In the Sacred Texts group, anti-Chalcedonian David Kasabov published a post in which he assumed St. Leo the Great was a Nestorian [1]. First, David cites the Latin original of St. Leo the Great’s tomos:

“Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturae et substantiae, et in unam coeunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab aeternitate mortalitas”

Then, the author translates the word “substance” as the word “hypostasis,” reasoning that “the calque of the Latin ‘substance’ in Greek terminology is precisely ‘hypostasis'” [1]. As a consequence, in Russian, we get the following phrase:

“Thus, while preserving the properties of the two natures and hypostases, and while uniting them in one person, humiliation is perceived as greatness, weakness as power, mortality as eternity”

This translation gave David reason to suggest that St. Leo’s “one Person, two natures and substances” is analogous to the Assyrian Church of the East’s “two natures (kyanas) with their hypostases (knomes) in one Person (Parsopus)” [2]. In passing, the post’s author claims that St. Leo the Great did not use the term Theotokos [3]. We will consider this later.

Analyzing the text of St. Leo the Great in the original, David notices that in the passage “Agit enim utraque FORMA cum alterius communione, quod proprium est: Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est, et carne exsequente quod carnis est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis,” translated as nature, but this word is translated as “image.”

The author writes:

“…note that ‘form’ must be translated exclusively as ‘nature’ or we get heresy. If we do this, one of the active natures of Christ is God the Word, and the second active nature of Christ is His Flesh…”

…how can the second Person (Hypostasis) of the Trinity – God the Word go from being a Hypostasis to being one of the two active natures of Christ?..

Obviously, for the author of the text, God-Man acts in two “natures”: the first “nature” is the Person (Hypostasis) of God the Word, and the second “nature” is His Flesh. From the point of view of traditional Christian doctrine, this is an inadmissible formulation… Therefore, not only “two natures” and “two substances” do not seem to be a mere repetition of the same thing, but it looks more like the narrative was about two acting things, one of which is God the Word, i.e., it is about two hypostases.” [1].

So, let us now turn to the progressive analysis.

I. THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH OF THE EAST AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

N. Seleznev writes:

“The divergence from the Chalcedonian formula (and accordingly from the definitions of the confessions of a distinctly Alexandrian orientation) was expressed in the Church of the East’s rejection of ‘hypostatic union.'” The concept of ‘hypostasis’ (konomos), however, in the doctrinal history of the Church of the East is not at all the same as what is understood by the term ὑπόστασις in the Chalcedonian creed, which identified ὑπόστασις with πρόσωπον and is significantly different from the Byzantine understanding developed in Leontius’ concept of ‘Hypostatic union’” [4]

“The difference in the content of the concepts of knoma and ὑπόσταστασις is seen most clearly in the detailed Christological discourses of Mar Bavvai Rabb…It is clear that…the term knoma, translated in Greek-speaking circles of the Antiochian movement as ὑπόστασις, meant a concretized nature opposed to the nature of the abstract, understood as not a real but only a conceivable concept. [4, 5]

In turn, Orthodox theology, relying on the writings of the Great Cappadocians, understands ὑπόστασις on the one hand as private or concrete being, in contrast to essence and nature, which have become appellations of general being in which separate individuals jointly participate; on the other hand as independent being [6].

To this understanding, the Orthodox Church in 5th century formulated its teaching as follows:

“Following the Holy Fathers, we teach all accordingly to confess one and the same (ἕνα κα τὸν αὐτόν) Son, our Lord Jesus Christ …. in two natures inseparably, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably known (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγγχύτως ἀτρέπτως ἀδιαιρέτως ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον), so that by the conjunction the distinction of natures is by no means abolished (οὐδαμοῦ τῆς τῶν φύσεων διαφορᾶς ἀνηιρημένης διὰ τὴν ἕνωσιν), but rather the property (ἰδιότητος) of each nature is preserved, and they are united into one Person and one Hypostasis (εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον κα μίαν ὑπόστασιν συντρεχούσης)” (ACO. T. 2. Vol. 1 (2). P. 129-130).” [7]

From the point of view of the Orthodox Church, the Lord Jesus Christ is a complex Hypostasis, identical to the simple Hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos, consisting of two natures, Divine and Human, united in hypostasis inseparably, invariably, indivisibly, inseparably [8] At the same time, the hypostasis for both natures, Divine and Human is the Hypostasis of the Word, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity [9]. Being parts of the Whole, the Deity and Humanity of Christ do not exist independently and are not hypostases. In this respect, the hypostasis is obviously not identical to the Knoma.

Thus:

1) The Church of the East separated the concepts of parsopa (prosopon) and knoma (hypostasis).

2) Following its tradition, the Orthodox Church identified the terms Prosopon (Person) and Hypostasis.

3) The term knoma meant concretized nature, contrasted with abstract nature, understood as not real but only a conceivable concept. From the point of view of the Church of the East, since there must be two natures (kyanas) in Christ, there must be two hypostases (knomas) in one Person (parsope).

II UNDERSTANDING OF NATURA, SUBSTANTIA AND PERSONA IN LATIN PATRISTICS

Let us now ask how the Latin Fathers before Chalcedon understood the words natura, substantia, and persona. Let us turn to such an outstanding and remarkable teacher of the Orthodox Church as St. Augustine. The saint writes:

“… to express what is inexpressible, so that we may somehow express what cannot be expressed, our Greeks speak of one essence and three substances (una essentia, tres substantiae), while the Latins speak of one essence or substance and three persons (una essentia uel substantia, tres personae) (for, as I have already said, in our language, i.e., Latin, the essence or substance and three persons (una essentia uel substantia, tres personae). i.e., Latin, essence (essentia) and substance (substantia) are usually thought of as identical)….. For they, in speaking of three substances and one essence (tres substantias, unam essentiam), mean the same thing as we do in speaking of three persons and one essence or substance (tres personas, unam essentiam uel substantiam).” [10]

Thus, in Latin Patristics the word “essence” was translated as “essentia” or “substantia” and the word hypostasis as “persona.”

Quoting Boethius, David Kasabov missed an important point. Certainly grammatically, “…oysia is the same as ‘essence’ (essentia); oysiosis is the same as ‘subsistence’; hypostasis is the same as ‘substance’; prosopon is the same as ‘person'”. However, the Orthodox Encyclopedia writes:

“Boethius expressly stated how these terms are to be used in triadology: in God there is one οὐσία or οὐσίωσις, i.e., one ‘essence or realization of the Godhead’ (essentia vel subsistentia deitatis), and three ὑποστάσεις, i.e., ‘three substances’ (tres substantias).” According to this, and it is said that “the Trinity has one essence, but three substances and three Persons” (unam Trinitatis essentiam, tres substantias, tresque personas) (Ibidem). At the same time, Boethius observed that the usual ecclesiastical usage in the West does not allow us to speak of God as “three substances” (tres substantias). However, according to Boethius’ conviction, if it were not for this common usage, it would be possible to apply the word “substance” to God, not in the sense that He is as it were under other things as their subject (quasi subjectum supponeretur), but in the sense that He precedes all other things and thereby as it were subject (subesset) to them as their Primary, giving them the possibility to exist (subsistere) (Ibidem).” [7]

Further, the OE writes that along with substantia and persona, some Latin authors used the term subsistentia as the equivalent of the term hypostasis, which was then contrasted with the term substantia, interpreted as the equivalent of the Greek οὐσία. In particular, are cited the statements of Marius Victorinus (+363), who translated the Greek trinitarian formula “of one essence are three hypostases” (ἐκ μιᾶς οὐσίας τρεῖς εἷναι τὰς ὑποστάσεις) as “de una substantia tres subsistentias esse” (Mar. Vict. Adv. Ar. II 4); Rufinus of Aquileia (+345-410): “Substance denotes the very nature of a thing and its rational principle, by which it exists (ipsam rei alicujus naturam rationemque, qua constat); and subsistence indicates that some person exists and has an independent being (quod extat et subsistit)” (Rufin. Hist. eccl. I 29). Further, the OE writes that in the late 5th and early 6th century, the term subsistentia, along with the more common term persona, began to be used not only in a triadological but also in a Christological context. Thus, for example, John Maxentius and Facundus, Bishop of Hermia, when quoting the creed of the Ecumenical Council IV (Chalcedon Oros), translated the term “hypostasis” with the word subsistentia [7].

Now, based on all of the above, we can assure that St. Leo the Great in his statement “Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturae et substantiae, et in unam coeunte personam” under the word “substantia” meant nature or essence, since this is the context in which the Latin holy fathers taught. The translation criticized by David Kasabov is correct. I believe David’s assumptions could have been correct if St. Leo had used the word subsistentia instead of substantia.

III TRANSLATION OF THE WORD “FORMA” AND THE DOCTRINE OF ST. LEO THE GREAT

As to the word “forma,” St. John Damascene states:

“The holy fathers, abandoning useless verbiage, the general and about many objects expressed, i.e., the lowest kind called substance (ουσιαν), nature (φυσιν), and form (μορφην), – for example, angel, man, dog, etc. Indeed, (the

word) ουσια – substance – is derived from (the verb) ειναι, and φυσις – nature – from the verb πεφυκεναι, but ειναι and πεφυκεναι mean the same thing – to be, to exist. Equally, the words ειδος – species and μορφη – form – have the same meaning as the word phusis – nature. The singular (μερικον) they called individual (ατομον), person, hypostasis, e.g., Peter, Paul.” [11]

It is, therefore, very legitimate to translate the word forma as “nature.” From the context of the Thomos, the fact that St. Leo identifies “essence” and “form” becomes evident. Thus, St. Leo writes: “Therefore He who, being in the image of God, created man, He also became man, taking the form of the servant. Both natures retain their properties without any damage. Just as the image of God does not destroy the image of the servant, neither does the image of the servant diminish the image of God.” [12]

St. Leo teaches: “Each of the two natures in union with the other acts as it is peculiar to it: The Word does what is peculiar to the Word, and the flesh fulfills what is peculiar to the flesh. One of them shines with miracles; the other is subject to suffering… To hunger, to thirst, to labor and to sleep, obviously, is peculiar to man; but to feed five thousand people with five loaves of bread, but to give the Samaritan woman living water, from which the one who drinks will no longer be thirsty, but to walk on the surface of the sea with unwet feet, and to tame the turbulence of the waves by calming the storm, is, without doubt, a divine work. How is it not of the same nature to weep for a dead friend out of compassion and to raise him to life by the power of a single word after removing the stone from the four days’ grave or to hang on a tree and at the same time to turn day into night and to shake all the elements: or – to be nailed (to the cross), and at the same time to open to the faith of the robber the door of paradise (we omit many things): so it is not the same nature to say: “I and the Father are one” (John 10, 30), and – “I and the Father are one” (John. 10, 30), and – “My Father is greater than I” (John 14, 28). For though in the Lord Jesus there is one person – God and man: yet it is different whence comes the common humiliation of both, and different whence comes their common glorification. From our nature (in Him), He has the Father’s lesser humanity, and from the Father, He has a deity equal to the Father. [12]

David wonders how “one of the active natures of Christ is God the Word, and the second active nature of Christ is His Flesh… how can the second Person (Hypostasis) of the Trinity, God the Word, be transformed from a Hypostasis into one of the two active natures of Christ.”

In Orthodox theology, the subject of both wills and actions of Christ is the Hypostasis, i.e., Christ Himself, who acts according to His two natures [13, 14]. In the context of anti-Nestorian polemics, the name “Logos” (Word) was used to denote the Hypostasis and the Divine nature. And St. Cyril of Alexandria himself did this [14]. Therefore, we cannot speak of any “transformation of God the Word into one of the active natures of Christ.” One can only wonder why the “formulations” of St. Cyril of Alexandria seem to David Kasabov, a child of the AAC, “inadmissible from the point of view of traditional Christian doctrine.”

Separately, I would like to note that the doctrine of the two wills in Christ was affirmed by the Orthodox Church in the 6th Ecumenical Council, relying on the teachings of St. Cyril and St. Leo [15].

In turn, N. Seleznev, who is quoted by David in one of his posts, writes:

“While it is characteristic of Greco-Roman theology, largely due to the influence of Aristotle, to perceive will or action as a property of nature and, proceeding from the duality of natures, to draw the conclusion about the duality of wills in Christ, in the tradition of Eastern Syriac theological thought will and action are first of all manifestations of the person, whereas some abstract “volition” or “action” of nature is manifested in the knome. Hence the traditional Christological formula of the Church of the East has been the confession of ‘the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect Man in unity, two natures, two knomas, in One Person, one dominion and one will.‘“ [4]

The Church of the East taught one will and one act in Christ. This further convinces us that St. Leo the Great in no way, shape, or form taught as the Assyrian Church of the East teaches.

IV DID ST. LEO THE GREAT CALL THE VIRGIN MARY THE MOTHER OF GOD?

St. Leo taught thus: “nothing in this unparalleled Nativity has come from the lust of the flesh; nothing has come from the law of sin. A virgin is chosen from the tribe of King David, who, having conceived the Holy Fruit, receives the divinam humanamque prolem (divinam humanamque prolem) first in soul and then in body. And so that (not knowing [the secret] of the supreme plan of such an extraordinary work) She should not be filled with fear; She learns from the angelic conversation that the Holy Spirit worked in Her. Therefore, She who is about to become the Mother of God (Dei genitrix) does not consider it a loss of chastity.” [16]

The term Dei genitrix is identical to the term Theotokos.

Thus. St. Leo the Great called the Virgin Mary the Mother of God.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Church of the East separated the concepts of parsopa (prosopon) and knoma (hypostasis). In accordance with its tradition, the Orthodox Church identified the concepts of Prosopon (Person) and Hypostasis. The term knoma, meant a concretized nature, opposed to the nature of the abstract, understood as not a real, but only a conceivable concept. From the point of view of the Church of the East, since there must be two natures (kyanas) in Christ, there must be two hypostases (knomas) in one Person (parsope). In turn, the Orthodox Church understood hypostasis as an independent being. The Deity and humanity of Christ, being parts of the Whole, do not exist independently and are not hypostases. In this respect, the hypostasis is not identical with the knome.

In Latin patristics, already before the 4th Century, the terms substantia and natura were identified and understood as “essence”, while the term “hypostasis” was translated by the Latin Fathers with the words persona and subsistentia. Consequently, it is entirely legitimate to translate the fragment of the tomos of St. Leo “Salva igitur proprietate utriusque naturae et substantiae, et in unam coeunte personam, suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab aeternitate mortalitas” as “Thus, while preserving the properties of the two natures and substances (the two essenses), and while uniting them in one person, humiliation is perceived as greatness, weakness as might, mortality as eternity” If St. Leo had used instead of the word substantia the word “hypostasis” the term “hypostasis” is translated by the Latin Fathers with the words persona and subsistentia. If St. Leo had used instead of the word substantia the word subsistentia we could speak of some similarity to the Christological formulation of the Church of the East “two natures (kyanas) with their hypostases (knomes) in one Person (Parsopus)”.

The word forma can rightly be translated as “nature” since the holy fathers of the Orthodox Church identified substance, form, and nature. St. Leo the Great and St. Cyril of Alexandria taught of two wills or actions in Christ. The Church of the East taught of one will.

St. Leo the Great called the Virgin Mary the Mother of God (Dei genitrix), which is identical to the name “Theotokos.”

FINAL THOUGHTS

St. Leo the Great, the holy father, is an outstanding theologian of the Orthodox Church whose doctrine cannot be identified with the doctrine of Christ of the Church of the East.

P.S.. “… and we do not say that the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived a man

without deity, who, having been produced by the Holy Spirit, was afterward perceived by the Word, for which we worthily and justly condemned Nestorius, who preached this; – but we say that Christ the Son of God is true God, begotten of God the Father without any beginning of time and that He is also true man, begotten of the Mother of man, after a certain fullness of time, and that His humanity, in relation to which the Father is greater than He is, has in no way diminished His nature, by which He is equal to the Father; but both these things together are one Christ, who very truly said, in deity: “I and the Father are one” (John. 10: 30),-and in humanity, ‘The Father is greater than I’ (John 14:28).” [17]

P.P.S. I would like to express my great gratitude to Valery Sinilshchikov and Pyotr Pashkov for their valuable comments and editing of the material.

This article was written by Grigori Lagodich, who is not a professional theologian, but simply an interested person.

NOTES:

[1] https://vk.com/wall-111677185_113185

[2] The outstanding theologian of the Church of the East, Bavai the Great, taught this. For more details, see N. Seleznev, “Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East,” p. 164

[3] “Well, can a person, even after the Council of Ephesus, not use the term Theotokos?

– He can, of course.” Mode of Access, n. 1 of notes.

[4] https://vk.com/wall-111677185_112682

[5] Cf. the statement of St. Proclus of Constantinople (+ c. 447), a disciple of St. John Chrysostom, “There is only only begotten Son and Word of God, Who is not divided by His [two] natures into two hypostases, but in Whom by the inexpressible Providence two natures are united into one Hypostasis” (Proclus CP. De dogm. Incarn. // PG. 65. Col. 885; cf: Ibid. Col. 842-843; Hammerstaedt. 1994. Sp. 1031). Access mode: http://www.pravenc.ru/text/673779.html

[6] According to the thought of St. Gregory, “what is said privately (τὸ ἰδίως λεγόμενον) is expressed by the word Hypostasis… This is what Hypostasis is: Not an indefinite notion of essence, which stops at nothing because of the generality of what is signified, but [such a notion] which by visible distinctive properties (διὰ τῶν ἐπιφαινομένων ἰδιωμάτων) reveals and limits in some subject the general and indefinite” (Greg. Nyss. De diff. essent. et hypost. 3).

St. John Damascene also defined the Hypostasis as a self-sufficient being that does not need another being for its existence (Ioan. Damasc. Fragm. philos. 12). He also associated with the hypostatic union the uniqueness of any being or object: “It is impossible that two hypostases, differing from each other in number, should not differ from each other by [any] extrinsic attributes (τοῖς συμβεβηκόσι)” (Idem. Dialect. 31). Mode of access: http://www.pravenc.ru/text/673779.html “…hypostasis is a certain essence together with its adventitious [properties], which really and has received in its own right an existence separate and apart from other hypostases, something communicating with indivisible beings of the same kind according to the definition of nature, but having a difference with those similar to itself in kind and nature in certain adventitious and distinctive features.” +

[7] http://www.pravenc.ru/text/673779.html

[8] https://vk.com/@aletheia-o-slozhnoi-ipostasi

[9] “Both the deity and humanity of Christ are hypostatic (ἐνυπόστατος) because each [nature] has [as hypostasis] His common complex Hypostasis. Thus the deity [has it] pre-eternal and eternal, and sensible and animated flesh has been perceived by it, exists in it, and has [it as] the same Hypostasis” (Ioan. Damasc. Idem. Contr. aceph. 6).

[10] https://vk.com/@aletheia-privivka-ot-monofizitizma

St. Gregory the Theologian: “For when piously we use the expressions: One Essence and three Hypostases, of which the first signifies the nature of the Godhead, and the last the personal properties (ίδιότητας) of the Three, and when the Romans, equally understood with us, because of the poverty of their

language and because of the lack of names, cannot distinguish Essences from Hypostases and therefore replace the word “Hypostases” by the word “persons,” so as not to give the idea that they recognize three Essences, then what comes out of this …. With all meekness and humanity, [St. Athanasius] Having invited both parties and having investigated the meaning of the expressions, when he found them not departing from sound doctrine and not differing in concept in the slightest, he gave them the use of different names. Still, he binds them into one by the names themselves.“ (St. Gregory the Theologian. Word 21. Praise to Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria) Mode of access: https://vk.com/@aletheia-privivka-ot-monofizitizima.

[11] https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Damaskin/filosofskie_glavy/30

[12] https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Lev_Velikij/okruzhnoe-ili-sobornoe-poslanie-pisannoe-k-flavianu-arkhiepiskopu-konstantinopolskomu-protiv-eresi-evtikhija/

[13] “…being consubstantial with God and the Father, He sovereignly wills and acts as God. But being also consubstantial with us, He freely wills and acts as man, identical [with us]. For to Him belong the miracles, to Him also the sufferings.” (Exact Statement of the Orthodox Faith, 57) “…since the Hypostasis of His two natures is one, we affirm that One and the same is the One who naturally wills and acts accordingly to both natures, of which and in which, and that very thing is Christ our God; but wills and acts not separately, but unitedly, ‘for He wills and acts in each of the two images with the participation of the other of them.'” (ibid., 58)


[14] “we say that the union was hypostatic, refuting his words by the expression – hypostatic, an expression which means nothing else than that the nature of the Word, or hypostasis, (which means the Word itself) is truly united to the nature of man without any transformation or change, as we have very often said, and is thought and is one Christ – God and man” (St. Cyril of Alexandria. Epistle to Evoptius, against the refutation of the twelve chapters composed by Theodoritus).

“Since “God was the Word,” immortal and incorruptible and life itself by nature, it is, I think, quite evident to all that He could not fear death. But as He manifested in the flesh, He permits Himself to undergo the things of the flesh and to fear death that is soon to come so that He may become a true man. Therefore, He says: “If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me”. Father, If it is possible, He says, without being subjected to death, to restore life to those who fall under it, if death dies without my death, certainly according to the flesh, then let the cup pass away, Father. However, if it cannot be done otherwise, not as I will, but as you will. You see how, again, human nature, as far as it concerns (only) human nature, even in Christ Himself, is exhausted. But through the Word united to it, it rises to divine boldness. It becomes in a courageous mood so that it does not allow itself to be satisfied with its desires, but, on the contrary, follows the divine purpose and hastens to all that the law of the Creator calls us.”

Access mode: http://bible.optina.ru/new:in:06:38

[15] Dogma 6 EC: “…we preach, according to the teaching of the holy fathers, that in Him the two natural wills or wills are inseparable, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable, inseparable, and the two natural wills are not opposed, as the impious heretics said, let it not be, but His human will follows, not contradicts, or opposes, rather and is subject to His divine and almighty will. For, according to the teaching of the wise Athanasius, it is proper for the will of the flesh to be in action but to be subject to the divine will (Athanas. Alex. In illud: Nunc anima mea // PG. 26. Col. 1241). As His flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so the natural will of His flesh is called and is the own will of God the Word, as He Himself says: “As I came down from heaven, I will not do My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me” (Jn 6. 38), calling His will the will of the flesh, since the flesh became His own flesh. Just as His holy and immaculate animated flesh, being adorned, was not destroyed, but remained in its own limit and logos, so also His human will, being adorned, was not destroyed, but preserved, according to Gregory the Theologian, who says: the will of that which is conceivable in the Savior, being wholly adorned, does not contradict God (Greg. Nazianz. Or. 30. 12 // PG. 36. Col. 117). We affirm that in one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, two natural actions are inseparable, unchangeable, inseparable, inseparable, inseparable, that is,

divine action and human action, according to the preacher Leo, who says most clearly: each nature produces what is peculiar to it in communion with the other, when, that is, the Word accomplishes what is peculiar to the Word, and the body brings to fulfillment what is peculiar to the body (Ep. 28. 4). (Ep. 28. 4.) Let us not put the natural action of God and creatures into one, lest we elevate the created into the divine essence and relegate the excellency of the divine nature to a place proper to creatures. To One and the same, we attribute both miracles and sufferings, respectively, to the one and the other nature, of which He is composed and in which He has existence, as the God-talking Cyril said (cf.: PG. 75. Col. 453). Having therefore enclosed on all sides the inseparable and incommunicable, let us declare all that has been said in brief words. Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, is one of the Holy Trinity and after the Incarnation, we say that His two natures were manifested in one hypostasis, in which He truly, and not in a phantom way, declared Himself by miracles and sufferings throughout His entire life, with the discovery of a natural difference in the same one hypostasis in that both natures desire and produce what is peculiar to themselves in communion with the other. This is why we recognize two natural wills and actions that have come together for the salvation of the human race. Therefore, after establishing these things with all possible care and attention, we determine that no one can preach another faith.” Access mode: http://www.pravenc.ru/text/160781.html#part_26

[16] https://vk.com/wall-184478279_22542

[17] https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Lev_Velikij/vtoroe-poslanie-k-kliru-i-narodu-goroda-konstantinopolja/