Orthodox, were chrismated immediately after baptism. Question: On what basis did the Catholics abolish this ancient custom? Answer: Catholic theologians assert that children should be

to anoint only when they have reached the age of self-consciousness. Question: Is this reasoning fair? Answer: No, it is not fair. Then, on this basis, the baptism of children should be postponed until a certain time, but the Catholics do not do the latter. Question: What should be said about the custom of the Catholics to postpone the chrismation of children until a certain age? Answer: This custom is illegal, since it contradicts the ancient custom and the Tradition of the Church.