[two-finger], one of the forms of Christ. finger-folding for making the sign of the cross and for giving a blessing: 2 fingers, index and middle, are extended (the middle finger is slightly bent), and the thumb and ring fingers and little finger are folded together. The question of the rejection of D. became one of the main disagreements between supporters and opponents of the liturgical reform in the Russian Church in the middle - 2nd half. XVII century, which caused a split in the Old Believers.
The emergence of D.
The practice of overshadowing oneself with the sign of the cross existed already in early Christ. era: the overshadowing of the mouth with the sign of the cross is mentioned in the 17th chapter. the apocryphal "Gospel of Nicodemus", chela - in Tertullian (see: PL. 2. Col. 80; in another work of Tertullian (see: PL. 1. Col. 392) it is said about the designation of the body in general, as well as his bed) , pl. parts of the body - in various apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (for example, in the 11th chapter of the Martyrdom of Matthew); it is possible that the practice of inscribing the sign of the cross on oneself, understood as one of the variants of writing the name of God, goes back to the intertestamental tradition (see: Giessen Ch. The Divine Name in Ante-Nicene Christology // VChr. 2003. Vol. 57. P. 115 -158). Sources older than the 4th century. did not retain descriptions of what kind of sign composition was used when drawing the sign of the cross, but from their instructions on sealing different parts of the body with a cross separately, it can be assumed that one finger was used to make the sign of the cross (for example, the custom to overshadow the forehead with a cross with one thumb was well known in the Roman rite from antiquity, it has been preserved to this day in the Catholic tradition).
The unanimity is directly evidenced by many. St. fathers and church writers of the 4th-8th centuries: Saints Epiphanius of Cyprus (see: PG. 41. Col. 428), John Chrysostom (PG. 58. Col. 537; in the full edition of the Slavic manuscripts of Zlatostruy, the word “finger” is not given in units (as in the Greek original), but in plural (see, for example: RSL. MDA. No. 43. L. 149.1473-1474) - this reading option was used by Old Believer polemists (see, eg: Arseny Uralsky. 1999. S. 55) to prove the advantage of D. over single-mindedness, although in other glory. manuscripts of the writings of St. John Chrysostom in the indicated place the word "finger" is translated into singular. hours - see, for example: RSL. Trinity. No. 92. L. 272, XVII century; No. 93. L. 194, XVII century; No. 95. L. 66v., XVI century; No. 97. L. 62v., XVI century), blzh. Theodoret of Cyrus (PG. 82. Col. 1312, 1328; 2 of these narratives is placed in the printed editions of the Slavic Prologue under November 2 - see, for example: Prologue. M., 1642. L. 291), Sozomen (PG. 67. Col. 1497), author of The Spiritual Meadow John Moskh (PG. 87ϒ. Col. 2953), St. Andrew of Crete (PG. 97. Col. 1228), Blessed. Jerome of Stridon (PL. 22. Col. 898), St. Gregory the Dialogist (PL. 77. Col. 211, 301). But single-mindedness was hardly the only way to make the sign of the cross. Yes, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking of the image of the cross on the forehead and on the whole body (PG. 33. Col. 816), uses the word "fingers" in the plural. hours; about "fingers" in pl. h. is also said in glory. collection of Margaret, in a word attributed to St. John Chrysostom, but written no earlier than 431 (PG. 59. Col. 582; this word is cited by D.'s defenders as evidence of its existence under St. John Chrysostom - see, for example: Arseny Uralsky. S. 56).
During the controversy, the 2nd half. XVII - beginning. 20th century on the issue of D., both his supporters and his opponents often referred to certain early Christs. and Byzantium. iconographic images. To a very large extent, the widespread use of the ancient Christs. images for the purpose of apology D. was due to the fact that in the later practice that persisted in Russia until the reforms of Patriarch Nikon, the same D. was used both when making the sign of the cross and with a priestly (or episcopal) blessing, so any images of the Lord Jesus Christ or saints with a raised hand and a sign of the cross, similar to D., were perceived as an unequivocal evidence of D. (i.e., in other words, as images of a blessing using D.; it should be noted that the actual sign of the cross in Christ. iconography is found rarely). Similar images from the 4th century. indeed enough is known (see selection (datings are not always accurate) in the work of an Old Believer polemicist of the early 20th century: Bystrov. 2001); however, along with D., in the iconography of the Lord Jesus Christ and the saints, there are often other significations (see: Artelt. 1933; Gro ß. 1969) - just an open palm, an outstretched index finger, etc. oratorical gesture (when all fingers, except for the thumb and ring fingers, are extended, and these 2 are folded together), dating back to the ancient tradition; the emergence of D. in Christ. iconography was often associated with the aforementioned oratorical gesture. However, as shown by T. Michels (Michels. 1967), such an approach to D. in iconography, when it is identified with D. by signing of fingers with blessing (and even more so by the sign of the cross), is incorrect; D. in the iconography of the Lord Jesus Christ (and then the saints) is associated with the so-called. a gesture of grandeur (German: Hoheitsgestus), which consisted in raising a hand with the index and middle fingers extended and joined together and the rest bent (that is, outwardly coinciding with D.), which goes back to pre-Christ. Rome. tradition, where it was used in the imp. iconography as a sign of triumph. Thus, one of the earliest images of Christ with a gesture of majesty (erroneously identified by polemicists with D.) in the plot “The Lord’s Entry into Jerusalem” on the sarcophagus of Adelphia (Volbach W. F. Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spatantike und des frühen Mittelalters. Mainz, 19522. Taf. 38); the symbolism of the gesture does not consist in the two-fingered blessing of the inhabitants of Jerusalem by Christ, but in the fact that He is depicted as entering the Holy City as the Conqueror and true King. Last gesture of greatness, as well as other attributes imp. iconography (throne, claves, etc.) ), becomes a common element in depictions of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory.
D. when making the sign of the cross, as the Russians believed. researchers XIX - early. 20th century (cm.: Filaret (Gumilevsky). 1847. S. 31-32; Kapterev. 1913. S. 79-82, etc.), its appearance was due to the spread starting from the middle. 5th century the heresies of Monophysitism; although direct evidence of this so-called sp. no, from Monophysite sources and from later evidence of Orthodox-Monophysite polemics (see, for example: PG. 133. Col. 296-297; for other examples, see the book: Kapterev. S. 74-79; among those published in In the 20th century, there are also new interpretations of single-fingeredness as a symbol of Monophysitism that were not taken into account by researchers of the past, it is clear that for Monophysites one-fingeredness served as an argument in favor of Monophysitism, which forced the Orthodox to use D. as a counterargument. The distribution of D. (which took place not only in the Greek world, but also in the West) should have been facilitated by its consolidation in iconography (but not vice versa).
A famous example of the use of fingers in a theological discussion, described by Sozomen (Sozom . Hist. eccl. 4. 28) and Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrus (Theodoret. Hist. eccl. 2. 31), - speech of St. Meletios of Antioch at the Council of Antioch in 361 with a denunciation of Arianism, when he illustrated the idea of the consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by unbending 3 fingers of the hand and then bending 2 of them; after in Russia, this example played a certain role in the controversy around D., since it was interpreted as evidence of a certain ring composition (although such a conclusion cannot be drawn from the story of ancient church historians).
After the spread of D., its theological interpretation as a confession of two natures in Christ (which is symbolized by the index and middle fingers connected together) and at the same time the trinity of the Persons of the Godhead (which symbolizes the rest of the fingers connected together) became classical in Byzantium; it is cited, for example, in a work by an unknown anti-Catholic Byzantine. 12th century polemicist (See: Macarius. History of the Republican Center. Book 4. Part 2. S. 66, 216. Note 136). Nevertheless, even after the spread of D. Byzantium. patristic thought continued to emphasize the secondary importance of the method of signification in relation to the very sign of the cross - for example, st. Theodore the Studite wrote that one who depicts the cross "at least somehow and [even] with only one finger, [he] immediately puts to flight the hostile demon" (PG. 99. Col. 1796).
OK. 13th century in Byzantium, D. was supplanted by three fingers (see Art. Sign of the Cross) (Golubinsky. History of the RC. S. 472-475). The first clear evidence of three-fingeredness among the Greeks is the so-called. The debate between Panagiot and Azimites (late quarter of the 13th century; in the Fourth Menaion of Makarievsky it is placed several times, and in the December and June parts he conveys the Greek original (narrating about tripartite) correctly, in August the certificate of tripartite is replaced by evidence about D., which, perhaps, was connected with the Stoglav Cathedral that took place during the creation of the Chetiye Minei (see: Macarius. History of the RC. Book 4. Part 2. S. 60)). However, later evidence of the continuation of existence in Greek is also known. Churches D. (see: Golubinsky. History of the Republican Center. S. 476; Dmitrievsky. Description. T. 2. S. 424; Beneshevich V. N. Old Slavic Pilot XIV titles without interpretation. Sofia, 1987. T. 2. S. 123). Nevertheless, over time, the three-finger spread in Greek. Churches everywhere (for example, in the Pidalion of St. Nikodim the Holy Mountaineer, in the commentary on the 91st rights of St. Basil the Great, D. is mentioned as an old form of signification), and the cases of coexistence of tripartite and D., which obviously took place, never caused controversy and controversy, as happened in Russia.
D. in the Russian Church
Since Russia adopted Christianity during the period of use of D. in Byzantium, it is obvious that D. in the ROC existed from the very beginning. By the 15th century (which may have been associated with the so-called Second South Slavic influence) include evidence of the use of three fingers in Russia (see: Paisievsky collection of the 1st quarter of the 15th century in the National Library of Russia. Kir.-Bel. 4/1081. L. 47; Macarius, History of the Republican Center, book 4, part 2, p. 218, note 144; Sobolevsky, 1909, p. 4). Starting from that time, monuments specially dedicated to D. appeared in Russia, which can be explained by the struggle against the custom of triplets. These include Russian edition of the prologue tale 12 Feb. (but not Aug. 23) about St. Meletius of Antioch (the story of Blessed Theodoret about the speech of the saint at the Council of Antioch is here remade by the Russian editor into the story of the miracle performed by St. Meletius with the help of D.; in this form, the prologue legend of February 12 is included in the printed editions of the Slavs. Prologue, including post-Nikon) and so on. Theodorite word, apparently composed in Russia (publication: Subbotin. 1876; see also: Macarius. History of the RC. Book 4. Part 2. S. 217-218; Golubinsky. History of the RC. S. 477-478; Kapterev, p. 59). The theological content of D. is mentioned in the word of St. Maxim Grek “How to be marked by the sign of the cross” (see, for example: RSL. Trinity. No. 201. L. 430-430 rev.; Macarius. History of the Republican Center. Book 4. Part 2. S. 219. Note. 152 ; Golubinsky . History of the RC. S. 484).
Finally controversy XV - 1st floor. 16th century about D. and triplets was closed by the Stoglavy Cathedral in 1551. In the 31st chapter. Stoglav D. is recognized as the only possible form of sign composition; The text contains extracts from the prologue story about St. Meletius of Antioch and from Theodorit's words. The decisions of the Stoglavy Sobor were sent around Russia in the form of tax lists (see: Kapterev, pp. 59-60).
In the 2nd floor. XVI - 1st floor. 17th century The ROC adhered to a strict position about D. as the only correct sign composition; the question of D., in particular, was raised in the letter of St. Moscow Job to the cargo. Met. Nicholas and in the speeches of the Russian ambassadors in Georgia in 1637 (see: Belokurov S. A. Elder Arseny Sukhanov’s trip to Georgia // KhCh. 1884. March / April. P. 443-488). Elder Arseny Sukhanov, having been on behalf of Patriarch Nikon in Greek. East, entered into polemics with the Greeks about D. (Macariy. History of the Republican Center. Book 7. S. 70), which is set out in his "Article List". Articles about D., harshly denouncing his opponents, are contained in many. early printed editions issued in Russia, Ukraine, Serbia (see: Golubinsky. History of the Republican Center. S. 484-486; Kapterev. S. 60, 64-66, 68-69). This position caused rejection among some representatives of the Greek. Churches (since it implied criticism of the three-fingered, which was interpreted as a blasphemy against the Greek Churches that adhered to the three-fingered) - for example, it is known that in 1650 on Athos the Greeks burned several. Moscow and Serb. books, which taught about D. (Kapterev. S. 67-68).
Establishment of triplets in the Russian Orthodox Church
associated with the name of Patriarch Nikon, who wanted to achieve full compliance between Russian. and Greek liturgical practices. In 1653, before the beginning of Great Lent (that is, until February 20), “Memory” was sent to the churches of Moscow, in which Patriarch Nikon, in particular, ordered to be baptized with three fingers. In part of the clergy, "Memory" caused a sharp negative reaction, which later. and formed the basis of the Old Believer schism. The preservation of D., along with other features of the pre-Nikonian liturgical practice, became the main banner of the Old Believers.
In the transformations, including the replacement of D. with the sign of the cross with three fingers, and with the blessing - with nominative fingers, Patriarch Nikon relied on the authority of the Greek. Churches and sought to enlist the support of the East. hierarchs. March-April In 1654, a Council was held, recognizing the need to correct the service in Greek. type (Makariy. History of the Republican Center. Book 7. S. 81-85). On June 12, 1654, Patriarch Nikon sent a letter to Patriarch Paisius of K-Polish, consisting of 27 questions; The 24th question was devoted to D. The answer to this letter came in 1655; Patriarch Paisios, in particular, wrote about the unimportance of such a ceremonial aspect as signeting, as long as it does not harm the unity of the Church (nevertheless, Patriarch Paisios spoke in favor of triplets as ancient custom; see: ibid. pp. 100-101). Without waiting for the answer of Patriarch Paisius, Patriarch Nikon in March 1655 took several steps. actions to replace D. with three fingers: on the week of Orthodoxy (in 1655 - March 5), he, having delivered a sermon against D., called Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, who was present in the temple, to witness, who answered Nikon that in Antioch no one is baptized with two fingers (There same, p. 94); on the 5th week of Great Lent (in 1655 - March 25-31), he held a Council with the participation of Patriarch Macarius of Antioch and Patriarch Gabriel of Bulgaria, on which, in particular, a positive decision was made on the need to switch to tripartite (There same, p. 95).
In book. "Tablet", composed of different sources and prepared for publication in 1655, among others. contained texts on finger composition: the message of the Patriarch of K-Polish Paisius in 1655, the word hypodiac. Damaskin (later Metropolitan of Thessaloniki) on the Sunday of the Cross, the word of Nicholas Malaxa about the nominative blessing and the anonymous word about the signification (metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) believed that this was the word of Patriarch Nikon, uttered on the Sunday of Orthodoxy in 1655: ibid. S. 102). But with the publication of the Tablet, Patriarch Nikon hesitated, because he wanted to convene a Council dedicated to D. as one of the main points, for which the opponents of the reforms held on.
Feb 12 1656, on the feast day of St. Meletios of Antioch, when the well-known prologue story was read at Matins, Patriarch Nikon loudly asked Patriarch Macarius - as the heir to the throne of St. Meletius - about how this legend should be understood, to which Macarius replied that St. Meletius first showed 3 fingers divided, and then connected, from which there was a fiery sign (Ibid., pp. 103-104); At the same time, Macarius called D.'s supporters "Armenian imitators." On the 1st Week of Great Lent (February 24, 1656), the anathematisms of the rite of Orthodoxy included a curse on those who were baptized with two fingers, pronounced by Patriarchs Macarius and Gabriel, as well as Met. Gregory of Nicaea (Ibid., p. 104). After arriving at the beginning Apr. 1656 to Moscow Metropolitan. Patriarch Nikon of Moldavian Gideon addressed in writing to all the hierarchs in Moscow with a question about D.; in response to this, Patriarch Macarius of Antioch confirmed in writing the correctness of the tripartite and cursed those holding D., this text was signed by other hierarchs, and it was immediately placed by Nikon in the Tablet (Ibid., pp. 104-105).
23 Apr. In 1656, a Council was convened in Moscow from the Russian. bishops, on the Krom Patriarch Nikon, presenting the book. "Table" and answers east. hierarchs to questions about D., said that before the beginning of printing in Russia there was a custom to be baptized with three fingers. The council made a positive decision about the triplets. This decision, together with Nikon's legend about the Cathedral (under the title "The Word of Responsibility") was also included in the "Table", after which the book was printed.
In 1658, Patriarch Nikon left the cathedra, but the reforms of worship he had begun were not rejected - in particular, the trinity continued to enter into practice. In 1666, the Council of Russian was convened. bishops, who also made a decision on tripartite, where it was called a custom, to which the Orthodox followed "from ancient times and until now unchanged" (Ibid., p. 329). In the same year, in order to condemn Patriarch Nikon, who arbitrarily left the cathedra, but continued to appoint priests in his monastery, a new Council was convened, in which, among others, Patriarchs Paisios of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch took part. This Council, which took place in 1666-1667. and after. received the name of the Greater Moscow, approved the church reforms initiated by Patriarch Nikon, including the replacement of D. with three fingers with the sign of the cross and nominative fingers with a priestly and episcopal blessing; at the same time, an anathema was uttered against those who opposed the conciliar decree. At the Council was touched and important question about the Stoglavy Cathedral, the resolutions to-rogo about D., a special "Alleluia", walking salting, etc. came into conflict with the transformations of Patriarch Nikon. The hundred-headed Cathedral was declared “not a Council”, and the oaths pronounced by him on those who were baptized not with two fingers were allowed (Ibid., pp. 380-381). The rules of the Great Moscow Cathedral under the title "The Limit of the Consecrated Cathedral" were finally signed on May 13, 1667 and published in the Moscow edition. Missal 1677
Due to the ongoing controversy around D., in particular, St. blgv. kng. Anna Kashinskaya (see: Golubinsky. Canonization of saints. S. 159-168), since her St. the relics were used as an argument by D.'s supporters (the fingers of her right hand are folded with two fingers). She was again canonized as a locally venerated saint in 1818, as a general church saint in 1908.
Controversy about D. between opponents and supporters of reforms
A week after the publication of "Memory", members of the circle of "zealots of piety" Archpriests Avvakum and Daniil submitted to Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich extracts from various books on sign formation and prostrations. Last members of the circle of "zealots of piety", who did not accept innovations, for various reasons, fell into disgrace and were exiled, but continued to teach in the old way, in particular about the truth of D. In the beginning. 1667 Grigory Neronov, convicted in absentia by a conciliar verdict of 1656, reconciled with Patriarch Nikon and accepted three fingers, Nikon allowed him to serve according to old books; in letters to his adherents, Nero praised the three fingers. After Nikon was removed from the Patriarchate in 1658, Grigory Neronov again began to teach about D. - first secretly, and then openly - because of which he was accused of schism and summoned to the Council of 1666, again justified himself and stopped teaching about D. (Makariy. History of the Republican Center. Book 7. S. 72, 75 ff., 114-117, 290, 293).
Before the Councils of 1666-1667 leaders of the Old Believers were written several. writings in defense of the old rites, and in particular D.; The most active fighters for D. were Archpriest Avvakum, formerly. igum. the Moscow Zlatoust monastery Feoktist, the Romanov-Borisoglebsky priest Lazar, and others. Bishop also wrote in favor of D. Vyatsky Alexander (Ibid., p. 300 ff.).
Archpriest Avvakum resisted church reforms from the time of his exile in 1653 to Tobolsk and was one of the most zealous supporters of D. (Ibid., pp. 294-300). In his numerous works, written for the instruction of like-minded people, the theme of D. was regularly touched upon (MDIR. Vol. 5; see also his letters: Monuments of the Old Believer Writing. 1998. P. 309-319). D. Avvakum also spoke about him before his execution in 1681: he showed the people folded two-fingered fingers and said: “If you cross yourself like that, you won’t perish.” On Solovki, the writer Gerasim Firsov acted as the defender of D., his lengthy Op. “On the Folding of Fingers” (Gerasim (Firsov), 1916, pp. 145-224) differs from other polemical writings of that time in a rather calm tone of presentation.
In the 2nd floor. XVII-XVIII centuries. from the side of canonical Orthodoxy. Churches, the most active polemicists, proving the historical antiquity and theological validity of the tripartite, were Patriarch Joachim, who wrote several. writings against the Old Believers with polemics against D. (this is primarily the work “Spiritual Counsel” (M., 1682); the Word against schismatics was included in the edition of the Prologue published under Joachim in 1685), and Bishop. Nizhny Novgorod Pitirim, author of an extensive polemical Op. “Sling” (St. Petersburg, 1721, 17262), a significant part of the text of which is devoted to polemics with D. “Sling” was the answer to 240 questions of the Kerzhen elders (Aug. 1, 1716). On the composition of Ep. Pitirim, the Old Believers wrote "Kerzhensky Answers, or Answers of Deacon Alexander" (1719).
With the name of ep. Pitirim is associated with the creation in the beginning. 18th century 2 fakes - Trebnik, inscribed with the name of Met. Theognost, falsely dated 1329, and the Council act on the heretic Martin - a fake under the text of 1157. The subject matter of these works directly concerns the controversy between supporters of D. and triplets, their originals are kept in the State Historical Museum; there are also a number of later lists from these works (for example, the Council act on the heretic Martin - RSL. Trinity. II 20.1). Extensive quotations from these works are given in the "Sling" and other polemical writings of the beginning. 18th century The false nature of both monuments was shown by the Old Believer writer A. Denisov in the writings of the beginning. 18th century Kerzhensky (Answers of Deacon Alexander. S. 146-169) and Pomor answers (answer 9) (see: Likhachev D. S. Textology on the material of Old Russian Literature X-XVII centuries M., 19832. S. 344). In the 19th century arch. A. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev again proved the forgery of both monuments (see: Gorsky, Nevostruev. Description. Dep. 3. Part 2. S. 497-511). Nevertheless, references to the Pseudo-Theognostov Trebnik and to the Act of the Council on the heretic Martin continued to appear even in the 19th century. (see, for example: John (Malinovsky). 1839. S. 8-9).
Chapters specially devoted to D. and based on various sources are present in many Old Believer manuscripts of the 18th-20th centuries. (See, for example: Works of Old Believer writers of the 1st half of the 18th century, 2001, pp. 139, 269, 284, 296, 318). Publications about D. are contained in the Old Believer periodicals and books of the 19th-20th centuries. Among the polemists of this period, the Old Believer Bishop stands out. Uralsky Arseny (Shvetsov), who released in 1885 and 1888. 2 works directly related to D. (see: Shvetsov. 1885; Arseny Uralsky. 1999. S. 55-58).
The problem of D. was repeatedly touched upon in the writings of the fighters against the split (see, for example: Vishnevsky. 1861; John (Malinovsky). 1839; publications by N. I. Subbotin and others). Addressed to the Old Believers also St. Philaret (Drozdov), Met. Moscow, in particular, who dedicated D. 9th ch. "Conversations to the verbal Old Believer" (M., 1835), repeatedly reprinted.
An important consequence of the ongoing controversy about D. and other discrepancies between the old and new practices has been the accumulation and comprehension of historical material concerning the subjects of controversy. On both sides, this was expressed in the creation of extensive extracts from manuscripts, from printed publications (both new and old) and from polemical writings (both one's own and opponents) on the issues under consideration; the goals of the controversy left their mark on the nature of the presentation of the material, which was often biased. Russian development. church science in the XIX - early. 20th century together with the ongoing controversy, in particular, led to the creation of serious review works on the history of finger composition, among them are the works of archbishop. Philaret (Gumilevsky), Met. Macarius (Bulgakov), E. E. Golubinsky, N. F. Kapterev. During the years of Soviet power, the controversy actually froze in an immobile state, and only in recent times began to draw attention to itself again.
The arguments of the parties in the controversy about D.
At first, supporters of tripartite justified it primarily by the authority of the Greek. churches. Last this argument was abandoned, since it had no force in the eyes of D.'s supporters, who accused the Greeks (and the New Believers who followed them) of deviating from orthodoxy.
In polemical writings there are always references to St. fathers, but they usually have general character, because in patristic literature there are practically no detailed indications of a specific form of sign composition. In any Old Believer writing, the testimony of St. Peter Damaskin about D. (in the synodal Russian translation of the "Philokalia" the corresponding Word of Peter Damaskin is not fully translated, probably precisely because of the controversy with the Old Believers). The Old Believers pointed out that in the new post-Nikon editions of the Prologue, the legend of February 12 about St. Meletius of Antioch is presented in the same form as in those books that were published earlier; Thus, the apologists of the tripartite allegedly emphasize that they accept the meaning of this prologue legend, which the Old Believers put into it. The apologists of the tripartite, for their part, having studied the history of this legend, very soon came to the conclusion that it is a distorted Russian. alteration of the text of "Ecclesiastical History" blzh. Theodoret and therefore cannot be used as a decisive argument. Despite this, the Old Believer polemicists continued to rely on the prologue legend of February 12 as a patristic testimony (cf.: Theophylact (Lopatinsky), en . Exposure of schismatic untruth. M., 1745. L. 11, 144; Vishnevsky. 1861, p. 18; Arseny Uralsky. 1999, p. 56). The foregoing also applies to the Theodorite word, which goes back no earlier than the 15th century. and is found only in Russian. manuscripts.
In turn, the defenders of the triplets tried to interpret Theodorite's word and the word of St. Maximus the Greek about the sign of the cross in favor of triplets; among the manuscripts there are even corrected lists, as if writings in favor of triplets (see, for example: RSL. Trinity. No. 200. L. 281, XVII century.). For some supporters of the triplets, on the contrary, the writings of Maxim the Greek were not authoritative for the reason that he was condemned by Metropolitan. Daniel (Varakin D.S. Consideration of examples given in defense of the reforms of the former patriarch Nikon. M., 2000).
In some writings (for example, in the Sling, see also: John (Malinovsky). 1839) contains references to the false teaching of St. Sophrony of Jerusalem about tripartiteness (the teaching is in the Pseudo-Theognostic Treasury. State Historical Museum. Sin. F. 674. L. 89v. and sl.; see also: Slinger. M., 1726. L. 28v.- 30 to 2 -th pag.), compiled, apparently, at the same time as the Trebnik. This argument, like the monument containing it, did not play a big role in the controversy.
An important historical argument in the discussion about D. has always been the decisions of the Stoglavy Cathedral. The issues of the legality of the Council, the preparedness and consistency of its decisions, as well as the problem of how much the Great Moscow Cathedral had the right to cancel the decisions of Stoglavy (see: Macarius. History of the RC. Book 7. S. 380-381; Vishnevsky. 1861. With .26-27; John (Malinovsky). pp. 40-41).
The controversy was not without extremes; supporters of this and other forms of composition allowed themselves various negative characteristics of the positions of their opponents. Since 1656, following the Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, the comparison with the Armenians (in itself completely incorrect) appeared in many places. polemical writings and official. publications (for example, in "Sling"). Archpriest Avvakum in his letters gave an apocalyptic description of the three fingers, equating the sign of the cross with the sign of the Antichrist (see: Monuments of the Old Believer Writing, p. 312). The apocalyptic characteristics of triplets were present in polemical writings of a later time, in particular, he gave such an interpretation to the false Old Believer Op. “The Apocalypse of the Seventh-Dimensional” (a work of the 19th century, allegedly printed under Ivan the Terrible; see also: Vishnevsky. 1861. P. 41-42; Dimitri (Tuptalo), Met. The search for the schismatic Bryn faith. M., 18555. S. 488-490), in which 3 fingers were compared with 3 deceitful spirits (according to Apoc 16. 13). Against such excessive accusations (although without mentioning D.), the District Message of 1862, signed by the Belokrinitsky hierarchs, speaks out. As a response to the correlation of triplets with Satanism, St. Dimitri Rostovsky suggested writing the syllables "de" and "mon" on the fingers of those who are baptized with two fingers ( Dimitri (Tuptalo), Met. Wanted. S. 490). In some Old Believer manuscripts (see, for example: MDA. B-5 N 63. Inv. 234108. L. 121-124 rev., 18th century), all the places of the official. church publications containing offensive characteristics of D.
In polemical writings, there are many references to ancient icons; both sides are looking for confirmation of their correctness in them. Considerable importance is attached to the testimony from the relics (see, for example, about the relics of Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Patriarch Joachim’s Spiritual Counsel: M., 1682. L. 247 et seq.; the opposite side attracted the relics of St. Anna of Kashinskaya).
In the 19th century in connection with the writing of review works on the history of sign composition, arguments in favor of the existence of unity in the early Church began to be used to conduct controversy: the testimonies of St. fathers, works of fine art (see above). In turn, the Old Believer polemicists cited counterarguments, trying to show that D. had existed since the apostolic times, and that single-fingeredness is a heretical numbness of the Monophysites (see: Arseny Uralsky. 1999. S. 55-58; Bystrov. 2001); in some Old Believer works, however, unity of the tongue is recognized as a full-fledged composition of the early Church (Melgunov, 1910).
The main theological objection to the tripartite supporters of D. was the direct correlation of the Holy Trinity with the sign of the cross. “He nails the Trinity to the Cross,” says Avvakum about those who are baptized with three fingers (Monuments of the Old Believer Writing, p. 312). In addition, the Old Believers accused the reformists of "rejecting" the dogmatic doctrine of the two natures of Christ. With the clarification of the theological content of tripartite (coinciding with the explanations regarding D.), the theological side of the controversy with the Old Believers about D. has practically exhausted itself. “The difference between a three-fingered and two-fingered build is only in the fingers, and not in the sacrament formed by the fingers,” wrote the polemist Archim. Paul (Prussian) in con. 19th century ( Pavel (Lednev-Prussian). 1894. S. 80).
East and lit.: Filaret (Drozdov), St. Conversations to the verbal Old Believer. M., 1835; John (Malinovsky), Hierochemist. Evidence of the antiquity of the three-fingered addition and the hierarch's nominal blessing. M., 1839; Filaret (Gumilevsky), archbishop. Divine service of the Russian Church of the pre-Mongolian period // CHOIDR. 1847. Book. 7. S. 1-42; Vishnevsky V . P ., prot. On the folded fingers for the sign of the cross and blessing and the Creed read in the Orthodox Church against schismatics. Kaz., 1861, 18632; MDIR; Subbotin N . AND . The so-called Theodorite word in its various editions // Bratskoe slovo. 1876. Book. 4. Separate 2. S. 187-214; Macarius. History of the RC. Book. 4. Part 2. S. 58-73; Book. 7. S. 72-293; Nikanor (Brovkovich), archbishop. On the Composition for the Sign of the Cross and Blessing // Wanderer. 1888. No. 12. S. 605-639; 1889. No. 1. S. 34-61; No. 2. S. 243-252; No. 3. S. 410-423; No. 4. S. 614-628; No. 5. S. 38-50; No. 6/7. pp. 229-266; No. 8. S. 478-506; No. 9. S. 23-38; No. 10. S. 209-224; No. 11. S. 377-388; No. 12. S. 588-618; 1890. No. 1. S. 14-48; No. 2. S. 170-205; No. 3. S. 358-402 (separate ed.: St. Petersburg, 1890); Shvetsov A . The truth of the Old Believer hierarchy. Iasi, 1885; he is. Indication of the universality of two-fingered addition in ancient Orthodoxy. Church and errors against St. Gospels in the New Rite. Iasi, 1888; he is [Arseny of Ural]. Justification of the Old Believer St. Church of Christ. Letters. M., 1999; Paul (Lednev-Prussian), archim. A Brief Guide to Knowing the Rightness of St. Churches and wrongs of the schism... M., 1894; Golubinsky E. E . To our controversy with the Old Believers. M., 19052; he is. History of the RC. T. 2. Part 2. S. 466-503; Alexander, deac. Answers submitted to the Nizhny Novgorod archbishop. Pitirim in 1819. N. Novg., 1908; Sobolevsky A . AND . Double-fingeredness, pure alleluia and salting walking from east. points of view. Vladimir, 1909; Melgunov C . P . Religious Society. Russian movements. people in the 17th century. // Old Believer thought. 1910. No. 3. S. 140-166; No. 4. S. 235-251; Kapterev N . F . Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting the Church. rites: The time of the patriarchate of Joseph. Serg. P., 1913. M., 2003r; Gerasim (Firsov), monk. The writings of the Solovetsky monk, according to unpublished. texts / [Ed.-ed.]: N. Nikolsky. SPb., 1916; Golubtsov A . P . From readings in the church. archeology and liturgics / Ed.: I. A. Golubtsov. Serg. P., 1917. St. Petersburg, 19952. S. 237-248; Artelt W. Die Quellen der mittelalterlichen Dialogdarstellung. B., 1934; Michels Th. Segengestus oder Hoheitsgestus?: Ein Beitr. z. christl. Iconography // Fs f. A. Thomas: Archaeologische, kirchen- und kunsthist. Beitr. Trier, 1967, pp. 277-283; Gro ß K . Finger // R.A.C. 1969. Bd. 7 Sp. 909-946; Monuments of Old Believers writing. Issue. 1 / Comp.: N. Yu. Bubnov. SPb., 1998; Works of writers-Old Believers 1st half. 18th century / comp.: N. Yu. Bubnov. SPb., 2001. (Description of RO BAN; V. 7. Issue 2); Bystrov S. AND . Double-fingeredness in the monuments of Christ. art and writing. Barnaul, 20012; Uspensky B . BUT . The Sign of the Cross and Sacred Space. M., 2004.
A. A. Lukashevich
Accepted initially, from the apostles, as an unwritten church tradition, three fingers (large, index and middle) depict the Trinity; in two-fingeredness, the Trinity is depicted with unequal fingers (big, ring and little fingers), this is “lawlessly and blasphemous”, everyone understands that whoever does this (uses two-fingeredness) professes the inequality of the persons of the Holy Trinity, like Arians, Nestorians, Doukhobors, Apollinarians and others heretics, because they professed inequality and division in the Trinity: the Father is greater, the Son is less, the Holy Spirit is even less.
So - large, index and middle pollen are equal, what kind of heresy is this? They are as unequal as the big, ring and little fingers, and it will never be possible to achieve equality of the fingers to the extent of human physiology. In order for the fingers to be equal, all five fingers of a person must be middle or large or index or little fingers, but no, God created all five fingers different, and this nonsense in which the Old Believers are reproached is nothing more than deliberate ignorance.
In my humble opinion, three-fingered and two-fingered are equally fertile, because they carry the same dogma, and the sum does not change from a change in the places of the terms.
As for the accusations that the Arians, Nestorians, Doukhobors, Apollinarians are also baptized with two fingers, there are quite a few heretics among the three-fingered, for example Catholics, Gregorians, Monophysites, Monothelites, Origen, what should we do now - to be baptized with the palm of our hand? I think that it is not worth it, and what do the Orthodox have in common with heretics who have cut themselves off from the body of the Church? What the heretics parody there has nothing to do with the true faith.
Here, as an example, I can cite the bula of Pope Inokentius, which proves that Catholics used to be baptized in the same way with three fingers -
Pope Innocent III (1160/1161-1216; Pope since 1198 Initiated the 4th crusade(1199-1204), who in 1204 laid the foundation for the Latin Empire in Constantinople.),
in his book De sacro altaris misterio, vol. II, p. 45 writes:
“Est autem signum crucis tribus digitis exprimendum, quia sub invocatione Trinitatis imprimitur, de qua dicit propheta: Quis appendit tribus digitis molem terrae? (Isa. XL.) ita quod a superiori descendat in inferius, et a dextra transeat ad sinistram, quia Christus de coelo descendit in terram, et a Judaeis transivit ad gentes. Quidam tamen signum crucis a sinistra producunt in dextram; quia de miseria transire debemus ad gloriam, sicut et Christus transivit de morte ad vitam, et de inferno ad paradisum, praesertim ut seipsos et alios uno eodemque pariter modo consignent. Constat autem quod cum super alios signum crucis imprimimus, ipsos a sinistris consignamus in dextram. Verum si diligenter attendas, etiam super alios signum crucis a dextra producimus in sinistram, quia non consignamus eos quasi vertentes dorsum, sed quasi faciem praesentantes.”Translation:
“One should be baptized with three fingers, for this is done with the invocation of the Trinity, about which the prophet says: “Who holds the earthly pull with three fingers?” [ Is. 40:12]. It is necessary to move from top to bottom and from right to left, for Christ descended from heaven to earth and came from the Jews to the Gentiles. Some, however, are baptized from left to right, for we must pass from suffering to glory, just as Christ passed from death to life and from hell to heaven - but first of all [they do so] in order to baptize themselves and others in the same way: it turns out that when we overshadow others with a cross, we draw a cross from left to right. However, upon careful reflection, it is clear that in fact we draw a cross on others from right to left as well, for when we baptize them, they do not turn their backs to us, but their faces.
Hello! If possible, I would like to know in more detail (maybe you can recommend literature on this topic) about the history of the schism of the Russian Church as a result of the reforms of Patriarch Nikon. Why do Old Believers cross themselves with two fingers? If you are baptized with two fingers in the church, will it be a great sin? I am very interested in this question, because. my great-grandmother and great-grandfather were very devout Old Believers, and now I don’t know how to do it right: stick to old faith Or you can combine it with the real one. In the temple, I am somehow embarrassed to ask the priest. Help me, please, to understand this issue.
Hieromonk Adrian (Pashin) answers:
good books about this question:
C. Zenkovsky "Russian Old Believers", N. P. Kapterev "Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich".
“To adhere to the old faith,” as the Old Believers understand it, means in fact to be in schism with the Ecumenical Church, since the Old Believers of all directions, with the exception of fellow believers, are united in one thing - in non-recognition of the Orthodoxy of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church.
The question of the use of one of the types of the sign of the cross, recognized by the Russian Church as equally salvific, is not an urgent problem for our salvation. Being baptized with two fingers is not a sin, but for some people it can be a temptation, because for 3 centuries this sign of the cross was considered "schismatic". At the local councils of 1918 and 1971, the Russian Church recognized the equal salvation of the old rites, but of course, those who do not commune with the Ecumenical Church are in a dubious position. As faithful children of the Orthodox Church, we can advise you not to break communion with the Russian Orthodox Church under any circumstances and try to treat with humility some rejection of the old rites among some of her children.
The Edinoverie Church arose as a way for the return of the Old Believers, who were in schism, to the Ecumenical Church. "Edinoverie" means that there is only one faith, the faith of the Universal Orthodox Church. See: /news/001127/01.htm This is the same Orthodox Church, like others, priests ordained by our bishops serve there, and commemorate His Holiness Patriarch Alexy.
To be baptized, or to cross oneself, means to make the sign of the cross with the hand. There are many turns of speech that describe this prayer gesture: to cross oneself with the cross, to make or impose the sign of the cross, and others. The sign of the cross, or sign of the cross, is present in many Christian denominations and is distinguished by the addition of fingers and the movement of the hand. It can be applied in a variety of life situations, at home and in the temple, during emergency events and daily activities.
The history of the sign of the cross in Orthodoxy
In the Orthodox faith, the sign of the cross is very important. It expresses faith in God, Jesus Christ, who suffered on the cross for the sins of the whole world, who turned the cross into a weapon and a banner of victory over sin and death. Orthodox Christians wear a cross on their bodies and overshadow themselves with the banner of the cross, showing their belonging to the faith, love for Christ, obedience to His will.
To make the sign of the cross, you need to correctly fold your fingers, fingers, and make the right hand movement. For many years there have been disputes about how to properly baptize Orthodox Christians.
Initially, baptism with two fingers was accepted in Orthodoxy: in Constantinople - until the middle of the 13th century, in Russia - until the middle of the 17th century. This is confirmed by the writings of Maxim the Greek, who argued that one should be baptized with two fingers, overshadowing the forehead, navel, right and left shoulders of a Christian.
In 1551, the Stoglavy Cathedral confirmed the two-fingered addition, but ordered that the sign be placed not on the stomach, but on the chest, where the heart is. In 1627, 1644 and 1648, the Great Catechism, the Cyril Book, and the Book of the True Orthodox Faith were published, the authors of which, contrary to the decision of the Council, considered it right to put a cross on the stomach.
In 1656, the book "Table" was printed and published: it included the works of the Damascene Studite on the sign of the cross. The essay said that you need to be baptized with three fingers, putting your fingers on your forehead, stomach, then on your right shoulder and left. Local and Great Moscow Cathedrals, which commemorated church reform Nikon, condemned and called heretics all those who are baptized with two fingers. Only in 1971 were all anathemas removed from the Old Believers.
How to be baptized
Today in Orthodoxy, 3 ways of adding fingers are used: two-fingering (not forbidden, used in common faith and Old Believers), three-fingering (modern Orthodox Christians use) and nominative finger-folding (priests do it when they bless people).
The book Psalms, according to which Orthodox Christians have been taught and educated from ancient times to the present day, describes in detail how to be baptized correctly. To perform a sign, you need to connect together the thumb, forefinger and middle fingers right hand, and ring and little fingers - firmly pressed to the palm, as shown in the photo.
The first three fingers mean the Trinity, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the other two - the Divine and human nature Jesus Christ.
When making the sign of the cross, you need to touch your forehead with your fingers - to sanctify the mind, the stomach - to sanctify the inner feelings, then the right shoulder and left to sanctify the bodily forces. Also, the right and left sides symbolize places for the rescued and dead people, therefore, touching the right shoulder first, Orthodox Christian asks God to join the believer to the saved, delivering from the fate of the lost.
The figure shows diagrams of how it is wrong (on the left) and right (on the right) to overshadow oneself with a cross.
Orthodox people are supposed to be baptized in church and at home, before, during and after prayer, before approaching everything holy, before eating and sleeping, etc. When making the sign of the cross outside of prayer, an Orthodox Christian must say in his mind: “In the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, amen." By this he expresses his faith and desire to live for the glory of God.
A good example of the correct baptism can be seen in the video.
Great importance is attached to the sign of the cross, it gives a person the strength to fight evil and do good. It is necessary to make a sign slowly, respectfully. If this is followed by a bow, then it must be done after the right hand is lowered. Otherwise, the believer can break the created cross. A careless attitude to a sign, waving of hands, improper imposition pleases demons and shows an irreverent attitude towards God. This is a sin called blasphemy.
Two fingers or three?
This time we are talking about how they are baptized. In our Russian Orthodox Church, they are baptized with a pinch, folding three fingers. Before Nikon's reform in the 17th century, they were baptized with two fingers. (These are the Old Believers). Catholics generally do everything differently, it seems like an open palm. And vice versa. If ours put the cross from top to bottom and from right to left, then Catholics from left to right.
As far as I am observant and well-read, I noticed that there are small and large crosses. So what's the deal here. Why are the "overlays" of the cross so different?
The answer is in energy human body. And its differences depending on the region of residence. In Rogozhkin's book "Eniology" there is interesting information about the type of energy of an eastern and western person. And we will return to our fingers. Is there a common or fashionable this moment chakra theory. These are special energy distribution zones. The most important 7 are located along the spinal column and resemble funnels directed forward and backward. At least so they assure and even give measurement data. I repeat, this model of energy and not everyone shares it. In addition to these 7 chakras, there are 2 more on the shoulders. This is where the “dog rummaged” (Gorbachev). It turns out that the cruciform cross (life-giving cross) somehow clears the energy lines of the channels.
Well, let's say the septic tank will say. And where does the fingers in a special way folded or even palms?
The palms have something to do with it, it is in the center of the palm that there are chakras and they are quite strong. That is, some kind of energy comes out of these places. And the fingers, too. There "end" (what I'm not sure about) energy channels. That is, each finger is connected with some meridian or whatever they are called there.
Now let's go to two fingers.
Here is what Litvinenko writes in his book (Encyclopedia of Dowsing):
I quote - “A series of studies by a Belarusian scientist (Veinik) proved that the so-called life lines of the body or channels are chronal channels, and biologically active points located on these channels are emitters of the corresponding chronal field. In this case, the points located on the tips of the fingers and the eyes are of particular interest.
Statistical analysis of the data obtained made it possible to identify 4 types of people, differing in signs of chronons emitted by fingers and eyes - plus or minus. The main characteristic sign of a person is the sign of chronons emitted by his eyes. On this basis, two types of people are distinguished - with plus or minus eyes, and the first are more than the second.
The second sign is the nature of the radiation of the fingers. In ordinary people, the sign of the eyes coincides with the sign of the chronons emitted by the index fingers of both hands. The remaining fingers alternate their signs, starting with the index. In these people, due to the multidirectionality of the signs of radiation, the chronal field is practically extinguished within the palm of the hand.
Another group of people, much smaller, differs in that their sign of the eyes coincides with the signs of radiation of all fingers of the right hand, and all fingers of the left hand radiate chronons of the opposite sign. These tendencies register among psychics.” End of quotation (Litvinenko, 1998, p. 20).
To summarize ... What did Nikon know if he forced to be baptized (to baptize SYA - himself) with three fingers?
If we take the model of balancing the energy of two fingers, that is, according to Veinik, the “chronal” energy is balanced when the Old Believers add two fingers, then Nikon's pinch (the fig, as it was called) has one unbalanced channel of chronal energy. It may well be that this led to changes in the body, disrupting the balance of energy.
Well, okay, the smart guy will say, but in the East you don’t get baptized at all. Duck in the East and the energy is different. If the western person receives energy from top to bottom, then the eastern one from bottom to top. Even we in Russia, belonging to the Western type of energy (or rather, they belong to ours), are still different from the West. That is why Catholics are baptized there in their own way. That's why religions differ. Energy is different. And of course, the META code of the area, where without it. And we think that we incarnate where we want ... yeah. Wait.
Speaking of cunning fingers. Various combinations of them are called mudras. Here is one for pain in the heart, if it began to ache. Place the middle finger on the pillow-base of the thumb, and connect the ring finger, that is, No. 4, with the tip of the thumb. Helps. It turns out a kind of gangster raspaltsovka with horns. You can, of course, just rub the pillow - the base of the thumb.
Reviews
In vain you are! .. How can the Sign of the Cross be considered completely apart from metaphysics? It's the only weapon of the soul! The ONLY thing is that the unclean cannot act ape to make a mess!
Energy is energy, but these things are much more important! ..
Please forgive me!
Hello. I do not at all consider it in isolation from metaphysics, very much together. this model.only.
by the mar .... he's a hassle. now they only copy the sign. something different types, and two or three fingers are just variations, but we don’t know these nuances, although we can work through the same channels and everything will become clear.
By the way, we use the sign of the cross (although we are not baptized by the human hierarchy). it sort of partially nullifies the viruses of consciousness, thoughtgrams, with which megacities are full, and indeed any settlements.
agree, KNOWING HOW the Sign works with two or three fingers (and there are much more of them than you imagine. just look at the "Indian mudras" torn from the Russian Vedas, as I believe), then you can work quite well. The only question is HOW far will you go and how will it turn out for you.
your view of a religious person who is pleased that religious ritualists explain to him (crumbs from the master's table). perhaps there is also a part of religious zombie through egregor.
What can I say... to each his own.
I was very critical of religion in general until I talked to the Big Boss. nevertheless, I did not hit religion and did not earnestly pray and go to church, KNOWING why this or that is needed and to whom. I just became more loyal and, as it were, I am correcting my previous erroneous beliefs.
As for the only weapon...I don't think so. what's the only...
by the way ... somewhere I read "a day spent in study (knowledge of God) - more valuable than the day spent in prayer", yet "God is pleased not with fasting with prayers, but with good deeds".
