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.

VII. Deprivation of Infants of Holy Communion

Question: Do Catholics do the right thing when they do not give communion to children up to a certain age? Answer: No, it is wrong, since by not communing children, Catholics deprive them of the blessings of eternal life, according to the words of the Saviour, Who said: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (John 6:53). Question: But perhaps these words of the Savior do not apply to small children? Answer: If the words of the Savior had not applied to little children, then the ancient Church, which was under the leadership of the apostles themselves and their disciples, would not have followed them. Question: Why, then, did the Catholics abolish this custom? Answer: Catholics say that infants cannot be communed because they do not have conscious faith. Question: Is it possible to refuse infants communion on this basis? Answer: No, it is not, since infants can receive communion according to the faith of those who bring them.

Question: Does the Lord impute the faith of those who bring it to those who are offered? Answer: Yes, he does. The Gospel tells us that the Lord heals the paralytic according to the faith of those who brought him: "Jesus, seeing their faith," writes the Evangelist Mark, "said to the paralytic, 'Child, thy sins are forgiven thee' (Mark 2:5). Question: If so, then what should be said about the custom of Catholics not to give communion to children? Answer: This custom has no basis for itself, contradicts the Tradition of the Church, and therefore is illegal.

VIII. Deprivation of the Laity of Holy Blood

Question: Do Catholics do the right thing when they do not commune the laity of the Blood of Christ? Answer: No, it is not correct. Our Lord Jesus Christ commanded people: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day" (John 6:53-54). Question: But Catholics say that by communing of the Body of the Lord, they also partake of the Blood, for where there is body, there is blood? Answer: This happens only in the real body, but in Communion the Body and Blood of Christ are given in two forms: bread and wine. This is what the Saviour Himself established at the Last Supper, when He communed the Apostles separately of His Body and separately of His Blood, and therefore among Catholics priests commune under both forms. Question: How is this narrated in the Gospel? Answer: In the Holy Gospel it is narrated as follows: "Jesus took bread and blessed, broke it, and giving it to the disciples, he said, 'Take, eat: this is my body.' And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, and said, Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many, for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:26-28). Question: If Christ Himself communed the Apostles under two types, then why do Catholics not follow the example of Christ? Answer: They say that the example of the Savior's communion of the apostles does not apply to the laity, but only to the priests as apostolic successors. Question: Is this true? Answer: No; The example of communion of the Holy Apostles should be followed not only by priests, but by all Christians in general, by every person. St. The Apostle Paul commands: "Let a man examine himself, and thus let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup" (1 Corinthians 11:28). And in another place: "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until He comes" (1 Corinthians 11:26). Question: Have Catholics always not communed the laity with Holy Blood? Answer: No; Previously, the Catholics, as well as the Orthodox, communed the laity under two types; the custom of depriving the laity of Holy Blood appeared among Catholics only in the fifteenth century. Question: How, therefore, should this custom be viewed? Answer: This custom should be regarded as spontaneous, contrary to the teaching of the Savior, the holy apostles, and the Tradition of the ancient Church.

IX. The Celebration of Holy Communion on Unleavened Bread

Question: Do Catholics do the right thing when they celebrate Holy Communion not on leavened bread, as the Orthodox do, but on unleavened bread? Answer: No, it is wrong. In Communion we must follow the example of the Saviour, according to His command, "Do this in remembrance of Me" (Luke 22:19), and the Saviour performed the sacrament of Communion not on unleavened bread, but on leavened. Question: Where can you see this? Answer: This is evident from the Gospel, where it is narrated that the Savior performed the sacrament of Communion before the Jewish Pascha, when they had not yet begun to use unleavened bread (John 13:1). Question: From what exact passages of the Gospel can it be seen that on the day of the Savior's establishment of the sacrament of Holy Communion, unleavened bread was not yet used? Answer: When, after the institution of the sacrament of Communion at the Last Supper, the Lord said to Judas, "What thou dost do, do quickly," Christ's disciples "thought that Jesus was saying to him, 'Buy what we need for the feast' (John 13:27-29). This means that the feast of Pascha did not yet exist, for on this feast all buying and selling was forbidden by law. If there was no Passover, then it is clear that there was no unleavened bread either. And again: when on the next day the chief priests and the monks brought Jesus to Pilate, they, according to the Evangelist, "did not enter into the praetorium, lest they should be defiled, but that they might be able to eat the Passover" (John 18:28). From this it is clear that on the day of the Lord's establishment of the sacrament of Communion, unleavened bread was not yet consumed. Question: If on the day of the Savior's establishment of the sacrament of Communion unleavened bread was not yet used, then how should we understand the words of the Gospel: "On the first day of unleavened bread" (Matt. 26:17) and "the day of unleavened bread is come" (Luke 22:7)? Answer: St. St. John Chrysostom explains these words as follows: "The Evangelist calls the first day of unleavened bread the day preceding the feast of unleavened bread. "The day came, that is, approached, was at the door, when the Jews slaughtered the lamb." Question: If the Saviour and the Apostles did not eat unleavened bread at the Last Supper, then what Pascha did He mention when He said to His disciples: "I longed very much to eat this Passover with you before My suffering" (Luke 22:15)? Answer: Under the name of Pascha, which the Lord desired to eat with His disciples, is understood the Pascha of the New Testament, which constituted the sacrament of His Body and Blood. Thus the ancient teacher of the Church Tertullian explains, saying: "It is unseemly that the Lord should desire what is not his, but desire His own Paschal sacrifice, which, according to the Old Testament, He wanted to establish in His own Body and Blood; and therefore, having taken bread, He created His Body out of it." Question: Did Catholics always celebrate Communion on unleavened bread? Answer: No, at first the Catholics, like the Orthodox, celebrated Communion on leavened bread, but later they abolished this pious custom and began to celebrate Communion on unleavened bread, which was contrary to the example of the Savior and the Holy Spirit. The Tradition of the Ancient Church.