Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drain Faith disbelief drains Perhaps those reading are not believe into my divine revelations. And yet disbelief does not scare me, just like my own disbelief. Faith like pregnancy. There are no half or one pregnant women...

https://www..html

Worldview, confine a person to the energies of a limited circle and completely deprive him of any personal development. On an energetic level faith- like a unifying tube between communicating vessels. One vessel is your body, which includes consciousness... the state will become available to this person: or he will fall into pessimism and painful sarcasm because of the lost faith, or redirect its faith to another goal and thus restart the body’s work with the same strength (or at least...

https://www.site/religion/110990

Believe when all hope dies.
Believe when the hour of separation comes.
Believe when you don’t even have the strength to believe...
“Believe,” the voice of Heaven said to me.

Believe me, I won’t let you die!
Believe, your destiny is in My hands.
Believe, you will gain everything that you lost;
Believe...

https://www.site/poetry/1149062

The process of repentance, discipleship and preparation for eternal life. The third mission of the Church is the redemption of the dead, making it possible to accept truth and rites of salvation to the departed generations who did not have the opportunity to do so during their mortal... make changes or additions to these missions as directed or inspired by the Lord. Church is also a community believers, constituting a single basis for achieving common goals, mutual support and, if necessary, ...

https://www.site/religion/11742

Our soul is actually a part of the Supersoul, a part of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truths. She was never born and will never die. Our soul did not... did such a life bring you joy? Only honestly. Remember your life and think. I I believe in you as a strong, courageous, kind, fair, compassionate, generous, reasonable... occasion they paint eggs for Easter and get drunk at Christmas. At worst they come to church and they say: “Well, if you give me money or do this, then I...

https://www..html

Exceeds 1400 people, the number of church parishes in Scotland is about 1500, united in 43 presbyteries. Unlike the Church of England (Anglican faith), Church Scotland is not subordinate to the state and, being national in nature, is not legally recognized as a “state church" The British monarch is not the head of the church, and upon coronation he is required to take an oath to protect the safety of the Scottish Church. At the meetings...

Father Peter, your translation of Johann Arndt’s book “On True Christianity” was recently published. What is this book about and why is its appearance in Russian translation so important for modern people?

This book lives up to its title: its main theme is the inner life in Christ. Its appearance - in 1605 - was due to the context: the so-called “crisis of piety” in the Lutheran Church, when for Christians it was considered sufficient only to maintain the right teaching, and the spiritual life itself faded into the background. Arndt seemed to restore her rights. Time passed, the context became a thing of the past, but the book remained incredibly popular and in demand by subsequent generations.

Yes, he advised reading the Bible, after it Arndt, “and other books as a stroll.” Of course, the book may be a little heavy for the modern reader. It is not “systemic”; rather, it is a huge poem about spiritual life. Arndt always returns to the same themes: repentance, prayer, love, humility before God, inner life in Christ.

Does the book give any practical skill to a person who takes his first steps on the path to God? Or is it about the highest ideal to which every Christian should strive?

More likely, the second option. Practical advice is given by the author of the next, 18th century, whose translations I am currently translating, Gerhard Terstegen. Arndt's reasoning is more general. Although at the end of the second book he touches, for example, on the topic of high spiritual temptations. He looks at it from a practical point of view and gives a lot of valuable advice.

Although Arndt can be very useful for the beginning of a Christian life, because he talks a lot about repentance - how through repentance one enters true Christianity and gradually reaches the heights of spiritual life.

As a clergyman of the Russian Orthodox Church, what can you say about the state of Christian life among today's Orthodox?

In my opinion, the current state of spiritual life in today's Orthodoxy leaves much to be desired.

- What is this connected with in the first place?

First of all, with the fact that what was the core of Arndt’s thoughts—inner life in Christ—it seems to me that today is not the center of attention of our general church community.

- Why? Today a person does not understand why he came to the Church? Looking for Christ or something else?

You can come to Church for various reasons. Let's consider only the option when a person comes to Church truly in search of Christ. In this case it will be difficult for him. You will have to make your way to Christ through many historical, traditional, pseudo-traditional, cultural, subcultural, ideological and other things. Not everyone can do this. This requires both courage and knowledge of which way to go.

And this is mainly hampered by the lack of appropriate preaching and pastoral edification, because when a person comes to church, he hears a lot of things from the pulpit, but it is quite rare to hear exactly how to live with Christ. It’s the same in personal spiritual care: a person will be told about how to fast, how to read morning and evening prayers, what to read before Holy Communion, and so on, but I’m afraid few will share the experience of inner life in Christ with him. But this is why he came to the Church...

- How to deal with such numerous obstacles? Who should I turn to for advice?

I've talked and written about this for many years. We do not have church pedagogy, a methodology for pastoral treatment of people who have been in the Church for many years. We have, let’s say, the pedagogy of external churching, when a person is taught how to behave correctly in church, how to correctly build his ritual life. Of course, he is taught important advice regarding repentance and correction of life, but this concerns the new beginning stage.

Many priests, not just me, see that people, having already been in the Church for 10-15 years, want to develop - after all, according to the Gospel, we are supposed to develop - but do not receive such development, because no one can say what, exactly. , to do to such people. Read even more canons? Should we observe fasts even more strictly? Listen even more carefully to liturgical texts? Put more bows? Living in a marriage without carnal intercourse? To become a monk? As a result, it turns out that churching turns into integrating a person into nothing more than a certain subculture, which up to a certain point helps him to externally learn something about Christianity, but then in many cases can become an obstacle to further Christian development.

- What are the reasons for this state of affairs?

Let's try to reason, as they say, “from the stove.” Christ says to the apostles: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). And, in fact, what did Christ command to observe? Did he command, for example, to fast (I mean disciplinary fasts)? No. Did He command people to go to services? Also no. Did He order to integrate Himself into a certain religious-ethnic subculture? He didn’t command it either. Did Christ command to light candles and write notes? We do not find a word about this in the Gospel.

Did the apostles say that communication with God, life in Christ is achieved only through the closure of a person in the sacred church-ritual space, and exclusively of the Byzantine rite? The answer is obvious. And so on.

What then did Christ command? He commanded us, so to speak, “everyday Christianity.”

Let us turn to the Sermon on the Mount or to the apostolic epistles, which precisely give us the rules of Christian life - for example, to the 12th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, and we will immediately see what the Lord is commanding us, both Himself and through His apostles. Among these commandments, what we now call “churchliness” occupies 0.1%. Christ commanded to be baptized. Christ commanded that the Eucharist be celebrated in His remembrance. The apostles commanded to pray together. A certain external church environment was built around Baptism, the Eucharist and common prayer, but in the Primitive Church it was a support and means for life in Christ, first of all, for individuals, and then for the community made up of such individuals.

And then, over time, the following thing happened. In the consciousness of Christians, an equal sign was put between life in Christ, life with God, or, as St. Theophan the Recluse says, “communion with God” and external church services. This, of course, is a separate conversation about why it happened that general religious ritualism replaced specific Christian spirituality; but, in any case, today this has led to the fact that man has learned about Christ, learned that He founded the Church, which is the pillar and affirmation of the Truth. A man enters the Church and asks what he should do. And they tell him: “Integrate into our ritual system and then simply live in it, constantly increasing the level of penetration into this ritual, and it will give you everything.”

But this does not quite correlate with the Gospel. After all, a Christian is required to have a personal, conscious, everyday Christian life, not limited to being in some designated sacred space at a certain sacred time. She, undoubtedly, is helped by everything that the Church contains, but in itself this inner life in Christ is more than a ritual, more important than supports, more significant and complete than all external means, and in a certain sense can exist without them.

Now let's survey our parishioners after Sunday worship how they understand this personal, conscious, everyday Christian life. It would be extremely interesting to conduct such a survey. I'm afraid most people simply wouldn't understand what they were being asked about.

This is where I talk about the main problem of our church life: there is the very absence of church pedagogy that would contribute to the inner life of a matured, no longer a novice Christian. And we are talking specifically about methodology, because a private person can find a private shepherd with whom, if he is lucky, he can resolve his issues. But we do not have a common pastoral methodology. And, unfortunately, we don’t even have anything to rely on.

In this regard, I began translating the early Protestants. One of the motivations for the Reformation was that church reality had ceased to nourish the inner Christian life of people. Therefore, early Protestant mysticism is a very useful thing from which we can learn a lot. In particular, to answer the question: what should a person do who has already received everything from external churchliness, but has not yet found inner life in Christ?

You talk about the lack of pastoral pedagogy, the lack of methodology. Does this hinder the further development of Christians and is the basis for their leaving the Church?

Just like coming to the Church, so leaving it can be caused by many reasons and have different degrees. But we are talking specifically about people who sincerely seek Christ. Such people actually do not leave the Church of Christ - where should they go? They, rather, move away from external churchliness precisely because they are convinced that it has exhausted its reserve for them.

- Who should formulate this methodology?

Such things must be worked out on their own. It's like frequent communion. For hundreds of years, Orthodox Christians rarely received communion. But now people realized the need for more frequent communion - and “in person,” although not without resistance, in today’s church life, frequent communion is already the norm.

So it is with our topic: it is obvious that the process is already underway, the problem is beginning to be recognized.

- How do you feel about it?

Here is the most recent example - the appearance of the sensational “Confession of a Novice.” People are gradually beginning to understand the problem of de-churching. Previously, about eight years ago, I was scolded for this term when I wrote about it.

- And what could be the solution?

It is difficult to give any direct recipes here. But I would draw attention to the apostolic principle, which now seems to be completely abolished in our church life. I mean the variability that the Apostle Paul spoke about so clearly in the 14th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. So we are looking for an answer to the question of what pushes people away from the Church, what leads to de-churching. I think that, among other things, is the oblivion of this principle. Over the centuries, the Universal Church of Christ has been transformed into a kind of subculture, that is, narrowing, depriving a person of variability and freedom. The so-called “tradition” - in this case a bad tradition, “the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:5) - was cemented, and now we rely on it as the “faith of the fathers.” But if we open the New Testament, then the principle of variability will turn out to be almost the main one in the Church.

What I mean? Here the Apostle Paul writes in this chapter about fasting: if you need to fast, fast; if you don’t see the need for this, don’t fast. “Whoever eats, do not disparage the one who does not eat; and if anyone does not eat, do not condemn him who does eat, because God has accepted him” (Rom. 14:3). And the church authorities must ensure that both fasting and non-fasting Christians are in peace and harmony among themselves - so that that ancient wonderful and deeply ecclesiastical maxim is fulfilled, the principle about which Blessed Augustine speaks: “In the main thing - unity, in the secondary - freedom, love in everything.”

The ideology that is characteristic of today's Orthodox Christians is that everyone must “walk in formation,” fast and pray as one, and the slightest deviation from this is heresy and “betrayal of Orthodoxy.” There should be no place for this in the Church of Christ.

Church history shows that in the first centuries there was variability in the Church. It is necessary to return to it today. This is very important because people are different. One, indeed, brings great pleasure to long hours of services, while the other is “de-churched” by them. But just because our only version of cemented Byzantine worship - this verbosity of late antiquity - is not suitable for a person, simply because of his structure, he should not feel that the Church is “over” for him, that he is alien to it. This also speaks poorly of the Church - it means that it has nothing more to offer people except the obligatory one version of reciting and singing prayer texts for everyone, accompanied by certain ritual actions (I do not mean the Sacrament of the Eucharist). But Christianity really doesn’t come down to this!

And this is exactly where we can practically start, I think. If we talk about worship: in a big city you can try to organize it. One parish serves a six-hour service in Slavic, another - an hour-long service in Russian, a third in Greek, a fourth according to the pre-Nikon rite, etc. People go where they please, and the church authorities make sure that no one “bites or devours” one another (Gal. 5:15).

The same is true in personal pastoral practice (and this already happens if the priest is a real shepherd of Christ, and not a Pharisee): a person can no longer fast - well, let him not fast, only he does not tempt others by this, in full accordance with the words of the Apostle.

It must be said that the Russian Church was moving towards this. In the Russian Empire, the life of the Church was unified, but at the same time quite free. In some parishes they served this way, in others - in a different way. For example, in court cathedrals the all-night vigil should have lasted no more than an hour. The monasteries were different, there was not one charter. There were communal and civil regulations in monasteries. In some structures of the Orthodox state (in the army, in the navy), posts, except for the Great (and that weakened one), were abolished... And so on. The Local Council of 1917-1918 was ready to comprehend all this and change a lot in church practice. But, alas, this did not materialize.

In Soviet times, the Church had one task - to survive. And after the Soviet period, a reverse reaction occurred - the active restoration of external church life. But now this impulse has been exhausted, and today those problems that were the starting point for the Council of 1917-1918 have begun to come to the fore. and which were suppressed under Soviet rule, and in the first post-Soviet period had no space for manifestation.

Today, when churches have been restored, external church life has been arranged, people are beginning to turn to the origins of what the Church is, what it is needed for, etc. The process is absolutely natural and, in my opinion, quite optimistic.

What is the situation in modern families? Often children raised by Orthodox parents are the first to leave the Church.

The Russian Empire had a traditional way of life. In Soviet times, it was replaced by an atheistic, godless way of life. Church families resisted this. And now is the time of searching, “groping”, transition from imperial-Soviet to free secular existence. This is an objective process, no matter how strong the “backlash” is.

Over the 25 years of our church freedom, the experience of intra-family churching has been carried out according to the patterns of the past. And it became obvious that much could not be restored, that the ritual-subcultural path led nowhere. Children, becoming adults, reject this from themselves, become unchurched, and leave the Church.

I don't see this as a tragedy. On the contrary, we need to understand this as God’s task for us. This means that in the future, church people, pious mothers and fathers, will think about how to deal with such a situation. The answers to these questions must be sought by collective reason. It is difficult for a contemporary of these processes to “catch” them; Historians will definitely write about this in the future.

Photo: Irina Konovalova / svjatoynarym.ru

- Isn’t it time to summarize modern experience?

Not yet, we live, one might say, in the very middle of this time. We can only record current processes. Many are dissatisfied with modern church life for one reason or another, but in my opinion, our time is wonderful, because today, if a person really wants life with Christ and in Christ, he has the opportunity to find such a measure of external churchliness that would be is useful to him and would not replace his inner life, which is why, in fact, de-churching occurs.

But what about those who are in a state of de-churching? Is there a chance to get everything back? After all, a person, disillusioned with this external churchliness, can decide for himself that he will live in Christ, but behind the church fence. Is this the right way?

Well, first of all, nothing can be returned back. Secondly, it is impossible to live in Christ completely outside the church fence.

Here, in general, we are faced with the problem that Christ is, as it were, “dissolved” in our churchliness. And a person, refusing church life due to certain circumstances, most often leaves Christ, because from the very beginning all our preaching too identifies the Church and Christ; but in fact they are not the same thing.

- Please explain what you mean.

I mean that the Church is not an independent spiritual value. I am speaking now not about the mystical Body of Christ, but about the institutional, earthly church, whose task, in the words of the medieval formula, is “purely preaching the Gospel and the right (that is, correctly) to teach the Sacraments.” That is, to give a person communion with God, protect it, support it, develop it - but nothing more.

The Church is not valuable in itself, but is “the friend of the Bridegroom,” as John the Baptist said, and the Bridegroom, Christ, must grow, and the Church must decrease (John 3:29-30). And therefore, if we talk about some general methodology of pastoral pedagogy, the first point here should be that Christ and the soul communicate without intermediaries, and that the Church is, we repeat once again, not some kind of value in itself, but a “friend of the Bridegroom,” a support and fence for life in Christ.

The beginning of any church pedagogy must be based on this thought: the Church is a means.

At the same time, you need to have a good understanding of the Christian hierarchy of values. Let's return to what we have already said: if we take the texts of the New Testament and look at what it says about the Sacraments, about Baptism and Communion, then these are just a few texts. Everything else is dedicated to something else: life in Christ.

The Church should be the same way. Its task is to teach what Christ commanded, and precisely in this proportion. Churchiness itself, as we understand it, external ritualism, should be less - at least after the stage of initial churching. And there should be more inner life. How to do it? I can’t tell you, we need to discuss this collectively.

Are those people who come to a parish with an established community in equal conditions and those who come to a place where there is no community life as such?

It seems to me that this is a second order problem. Of course, it’s good if a person has found a parish with a good community, but still, in my opinion, everything begins with a person’s personal relationship with God. And very often the community can replace these relationships. A community can only be built on the basis of individuals who already understand and know from experience what communion with God is, that is, a correct personal relationship with Christ. Only secondarily, a community is formed from such individuals, and not vice versa. The community as such does not give a person communion with God.

In our country, after the Soviet experience, community may mean something unknown. For example, a collective of atomized people, united by one ideology or another. Such a tradition of Soviet collectivism, transferred to church soil (just as much of what was Soviet in our country was transferred to church soil), can only do harm.

- Father Peter, when does this very communication with God begin? Where does it usually start?

This is a purely individual thing. Experience says that it is certainly given to everyone who consciously turns to God. Every person receives the beginning of communion with God through Baptism or Repentance - this is indisputable. Another thing is what is done with this firstfruits later? It can be drowned out, wasted on embedding into a subculture, replaced by this very subculture, etc.

Let us remember the parable of the sower, all options are considered there. And this is precisely the task (and main task) of the Church and its pastors - to pay attention to this and to cultivate and develop the communion with God that has begun.

Let us return to the translation of Arndt’s book “On True Christianity,” which testifies to the highest ideal for every Christian, about communion with God and life in Christ. Is the Church ready today to provide certain tools to achieve this goal?

I think we won’t find church unity here now. Because if we pose this question to the general church audience: “Is our goal life in Christ?”, the majority will agree with this (I hope). And the next question is - what are the ways? But the paths will be different.

- They should be different...

This is what I'm getting at. That’s why I say that perhaps one of the most important things that is worth thinking about in this regard is the return, required by the very course of things, of that multi-structure that the Apostle Paul spoke about. To give people more freedom.

Now we have one monastery charter, before the revolution there were several. And if we take the experience of Catholic countries, there are not only many orders with their own charters, but there are, for example, communities of lay people who live monastically. That is, there is a variety of church experience.

And if we are now thinking about some specific steps, it seems to me that it is worth starting with this, and then watching how the Lord will lead His Church. We believe that the Holy Spirit does not leave her, but at the same time we ourselves sometimes resist Him very strongly...

And of course, if we really want to change something in the life of our general church community, we will certainly need to determine what is the main thing and what is secondary - so as to clearly articulate what cannot be the main thing, say, the veneration of Ivan the Terrible or something like this.

Therefore, returning to what will be written in our pastoral manuals: we have already defined the first point - the Church is the friend of the Bridegroom. The second point will be to determine what is important and what is secondary.

In general, this is very important and interesting; this is precisely what the conciliar mind of the Church should do. And I have been able to convince myself more than once that church thought, church intuition is alive, and I am very happy about it.

- So, there is a prospect?

You cannot stop life, and the Church of Christ will remain on earth until the end of the age, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). And the forms of church life will inevitably change under the influence of time conditions - first internally, and then administratively. In this sense, I am an optimist and am confident that we have a lot of interesting things ahead.

Where is the true church?

QUESTION FROM OLGA
Christians of many churches are friendly, friendly people, but different denominations have different opinions regarding specific verses. I think so, our pride does not allow us to come to oneness, but the Lord Jesus Christ unites us all. I have one wish - to be united in Christ! Why delve into the intricacies of biblical interpretation? The main thing is to get to know God, find your path and follow it.

I can't agree with you. Jesus clearly said that there will be many people who will know the Lord, but will not inherit salvation because they do not comply the will of God in your life:

“Not everyone who says to Me: 'Lord! Lord!' will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but doing the will of the Father My Heavenly. Many will say to Me on that day: Lord! God! Have we not prophesied in Your name? and was it not in Your name that they cast out demons? and did they not perform many miracles in Your name? And then I will declare to them: I never knew you; depart from Me, you who do iniquity. So everyone who listens these words of mine and fulfills them, I will liken him to a prudent man... And everyone who listens to these words of Mine and doesn't fulfill them, will be like a foolish man” (Matt. 7:21-26).

Which “these words”, did Jesus mean here? With this warning, Christ concludes the Sermon on the Mount, in which He called people to return to the correct fulfillment of God's law(see the book “Returning to the Origins of Christian Doctrine”, chapter “Mission and Teaching of Jesus Christ”). That's why He uses the word "iniquity". What other law could Jesus be talking about breaking here? Of course, not the Roman one, and not the articles of legislation of different states, among which there are many controversial, illogical and downright unfair laws. The Sermon on the Mount speaks specifically only about God's law. Look at the dire consequences lawlessness(that is, failure to fulfill God's law) Christ said later: “As the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so it will be at the end of this age: the Son of Man will send His angels, and from His kingdom they will gather all who offend and those who do iniquity and they will be thrown into the fiery furnace; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth; then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Matthew 13:40-43).

And in the book of Revelation, the characteristics of those people who will enter Heavenly Jerusalem for eternal life are clearly given:

“Blessed are those who keep His commandments that they may have the right to the tree of life, and to enter into the city by the gate” (Rev. 22:14, see also Rev. 12:17, Rev. 14:12).

That is, a person should not simply be content with the fact that he has become a believer - he has “found” the Lord. Faith alone is not enough. The Apostle James proclaimed: “Faith without works is dead... and demons believe and tremble” (James 2:19,20). It must be taken into account that there may be more true church and look for it in your life and do what is “the will of the Heavenly Father.” Think about it, the Jews are also sure that they are doing the will of God (with these thoughts they crucified Jesus), and the Catholics are sure that they live according to the will of God, and the Orthodox, and Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists, etc. But it is absolutely clear that some of them are mistaken... And everyone is sure that they have the true church, and it is certainly not he who is mistaken, but others... But there is only one truth - it is stated simply and simply in the Word of God accessible - just delve into it, take time to study “the will of God,” and do not be content with the fact that you “found your way.” After all, this road may not be ideal. Jesus said:

“Enter at the strait gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go in through it; For strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it” (Matt. 7:13)

And Christ said to the lawyers (popularly respected spiritual teachers of that time) that they themselves did not enter the Kingdom of Heaven and did not give to their disciples:

“Woe to you lawyers, because you took the key of understanding; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering” (Luke 11:52).

As for unification in Christ, unfortunately, in the current situation this is unlikely to happen. It is difficult to imagine that the leaders of confessions will allow their flock and the authority “earned” over the years to be “taken away” from them. In my opinion, the maximum that is possible is the unification of churches under some common idea, without losing their independence. Therefore, we must be realistic and, without waiting for unification, look today for that “true church” that is more similar to the chief apostolic one, that is, it is closer to the rest of the teachings of the Bible - the prophets and apostles who spoke from the Lord. Jesus taught to judge a person by his fruits. Likewise, a church can be judged by the lives of its parishioners. So you can at least roughly compare churches - how close they are to God. As you know, the Lord gave Christians the Holy Spirit after ascending to heaven. Therefore, by the fruits one can understand the results of the action of the Spirit on the hearts of the believers of each church. Where there is more fruit, there is more Spirit - there is a truer church. Of course, this is a relative concept; Jesus Himself taught to distinguish false teachers by their fruits (not ostentatious, but internal, realized through their daily life). In our church, almost all members who regularly attend services for several years and study the Bible gradually stop drinking alcohol, smoking, swearing and begin to lead a highly moral lifestyle (for example, no sex outside of marriage, no divorce, etc.). I myself used to be a supporter of all of the above, but now it disgusts my spirit. I consider all this to be serious evidence of our church’s closeness to God and His law. It is worth noting that according to worldwide statistics, members of our church on average live 5 to 10 years longer than other people. Does this mean anything to you? I deliberately do not mention the name of my denomination, so as not to give it any advertising or anti-advertising. But people who read the book “Returning to the Origins of Christian Doctrine” will find in it those criteria of the true church that I consider important, in particular, the true church must strive to keep all the current, unrepealed commandments of God set out in the Bible.

First, the real Church must contain intact the pure Christian teaching preached by the apostles. Bringing truth to people was the purpose of the coming of the Son of God to earth, as He said before His suffering on the cross: “For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I came into the world, to testify to the truth; everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice."(John 18:37). The Apostle Paul, instructing his disciple Timothy on how he should fulfill his episcopal duties, writes in conclusion: “That you may know, if I delay, how you ought to act in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”(1 Tim. 3:15). It is with regret that we must admit that in the matter of doctrine we see great discord among modern Christian branches. In principle, it is necessary to agree that not everyone can teach correctly. If, for example, one church claims that Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, and another that it is not, then it is impossible for both to be right. Or, if one church believes in the reality of the spiritual power of the sign of the cross, and another denies this power, then, obviously, one of them is mistaken. The true Church must be one that in no way differs in matters of faith from the Church of the first centuries of Christianity. When one impartially compares the teachings of modern Christian churches, then, as we will see later, one must come to the conclusion that only Orthodox Church professes the intact faith of the ancient Apostolic Church.

Another sign by which the true Church can be found is grace or the power of God, by which the Church is called to sanctify and strengthen the faithful. Although grace is an invisible force, there is also an external condition by which one can judge its presence or absence, this is - apostolic succession. Since apostolic times, grace has been given to believers in the sacraments of baptism, communion, laying on of hands (confirmation and ordination) and others. The performers of these sacraments were first the apostles, then the bishops and elders. (Presbyters differed from bishops in that they did not have the right to perform the sacrament of ordination). The right to perform these sacraments was transmitted exclusively by succession: the apostles ordained bishops and only they were allowed to ordain other bishops, priests and deacons. Apostolic succession is like a sacred fire, which from one candle lights others. If the fire goes out or the chain of apostolic succession is broken, there is no more priesthood, no sacraments, and the means of sanctifying the believers are lost. Therefore, since apostolic times, they have always carefully monitored the preservation of apostolic succession: so that a bishop must be ordained by a true bishop, whose ordination goes back successively to the apostles. Bishops who fell into heresy or led an unworthy lifestyle were deposed, and they lost the right to perform the sacraments or ordain successors for themselves.

In our time, there are only a few churches whose apostolic succession is beyond doubt - the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and some eastern non-Orthodox churches (which, however, fell away from the purity of the apostolic teaching back in the days of the Ecumenical Councils). Christian denominations, which fundamentally deny the need for priesthood and apostolic succession, already by this one sign differ significantly from the Church of the first centuries and therefore cannot be true.

Of course, a spiritually sensitive person does not need external evidence of the action of God’s grace when he vividly feels its warm and pacifying spirit, which he receives in the sacraments and services of the Orthodox Church. (A Christian, however, must distinguish the grace of God from that cheap and harmful ecstasy with which sectarians, such as Pentecostals, artificially excite themselves at their prayer meetings.) Signs of true grace are peace of mind, love for God and neighbors, modesty, humility, meekness and similar properties listed by the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians.

Another sign of the true Church is its suffering. If it is difficult for people to figure out which church is true, then the devil - its enemy - knows it very well. He hates the Church and is trying to destroy it. Getting acquainted with the history of the Church, we see that its history was indeed written with the tears and blood of martyrs for the faith. The persecution began with the Jewish high priests and scribes back in apostolic times. Then there are three centuries of persecution in the Roman Empire by Roman emperors and regional rulers. After them, the Muslim Arabs raised the sword against the Church, then the crusaders who came from the West. They so undermined the physical strength of Byzantium, that stronghold of Orthodoxy, that it could not resist the Turks who overran it in the 14th/15th centuries. Finally, the atheist communists surpassed everyone in their cruelty, exterminating more Christians than all previous persecutors combined. But here is a miracle: the blood of the martyrs serves as a seed for new Christians, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against the Church, as Christ promised.

Finally, the surest and relatively easy way to find the Church of Christ is historical research. The True Church must continually go back to apostolic times. To apply the principle of historical research there is no need to go into all the details of the development and spread of Christianity. It is enough to find out when this or that church arose. If it arose, say, in the 16th or some other century, and not in apostolic times, then it can't be true. On this one basis, it is necessary to reject the claims to the title of the Church of Christ of all denominations originating from Luther and his followers, such as Lutheran, Calvinist, Presbyterian, and later Mormons, Baptists, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals and others. similar. These denominations were not founded by Christ or His apostles, but by false prophets - Luthers, Calvins, Henrys, Smiths and other innovators.

Our goal is to acquaint the Orthodox reader with the history of the emergence of the main modern Christian branches and with the essence of their teaching in order to help them see how they differ from the one holy and apostolic Church founded by Christ. During the theological disputes from the 4th to the 8th centuries, several heretical movements fell away from the Church - Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Monophysites and Monothelites (from which modern Copts originated), iconoclasts and others. Their teachings were condemned by the Ecumenical Councils (of which there were seven), and these heresies do not pose a danger to an Orthodox person, so we will not talk about them.

Let's start by saying a few words about the Orthodox Church.