As correctly Christian or Orthodox. Fundamental differences between Orthodoxy and Christianity

The question of how Christians differ from Orthodox is not in front of people who understand the history of religion or just general history. After all, it already contains the initially incorrect assertion that the Orthodox are not Christians. Where did this problem statement come from? Let's take a closer look.

A brief excursion into history

Christianity during the Edict of Milan of the Roman Emperor Constantine on religious tolerance (313) was relatively unified. No, of course, heresiarch truth-seekers have always existed, but at that time the number of their followers was insignificant. The first schism occurred at the third Ecumenical Council, held in the city of Ephesus in 431. Then part of the Christians did not accept the dogmas established at the council and decided to "go the other way." This is how the Assyrian Church appeared, and 20 years later, at the Council of Chalcedon, there was a division again: those who disagreed later received the name “Ancient Eastern Churches”.

And, finally, after another 700 years - the Great Schism, which took place in 1054. The Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople anathematize each other, and this date is considered the point of separation between Eastern and Western Christianity. The Western was called Catholicism, the Eastern - Orthodoxy. The reasons for the Great Schism were more political than religious: the Byzantine Empire considered itself the heir of Rome and claimed to be the unifier of all Christian lands, but Rome did not agree with this. Political disagreements gradually, from the time of the division of the united Roman Empire into Western and Eastern (395), accumulated, transforming into religious and dogmatic disagreements, until an official break occurred.

Later, the Catholic Church experienced the Reformation, which gave rise to a new direction in Christianity - Protestantism. The Orthodox Church, however, has maintained relative unity. Today, there is the following provision: the Roman Catholic Church is a single organism, governed from a common center - the Vatican. There are several Orthodox churches, the largest of which is the Russian one, and among most of them there is Eucharistic communion - mutual recognition and the possibility of performing joint liturgies. As for the Protestants, this is the most motley branch of Christianity, consisting of a large number of independent denominations of different numbers and varying degrees of recognition by other Christian denominations and each other.

The difference between Orthodoxy and other areas of Christianity

The question - what is the difference between Orthodox and Christians - is initially incorrect, since Orthodoxy is one of the main branches of the common Christian tree. How do Orthodox Christians differ from Christians of other denominations? It seems that many will agree that the laity (that is, those who do not have a church education and dignity) are unlikely to be able to clearly explain what the essence of the differences is. Religion in everyday life plays rather the role of a marker that allows you to separate "us" from "strangers".

As for the theological differences, they will not tell an inexperienced person about anything. For example, according to Catholic doctrine, the Holy Spirit is love between God the Father and God the Son, and in Orthodoxy the Holy Spirit is interpreted as the common energy of the Holy Trinity. Agree, such nuances are few people understand and interesting. Much more important are political differences, such as the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith. Naturally, the acceptance of this dogma automatically subordinates to the Pope all those who have accepted it.

Protestantism, which appeared and gained strength in the 16th century, denies many postulates of the Catholic Church. And although theologically, Catholics have more in common with the Orthodox, mentally they are closer to Protestants, since both of these religions often exist among the same people. There are Catholic Germans and Protestant Germans (of various denominations), Catholic French and Protestant French (Huguenots). Yes, and in the historical fate of the Christian European peoples, regardless of religion, there is much in common, which over time smoothed out confessional conflicts. Although during the height of passions, the Protestants declared: “Better a turban than a tiara”, thus recognizing that they are more tolerant of Muslims than Catholics, and the famous St. Bartholomew's Night became the apogee of the confrontation.

Protestantism has lost its protest meaning over time. The notorious Protestant "business ethic" is perceived by many not as a religious ideology, but as a manual for doing business. Therefore, Orthodoxy seems to most representatives of this religion to be something wild: of course, because there is no practical benefit from it! Modern Protestants seem to be unaware of the sacred meaning of religion.

Pseudo-Christian teachings

Starting from the 16th century, a large number of diverse sects have been formed among Protestants, which, of course, call themselves not sects, but Churches. Gradually, some of them depart from traditional Christianity very far, considering, however, only themselves as bearers of divine truth. Interestingly, in Catholicism and Orthodoxy there are very few such sects in comparison with Protestantism. Some of the pseudo-Christian teachings have a fairly large number of adherents, such as the Mormons - about 15 million people.

The largest and most famous pseudo-Christian religious organizations are:

• Mormons (15 million);
• Jehovah's Witnesses (8 million);
• Moon Unification Church (7 million).

The remaining pseudo-Christian cults are much smaller in number and their distribution is either highly localized or limited to certain social groups. An example of the first is some local Protestant or Orthodox Old Believer sects, while a classic example of the second case are groups of followers of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (theosophists), consisting mainly of representatives of the intelligentsia. Of course, all of them consider only themselves true Christians, denying this right to others, including the Orthodox.

Summing up, we can say that the difference between Orthodox and Christians is a phenomenon of approximately the same order as the difference between trees and plants, cows from herbivores, or the Volga region from Russia. Orthodoxy is part of modern Christianity. It lives, develops and thrives. And, in general, it has always been the spiritual core that saved our country in the most difficult years. And you can't forget about it.

What is the difference between Orthodoxy and Christianity?

1. In Orthodoxy, the Commandments are violated, and they are based on icons and relics, in fact, Orthodoxy was created on this.
2. in that Orthodoxy is a religion and faith based on knowledge. Christianity is a religion based on Jewish traditions and laws. At the head of Christianity there is always a chief godfather, he is also a shepherd who grazes a flock of sheep. In Orthodoxy, a man is himself and a shepherd and a sheep. ROC-Orthodox Christians hide behind the guise of Orthodoxy
3. Christians are Orthodox, Catholics, Protestants, etc. There are many currents within Christianity, Orthodoxy is one of the oldest.
4. Orthodoxy is currently a branch of Christianity, but initially it was the only Christian religion. The Catholic and Protestant branches appeared already in the Middle Ages and since then everything has changed there many times.
   Orthodoxy in Greek sounds like "orthodoxy". And indeed, for 2 thousand years, no canons of Orthodoxy have changed. The texts of prayers that sound today were approved at the First Ecumenical Council. Divine services, temples, vestments of priests, sacraments and rituals, rules have not changed since those days. The most enduring of the branches of Christianity.
5. Christianity lives as Jesus commanded. But Orthodoxy does not do this, they only call Christ their Lord, but they do not live by his law.
6. Christianity can only be Christianity. Not everyone who calls himself a Christian is one. Read the New Testament and understand everything for yourself.
7. The Lord Jesus Christ created the One Ecumenical Apostolic Church, in which Christ was and remains the High Priest (Heb. 4:14-15). The word Orthodoxy began to be used in the 3rd century to distinguish the true Church from heresies. Thus, from the 3rd century, the Church of Christ began to be called Orthodox in Greek orthodox. It is from her that the ROC originates. In 1054 there was a split, the Catholics separated, Protestantism arose after the 16th century. That is, Christ did not create all these "Christian" confessions and denominations, they are impostors, that's why there are so many of them, each with its own doctrinal system and cult practice.
8. Orthodoxy is an offshoot of Christianity
9. Orthodoxy is true Christianity and Christianity is Orthodoxy, namely when people correctly praise God.
10. Christianity in its three main forms Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism recognizes one God in three Persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. According to Christian doctrine, this is not the recognition of three gods, but the recognition that these three Persons are one (New British Encyclopedia). Jesus, the Son of God, never claimed to be equal or consubstantial with his Father. On the contrary, he said: I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I (John 14:28). Jesus also told one of his disciples: I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God (John 20:17). The Holy Spirit is not a person. The Bible says that the early Christians were filled with holy spirit. In addition, God promised: I will pour out my spirit on all flesh (Acts 2:14, 17). The Holy Spirit is not part of the Trinity. It is the active power of God.
11. Knowledge is needed, not religion. Full, harmonious knowledge, like our ancient ancestors. "Religion is the opium of the people." Faith - I know Ra, it means bright KNOWLEDGE.
    Orthodoxy - glorifying Rule, by definition, has nothing to do with any religion. This is the Slavic-Aryan, Vedic worldview. The concept of Orthodoxy was transferred from the Slavic-Aryan, Vedic worldview, only to apply such a concept to religions is not only incompatible, but unacceptable. It is contrary to any religious world view. And it was taken because at the time of the emergence of religions, people believed in Orthodoxy, and they could not have imposed a different worldview, except by deception and forced by force. In the future, deception and the imposition of religions by force (Christianity incl.) under the guise of Orthodoxy are no longer mentioned, disorienting people.
12. in the name and origin ... and the same .... d
13. Christianity has many faces. In the modern world, it is represented by three generally recognized areas of Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as numerous movements that do not belong to any of the above. There are serious disagreements between these branches of one religion. Orthodox consider Catholics and Protestants to be heterodox associations of people, that is, those who glorify God in a different way. However, they do not see them as completely devoid of grace. But the Orthodox do not recognize sectarian organizations that position themselves as Christian, but have only an indirect relation to Christianity.

    Who are Christians and Orthodox
    Christians are followers of the Christian denomination, belonging to any Christian stream of Orthodoxy, Catholicism or Protestantism with its various denominations, often of a sectarian nature.

    Orthodox Christians whose worldview corresponds to the ethno-cultural tradition associated with the Orthodox Church.

    Comparison of Christians and Orthodox
    What is the difference between Christians and Orthodox?

    Orthodoxy is an established dogma, having its own dogmas, values, centuries-old history. Christianity is often passed off as something that, in fact, is not. For example, the White Brotherhood movement, active in Kyiv in the early 90s of the last century.

    Orthodox believe that their main goal is the fulfillment of the Gospel commandments, their own salvation and the salvation of their neighbor from the spiritual slavery of passions. World Christianity at its congresses declares salvation on a purely material plane from poverty, disease, war, drugs, etc., which is external piety.

    For the Orthodox, the spiritual holiness of a person is important. Evidence of this is the saints, canonized by the Orthodox Church, who have shown the Christian ideal in their lives. In Christianity as a whole, the spiritual and sensual prevail over the spiritual.

    Orthodox consider themselves co-workers with God in the matter of their own salvation. In world Christianity, in particular, in Protestantism, a person is likened to a pillar who does not have to do anything, because Christ did the work of salvation for him on Golgotha.

    At the heart of the doctrine of world Christianity lies the Holy Scripture record of Divine Revelation. It teaches how to live. The Orthodox, like the Catholics, believe that Scripture is separated from Holy Tradition, which clarifies the forms of this life and is also an unconditional authority. Protestant currents have rejected this claim.

    A summary of the foundations of the Christian faith is given in the Creed. For the Orthodox, this is the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed. The Catholics introduced into the wording of the Symbol the concept of filioque, according to which the Holy Spirit proceeds both from God the Father and from God the Son. Protestants do not deny the Nicene Creed, but the Ancient, Apostolic Creed is generally accepted among them.

    Orthodox especially revere the Mother of God. They believe that she did not have personal sin, but was not deprived of original sin, like all people. After the ascension, the Mother of God bodily ascended into heaven. However, there is no dogma about it. Catholics believe that the Mother of God was also deprived of original sin. One of the dogmas of the Catholic faith is the dogma of the bodily ascension of the Virgin Mary into heaven. Protestants and numerous sectarians do not have a cult of the Theotokos.

    TheDifference.ru determined that the difference between Christians and Orthodox is as follows:
    Orthodox Christianity is contained in the dogmas of the Church. Not all movements that pose as Christians are, in fact, so.
    For the Orthodox, inner piety is the basis of a correct life. Outward piety is much more important for contemporary Christianity in the bulk of it.
    The Orthodox are trying to achieve spiritual holiness.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Orthodoxy

Orthodoxy is the name of the Christian denomination, to which the Russian, Greek, Serbian, Montenegrin, Romanian, Slavic churches in the Austrian possessions, Greek and Syrian in the Tyption possessions (the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem), Abessinian.

The name P. - orJodoxia - is first encountered by Christian writers of the 2nd century, when the first formulas of the teachings of the Christian church appear (by Clement of Alexandria, by the way), and means the faith of the whole church, as opposed to the heterodoxy of heretics - heterodoxia (eterodoxia). Later, the word P. means the totality of the dogmas and institutions of the church, and its criterion is the invariable preservation of the teachings of I. Christ and the apostles, as set out in Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and in the ancient symbols of the universal church. The name “or JodoxuV”, “Orthodox”, has remained with the Eastern Church since the separation from its Western Church, which adopted the name of the Catholic Church. In a general, common sense, the names "orthodoxy", "orthodox" are now often assimilated by other Christian denominations; for example, there is "orthodox Lutheranism" strictly following Luther's creed.

The propensity for abstract thinking about objects of a higher order, the ability for subtle logical analysis were the innate properties of the Greek folk genius. From this it is clear why the Greeks recognized the truth of Christianity more quickly and more easily than other peoples and perceived it more integrally and deeper.

Starting from the II century. educated and scientific people enter the church, in an ever-increasing number; since that time, the church has started schools of learning, in which worldly sciences are also taught, following the model of pagan schools. Between the Greeks and Christians there is a mass of scientists for whom the dogmas of the Christian faith have replaced the philosophemes of ancient philosophy and have become the subject of equally diligent study. The heresies that arose, starting from the end of the 1st century, intensifying to combine the newly appeared Christian teaching, now with Greek philosophy, now with elements of various Eastern cults, aroused extraordinary energy of thought in the theologians of the Eastern Church. In the IV century. in Byzantium the whole society was interested in theology, and even the common people, who talked about dogmas in the markets and squares, just as rhetoricians and sophists used to argue in city squares. As long as dogmas were not yet formulated in symbols, there was a relatively large scope for personal judgment, which led to the emergence of new heresies. Then the ecumenical councils appear on the stage (see). They did not create new beliefs, but only clarified and stated in brief and precise terms the faith of the church, in the form in which it existed from the beginning: they guarded the faith, which was also preserved by the church society, the church in its entirety.

The decisive vote at the councils belonged to the bishops or deputies authorized by them, but both the clergy and ordinary laity, especially philosophers and theologians, had the right to consultative vote (jus consultationis), who even took part in the council debates, proposed objections and helped the bishops with their instructions. “With us,” say the eastern patriarchs in a letter to Pope Pius IX (1849), “neither the patriarchs nor the councils could introduce anything new, because we have the very body of the church, i.e., the church people, as the guardian of piety, who always desires to keep his faith unchanged and in harmony with the faith of his fathers.

In this way, the Orthodox East erected a majestic edifice of Christian doctrine. In 842, on the occasion of the final restoration of icon veneration, rite II was compiled in Constantinople, performed annually on the week of Orthodoxy (see XX, 831). The anathematisms of this rank constitute the formula of P. as the faith of the church (pistiV thV ekklhsiaV). Until the 11th century the whole Christian world constituted one universal church. The Western Church at the ecumenical councils took an active part in the protection of the ancient faith of the church and in the creation of a symbolic church doctrine; insignificant ritual and canonical differences did not separate it from the eastern one. Only from the 11th century some local Western opinions - not only liturgical, like the doctrine of unleavened bread, but also dogmatic, like the doctrine of the filioque, produced a division between the churches of the east and the west. In subsequent times, the peculiar teaching of the Western Church on the scope and nature of the power of the Bishop of Rome caused a final rupture between the Orthodox and Western churches. Around the time of the separation of the churches, new peoples entered the Orthodox Church - Slavic, including the Russian people.

And in Russia there were moments of just as strong aspirations of society towards theology, as in Byzantium, in the centuries of cathedrals: in the time of Joseph Volotsky, later - in the time of the Likhuds, in Moscow and other cities, and in houses, and on the streets, and in all public places, everyone argued and argued about questions of faith, aroused at that time by heresies. “Since the establishment of the rank of P. in the Eastern Church. says one Russian theologian, P. means, in essence, nothing more than obedience or obedience to the church, in which there is already all the teaching necessary for a Christian. as a son of the Church, so that in unconditional trust in the Church, the Orthodox Christian finds final peace of mind in firm faith in the unconditional truth of that which he can no longer but recognize as the truth, about which there is no longer any need to reason and there is no possibility of doubting.

For learned theology, the Orthodox Church gives its members wide scope; but in her symbolic teaching she gives the theologian a point of support and a scale, with which she recommends conforming any religious reasoning, in order to avoid contradiction with "dogmas", with the "faith of the church." In this sense, P. does not deprive anyone of the right to read the Bible (as Catholicism deprives the laity of this right) in order to extract from it more detailed information about the faith of the church; but it recognizes the need to be guided in this by the interpretative works of St. the Church Fathers, by no means leaving the understanding of the word of God to the personal understanding of the Christian himself, as Protestantism does. P. does not elevate the teachings of the human, which is not contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition, to the degree of accounting for God-revealed, as is done in the papacy; it does not deduce new dogmas from the old teaching of the Church by inference (like the Catholic filioque). does not share the Catholic opinion about the higher human dignity of the person of the Mother of God (the Catholic doctrine of her “immaculate conception”), does not ascribe to the saints beyond their due merits, all the more so does not assimilate divine infallibility to a person, even if he was the Roman high priest himself; Only the Church in its whole composition is recognized as infallible, insofar as it expresses its teaching through ecumenical councils. P. does not recognize purgatory, since he teaches that the satisfaction of the truth of God for the sins of people has already been brought once and for all by the suffering and death of the Son of God. Accepting the seven sacraments, P. “acquires the proper meaning of our bodily nature, as an integral part of the human being, sanctified by the incarnation of the Son of God,” and in the sacraments he sees not only signs of grace, but grace itself; in the sacrament of the Eucharist he sees the true body and true blood of Christ, into which bread and wine are transubstantiated.

The grace of God, according to the teachings of P., acts in a person, contrary to the opinion of the Reformers, not irresistibly, but in accordance with his free will; our own good works are credited to us, though not in themselves, but by virtue of the faithful assimilation of the merits of the Savior. Orthodox pray to the saints who have died, believing in the power of their prayers before God; they venerate the incorruptible remains of saints (relics) and icons. Not endorsing the Catholic doctrine of church authority, P. recognizes, however, the church hierarchy with its grace-filled gifts, and allows a significant share of participation in the affairs of the church on the part of the laity, in the rank of church elders, members of church brotherhoods and parish trustees (see A.S. Pavlov, "On the participation of the laity in the affairs of the church", Kazan, 1866). The moral teaching of Orthodoxy also has significant differences from Catholicism and Protestantism. It does not give indulgence to sin and passion, like Catholicism (in indulgences); it rejects the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, requiring every Christian to express his faith in good works.

In the relationship of the church to the state, P. does not want to rule over it, like Catholicism, nor obey it in its internal affairs, like Protestantism; it strives to preserve complete freedom of activity, leaving the touch of independence of the state in the sphere of its power, blessing any of its activities that are not contrary to the teachings of the church, generally acting in the spirit of peace and harmony, and in certain cases accepting help and assistance from the state. Two very important questions are hitherto unresolved definitively in the symbolic teaching of Orthodoxy. church, nor in theological science. First, the question of the ecumenical council. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (died 1867) thought that an ecumenical council was possible at the present time, but only under the condition of a preliminary reunification of the eastern and western churches. Much more widespread is the opposite opinion, according to which the Orthodox Church has in its entirety all jurisdiction, not only canonical, but also dogmatic, which it had from the very beginning.

Councils of the Russian Church, which were also attended by Eastern patriarchs (for example, the Moscow Cathedral of 1666-67) can rightly be called ecumenical (see A. S. Khomyakov’s letter to the editor of L "union Chretienne", in the second volume of his cit., on the meaning of the words "catholic" and "cathedral"), This was not done only "according to the humility of wisdom" of the Orthodox Church, and by no means because of the recognition of the impossibility of an ecumenical council after the separation of the eastern and western churches.

True, in the times following the seven ecumenical councils, external historical the conditions of the Orthodox East were not favorable for the flourishing of religious thought and for the convening of ecumenical councils: some of the Orthodox peoples were becoming obsolete, others were just beginning to live a historical life. The difficult political circumstances in which the Orthodox East has hitherto found itself leave little opportunity for the activity of religious thought to this day. Nevertheless, there are many new facts in the history of P., testifying to the ongoing law-positive activity of the church: such are the messages of the Eastern patriarchs about the Orthodox faith, written in response to requests from Western churches and received a symbolic meaning. They solve many important dogmatic questions of church teaching: about the church, about divine providence and predestination (against the Reformed), about Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, etc. These messages were compiled at local councils, but approved by all Eastern churches.

Another important question, which has hitherto been unresolved neither in the symbolic teaching of the Orthodox Church, nor in its scientific theology, concerns how to understand from the Orthodox point of view the doctrine of the development of dogmas, so widespread in the West. Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow was against the term "development of dogma", and his authority greatly influenced our theology. “In some of your student writings,” he wrote to Innokenty, the rector of the Kyiv academician, in 1836, “they say that the dogmas developed over several centuries, as if they were not taught by Jesus Christ, the apostles and sacred books, or were secretly abandoned small seed.

Councils defined well-known dogmas and by definition protected newly emerging ones from false teachings, but did not develop dogmas again” (“Christ. Reading”, 1884). “After 1800 years of existence, the Christian Church is given a new law for its existence - the law of development,” he wrote about the petition of the Anglican Palmer to reunite with the Orthodox Church. Recalling the anathema to which the Apostle Paul subjects even an angel from heaven, who would preach the gospel otherwise than as the gospel of Christ's faith is proclaimed in Holy Scripture, Met. Filaret said: “When they propose the development of dogmas, it is as if they say to the apostle: take back your anathema; we must evangelize more, according to the newly discovered law of development. They want to subordinate the divine cause to the law of development, taken from the tree and the grass! And if they want to apply the cause of development to Christianity, how can they not remember that development has a limit?” According to A. S. Khomyakov, the movement in the field of dogmatic teaching, which was in the 4th century. and expressed both in the activities of the ecumenical councils, and in the scientific and theological works of individual church fathers (Athanasius, Vasily Vel., two Grigorievs, etc.). does not seem to be a development of dogmas, but an analytical development of Orthodox dogmatic terminology, which is fully consistent with the words of Vasily Vel. : "dialectic is a fence for dogmas".

In the same sense, Rev. Philaret, archbishop Chernigov, in his "Dogmatic. Theology": "the human word only gradually grows to the height of divinely revealed truths." The formulation of church faith in new symbols - not to cancel the previous ones, but to more fully clarify dogmas, to the extent of the spiritual maturity of church society and the development of the needs of the believing mind in it - is possible and necessary, but, from the point of view of P., not in a speculative sense, and in the sense of the genetic conclusion of a dogma, to what extent it can serve as an object of logical perception.

Dogma in itself is the direct teaching of I. Christ and the apostles, and in the closest way constitutes the object of direct faith; the conciliar symbol, as well as the creed of the church fathers, authorized by the councils, are already forms of the development of dogma, clothed by them in a logical formula. Even more so, the concept of the development of dogmas in Orthodoxy is related to the science of theology, the starting point of which is a priori. It is difficult to agree with the opinion that denies the development of dogmas, and does not want to see the facts of such a development even in the symbols of the ecumenical councils, on the mere fact that Christ himself calls his teaching a seed (Luke VIII, 11) and a mustard seed, which is the smallest, always but it will increase, there are more than all potions (Mt. XIII, 31).

Dogmas, in their content, are “the thoughts of the mind of God” (the words of Rev. Philaret of Chernigov). but they are expressed in the words of human language; perceived by memory and faith, they become, in the formulas of councils, acceptable to the mind and give that much fruit, which gives, in the parable of Christ, the mustard seed. In both cases, the same process - genetic development.

The limit of this development of religious consciousness and knowledge is indicated by the apostle: it must continue until all believers have reached perfect men, to the measure of the age of the fulfillment of Christ (Eph. VI, 13) and when God will be all in all. The symbols of the cathedrals have the meaning of indisputability; but they, according to the just remark of F. G. Turner, are not adequate to the dogmas, since they state them only to the extent of understanding the spiritual development of believers. In addition, in the reasoning of the conciliar, various kinds of proofs, comparisons, etc. do not constitute a symbolic doctrine, although they represent a high authority. According to prof. I. V. Cheltsova, “they may be right or wrong, although what they prove does not cease to be the infallible teaching of revelation.

Wherever these proofs are borrowed and whoever expounds them - by individuals or councils, even ecumenical ones - their nature is always the same, human, not divine, and represents only a certain degree of understanding of the divinely revealed truths of faith accessible to man. Noteworthy is the argument about the development of the dogmas of Archpriest A. V. Gorsky: “when a dogma is considered as a divine thought, in itself, it is one and unchanging, complete, clear, defined in itself. But when it is considered as a divine thought assimilated or assimilated by the human mind, then its external massiveness necessarily increases with the passage of time. It is applied to the various relationships of a person, meets with one or another of his thoughts, and, in contact, explains them and is himself explained by them; contradictions and objections bring him out of a calm state, make him manifest his divine energy.

New discoveries of the human mind in the field of truth, its gradually increasing experience, add new clarity to it. What could be doubted before, now becomes certain, decided. Each dogma has its own sphere, which grows with the passage of time, comes into closer contact with other parts of Christian dogma and with other principles that lie in the human mind; all sciences, the more each one is touched by dogmatics, benefit from it exactly, and a complete rigorous system of knowledge becomes possible. Here is the course of development of the dogma! To the naked eye, this is a star that appears to be a dot; the more he later peered into it with artificial aids, he noticed its immensity, began to distinguish features in it and found out its relation to others, and various stars became one system for him. Dogmas are the same."

Since 1884, in our literature, there has been a controversy between two groups of young theologians, caused by the study of Vl. S. Solovyov: “On the dogmatic development of the church” (“Pravoslav. Review”, 1885); Soloviev himself and Mr. Christie belong to the first (“Pravoslov. Review”, 1887), to the other - gg. Stoyanov (“Faith and Reason”, 1886) and A. Shostyin (“Faith and Reason”, 1887). The first two allow for the objective development of a dogma, that is, the development of a dogma as a dogma, carried out by the Church itself, at councils, under the guidance of an extraordinary influx of grace; dogmas should be recognized, in their opinion, not only the truths taught by I. Christ, but also those formulas of Christian teaching, which are taught by ecumenical councils. The opponents of Vl. S. Solovyov give him and Mr. Christie the title of speculative theologians, on the model of Protestant ones, and resolve the controversial issue on the basis of the concept of dogma, set forth in the courses of dogmatic theology by Metropolitan. Macarius. archbishop Philaret of Chernigov and Bishop Arseny, refusing to call the definitions of ecumenical councils dogmas, since these definitions are already the fruit of reflection and the subject of mental perception, and not just a sense of faith, and in (in. Scripture they are not textually found, making up only formulas of dogmas. Speaking in general, P., keeping and protecting the dogmas as objects of faith, at the same time does not eliminate the symbolic development and scientific disclosure of the doctrine of faith.

For a detailed exposition of Orthodox teaching, see the Dogmatic Theology of Met. Macarius (1883) and in "Dogmatic Theology" ep. Sylvester (Kyiv, 1889 - 91); short - in the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church, namely in the "Orthodox Confession of Faith" by Metropolitan. Peter Mohyla and in the "Large Orthodox Catechism" by Metropolitan. Filaret, as well as in the messages of the eastern patriarchs to the west. Christian societies. See “Works” by A. S. Khomyakov (vol. II, “Theological Works”, Moscow, 1876); "Historical and critical experiments" prof. N. I. Barsova (St. Petersburg, 1879; article "New Method"); Overbeck's articles on the meaning of Orthodoxy in relation to the app. religions ("Christian Reading", 1868, II, 1882, 1883, 1 - 4, etc.) and "Orthodox Review", (1869, 1, 1870, 1 - 8); Gette, "Basic Principles of Orthodoxy" ("Faith and Reason", 1884, 1, 1886, 1); archim. Fedor, "On Orthodoxy in Relation to Modernity" (St. Petersburg, 1861); arch. P. A. Smirnov, “On Orthodoxy in general and in particular in relation to the Slavic peoples” (St. Petersburg, 1893); "Collection of Spiritual and Literary Works" by Prot. I. Yakhontova (vol. II, St. Petersburg, 1890, article "On the Orthodoxy of the Russian Church"); N. I. Barsov, “The Question of the Religiosity of the Russian People” (St. Petersburg, 1881).

Similar Documents

Orthodoxy as a variety of Christianity. Doctrine. Sacraments and cults. Holidays and posts. Organization and management of the Russian Orthodox Church. Russian Orthodox Church at the present stage. Some Analytical Data on Matters of Faith.

abstract, added 03/23/2004


Orthodox Church and State in Modern Russia. The actual position of the Church in the political system and in society. Economic and social relations between the state and the Church, cooperation in the field of strengthening public security and law.

abstract, added 05/06/2012


The attitude of the Mongols to the Russian Orthodox Church. Martyrs of the period of the Mongol-Tatar yoke. The dispensation of the Russian Church, the position of the clergy in the Mongolian period. Moods in the spiritual life of the church and the people. The outstanding significance of the Russian Church for Russia.

term paper, added 10/27/2014


Changes in the life of the church in the XIX - early XX centuries. Popular perception of social, economic and administrative structures as one with the church. The influence of Orthodoxy on creative and thinking people. Eminent Church Leaders.

term paper, added 01/11/2005


History of the Russian Church from the Baptism of Russia to the Middle of the 17th Century. Russian Church Abroad. The formation of the Orthodox Church from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day. Relations between the Soviet state and the Russian Orthodox Church during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

test, added 11/10/2010


The essence of the dramatic clash between church and secular authorities. The main causes of the split, its participants and consequences. Autocephaly of the Russian Church, the historical stages of its development. Correction of church books, features of the subordination of the church to the state.

presentation, added 12/13/2013


Analysis of the doctrine of the royal priesthood in the New and Old Testaments and in the teaching of the Holy Fathers. The theological significance of this teaching, the ontological unity of the members of the Church. The true meaning of the priesthood of Christ. Local Council of the Russian Church 1917-1918

term paper, added 11/19/2012


The study of the life of Jesus Christ according to the Gospels, the reasons for the refusal of the Son of God from the evangelization of the whole world, the limitation of his deeds in the territory of modern Palestine. Description of the origin and spread of the Christian church, the significance of the teaching of the apostles.

essay, added 12/05/2009


The True Orthodox Church, Its Place and Significance in the History of the Russian Catacomb Church. A brief history of the origin and development of the CPI, its organizational structure and features of the dogma, adherents. The economic situation of the church and the impression of it.

abstract, added 11/23/2009


Features of the Christian Church, the historical path of its formation. Orthodox churches and patriarchates that exist today, their activities. Varieties of Eastern Orthodox churches. Eastern Catholic Churches and their Rites.

Orthodoxy(from the Greek "correct service", "correct teaching") - one of the main world religions, represents the direction in Christianity. Orthodoxy took shape in the first millennium from R. X. under the leadership of the bishop's chair Constantinople capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Orthodoxy is currently professed 225-300 million person all over the world. In addition to Russia, the Orthodox faith has become widespread in Balkans and Eastern Europe. Interestingly, along with the traditionally Orthodox countries, adherents of this direction of Christianity are found in Japan, Thailand, South Korea and other Asian countries (and not only people with Slavic roots, but also the local population).

Orthodox believe in God the Trinity, into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is believed that all three divine hypostases are in inseparable unity. God is the creator of the world that he created from the beginning sinless. Evil and sin while being understood as distortion world ordained by God. The original sin of Adam and Eve's disobedience to God was redeemed through incarnation, earthly life and suffering on the cross God the Son Jesus Christ.

In the understanding of the Orthodox Church- it is one divine-human organism led by the Lord Jesus Christ, uniting the society of people Holy Spirit, Orthodox Faith, Law of God, hierarchy and Sacraments.

The highest level of the hierarchy priests in Orthodoxy is the rank bishop. He leads church community on its territory (eparchy), performs the sacrament ordination of clergy(consecrations), including other bishops. succession of ordinations continuously ascends to the apostles. More elder bishops are called archbishops and metropolitans, and the supreme one is patriarch. Lower rank of the church hierarchy, after the bishops, - presbyters(priests) who can perform all Orthodox sacraments except for ordination. Next come deacons who themselves do not commit sacraments, but help in this to the presbyter or bishop.

Clergy subdivided into White and black. Priests and deacons related to white clergy, have families. Black the clergy is monks who make a vow celibacy. The rank of a deacon in monasticism is called a hierodeacon, and that of a priest is called a hieromonk. Bishop can be only representative black clergy.

Hierarchical structure Orthodox Church accepts certain democratic procedures management, in particular encouraged criticism any clergyman, if he retreats from the Orthodox faith.

Freedom of the individual refers to essential principles Orthodoxy. It is believed that meaning of spiritual life man in finding the original true freedom from the sins and passions by which he is enslaved. The rescue possible only under grace of God, given that free will believer their efforts on the spiritual path.

For gaining there are two ways to save. First - monastic, consisting in solitude and renunciation of the world. This is the way special ministry God, the Church and neighbors, associated with the intense struggle of man with his sins. The second way of salvation- This service to the world, primarily family. The family in Orthodoxy plays a huge role and is called small church or house church.

Source of domestic law Orthodox Church - the main document - is sacred tradition, which contains the Holy Scriptures, the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures compiled by the Holy Fathers, theological writings of the Holy Fathers (their dogmatic works), dogmatic definitions and acts of the Holy Ecumenical and Local Councils of the Orthodox Church, liturgical texts, iconography, spiritual succession expressed in the works of ascetic writers , their instructions about the spiritual life.

Attitude Orthodoxy to statehood builds on the assertion that all power is from God. Even during the persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, the Apostle Paul commands Christians to pray for power and honor the king not only for the sake of fear, but also for the sake of conscience, knowing that power is the establishment of God.

To the Orthodox sacraments include: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Repentance, Priesthood, Honorable Marriage and Unction. Sacrament eucharist or communion, is the most important, it contributes bringing man closer to God. Sacrament baptism- This man's entry into the Church, deliverance from sin and the opportunity to start a new life. Confirmation (usually follows immediately after baptism) consists in giving the believer blessings and gifts of the Holy Spirit which strengthen a person in spiritual life. During Unction the human body anointed those sanctified with oil, which makes it possible to get rid of bodily ailments, gives remission of sins. Unction- associated with forgiveness of all sins committed by a person, a petition for liberation from diseases. Repentance- forgiveness of sin sincere remorse. Confession- gives fertile opportunity, strength and support to cleansing from sin.

Prayers in Orthodoxy can be like home and general- church. In the first case, a person before God opens his heart, and in the second - the power of prayer increases many times, since the saints and angels who are also members of the Church.

The Orthodox Church believes that the history of Christianity before the great split(separation of Orthodoxy and Catholicism) is the history of Orthodoxy. In general, relations between the two main branches of Christianity have always developed quite difficult, sometimes reaching open confrontation. Moreover, even in the 21st century early speak about complete reconciliation. Orthodoxy believes that salvation can only be found in Christianity: at the same time non-Orthodox Christian communities considered partially(but not completely) deprived of God's grace. AT difference from Catholics Orthodox do not recognize the dogma of papal infallibility and his supremacy over all Christians, the dogma of Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, the doctrine of purgatory, dogma about bodily ascension of the Mother of God. An important difference between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, which had a serious impact on political history, is the thesis about symphonies of spiritual and secular authorities. Roman Church stands for full ecclesiastical immunity and, in the person of his High Priest, possesses sovereign temporal power.

The Orthodox Church is organizationally community of local churches, each of which uses full autonomy and independence on its territory. There are currently 14 Autocephalous Churches, for example, Constantinople, Russian, Greek, Bulgarian, etc.

Churches of the Russian tradition adhering to old rites, generally accepted up to Nikonian reform, are called Old Believers. Old Believers were subjected to persecution and oppression, which was one of the reasons that forced them to lead secluded lifestyle. Old Believer settlements existed in Siberia, on the North European part Russia, by now the Old Believers have settled all over the world. Along with performance features Orthodox rituals, other than requirements Russian Orthodox Church (for example, the number of fingers with which they are baptized), Old Believers have special way of life, For example, do not drink alcohol, do not smoke.

In recent years, due to globalization of spiritual life(the spread of religions around the world, regardless of the territories of their initial origin and development), it was believed that orthodoxy like a religion loses the competition Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Catholicism, insufficiently adapted for the modern world. But probably, preservation of true deep religiosity, inextricably linked with Russian culture, and there is the main mission of orthodoxy, which will allow in the future to acquire salvation for the Russian people.

Orthodoxy is not Christianity. How historical myths appeared

The Greek Catholic Orthodox (Right Faithful) Church (now the Russian Orthodox Church) began to be called Orthodox only on September 8, 1943 (approved by Stalin's decree in 1945). What, then, was called Orthodoxy for several millennia?

“In our time, in modern Russian vernacular, in the official, scientific and religious designation, the term “Orthodoxy” is applied to anything related to the ethno-cultural tradition and it is necessarily associated with the Russian Orthodox Church and the Christian religion ( Judeo-Christian Religion - ed.).

To a simple question: "What is Orthodoxy" any modern person, without hesitation, will answer that Orthodoxy is the Christian faith that was adopted by Kievan Rus during the reign of Prince Vladimir the Red Sun from the Byzantine Empire in 988 AD. And that Orthodoxy, i.e. The Christian faith has existed on Russian soil for more than a thousand years. Scientists from historical science and Christian theologians, in confirmation of their words, declare that the earliest use of the word Orthodoxy in the territory of Russia is recorded in the “Sermon on Law and Grace” of 1037-1050 by Metropolitan Hilarion.

But was it really so?

We advise you to carefully read the preamble to the federal law on freedom of conscience and on religious associations, adopted on September 26, 1997. Note the following points in the preamble: “Recognizing the special role orthodoxy in Russia...and further respecting Christianity , Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and other religions…”

Thus, the concepts of Orthodoxy and Christianity are not identical and carry completely different concepts and meanings.

Orthodoxy. How historical myths appeared

It is worth considering who participated in the seven councils of the Christian ( Judeo-Christian - ed.) churches? Orthodox holy fathers or still Orthodox holy fathers, as indicated in the original Word on Law and Grace? By whom and when was it decided to replace one concept with another? And was there ever any mention of Orthodoxy in the past?

The answer to this question was given by the Byzantine monk Belisarius in 532 AD. Long before the baptism of Russia, this is what he wrote in his Chronicles about the Slavs and their rite of visiting the bath: “Orthodox Slovenes and Rusyns are wild people, and their life is wild and godless, men and girls lock themselves together in a hot, overheated hut and exhaust their bodies .... »

We will not pay attention to the fact that for the monk Belisarius the usual visit by the Slavs to the bath seemed something wild and incomprehensible, this is quite natural. For us, something else is important. Pay attention to how he called the Slavs: Orthodox Slovenes and Rusyns.

For this one phrase alone, we must express our gratitude to him. Since with this phrase the Byzantine monk Belisarius confirms that the Slavs were Orthodox for many hundreds ( thousands - ed.) years before their conversion to Christianity ( Judeo-Christian - ed..) faith.

The Slavs were called Orthodox, because they RIGHT praised.

What is "RIGHT"?

Our ancestors believed that reality, the cosmos, is divided into three levels. And it is also very similar to the Indian system of division: Upper World, Middle World and Lower World.

In Russia, these three levels were called like this:

>The highest level is the level of Rule orrule.

>Second, middle levelReality.

>And the lowest level isNav. Nav or Non-reveal, unmanifested.

>World governis a world where everything is right orideal upper world.This is a world where ideal beings with higher consciousness live.

> Reality- this is our manifest, obvious world, the world of people.

>And the world Navi or Not-reveal, unmanifested, it is the negative, unmanifested or lower or posthumous world.

The Indian Vedas also speak of the existence of three worlds:

>Upper world is a world dominated by energy goodness.

>Middle world covered passion.

>Lower world is immersed in ignorance.

There is no such division among Christians. The Bible is silent on this.

Such a similar understanding of the world also gives a similar motivation in life, i.e. it is necessary to aspire to the world of Rule or Goodness. And in order to get into the world of Rule, you need to do everything right, i.e. by the law of God.

Words such as "truth" come from the root "right". Truth- that which gives right. “Yes” is “to give”, and “rule” is “higher”. So, the "truth" is what gives the right. Control. Correction. Government. Right. Not right. Those. the roots of all these words is this "right". “Right” or “right”, i.e. the highest beginning. Those. the meaning is that the concept of the Rule or the higher reality should underlie the real management. And real management should spiritually elevate those who follow the ruler, leading his wards on the paths of rule.

>Details in the article:Philosophical and cultural similarities of Ancient Russia and Ancient India" .

The substitution of the name "orthodoxy" is not "orthodoxy"

The question is, who and when on Russian soil decided to replace the terms Orthodoxy with Orthodoxy?

It happened in the 17th century, when the Moscow Patriarch Nikon initiated a church reform. The main goal of this reform by Nikon was not to change the rites of the Christian church, as it is now interpreted, where it all comes down to supposedly replacing the sign of the cross with a two-fingered one with a three-fingered one and walking the procession in the other direction. The main goal of the reform was the destruction of dual faith on Russian soil.

In our time, few people know that before the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich in Muscovy, there was dual faith in the Russian lands. In other words, the common people professed not only orthodoxy, i.e. Greek Rite Christianity that came from Byzantium, but also the old pre-Christian faith of their ancestors ORTHODOXY. This is what worried Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov and his spiritual mentor, the Christian Patriarch Nikon, most of all, for the Orthodox Old Believers lived by their own principles and did not recognize any power over themselves.

Patriarch Nikon decided to put an end to dual faith in a very original way. To do this, under the guise of a reform in the church, allegedly due to the discrepancy between Greek and Slavic texts, he ordered to rewrite all liturgical books, replacing the phrases "orthodox Christian faith" with "Orthodox Christian faith." In the Readings of the Menaia, which have survived to our times, we can see the old version of the entry "Orthodox Christian Faith." This was Nikon's very interesting approach to reform.

Firstly, it was not necessary to rewrite many ancient Slavic, as they said then charaty books, or chronicles, which described the victories and achievements of pre-Christian Orthodoxy.

Secondly, life during the time of dual faith and the very original meaning of Orthodoxy were erased from the memory of the people, because after such a church reform, any text from liturgical books or ancient chronicles could be interpreted as the beneficial influence of Christianity on Russian lands. In addition, the patriarch sent a memo to the Moscow churches about the use of the sign of the cross with three fingers instead of the two-fingered one.

Thus began the reform, as well as the protest against it, which led to a schism in the Church. The protest against Nikon's church reforms was organized by the former comrades of the patriarch, archpriests Avvakum Petrov and Ivan Neronov. They pointed out to the patriarch the arbitrariness of actions, and then in 1654 he arranged a Council at which, as a result of pressure on the participants, he sought to hold a book right on ancient Greek and Slavic manuscripts. However, Nikon's alignment was not with the old rites, but with the modern Greek practice of that time. All the actions of Patriarch Nikon led to the fact that the church split into two warring parts.

Supporters of the old traditions accused Nikon of trilingual heresy and pandering to paganism, as Christians called Orthodoxy, that is, the old pre-Christian faith. The split engulfed the entire country. This led to the fact that in 1667 the great Moscow cathedral condemned and deposed Nikon, and anathematized all opponents of the reforms. From that time on, adherents of the new liturgical traditions began to be called Nikonians, and adherents of the old rites and traditions began to be called schismatics and persecuted. The confrontation between the Nikonians and the schismatics at times reached the point of armed clashes until the royal troops came out on the side of the Nikonians. In order to avoid a large-scale religious war, part of the higher clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate condemned some of the provisions of Nikon's reforms.

In liturgical practices and state documents, the term Orthodoxy began to be used again. For example, let's turn to the spiritual regulations of Peter the Great: “... And like a Christian Sovereign, orthodoxy and everyone in the church, the Holy Guardian of piety ...”

As we can see, even in the 18th century, Peter the Great is called the Christian sovereign, guardian of orthodoxy and piety. But there is not a word about Orthodoxy in this document. Nor is it in the editions of the Spiritual Regulations of 1776-1856.

Education of the ROC

Based on this, the question arises, when did the term Orthodoxy begin to be officially used by the Christian Church?

The fact is that in the Russian Empire did not have Russian Orthodox Church. The Christian church existed under a different name - "Russian Greek Catholic Church". Or as it was also called "Russian Orthodox Church of the Greek Rite".

Christian church called The Russian Orthodox Church appeared during the reign of the Bolsheviks.

At the beginning of 1945, by decree of Joseph Stalin, a local council of the Russian church was held in Moscow under the leadership of responsible persons from the State Security of the USSR and a new Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia was elected.

It should be mentioned that many Christian priests, who did not recognize the power of the Bolsheviks, left Russia and abroad continue to profess Christianity of the Eastern Rite and call their church none other than Russian Orthodox Church or Russian Orthodox Church.

In order to finally move away from well crafted historical myth and to find out what the word Orthodoxy really meant in ancient times, let's turn to those people who still keep the old faith of their ancestors.

Having received their education in Soviet times, these pundits either do not know, or carefully try to hide from ordinary people, that even in ancient times, long before the birth of Christianity, Orthodoxy existed in the Slavic lands. It covered not only the basic concept when our wise ancestors praised the Rule. And the deep essence of Orthodoxy was much larger and more voluminous than it seems today.

The figurative meaning of this word included the concepts when our ancestors Right praised. That's just it was not Roman law and not Greek, but our own, native Slavic.

It included:

>Clan Law, based on the ancient traditions of culture, horses and foundations of the Family;

>Community law, creating mutual understanding between various Slavic families living together in one small settlement;

>Mine law that regulated the interaction between communities living in large settlements, which were cities;

> Weight law, which determined the relationship between communities living in different cities and towns within the same Vesey, i.e. within the same area of ​​​​settlement and residence;

>Veche law, which was adopted at a general meeting of all the people and observed by all clans of the Slavic community.

Any Law from Generic to Veche was arranged on the basis of the ancient Konov, the culture and foundations of the Family, as well as on the basis of the commandments of the ancient Slavic gods and the instructions of the ancestors. It was our native Slavic Law.

Our wise ancestors commanded to preserve it, and we are preserving it. From ancient times, our ancestors praised the Rule and we continue to praise the Law, and we keep our Slavic Law and pass it on from generation to generation.

Therefore, we and our ancestors were, are and will be Orthodox.

change on wikipedia

Modern interpretation of the term ORTHODOX = Orthodox, appeared on Wikipedia only after this resource was funded by the UK government. In fact, Orthodoxy translates as rightBelieve, Orthodox translates as orthodox.

Either Wikipedia, continuing the idea of ​​the “identity” Orthodoxy=Orthodoxy, should call Muslims and Jews Orthodox (because the terms orthodox Muslim or Orthodox Jew are found in all world literature), or still recognize that Orthodoxy=Orthodoxy and in no way refers to Orthodoxy, as well as the Christian Church of the Eastern Rite, called since 1945 - the Russian Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy is not a religion, not Christianity, but a faith

Any Indian follower Vedanta knows that his religion, together with the Aryans, came from Russia. And the modern Russian language is their ancient Sanskrit. It's just that in India it changed to Hindi, but in Russia it remained the same. Therefore, Indian Vedism is not fully Russian Vedism.

Russian nicknames for gods Vyshen (Rod) and Roof (Yar, Christ) became the names of Indian gods Vishnu and krishna. The encyclopedia is slyly silent about this.

Witchcraft is the everyday understanding of Russian Vedism, which includes the elementary skills of magic and mysticism. "Fight against witches" in Western Europe in the XV-XVI centuries. was a struggle with the Slavs, who prayed to the Vedic gods.

The Russian god corresponds to the Christian god-father Genus, not at all Jehovah-Yahweh-Sabaoth, which among the Masons is the god of darkness and death of Russia Mary. Myself Jesus Christ on many Christian icons is designated as Yar and his mother Maria- as Mara.

The word "devil" is of the same root as Virgo. This is the prince of darkness, Masonic Sabaoth, which is otherwise called Satan. There are no "servants of God" in the Vedic religion either. And only the desire of the West to belittle Russian Vedism and force the Russians to abandon their gods, in which the Russians believed for hundreds of thousands of years, led to the fact that Russian Christianity became more and more pro-Western, and the followers of Russian Vedism began to be considered "servants of the devil." In other words, in the West, all Russian concepts have been turned inside out.

After all, the concept "Orthodoxy" originally belonged to Russian Vedism and meant: "Right glorified".

Therefore, primitive Christianity began to call itself "orthodox", but the term then passed to Islam. As you know, Christianity has the epithet "Orthodox" only in Russian; on the rest, it calls itself "orthodox", that is, precisely "orthodox".

In other words, today's Christianity has secretly appropriated a Vedic name that is deeply rooted in the Russian mind.

The functions of Veles, to a much greater extent than St. Blaise, were inherited by St. Nicholas of Myra, nicknamed Nicholas the Wonderworker. (See the result of the research published in the book: Uspensky B.A.. Philological research in the field of Slavic antiquities .. - M .: MGU, 1982 .)

By the way, on many of his icons it is inscribed in implicit letters: MARY LIK. Hence the original name of the area in honor of the face of Mary: Marlikian. So actually this bishop was Nicholas of Marlic. And his city, which was originally called " Mary"(that is, the city of Mary), now called Bari. There was a phonetic change of sounds.

Bishop Nicholas of Myra - Nicholas the Wonderworker

However, now Christians do not remember these details, hushing up the Vedic roots of Christianity. For now Jesus in Christianity is interpreted as the God of Israel, although Judaism does not consider him a god. And Christianity does not say anything about the fact that Jesus Christ, as well as his apostles, are different faces of Yar, although this is read on many icons. The name of the god Yar is also read on Shroud of Turin .

At one time, Vedism reacted very calmly and fraternally to Christianity, seeing in it just a local growth of Vedism, for which there is a name: paganism (that is, an ethnic variety), like Greek paganism with another name Yara - Ares, or Roman, with the name of Yar is Mars, or with Egyptian, where the name Yar or Ar was read in the opposite direction, Ra. In Christianity, Yar became Christ, and Vedic temples made icons and crosses of Christ.

And only over time, under the influence of political, or rather, geopolitical reasons, Christianity was opposed to Vedism, and then Christianity everywhere saw manifestations of "paganism" and led a fight with him not to the stomach, but to the death. In other words, she betrayed her parents, her heavenly patrons, and began to preach humility and humility.

>Details in the article:V.A. Chudinov - Proper education .

Secret writing on Russian and modern Christian icons

Thus Christianity within the framework of ALL RUSSIA was adopted not in 988, but between 1630 and 1635.

The study of Christian icons made it possible to identify sacred texts on them. Explicit inscriptions cannot be attributed to their number. But they absolutely include implicit inscriptions associated with Russian Vedic gods, temples and priests (mimes).

On the old Christian icons of the Mother of God with baby Jesus there are Russian inscriptions in runes, saying that these are the Slavic Goddess Makosh with the baby God Yar. Jesus Christ was also called CHORUS or HORUS. Moreover, the name CHORUS on the mosaic depicting Christ in the Church of Christ Hora in Istanbul is written like this: “NHOR”, that is, ICHORS. The letter I used to be written as N. The name IGOR is almost identical to the name IKHOR OR KHOR, since the sounds X and G could pass into each other. By the way, it is possible that the respectful name HERO also came from here, which later entered many languages ​​practically unchanged.

And then the necessity of masking the Vedic inscriptions becomes clear: their discovery on the icons could lead to the accusation of the icon painter of belonging to the Old Believers, and for this, according to Nikon's reform, could be punished by exile or the death penalty.

On the other hand, as it now becomes clear, the absence of Vedic inscriptions made the icon a non-sacred artifact. In other words, it was not so much the presence of narrow noses, thin lips and large eyes that made the image sacred, but just the connection with the god Yar in the first place and with the goddess Mara in the second place, through implicit reference inscriptions, added magic and miraculous properties to the icon. Therefore, icon painters, if they wanted to make an icon miraculous, and not a simple artistic product, were OBLIGED to supply any image with the words: FACE OF YAR, MIM OF YAR AND MARY, TEMPLE OF MARY, YARA TEMPLE, YARA RUSSIA, etc.

Nowadays, when the persecution on religious charges has ceased, the icon painter no longer risks his life and property by making implicit inscriptions on modern icon paintings. Therefore, in a number of cases, namely in the cases of mosaic icons, he no longer tries to hide such inscriptions as much as possible, but transfers them to the category of semi-explicit ones.

Thus, the Russian material revealed the reason why explicit inscriptions on icons moved into the category of semi-explicit and implicit ones: a ban on Russian Vedism, which followed from reforms of Patriarch Nikon . However, this example gives grounds for speculating about the same motives for masking obvious inscriptions on coins.

In more detail, this idea can be expressed as follows: once the body of a deceased priest (mime) was accompanied by a funeral golden mask, on which there were all the relevant inscriptions, but made not very large and not very contrasting, so as not to destroy the aesthetic perception of the mask. Later, instead of a mask, they began to use smaller objects - pendants and plaques, which also depicted the face of a deceased mime with corresponding discreet inscriptions. Even later, portraits of mimes migrated to coins. And such images were preserved as long as the spiritual power was considered the most significant in society.

However, when power became secular, passing to military leaders - princes, leaders, kings, emperors, images of authorities, and not mimes, began to be minted on coins, while images of mimes migrated to icons. At the same time, the secular authorities, as more rude, began to mint their own inscriptions weightily, rudely, visibly, and obvious legends appeared on the coins. With the advent of Christianity, such explicit inscriptions began to appear on icons, but they were no longer made with the runes of the Family, but with the Old Slavonic Cyrillic font. In the West, a Latin script was used for this.

Thus, in the West there was a similar, but still somewhat different motive, according to which the implicit inscriptions of mimes did not become explicit: on the one hand, the aesthetic tradition, on the other hand, the secularization of power, that is, the transfer of the function of governing society from priests to military leaders and officials.

This allows us to consider icons, as well as sacred sculptures of gods and saints, as substitutes for those artifacts that previously acted as carriers of sacred properties: golden masks and plaques. On the other hand, icons existed before, but did not affect the sphere of finance, remaining entirely within religion. Therefore, their production has experienced a new heyday.