On Heresy #
What is a deviation from the Orthodox faith called? #
A deviation from the Orthodox faith can be twofold: one from ignorance, and the other from resistance. The first deviation is called ignorance and delusion, and the second is called apostasy and heresy.
Venerable Maximus the Greek writes: “Whoever, having been admonished, firmly clings to his false opinion and vehemently speaks against the truth without hope of correction, such a person is a heretic, according to the divine apostle and Chrysostom, who say: a heretic is one who follows his false opinion and clings firmly to it. But if it is done out of ignorance, then he is called a deluded one, not a heretic” (his ancient manuscript, word 78). And in Alpha and Omega, it is written: “Sin is one thing, and impiety is another. Sin arises from the weakness of a faithful person, who is subject to repentance and cleansing by the Blood of Christ. Impiety is a willful departure from piety, which is also called heresy. For such people not only do not repent of their impiety but also progress in pride, just like Satan himself” (ch. 23).
How can heresy be recognized? #
Heresy, says Athanasius the Great, is named from choosing something of one’s own and following it (answer 38, in the commentary on Proverbs). And in the Explanatory Gospel, it is written: “Many thought they believed, but not rightly, nor as the Scripture says: and since they followed their own heresies, therefore they perished. Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. And again: many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and do many mighty works in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ Thus are all heretics: many false prophets and false teachers appearing as sheep, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves, destroying the flock of Christ” (Pentecost Sunday, leaf 157).
Similarly, in the Kormchaya, it is written: “Therefore the Holy Ecumenical and local Councils, following the God-bearing fathers, have laid down lawful rules for the Holy Church for its establishment, as though fencing it with wondrous walls, so that those who wish to fulfill their evil desires and disobedient conspirators may not easily enter or leave. For He Himself is the doorkeeper who said: ‘I am the Door: if anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.’ And again: `He who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.’ (John 10:1) And whoever enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep: to him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out” (ch. 53, leaf 568 ob., and Evangelist, on John, ch. 35). Therefore bishops, who shepherd the flock of Christ, must in every way conform to Christ, and the apostle also says: “Brothers, be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (ch. 53, leaf 568 ob., and Evangelist, on John, ch. 35).
The great Theodore the Studite says: “Authority is given to the prelate (bishop) in nothing else but to adhere to what is established and to follow what has been set before, to bind and loose not thoughtlessly but according to what is seen as truth and canon and the rule of the highest law” (Nomocanon of Kiev, leaf 152).
Venerable Nikon of the Black Mountain states: “We must in all that we say and do have proof from the divine scriptures, lest, being misled by human thoughts, we fall from the right path and into the pit of destruction” (word 2, leaf 12).
In the book Alpha and Omega, it is written: “Heretics, wanting to compose youthful doctrines and rumors for their own desires, not only gain no benefit from their iniquity and oppression but also bring about the destruction of their own souls, corrupting and being corrupted, introducing human commandments and alien traditions while transgressing the commandments and traditions of the Lord. They despise the commandments and rules established by divine laws, falling into the pits of destruction and being condemned to eternal torment and suffering along with those who accept and listen to them” (ch. 23, at the end). And further: “Envy begets heresy and breaks the laws of nature: from envy they sought to dominate, and from seeking to dominate, they begat heresies.”
Saint Ignatius the God-bearer exclaims: “Anyone who speaks apart from the commandments, even if he is trustworthy, even if he fasts, even if he is celibate, even if he performs signs, even if he prophesies, he should be considered a wolf in sheep’s clothing, causing destruction to the sheep” (Epistle to Heron the Deacon). And again: “And every person who receives the power of discernment from God will be tormented if he follows an unskillful pastor and accepts false teaching as true” (Epistle to the Ephesians).
Are all heresies equal to one another? #
Not all heresies are equal.
Venerable Joseph of Volokolamsk says: “Heretics do not all think alike, but some in one way, others in another: the Paulicians and Photinians, the Franks and Eunomians, the Montanists and Sabellians, and the Marcionites and Ishmaelites, and others like them—they do not believe in the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity. They do not call our Lord Jesus Christ God and do not accept His incarnation: some call Him a prophet, others a mere man. About these, all divine scriptures say that when they come to the Orthodox faith, they should first fast for a considerable time and stand outside the church, and then be baptized, like the pagans… There are also other heretics, although they think wrongly, not as the former ones, who are the Novatians and Donatists, the Sabbatarians and the Quartodecimans, and others like them—these confess the Holy Consubstantial Trinity and our Lord Jesus Christ as the true God, and believe in His incarnation, but have some heresies within themselves, and if they wish to come to the Orthodox faith and renounce their heresy, divine scripture does not command them to be baptized but to be received as already baptized and quickly made partakers of the Holy Mysteries” (Enlightener, word 15).
The above-mentioned distinction of heresies is also seen in the very decrees of the Holy Ecumenical and local councils, specifically in their canons: the First Ecumenical Council’s 8th and 19th canons, the Second’s 7th, or 7th and 8th, the Sixth’s 95th, the Laodicean Council’s 7th and 8th, which determine the acceptance of those coming from heresies—some to be baptized, others to be anointed with chrism, and others to simply renounce their heresies. The explanation for this distinction in acceptance is sufficiently indicated in the 1st canon of Basil the Great, and a more detailed enumeration of the various heresies is contained in the word of Timothy the Presbyter found in the 70th chapter of the Kormchaya and in the 63rd word of Nikon of the Black Mountain.
How harmful are heresies? #
In the book “Alpha and Omega,” the words of John Chrysostom are quoted: “If you associate with good people, such thoughts will be born in you. But if you associate with the wicked out of some necessity and do not guard yourself, you will receive much harm from them.” Saint Isidore of Pelusium said: “Just as fishermen hide the hook with bait and unsuspectingly catch fish, so do the wicked advocates of heresies, covering their evil intentions with smooth words, attract the simple-minded to death. Therefore, with all vigilance guard your heart, for they strive to cast everyone into Gehenna.” And Saint Anthony the Great: “Conversation with heretics is the destruction of the soul, their words are more poisonous than snake venom” (ch. 23).
Nevertheless, we should not be distressed by the existence of heresies, says John Chrysostom: “There were false Christs and those who schemed against Christ, both before and after Him, wishing to obscure Him. But the truth is not obscured and shines everywhere. The same happened with the prophets: false prophets appeared, but the true prophets became brighter by comparison. Just as disease makes health clearer, darkness—light, and storm—calm. The Gentiles cannot say that the apostles were deceivers and impostors, for such people were exposed. The same happened with Moses: God allowed magicians to act so that Moses would not be taken for a magician; by His permission, they showed everyone to what extent their craft could go, but could deceive no further, and they themselves admitted defeat. Deceivers do not harm us, but rather make those who wish to be attentive more perfect” (46th Homily on the Acts of the Apostles).
How should we guard against heretics? #
The venerable fathers Barsanuphius and John, when asked whether one should trust someone suspected of heresy if they profess the right faith, and whether a brother should leave an abbot if it is discovered that the abbot is infected with heresy, replied: “The fathers required only the correct confession of faith. If it is indeed found that someone blasphemes Christ with their mouth and lives without Him, such a person should be avoided and not approached. Anyone who does not keep Christ’s commandments from the heart is already a heretic. If a person does not believe in their heart, their words will be of no benefit to them. When it is indeed discovered that an abbot is infected with heresy, he should be left. If he is only suspected, he should not be left, nor should one even inquire about him, for what is hidden is known to God, and what is apparent is known to men” (questions 533 and 534 in their book).
The Explanatory Gospel states: “When they harm virtue and piety, whether it is the father, mother, children, brothers, or friends, they should be abandoned, and not only abandoned but also hated as enemies of the truth and as adversaries of Christ’s law” (Second Sunday after All Saints, and in the Sunday of All Saints).
All heretics must be avoided, for their company is as harmful as the company of lepers (Maximus the Greek, word 78).
We should flee from the wicked as from destroyers, for when one sees evil, it is easy to follow it. Therefore, God commanded the Israelites not to marry foreigners, lest they adopt their evil customs (Mirror of the Universe, part 2, ch. 27).
Venerable Ephraim the Syrian in word 106 exclaims: “Woe to those who defile the holy faith with heresies, or who mix with heretics.”
In the Prologue, December 5th, it is written from Limonius: “Father George reported that a certain elder monk in the monastery of Saint Theodosius was indiscriminate about the faith, and often left his cell. Wherever he found people singing in a church, whether Egyptians, Armenians, or other heretical non-believers, he would enter their church and stand until the end of the service. Once an Angel of God appeared to him and said: ‘Tell me, elder, if you die, how do you want to be buried: as an Egyptian, Armenian, heretic, or Jerusalemite?’ The elder replied: ‘I do not know.’ Then the Angel said: ‘Reflect on yourself, for I will come to you in three weeks and you will tell me.’ The elder went to another discerning monk and told him the words of the Angel. Upon hearing this, the monk looked at him closely and said: ‘Do you go to the churches of non-believers?’ He replied: ‘Yes, wherever I find singing, I go and listen, whether they are Armenians, Egyptians, or heretics.’ Then the monk said to him: ‘Oh, brother, although you have the right faith, you have become estranged from the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by going to the churches where the four councils of holy fathers are not mentioned: those in Nicaea (318), in Constantinople (150), in Ephesus (200), and in Chalcedon (630). When the Angel comes to you, say to him: “I want to be a Jerusalemite.”’ After three weeks, the Angel of the Lord came to him and asked: ‘What have you decided about yourself?’ The elder said: ‘I want to be a Jerusalemite.’ The Angel said: `You have wisely saved your soul from torment,’ and immediately the elder gave up his spirit.”
In Aristine’s commentary on the 9th canon of the Carthage Council: “If anyone associates with heretics and prays with them, he does not associate with the faithful, but should be cast out of the Church.”
Canon 31 of the Laodicean Council states: “It is not appropriate to make a marriage alliance with any heretic or to give sons or daughters to them in marriage unless they promise to become Christians. Canon 32: It is not appropriate to accept blessings from heretics, which are rather vain words than blessings. Canon 33: It is not appropriate to pray with a heretic or schismatic.”
The commentators on the sacred canons say: Zonara: “If the faithful should not eat or pray together with heretics, nor accept blessings from them, then they should not marry them, nor give their sons or daughters to them in marriage, for they will teach them their evil thoughts and lead them away from the true faith into their corrupt beliefs. But if heretics wish to give their children in marriage to the faithful, promising to become Christians or to turn from their corrupt teachings to Orthodoxy, then this is allowed by the present canon… Heretics are those who err in faith, and schismatics are those who think rightly about faith and dogmas, but for some reasons distance themselves and organize their separate assemblies.” Aristine: “Do not pray with heretics or schismatics; whoever prays with them loses communion. Valsamon: These three canons have equal force, for they command the faithful not to eat with heretics, not to pray with them, not to accept blessings from them, not to marry them, neither on their own behalf nor to give their children in marriage to heretics, for they will teach them their worship and lead them away from the true faith. But if heretics wish to give their children in marriage to the faithful, promising to become believers, this is allowed by the canon.”
The Slavic Kormchaya of the holy apostles, canon 71: “If any Christian brings oil to a Jewish synagogue, or to a heretical church, or to a pagan temple on their feast, or lights incense or a candle, let him be excommunicated.” Canon 10 of the holy apostles Peter and Paul: “If an ungodly person holds a gathering, flee from it, for it is defiled by them: just as the holy bishops sanctify, so the ungodly defile.” Canon 9: “If it is not possible to gather in the church because of unbelievers or heretics, gather in a house for prayer: about the bishop, let the pious not enter the church of the ungodly: for the place does not sanctify the person, but the person sanctifies the place.” Canon 11: “If it is not possible to gather together in a house or church, let each one pray alone, or let two or three pray together. For where two or three are gathered in My name, I am there in their midst.”
The previous answer shows that the faithful should not eat with heretics, but the holy apostle says: “If any of the unbelievers invites you, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake” (1 Cor. 10:27). #
The holy apostle does not command insistently to go to feasts with unbelievers but leaves this decision to the conscience of the invited, if he does not want to go, the apostle does not compel him, and if he wants to go, the apostle does not forbid it. In the early Church, not so many rules were given to the faithful as are now maintained by the Church of Christ. Therefore, much was left to the decision of the believer’s own conscience, which for those living in the fear of God serves as a general rule. For it is written, “By the fear of the Lord one departs from evil” (Proverbs 16:6). And just as in the communion of love and eating with unbelievers, not only can Christians be harmed, but sometimes unbelievers themselves benefit. Thus, the apostle left the decision of this case to the conscience of those invited. But later, when the fear of God weakened among believers, and more harm than good began to be seen in their indiscriminate association in eating and love with unbelievers, the fathers of the Church, concerned for the common good, forbade the faithful to eat with unbelievers and heretics. However, this does not entirely deny the freedom of conscience given by the apostle to mature Christians. As seen from the following statement of John Climacus: “The weak should not eat with heretics, as the rules have said, but the strong in the Lord, if invited by unbelievers in faith, may go unto the glory of the Lord” (Ladder, Step 30 to the shepherd, and Nikon of the Black Mountain, word 25).
Therefore, the indiscriminate eating of food with heretics and unbelievers, as forbidden by the holy fathers, we cannot consider infallible, but rather we are obliged to prohibit it for those spiritually weak, while not rejecting the voluntary decision of conscience left by the apostle to those who have reached the age of a perfect man in the Lord.
Is it correct to say that heresy only involves the violation of divine dogmas and not church traditions and rituals? #
The traditions and customs upheld in the Church are not all of the same origin: some are upheld by the tradition of the Lord Himself and His holy apostles, others were established by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, as the thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and hundredfold fruit of believers in thanksgiving to their Lord God. Others were remnants of Jewish and pagan customs and morals, which, although not fully corresponding to the height of the Christian spirit, were left for the newly converted to Christianity, as soft food for infants until they mature.
Thus, the traditions of the Lord and His holy apostles were commanded by the apostles themselves to be kept unchanged, as the apostle Paul says to the Thessalonians: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). And again: “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). He also commands Timothy: “O Timothy, guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith” (1 Timothy 6:20-21). He praises the Corinthians for keeping these traditions, saying: “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you” (1 Corinthians 11:2).
Unchanging adherence to anything may also signify the Greek word “dogma.” The Holy Church believes that the sacraments existing within it, for the spiritual rebirth and sanctification of its children, are performed even in their visible aspects according to the tradition of the Lord and His holy apostles. Therefore, it does not allow any changes to their essential performance, as shown by the 46th, 47th, 49th, and 50th apostolic canons, which subject bishops to deposition for both accepting and performing baptisms not according to their tradition.
The traditions and customs restored by the height of the Christian spirit were accepted into the Church as voluntary offerings of perfect sacrifices, similar to the Old Testament offering of whole burnt offerings. Such customs were observed with due respect, many of which were not obligatory for all, and some were even altered for blessed reasons. However, their corrupt violation is called heresy, as demonstrated by the following apostolic statement: “For there must also be heresies among you, that those who are approved may be recognized among you” (1 Corinthians 11:19). According to Chrysostom’s interpretation, the term “heresies” here does not refer to doctrinal errors but to actual disputes among the Corinthians (Apostolic Homilies on the words of the apostle). These disputes arose from the violation of the custom of the love feast, which included providing a common meal for all after the divine liturgy. This custom was a remnant of the even higher and more perfect practice of the early Christian Church, where all believers laid their possessions at the feet of the holy apostles and considered them common property. However, when Ananias and Sapphira began to corrupt this practice with deceit, they received the death penalty for it (Acts 5:5, 10).
But those traditions and customs that continued as condescensions to those not yet spiritually mature, as remnants of pagan or Jewish customs, could be not only altered but even completely abolished when the Church reached a higher level of perfection, like infant food unsuitable for mature adults. The fact that such traditions and customs were indeed abolished is evidenced by the holy apostles’ initial acceptance of the Jewish believers in Christ practicing the Mosaic law’s rites, and they even performed them themselves, as they advised Paul to do purification in Jerusalem (Acts 21:23-24). But later, when excessive zealots insisted that all, including Gentile Christians, strictly observe these rites, the apostles, after careful consideration, found it unnecessary to require the observance of the Mosaic law’s rites for faith in Christ and freed Gentile Christians from this excessive burden (Acts 15:5-29). However, when some continued to insist to the Galatians that it was necessary to observe the Mosaic law, as if faith in Christ alone was insufficient, the holy apostle Paul, although he himself underwent purification and circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) and knew that there were several Jewish believers who were zealous for the Mosaic law’s rites (Acts 21:20), did not spare the Galatian preachers, condemning them as corrupters of the pure gospel with a double anathema (Galatians 1:8-9).
Thus, it is clear that the traditions of Christ the Lord and His holy apostles, like dogmas, are not subject to change. The traditions and customs that arise from the height of the Christian spirit, although perfected and altered for blessed reasons, were nevertheless strictly condemned when corrupted through deceit, as seen in the condemnation of the Corinthians’ disregard for the love feast and the death penalty for Ananias and Sapphira. But some customs tolerated until the greater perfection of the Church, as remnants of pagan and Jewish morals, were abolished and completely terminated when they obstructed the greater success and expansion of the Christian Church, as shown by the interpretations of the 11th canon of the Laodicean Council.
Did the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s twelfth canon change apostolic tradition by mandating the deposition of bishops if they did not separate from their wives, while the fifth canon of the holy apostles condemned bishops for sending away their wives? Furthermore, the First and Second Ecumenical Councils mandated the celebration of Easter on the Sunday following the 14th day of the first moon, whereas the churches in Asia celebrated Easter on the very 14th day of the moon, even if it fell in the middle of the week. Historical accounts suggest that this practice was introduced by the Apostle John the Theologian. Was this not an alteration of apostolic tradition? #
Yes, calling this an apostolic tradition does not have firm grounds. Saint Chrysostom, instructing on how to examine scriptures, advises not paying attention to mere words, but to consider the intention of the speaker (Homilies on Galatians 1:17). Thus, to properly understand these issues, we must pay close attention to the cause and purpose of what was said.
Firstly, let us examine the cause behind the issuance of the fifth apostolic canon. The Gospel shows that Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce their wives even without any significant reason, provided he gave her a certificate of divorce. However, Christ condemns unjustified divorce as adultery (Matt. 5:31-32, 19:7-9). Like deeply ingrained diseases, deeply rooted bad habits are not quickly corrected: it is clear that Christ’s commandment on unjustified divorce did not immediately take root among Christians. Therefore, the holy apostles decided to completely eradicate the bad Jewish custom of unjustified divorce among Christians by issuing the fifth canon, which states: “A bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, shall not put away his wife under the pretense of piety. If he does, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.”
Nevertheless, the holy apostles, by this canon, only eradicated the old custom of unjustified divorce, and did not touch upon the right of divorce as indicated by Christ’s commandments. In Christ’s saying, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32), it is evident that Christ permits divorce for the cause of adultery. In line with this, the Council of Neocaesarea states: “If a priest’s wife commits adultery after his ordination, he must divorce her. If he continues to live with her, he cannot perform his duties” (Canon 8). We cannot assume that the fifth apostolic canon contradicts this, but rather it clearly excludes from its definition divorce consistent with Christ’s commandment, as its phrase “under the pretense of piety” certainly does not mean “for the sake of piety,” but rather is said in direct opposition to it. For if anyone were to expel their adulterous wife for the sake of piety, they would not be guilty, but rather praiseworthy. Hence, the fifth apostolic canon judges not for true piety, but for those who expel their wives under the pretense of piety. And it certainly could not judge for leaving a wife for true piety, for the apostles themselves left their wives, as seen when the Apostle Peter, speaking for all the apostles, asks Christ: “See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore, what shall we have?” Jesus replied: “Assuredly I say to you, that in the resurrection, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses, or brothers, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life” (Matt. 19:27-30).
That the holy apostles, for the sake of freer service to Christ in His gospel preaching, left everything, including their wives if they had them, is also evident from the fact that Nicholas the Deacon, one of the seven chosen, had, according to historians, a beautiful wife, and for the sake of apostolic purity left her, then returned to her, and because the apostles reproached him for it, he turned to heresy and preached the abomination that wives should be shared by all (Baronius, AD 68, no. 4; and Featron Bolshoi, p. 127). Thus, if apostolic purity, among other things, consisted in leaving their wives, and the apostles and all others were not only not forbidden but even reproached those who did not endure to the end in proper chastity, can it be assumed that their fifth canon contradicted this apostolic tradition? This is certainly inadmissible, as even the Sixth Ecumenical Council, prohibiting bishops from living with their wives, states: “This we say not to annul or change the apostolic legislation, but to care for the salvation and progress of people to the better, and to avoid any reproach on the clerical state. For the divine apostle says: Do all to the glory of God: be without offense to Jews or Greeks or to the church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but that of many, that they may be saved. Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ” (Canon 12). Here the council declares that for freer and more fruitful service to the Church, leaving their wives is an apostolic tradition, and that the fifth canon allowed bishops to have wives only out of indulgence, as Zonaras, the commentator on the canons, explains: the apostles, at the beginning of the faith when the divine preaching had not yet spread, were more indulgent to those who came to the faith and did not require perfection in everything but condescended to their weaknesses and to the customs of the Gentiles and Jews. For it was allowed by law for Jewish high priests to live with their wives, and Greek high priests were allowed marriage. But now, since the preaching has spread and the faithful have come to a better state and order, and the life according to the Gospel is strengthening, they say that bishops should lead their lives in strict chastity (commentary on the 12th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).
Thus, it is clear that the apostles, in allowing bishops to have wives, made concessions and tolerance for a time to the customs of the Gentiles and Jews, while their essential tradition was that, according to Christ’s commandment, bishops should leave their wives for freer service to Christ and His Church. This is why in the selection of bishops, those without wives were always given preference over those who were married. Epiphanius, the Archbishop of Cyprus, applied this preferential selection even to all clergy in his church (his life, Lives of the Saints, May 12). In the Roman Church, this has been upheld as a positive rule for over a millennium, which even the First Ecumenical Council intended to confirm, but was prevented by the celibate Paphnutius, Bishop of Thebes, leaving it to the discretion of each (Matthew Vlastar, Syntagma, ch. 2). Therefore, the Sixth Ecumenical Council, by separating wives from bishops, did not violate any essential apostolic tradition but rather corrected to the better what the apostles had tolerated from Gentile and Jewish customs in the Church.
Similarly, no one among the ancients called the celebration of Easter on the 14th day of the first moon apostolic tradition, not even the most prominent defender of such a celebration, the Smyrnean bishop Polycrates, at the end of the second century. He only pointed out that this custom of celebrating Easter had been handed down from ancient times, mentioning Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, and others (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24). Eusebius himself wrote: “At that time (around AD 190), a major contentious issue arose. All the Asian dioceses, relying on an ancient tradition, considered it necessary to celebrate the festival of the saving Passover on the 14th day of the lunar month, when the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, and on that very day, whatever day of the week it happened to be, to end their fast. But other churches throughout the world did not observe this custom, but one derived from apostolic tradition and preserved to this day, that the fast should only end on the day of the resurrection of our Savior. Consequently, councils and conferences of bishops were convened, and all with one consent, through their letters, decided on a uniform rule that the mystery of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead should be celebrated only on the Lord’s day, and that on that day alone we should end our paschal fast” (Book 5, Chapter 23).
According to this, Featron also writes that in the second century, there were seven regional councils in various places, all dealing with the same issue of the date of Easter celebration. The first he mentions was in Rome, chaired by the Roman bishop Victor, who decreed that Easter should be celebrated only on the Lord’s day, that is, on Sunday: 1) because this day should be honored in commemoration of the Lord’s resurrection; 2) because the chief apostles, Peter and Paul, celebrated Easter on this day; 3) because the unity of the Church is of great benefit. Similarly, five other councils, namely those of Caesarea, Gaul, Pontus, Achaia, and Osroene, agreed on the celebration of Easter, with only the Asian council, chaired by Polycrates, dissenting (Featron, 2nd century, p. 145). Baronius also writes: “Bishops from different regions gathered at local councils and agreed that all the eastern churches should always celebrate Easter on the Sunday after the full moon of the first month, that is, March, and not on the Jewish 14th day of the month, whichever day of the week it might be. Only some bishops of Lesser Asia, led by Polycrates, opposed this, claiming that from ancient times, even from the apostles, they had celebrated this day with the Jews and continued to do so, and they could not abandon this tradition” (AD 198, no. 1).
Thus, these testimonies clearly show that celebrating Easter on the 14th day of the moon was a Jewish custom, not an apostolic tradition, even if it was indeed tolerated in Asia by the Apostle John, evidently due to his indulgence towards Jewish Christians, as the Apostle James said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and they are all zealous for the law,” advising him to undergo purification according to the law (Acts 21:20). Under such circumstances, if the Jewish Christians celebrated Easter according to their Jewish custom even during the time of the Apostle John the Theologian, this cannot be considered apostolic tradition, but rather an act of indulgence. However, the actual apostolic tradition regarding this matter should be understood as how they celebrated Easter among the Gentiles: since they could not insist on their custom, given the obvious fact that the Gentiles previously had no concept of celebrating Easter. As the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, according to the testimony of Pope Victor, celebrated Easter not on the 14th day of the moon, but on the Sunday following it, this is further evidenced to be the actual apostolic tradition, as Easter was celebrated in the same way not only in Rome but also in all other Christian regions, except for Asia. When this caused disturbances throughout the Church, it was necessary to find out the true apostolic tradition on this matter and strictly observe it, while rejecting their indulgent allowances, which was done by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. This truth must remain unchanged until the end of time, as the Psalmist says: “The truth of the Lord endures forever” (Psalm 116:2).
Is the change of the two-finger sign of the cross and blessing in agreement with the change of the fifth apostolic canon and the abolition of celebrating Easter on the 14th day of the first moon? #
It is not consistent because, as shown above, allowing bishops to have wives and celebrating Easter prematurely on the 14th day of the first moon was only a concession by the holy apostles to the customs of the Gentiles and Jews. However, such concessions always exist only until they do not cause destruction to the essential apostolic tradition. But the folding of fingers for the sign of the cross could not have been a concession by the holy apostles to any customs of Gentiles or Jews, for the cross is not depicted by anyone except Christians, and Christians were taught to depict it on themselves by the holy apostles. As Basil the Great states: “Of the preserved dogmas and teachings in the Church, some we have from written instruction, and some we have received from the apostolic tradition, handed down in mystery, and both have the same force for piety. And no one will dispute this, even if he has little knowledge of the Church’s regulations. For if we attempt to reject the unwritten customs as having no great force, we will imperceptibly harm the Gospel in its primary matters, or rather reduce the proclamation to a mere name without the actual thing. For example, let us mention the first and most general: who taught by writing that those who hope in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ should be signed with the sign of the cross?” (91st rule of the full version).
But if making the sign of the cross on oneself is an apostolic tradition, then it is clear that folding the fingers to make it is also an apostolic tradition. As testified, firstly, by the Venerable Maximus the Greek, who in his 40th word of his book, writing about the sign of the cross and the two-finger folding for it, calls it the secret apostolic tradition. Later, those who changed the two-finger to three-finger folding also testified about their folding, claiming that they received it from the beginning of the faith from the holy apostles and the holy fathers of the seven ecumenical councils. See the response of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch and other hierarchs to Patriarch Nikon of Moscow in “Skrizhal,” and the determination of the Moscow Council of 1667 in the acts of the Moscow Councils of 1666 and 1667, third volume, p. 6 and 32. If these witnesses show a contradiction in the manner of folding the fingers, it only calls for historical investigation to determine on which side the truth lies. But for us, it is more remarkable that the witnesses, despite disagreeing on the form of the finger folding, agree that folding the fingers for the sign of the cross is an apostolic tradition. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established” (Matt. 18:16). This credibility is not weakened by the witnesses disagreeing for any reason. While they may appear as enemies against each other, testimonies from adversaries are even more reliable. This is stated in the commentary on the Gospel for the Nativity of Christ. The word “more reliable” indicates that their testimonies surpass those that come from the same side. Thus, the folding of fingers for the sign of the cross, with testimony from opposing sides, is an apostolic tradition. Therefore, we cannot consider this tradition as a mere rite or custom of the Church subject to change. Even more so, we cannot allow such change, as both the two-finger and three-finger practices have been affirmed by episcopal anathemas. If a simple apostolic tradition cannot be changed as a dogma, then it certainly cannot be subject to change if affirmed by episcopal anathemas.
The Council of Laodicea, with its 29th canon and anathema, prohibited the celebration of the Sabbath, while the Stoglav Council commanded the celebration of the Sabbath again (chapters 41 and 95). You say that what is prohibited in the Church with an anathema cannot be changed. #
The Council of Laodicea did not prohibit the kind of Sabbath celebration that the Stoglav Council commands. The Council of Laodicea defines: “Christians must not Judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be Judaizers, let them be anathema from Christ” (Canon 29). The reason for issuing this canon is clear: some Christians celebrated the Sabbath in a Jewish manner and worked on Sunday. Therefore, the council, prohibiting the Jewish celebration of the Sabbath, commanded the celebration of Sunday. The Jewish Sabbath celebration, as explained by Valsamon, consisted of complete inactivity from any occupation and even from divine psalm singing (his commentary on this canon). The Christian celebration consists mainly of church prayer, psalm singing, and the teaching of the divine scriptures, which the Council of Laodicea does not prohibit but even confirms, saying: “On the Sabbath, the Gospel and other scriptures shall be read” (Canon 16). Valsamon explains this: on the basis of canons that prescribe not to fast and not to kneel on the Sabbath, people mostly celebrated at this time because there were no church assemblies. Thus, the fathers, averting this, determined that all church services should be performed even on the Sabbath (his commentary on this canon), and Zonaras adds that to strengthen the faithful, the Gospel with other scriptures should be read on the Sabbath (his commentary on this canon).
The Stoglav Council does not contradict this but rather agrees with the 16th canon of the Council of Laodicea, repeating the words of the chief apostles Peter and Paul, saying: “I, Peter and Paul, command people to work five days a week, but on Saturday and Sunday to exercise themselves in church for prayer and teaching for the sake of faith” (chapters 41 and 95 of the Kazan edition). Thus, it is clear that the Stoglav Council does not overturn the anathema of the Council of Laodicea, which still entirely applies to anyone who celebrates the Sabbath in complete inactivity, avoiding even church exercises, in a Jewish manner. On the contrary, the one who denies the Sabbath celebration altogether, even denying the practice of church prayer and teaching on faith at that time, will not be entirely free from it. For in such a case, he directly contradicts not only the Stoglav Council but also the injunction of the holy apostles indicated by Stoglav, and finally, the Council of Laodicea itself, thereby even corrupting the Christian celebration of the Lord’s Day, since the beginning of its spiritual festivity always starts before the complete end of the Sabbath day.
If the folding of the fingers for the sign of the cross is an apostolic tradition, and we see two opposing forms of finger folding in our view — namely, the two-fingered and the three-fingered, which one should be considered the true apostolic tradition? #
The two-fingered folding for the sign of the cross, as well as the sign of the cross itself, is without doubt an apostolic tradition. Although it was handed down unwritten, its traces are found in very ancient times. The Stoglav Council, determining how bishops and priests should bless and make the sign of the cross, and how other Orthodox Christians should make the sign of the cross, provides two testimonies — the Event of Meletius and the Word of Theodoret — and writes about this as follows: “Meletius, the bishop of Sebaste, was renowned in life and word. Due to the lawlessness of those under his authority, he renounced the bishopric and lived in silence. Then the heretics, thinking that Meletius was in agreement with them, asked the emperor to make him patriarch, which he became. When a council was held on the faith of the consubstantiality and the Arians spoke differently, Meletius showed the divine rule clearly. To the people asking for a swift teaching from God, he showed three fingers for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and there was no sign. Then Meletius brought together two fingers and bent three and blessed the people, and from him came forth like a fire of lightning. And the praiseworthy one uttered: `We understand three, but we speak of one,’ and thus shamed the heretics…” (From Theodoret): “Thus bless and cross oneself with three fingers together in the image of the Trinity. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are not three gods but One God in Trinity, divided by names (and persons), but the deity is one. The Father is unbegotten; the Son is begotten, not created; the Holy Spirit is neither begotten nor created but proceeds. Three in one deity, one power, one honor to the deity, one worship from all creation from angels and men, thus showing with these three fingers. Have two fingers bent, not outstretched, to show therein a representation of the two (natures of Christ) the deity and humanity. God by deity and man by incarnation, perfect in both. The upper finger represents the deity, and the lower the humanity, for having descended from on high, He saved the lower. This bending of the finger also signifies: He bowed the heavens and came down (to earth) for our salvation. Thus it is fitting to cross oneself and bless, as indicated and established by the holy fathers” (Stoglav, ch. 31).
Theodoret, the bishop of Cyrus, who lived during the time of the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, strongly opposed the Monophysite heresy, condemned at the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Since this heresy conceived of representing one nature in Christ by depicting the cross with one finger (N. Kapterev, vol. 1, The Time of Patriarch Joseph, p. 83), it is undoubtedly against this heresy that the theological explanation of finger folding for the sign of the cross from the blessed Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, was made, which the Stoglav Council cited as evidence. And Meletius, patriarch of Antioch, died after arriving in Constantinople at the Second Ecumenical Council. Thus, these testimonies clearly show that during the time of the Ecumenical Councils: the Fourth, Third, Second, and even earlier, there existed the two-fingered folding for the sign of the cross and blessing.
But if we add two more artifacts to this: the depiction of the Annunciation in Rome in the catacombs of Saint Priscilla, painted in the third century after Christ, where the right hand of the angel is depicted pointing to the Virgin Mary with a two-fingered folding (Gospel, edition by Rogo de Fleury, p. 16, figure 1; and Historical Studies Serving to Justify Old Belief, vol. 1, in the appendix). And also the icon of the Tikhvin Mother of God, which, according to the tradition of the Holy Church, was painted by the Evangelist Luke, and in it, the right hand of the Pre-Eternal Child is depicted blessing with two fingers. With this evidence, there can no longer be any reason to deny the origin of the two-fingered tradition from the holy apostles. Undoubtedly, it is, as stated by the venerable Maximus the Greek, a secret apostolic tradition, while the three-fingered folding cannot claim such indications of its apostolic origin. Although some of its defenders have tried to seek various testimonies (Proofs of the Antiquity of the Three-Fingered Sign by Ioann Greshny), all these searches are merely false testimony. As acknowledged by the highly respected historian and theologian Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigev, when he wrote an article published in the 7th issue of the Readings of the Society of Historians and Antiquaries in 1847, showing that Orthodox Christians in the East since the appearance of the Monophysite heresy, prayed with two fingers, and when Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, expressed his indignation, Philaret of Chernigev, then still of Riga, defended himself in a letter to A.V. Gorsky on May 26, 1847, saying: “As much as I could, I wrote about the matter as it was in my conscience. If they do not accept the matter as it was, that is not my fault. Orthodoxy does not require rotten supports, such as words about the apostolic origin of the three-fingered sign that are based on nothing” (Orthodox Review, 1857, April, p. 837).
Many interpret the testimonies of the Stoglav Council regarding Meletius and the word of Theodoret in defense of the three-finger sign, rather than the two-finger sign. They also claim that the Stoglav Council erred not only in its indication of these testimonies but even in the very pronouncement of its anathema on those who do not make the sign of the cross with two fingers, thus allegedly exceeding its authority. #
Although the testimonies indicated in the Stoglav are indeed described somewhat differently in other places, their significance remains unchanged from how it was understood by the Stoglav Council. The miraculous event in the folding of the fingers and the blessing of Meletius in the Word on the Sign of the Cross is described as follows: (Meletius) showed them (the people) three fingers, and there was no sign. Then he folded two and bent one, and blessed the people, etc. (The Book of Cyril and the Preface to the Josephine Psalter). And how can this be defined more precisely? If we wish to show only the first three fingers out of the five on the hand, we must necessarily bend the last two. Then, further: when folding two, and bending one, it will inevitably bend towards the previously bent last two, and thus the understanding here will be the same as in the expression of the Stoglav: he showed three fingers in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and there was no sign. Then he folded two, bent three, and blessed the people. Here, with the depiction of the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God is also depicted, who, never separating from the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity, through His incarnation, gave a blessing to the human race. Therefore, this depiction of the providence of the Son of God is not excluded in the blessing, as it is now contained in the Holy Church of Christ. Consequently, even the very interpreters of Meletius’ folding of the fingers into a three-finger sign do not bless with a three-finger sign. And if this narrative does not have a definite expression “he showed three fingers, and there was no sign, then folded them or folded two and bent one,” and nowhere does the Holy Church contain such a custom as to bless people with three fingers, it is impossible to interpret this narrative as a three-finger sign, but as it was correctly understood by the fathers of the Stoglav Council, so it will forever remain in its content that the folding of the fingers for blessing should depict the two great mysteries of the Holy Consubstantial Trinity and the incarnation of the Son of God for our salvation, and not just His name, as is now speculated by those who misinterpret this narrative into a three-finger sign.
Similarly, the word of Theodoret was fully correctly understood by the Stoglav Council, as it was universally cited in the ancient Russian church to confirm that blessings and the sign of the cross should be made with two fingers, and such universal acceptance in understanding fully guarantees its authenticity. Even the original introducers of the three-finger sign understood it this way: for Moscow Patriarch Nikon, in his responsive word, printed in the “Skrižal,” strongly opposes it and completely rejects it, without deriving any defense for the three-finger sign, which the Moscow Council of 1667 fully agreed with. Therefore, to see in it an assertion of the three-finger sign would not only be biased but even extreme shamelessness, which some proponents of the three-finger sign do not tolerate today. For example, the esteemed professor N. Kapterev writes the following about this: Since the second half of the fifteenth century, when the question of the finger arrangement in the sign of the cross first arose in Russia, the so-called word of Theodoret was mainly used, which in all its clear and definite versions teaches the use of the two-finger arrangement in the sign of the cross. All attempts to explain some versions of this word in favor of the three-finger sign have been decisively unsuccessful (first issue, Patriarchate of Joseph, p. 28). And he also says: All attempts by Orthodox polemicists against the schism to undermine this fact (i.e., that previously in the Russian Church the universally accepted and, by the whole Church, recognized as the only correct finger arrangement in the sign of the cross was the two-finger arrangement), all their attempts to interpret all the versions of the teaching on the finger arrangement, which contain any ambiguity and uncertainty, in favor of the existence of the three-finger sign (as a universally recognized custom), have been decisively unsuccessful, as they cannot bring any authoritative evidence in favor of the three-finger sign like those that support the two-finger sign. It must be recognized, as historical truth requires, that the fact of the existence of the two-finger sign in Moscow Russia stands firmly and irrefutably (ibid., p. 61).
Likewise, in the pronouncement of the anathema, “if anyone does not bless with two fingers as Christ did, or does not make the sign of the cross, let him be accursed.” The Stoglav Council did not err nor exceed its authority because it did not pronounce this anathema on its own authority, but based it on the fact that the “holy fathers before it said so.” And the Apostle Paul teaches us to follow the holy fathers, saying: Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith (Hebrews 13:7). To the question, where did the holy fathers say such an anathema, the answer will be the rite of anathematization from the heresy of the Jacobites, where there is such an anathema: “Whoever does not cross themselves with two fingers as Christ did, let him be accursed.” There can be no doubt that the rites were composed by the authoritative fathers of the Church of Christ and were accepted for universal guidance not otherwise than by the conciliar examination of them. Therefore, in the formulation, confirmation, and guidance of this rite, the Stoglav Council justly understood even many holy fathers, as the rite of acceptance from the heresy of the Jacobites has existed in the Holy Church since ancient times. G. Belyaev, publishing the penal lists of Metropolitan Macarius, indicated the lists of the Kormchaya with such a rite from the fourteenth century, and we know one Kormchaya with the same rite even from the thirteenth century (in the village of Gorodets, Nizhny Novgorod province). And that this is not an original convinces us of the very chronicle written in it after the rules of the Council of Carthage, stating: This Zonara was written in the year 6788 by Ioann Dragomir with the permission of Emperor Constantine of Bulgaria and at the price taken from the patriarch for Metropolitan Cyril of Kiev. Perhaps the patriarch here is meant not to be Constantinopolitan, but Bulgarian, as at that time there were patriarchs in Bulgaria as well.
But since the heresy of the Jacobites is the offspring of the Monophysite heresy, revived by Archimandrite Eutychius in Constantinople itself and condemned at the Fourth Ecumenical Council in Chalcedon, there is no doubt that shortly after this condemnation, the rite of acceptance of the Monophysites and Jacobites was formulated in the same Constantinople Patriarchate. And that this rite was indeed in the guidance of the Constantinople Church is seen from the following account by N. Kapterev, borrowed from the Jacobite historian Asseman: In the first half of the eleventh century, the Jacobite Patriarch John the Eighth Abdon, living in Antioch, which at that time belonged to the Greeks, was accused by the Melitene Metropolitan Nicephorus before the Greek Emperor Romanos Argyros of trying to convert the Greeks to his heresy. The emperor ordered John to be brought to Constantinople. On June 15, 1029, John Abdon, with 6 bishops, 20 priests, and Jacobite monks, accompanied by the accuser, Metropolitan Nicephorus, arrived in Byzantium. Here, the Constantinople Patriarch convened a council with the aim of converting the Jacobites to Orthodoxy, but they remained steadfast in their delusion. Then, Asseman says, again convening the assembly, the Patriarch (Greek) and the invited bishops (Greek) ordered John Abdon, the Patriarch, and Elias, the Bishop of Synnada, to be present at the council. After a long debate, unable to convert our (Jacobites) to their opinion, they demanded only that they should not mix oil in the Eucharist and should pray not with one finger, but with two (Kapterev, vol. 1, The Patriarchate of Joseph, p. 80). Comparing this with the following denials from the rite of acceptance of the Jacobites: Pouring oil on the bread and consecrating it shall be accursed… Whoever does not cross himself with two fingers as Christ did shall be accursed (Dmitrievsky’s “Divine Service in the Russian Church in the Sixteenth Century,” appendix, p. 58). It is impossible to deny that the Constantinople Council of 1029 did not have this rite in the guidance of its church.
But if in the eleventh century, the Constantinople Church maintained the rite of acceptance from the Jacobite heresy with an anathema on those who do not cross themselves with two fingers, it is clear that the original formulation of this dates back to the time when the Monophysite heresy was condemned.
Thus, to follow the traditions of church rites that existed during the time of the Ecumenical Councils, can it be a cause of exceeding authority for any local sanctified council? But this is not allowed to be denied by what was said at the Seventh Ecumenical Council: Whoever rejects any ecclesiastical tradition, written or unwritten, let him be anathema (Council Acts, vol. 7, p. 612). If from this it is clearly concluded that not only the council but even individually each bishop or priest is obliged to follow what the Holy Church has accepted and maintains in its rites, then the Stoglav Council, by anathematizing those who do not cross themselves with two fingers, did not exceed its authority in the least, because in this, it only confirmed what the Holy Church held in the rite of acceptance from the Jacobite heresy before it.
In previous responses, references are made to Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, and P. Kapterev. However, the first of them proposed a theory that initially Christians, against pagan polytheism, depicted the cross with one finger. Then, when Arius appeared with his malice against the Holy Trinity, the Orthodox turned to the three-finger sign. During the turmoil of the Christ’s Church by Monophysitism, they turned to the two-finger sign. The latter states that initially, it was the one-finger sign, and from the time of Monophysitism, the two-finger sign was used by the Orthodox to depict the cross on themselves. Is this teaching justified? #
It is not justified. It is true that these esteemed individuals have said a lot correctly regarding the two-finger sign, but it is regrettable that they did not clarify the whole truth about it to the end. Filaret of Chernigov, to confirm his theory, quotes St. John Chrysostom: “When you sign yourself with the cross, imagine the full significance of the cross… it should not be done simply with a finger (here he also added its Greek name, written in Greek as `dactyl’), but it should be preceded by heartfelt disposition and complete faith.” He refers to the 54th homily from Matthew. But we have seen the ancient manuscript Zlatostruy, kept in the library of the Spaso-Euthymius Monastery in Suzdal, which was compiled from the moral teachings of Chrysostom by the Serbian Tsar Simeon. In the 22nd homily of this Zlatostruy, there is a moral teaching from the 54th homily on the evangelist Matthew. Here, the aforementioned words of Chrysostom are present, but the word “finger” is given in the plural, namely: “It should not be done simply with fingers, etc.” This created a puzzle for us: why do the same words of Chrysostom differ among different translators? But thanks to the Greek word “dactyl,” which Filaret of Chernigov wrote in Greek not in singular or plural, but in dual, this puzzle is solved as follows: St. John Chrysostom taught to depict the cross with two fingers, but the translators of his homily did not adhere strictly to the rule of maintaining the dual number. Therefore, one translator, due to the closest similarity in the Greek spelling of the dual number in the nominative and accusative cases with the dative singular, translates it in the singular, considering it permissible, especially since in the Slavic language it is often allowed to express the singular instead of the dual even in understanding. For example, very often they say: “heard with my ear,” or: “saw with my eye.” But everyone understands that this means both ears of the listener and both eyes of the seer. Another translator translates the dual number of the Greek word in the plural on the basis that in the absence of the dual number in the Slavic language, as in Russian, the dual number is usually expressed in the plural.
Similarly, the following saying of Chrysostom in Margarita should be understood: “The Lord showed His philanthropy so much that even the righteous were envious. And those who worked in the vineyard from the morning murmured against the master, saying: this last one (that is, who came to the vineyard at the eleventh hour), this old man, this one who barely bent his knees to your worship, this one who barely managed to make the sign of the cross on himself with trembling fingers, etc.” (Homily 1 on the Catechumens, p. 387). Moreover, the fact that St. John Chrysostom was baptized and even ordained a deacon by St. Meletius, Patriarch of Antioch, who, in a dispute with heretics, blessed with two fingers with the miracle of fiery lightning, completely refutes the above-mentioned assumption that in the days of St. John Chrysostom the one-finger sign was practiced in the church for the sign of the cross and blessing. But if the testimony about the one-finger sign is so weak, then the assumption of the three-finger sign by Filaret of Chernigov is even weaker.
To confirm the three-finger sign, he pointed to the saying of Cyril of Jerusalem: “Let us boldly depict the sign of the cross on our foreheads and on everything with our fingers” (Catechetical Lecture 13, para. 36). But since the words preceding this saying of Cyril of Jerusalem are: “Therefore, let us not be ashamed to confess the Crucified: let us boldly depict the sign of the cross on our foreheads and on everything with our fingers.” Here, following the previous words, it is commanded to confess the Crucified (Christ) with fingers. But such a confession is depicted not in the three-finger sign, but in the two-finger sign. This is how T. Filippov understood this place, who in his reading in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment “On the Needs of Unification,” on March 13, 1874, among other things, says: “The Old Believers fold two fingers to confess the Crucified, according to the word of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, as well as according to the expression of Peter of Damascus, not only by depicting the cross on the forehead and on everything, but also by the way they fold their fingers” (His Contemporary Church Issues, p. 421).
In the book of Cyril of Jerusalem translated in the Yaroslavl Seminary by the appointment of the Holy Synod in 1824, the above-mentioned words of St. Cyril are read as follows: “Let us not be ashamed to confess the Crucified: let us boldly depict the sign of the cross on our foreheads and on everything with our hand.” Here, instead of the word “fingers,” it is said “hand.” Such a change of the word can only be explained by the fact that the translators understood the two-finger sign under the word “fingers,” which is why they replaced it with the word “hand,” submitting to the then-prevailing spirit of hatred towards the two-finger sign.
That the ruling Greek-Russian church indeed hates the two-finger sign is also proven by the fact that in the synodal edition of Dobrotolubiye, it distorted the book of Peter of Damascus by excluding from the last word of the first book his testimony about the two-finger sign, which according to the Greek original reads as follows: “For two fingers and one hand represent the crucified Lord Jesus Christ, known in two natures and one hypostasis” (Reading of T. Filippov “On the Needs of Unification” in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. His Contemporary Church Issues, p. 416).
But let’s return to the previously mentioned saying of Cyril of Jerusalem: “Let us boldly depict the sign of the cross on our foreheads and on everything with our fingers,” which Filaret of Chernigov cited to prove the three-finger sign. However, Professor Kapterev was not convinced by this to say what Filaret said, allegedly that during the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, the three-finger sign was practiced in the church. This is how weak and unfounded Filaret of Chernigov’s testimony was for Kapterev, and equally, his testimony about the one-finger sign has no solid independence. He based this primarily on the above-examined saying of Chrysostom and then pointed to St. Epiphanius, Blessed Jerome and Theodoret, church historians Sozomen and John Moschus, and St. Gregory the Great and others, relying entirely on the indications made by Metropolitan Macarius of Moscow and Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov, without any critical verification of them.
But if we recall the 130th rule, or according to full translations, the 145th rule of the Council of Carthage (which states: “When accusers bring many accusations against those in the clergy, and one of them, which was first investigated, could not be proven: after this, the other accusations should not be accepted”), and apply this to the fact that many advocates of the three-finger sign attacked the apostolic tradition of the two-finger sign with captious accusations, then such testimonies about the one-finger sign should no longer be believed, because they are set to undermine the two-finger sign. Moreover, after examining the first of them (from John Chrysostom), there is no direct confirmation of the one-finger sign, it is evident that there is no greater persuasiveness in the rest of them, as they were placed after Chrysostom, thus at a secondary level.
Even N. Kapterev, naively trusting these testimonies, stated that the Monophysites adhered to the oldest form of finger arrangement — the one-finger sign, in clear contradiction to what he himself pointed out from Prateolus and Combesis, that the Jacobites invented it and that they crossed themselves with one finger, as they recognized one nature in Christ. Moreover, they invented such a custom (Vol. 1, Kapterev, p. 83). But if the Jacobites invented or devised the custom of the one-finger sign, then it is evident that it did not exist before Monophysitism, and therefore the esteemed professor contradicts the testimony he himself pointed out. Consequently, all assumptions about the existence of the one-finger sign from apostolic times lose all power to move the apostolic tradition of the two-finger sign from its place.