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.

X. Fasting on Saturday

Question: Do Catholics do the right thing when they fast on Saturday? Answer: No, because the 64th canon of the Holy Apostles states: "If any of the clergy is found fasting on the Lord's Day, or on Saturday, except only one (Great Saturday), let him be expelled." Question: Did the Church pay attention to the illegal custom of Catholics to fast on Saturday? Answer: Yes, I did. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, by its 55th canon, decreed that in the Roman Church (i.e., among the Catholics) the 64th canon of the Holy Apostles, which forbids fasting on Saturday, should be observed. "Having learned of the Holy Council," writes the interpreter of the conciliar canons, "that in the city of Rome they transgressed the 64th canon of the holy apostles, which commands not to fast on any other Saturday except for Great Saturday, it commanded that such an apostolic canon should be immovable in the Roman Church." Consequently, by fasting on Saturday, Catholics violate the rules of the Holy Apostles and Holy Fathers.

XI. Ministry in an Incomprehensible Language

Question: Are Catholics doing the right thing when they perform divine services in Latin, which is incomprehensible to the worshippers? Answer: No, it is wrong, since prayer in an incomprehensible unknown language is condemned by the Word of God. The holy Apostle Paul wrote to Christians thus: "When I pray in an unknown tongue, although my spirit prays, my mind remains unfruitful" (1 Cor. 14, 14). Therefore, says the Apostle further, "in the Church I would rather say five words with my mind, that I may instruct others, than a thousand words in an unknown tongue" (1 Corinthians 14:19). Question: How do Catholics justify their custom of performing divine services in a language that is incomprehensible to the worshippers? Answer: Catholics say that their worshippers stand at the service with prayer books, in which the prayers are set forth in a language understandable to the pilgrims. Question: Is this justification fair? Answer: No, it is not fair. In church, during divine services, people should take part in the service with their pastor with one mouth and heart. Among the Catholics, instead of unanimous prayer, everyone prays separately, each reading his own prayer book. Question: What should be said about the above-mentioned custom of performing divine services in a language unknown to the worshippers? Answer: This custom is illegal, since it has no justification for itself and is condemned by the Word of God.

XII. Organs

Question: Do Catholics do the right thing when they use organs during divine services? Answer: No, it is wrong, since this is an Old Testament custom, which has lost its meaning in Christian worship. Question: Why should there be no music on organs in Christian worship? Answer: Because the worship of Christians, according to the word of the Saviour, must take place "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24); in other words, that in prayer the spirit of man may ascend to God. The latter cannot exist in any case, if the prayer is performed not by people, but by a soulless instrument. Conclusion Question: On the basis of all of the above, how should the Orthodox view Catholics? Answer: Catholics should be looked upon as heretics excommunicated by the Orthodox Church, who, as it was said at the beginning, have distorted the true faith by a series of heretical teachings and have adopted customs that are not in accord with the Tradition of the Church. Question: Can Orthodox Christians go to Catholic churches for prayer and attend Catholic dismissals? Answer: Under no circumstances: "If anyone goes to a barbaric or heretical feast," it is commanded in the Nomocanon, "and eats with them on that day the one who eats for their souls, or celebrates them, let him not receive communion for two years, according to the 7th canon of the holy council in Ancyra." "Canon 64 of the Holy Apostles says, "Those who go to worship to pray, that is, in the words of their Church, which are also called councils: if there is a priest, let him be expelled, but if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated." "The Apostle commands the 10th canon of the saints: Pray with those who are excommunicated, even if they are not in the Church. but in the house, let him be excommunicated in the same way" (Nomocanon, p. 133, 154, 157). Question: Can Orthodox Christians marry Catholics? Answer: According to the Church rules, it is impossible. The 2nd canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council commands: "It is not absurd for an Orthodox man to have copulation with a heretical wife, or for an Orthodox wife to have sex with a heretical husband. And if it becomes, let the unstable marriage be imputed, and let lawless cohabitation be allowed. And if a heretical person promises to repent, let the marriage endure, until the promise is confirmed, according to the 14th canon of the same council. Likewise, from the Latins, if an Orthodox wife copulates with the permission of marriage and the prohibition to lay down according to the 12th chapter of the 3rd element in Matthew. And if anyone transgresses "what is commanded, let him be excommunicated" (Nomocanon, rule 58). Question: Is it possible to marry a Catholic if he promises to convert to the Orthodox faith before marriage? Answer: Perhaps. Canon 31 of the Council of Laodicea states: "It is not proper to conclude a marriage alliance with any heretic, or to give to such sons or daughters, but rather brothers by them, if they promise to be Christians." Question: So, heretics are not even called Christians? Answer: Yes, they are not: the Church, depriving them of the name of Christians, acts according to the Word of God: "If he will not listen to the Church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican" (Matt. 18:17).

Question: Does the Russian Orthodox Church have a basis for this condescension? Answer: Yes, because such leniencies are permitted according to the 1st canon of St. Basil the Great, according to which it is possible to abolish the canons on the new baptism of heretics, "if this is an obstacle to the general good." Question: How should Orthodox Christians treat Catholics? Answer: One should pray for their repentance and admonition, and treat them meekly, according to the 77th canon of the Council of Carthage: "Perhaps then, as we gather with meekness those who think differently, according to the words of the Apostle, God will give them repentance in the understanding of the truth, and they will arise from the devil's snare, having been caught from him by his will."