| Конечно, не все люди одинаковы, – иной мог бы философствовать и в рудниках на каторге, но не на таких людей и рассчитаны схемы «благоприятнейших» условий. Едва ли надо добавлять, что в отношении к историческому прошлому возможно и вполне объективное и надлежащим образом аргументированное суждение. 6 Говоря это, я не забываю результатов Кантовского критицизма, объявляющего метафизические проблемы для человеческой мысли неразрешимыми. Кантовский критицизм, как одно из направлений философской мысли, обусловленное известными историческими причинами и отношениями, а также и некоторыми специальными методологическими предположениями, ни в каком случае не может иметь безусловное значение. Это – отнюдь не вечный, окончательный и непререкаемый запрет для философской мысли. Тоже надо сказать и о других агностических направлениях. Принципиально для философии неоспоримо-законным притязанием остается всеведение. Припомним Гегелевский девиз: «Человек должен уважать себя и считать себя достойным самых высоких истин». 7 Основной, действительно ценный и в собственном смысле философский вопрос, занимавший умы в течение всего средневековья, – вопрос об универсалиях, – был, в сущности, единственной проблемой для периода времени по минимальному счету в 400 лет, а на самом деле значительно большего. Сам вопрос был не нов, а внушен был изучением Платоновской и Аристотелевской философии. Точно также и решение частью было опять старым (в обеих реалистических формулах: «universalia sunt realia ante rem» и «universalia sunt realia in re»), частью же выхывалось лишь оппозицией к последнему и к связанной с ним церковной тирании (в номиналистической формуле: «universalia sunt nomina post rem»). 8 Подробнее об этом см. в моей брошюре «История философии, как процесс постепенной выработки научно обоснованного и истинного мировоззрения». 1899 г. Стр. 33. 9 Значение приват-доцентуры в немецких университетах прекрасно выясняет не раз уже цитированный мной проф. Паульсен. «Приват-доцентура, говорит он, представляет своеобразное учреждение в немецких университетах: его иностранцы нередко выставляют источником их силы. |
| Букв.: «любомудрие», «любовь к мудрости» (греч.). 613 См.: Платон. Соч. М., 1970. Т. 2. С. 181—187. 614 См.: Платон. Соч. М., 1971. Т. 3. Ч. 1. С. 321—325 (514 а–517 d). «Знаменитый символ пещеры у Платона, — пишет А. А. Тахо–Годи в комментарии к этому месту диалога, — дает читателю образное понятие о мире высших идей и мире чувственно воспринимаемых вещей, которые суть не что иное, как тени идей, их слабые копии и подобия» (там же. С. 635). 615 Пир, 211 а–Ь. Платон. Соч. Т. 2. С. 142. 616 Ср. там же. Т. 3. Ч. 1. С. 478. 617 Ср. там же. С. 469. 618 Ср. там же, Т. 2. С. 71; Т. 3. Ч. 1. С. 470. Более точен перевод греч. ατα — причина. 619 О смысловом значении «идей» и «эйдосов» у Платона см.: Лосев А. Ф. Очерки античного символизма и мифологии. Т. 1. М., 1930. 620 Ср. свящ. П. Флоренский. Смысл идеализма (сборник статей в память столетия Императорской Московской Духовной Академии. Сергиевский Посад, 1915. Ч. II, стр. 41—134). 621 Ср.: Платон. Т. 2. С. 186. 622 Причина движения или какого–либо изменения (греч.). 623 Ср. Платон. Т. 3. Ч. 1. С. 470. 624 Ср. там же. С. 477—478. 625 Следует читать: 29 а. — Ср. там же. С. 469—470. 626 Быт. 1:1 и Ин. 1:1. Вторая цитата дана не вполне точно. 627 Каббала, комментируя тексты: «В начале (берешит) сотворил Бог», замечает: «берешит означает хокма (премудрость, вторая из трех высших сефир), это значит, что мир существует чрез высшую и непроницаемую тайну хокмы», т. е. Софии (Sepher ha Sohar, trad, de Jean de Pauly, l, 3 b). 628 Материя (греч.). 629 Вещи и имена (лат.). Спор номиналистов и реалистов заключался в следующем: существуют ли универсалии (общие понятия) реально и независимо от познания (реалисты: universalia sunt realia), или же они существуют не в действительности, а лишь в мышлении («номинально»)? В свое время «антитезу между номинализмом и реализмом» пытался, подобно Булгакову, примирить Абеляр, решивший проблему универсалий в духе концептуализма: понятия не имеют самостоятельной онтологической реальности, но воспроизводят объединяемые в человеческом уме сходные признаки единичных вещей. Его последователями в этом смысле были Локк, Кондильяк. 630 |
| The ecclesiological distortions ascribing to the primus on the universal level the functions of governance inherent in primates on other levels of church order are named in the polemical literature of the second millennium as “papism”. 3. Due to the fact that the nature of primacy, which exists at various levels of church order (diocesan, local and universal) vary, the functions of the primus on various levels are not identical and cannot be transferred from one level to another. To transfer the functions of the ministry of primacy from the level of an eparchy to the universal level means to recognize a special form of ministry, notably, that of a ‘universal hierarch’ possessing the magisterial and administrative power in the whole Universal Church. By eliminating the sacramental equality of bishops, such recognition leads to the emergence of a jurisdiction of a universal first hierarch never mentioned either in holy canons or patristic tradition and resulting in the derogation or even elimination of the autocephaly of Local Churches. In its turn, the extension of the primacy inherent in the primate of an autocephalous Local Church (according to Apostolic Canon 34) to the universal level would give the primus in the Universal Church special powers regardless of whether Local Orthodox Churches agree to it or not. Such a transfer in the understanding of the nature of primacy from local to universal level would also require that the primus election procedure be accordingly moved up to the universal level, which would as much as violate the right of the pre-eminent autocephalous Local Church to elect her Primate on her own. 4. The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ warned his disciples against the love of rulers (cf. Mt. 20:25-28). The Church has always opposed distorted ideas of primacy, which have begun to creep into church life from old times. In Councils’ decisions and works of holy fathers, such abuses of power were condemned. The bishops of Rome, who enjoy the primacy of honour in the Universal Church, from the point of view of Eastern Churches, have always been patriarchs of the West, that is, primates of the Western Local Church. However, already in the first millennium of church history, a doctrine on a special divinely-originated magisterial and administrative power of the bishop of Roman as extending to the whole Universal Church began to be formed in the West. |
| In its turn, the extension of the primacy inherent in the primate of an autocephalous Local Church (according to Apostolic Canon 34) to the universal would give the primus in the Universal Church special powers regardless of whether Local Orthodox Churches agree to it or not. Such a transfer in the understanding of the nature of primacy from local to universal level would also require that the primus election procedure be accordingly moved up to the universal level, which would as much as violate the right of the pre-eminent autocephalous Local Church to elect her Primate on her own. 4. The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ warned his disciples against the love of rulers (cf. Mt. 20:25-28). The Church has always opposed distorted ideas of primacy, which have begun to creep into church life from old In Councils’ decisions and works of holy fathers, such abuses of power were The bishops of Rome, who enjoy the primacy of honour in the Universal Church, from the point of view of Eastern Churches, have always been patriarchs of the West, that is, primates of the Western Local Church. However, already in the first millennium of church history, a doctrine on a special divinely-originated magisterial and administrative power of the bishop of Roman as extending to the whole Universal Church began to be formed in the West. The Orthodox Church rejected the doctrine of the Roman Church on papal primacy and the divine origin of the power of the first bishop in the Universal Church. Orthodox theologians have always insisted that the Church of Rome is one of the autocephalous Local Churches with no right to extend her jurisdiction to the territory of other Local Churches. They also believed that primacy in honour accorded to the bishops of Rome is instituted not by God but Throughout the second millennium up to today, the Orthodox Church has preserved the administrative structure characteristic of the Eastern Church of the first millennium. Within this structure, each autocephalous Local Church, being in dogmatic, canonical and Eucharistic unity with other Local Churches, is independent in governance. In the Orthodox Church, there was no and has never been a single administrative center on the universal level. |
| And when he says that he had not learned from any truest philosophy a system which possessed the universal way of the soul " s deliverance, he shows plainly enough, as it seems to me, either that the philosophy of which he was a disciple was not the truest, or that it did not comprehend such a way. And how can that be the truest philosophy which does not possess this way? For what else is the universal way of the soul " s deliverance than that by which all soulsuniversally are delivered, and without which, therefore, no soul is delivered? And when he says, in addition, or from the ideas and practices of the Indians, or from the reasoning of the Chaldæans, or from any source whatever, he declares in the most unequivocal language that this universal way of the soul " s deliverance was not embraced in what he had learned either from the Indians or the Chaldæans; and yet he could not forbear stating that it was from the Chaldæans he had derived these divine oracles of which he makes such frequent mention. What, therefore, does he mean by this universal way of the soul " s deliverance, which had not yet been made known by any truest philosophy, or by the doctrinal systems of those nations which were considered to have great insight in things divine, because they indulged more freely in a curious and fanciful science and worship of angels? What is this universal way of which he acknowledges his ignorance, if not a way which does not belong to one nation as its special property, but is common to all, and divinely bestowed? Porphyry, a man of no mediocre abilities, does not question that such a way exists; for he believes that Divine Providence could not have left men destitute of this universal way of delivering the soul. For he does not say that this way does not exist, but that this great boon and assistance has not yet been discovered, and has not come to his knowledge. And no wonder; for Porphyry lived in an age when this universal way of the soul " s deliverance – in other words, the Christian religion – was exposed to the persecutions of idolaters and demon-worshippers, and earthly rulers, that the number of martyrs or witnesses for the truth might be completed and consecrated, and that by them proof might be given that we must endure all bodily sufferings in the cause of the holy faith, and for the commendation of the truth. |
| ‘The transfer of the functions of ministry of primacy from the level of the diocese to the universal level, in essence, would mean the recognition of a special type of ministry, a “universal bishop” possessing the right to teach and administer throughout the whole Universal Church’ (3). This recognition does away with the sacramental equality of the episcopate and leads to the appearance of a jurisdiction of a Universal First Hierarch, of which neither the sacred canons nor patristic tradition have anything to say. The consequence would be a diminution of the autocephaly of the autocephalous Local Churches. ‘The expansion of the primacy characteristic of the First Hierarch of an autocephalous Church (according to the 34th apostolic canon) to the universal level would give to the primate in the Universal Church special powers independent of the consent to this of the Local Orthodox Churches’ (3). Such a step would require the corresponding transfer of the procedure of election of the first bishop to the universal level, which would lead to the infraction of the right of the first autocephalous Local Church to elect independently her First Hierarch. The primatial First Hierarch would have to be elected at a Pan-Orthodox Council from among the whole episcopate of the Orthodox Church. 4.The position on the varied nature and the various sources of primacy at different levels of church order as expounded in The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate was greeted with criticism. In particular, Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article ‘Primus sine paribus’ wrote that the Moscow document transforms primacy ‘into something external and therefore alien to the person of the first hierarch’. Instead of this he suggested that we consider that any ecclesiastical institution ‘is always hypostasized into a person’ and that the source of primacy at all three levels of church organization is the First Hierarch himself. In his theology Metropolitan Elpidophoros follows the personalist approach of the ecclesiology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas. I will not go into the theological content of Metropolitan Elpidophoros’ article, but will briefly remark only that it goes far beyond the approach of Metropolitan John. From the perspective of the ecclesiology of Metropolitan John, only a local Church can be ‘hypostasized’ into a person, and this ‘hypostasization’ is connected with the Eucharist which is celebrated always locally. The bishop’s ministry, according to Zizioulas, has a dual source – eschatological (as the alter Christus), and historical – in the apostolic succession (as the alter apostolus), and therefore we cannot say that the First Hierarch is the source of his primacy. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church The problem of primacy in the Universal Church has been repeatedly raised during the work of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. On March 27, 2007, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church instructed the Synodal Theological Commission to study this problem and draft an official position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem (Minutes, No. 26). Meanwhile, the Joint Commission at its meeting on October 13, 2007, in Ravenna, working in the absence of a delegation of the Russian Church and without consideration for her opinion, adopted a document on the Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church. Having studied the Ravenna document, the Russian Orthodox Church disagreed with it in the part that refers to synodality and primacy on the level of the Universal Church. Since the Ravenna document makes a distinction between three levels of church administration, namely, local, regional and universal, the following position taken by the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal Church deals with this problem on the three levels as well. According to the apostolic teaching, the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church ,which is his body (Eph. 1:17-23). The Church, which is on the earth, represents not only a community of those who believe in Christ but also a divine-human organism: Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular (1 Cor. 12:27). |
| In contrast with the former views, tradition seen as an icon not present itself as coextensive with the truth it teaches, but does present itself as the way that we who are its heirs must follow if we are to go beyond it... to a universal truth that is available only in a particular embodiment... " 14 We, human beings living in the concreteness of space and time, do not have direct access to universal truth. This is directly accessible only to God. But this does not mean we do not have access to it, since Universal Truth came down to us and took a concrete historical form in order to translate in our language the otherwise unintelligible message of ultimate reality. This condescendence of the Universal Truth is expressed in the particular forms of our historical existence. In doing so, it vindicate itself by managing to be as universal as the theorists rightly insist it must be, and yet at the same time as particular as the devotees of the idol correctly sense that it should be. But it refuses to chose between the false alternatives of universal and particular, knowing that an authentic icon, a living tradition, must be both. 15 In the present dissertation the model of Jaroslav Pelikan will be used in order to reveal the dynamics of the relationship between Scripture and tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy in the different stages of its historical development. Our study will analyze the Orthodox understanding of tradition as an icon, together with its inherent bend towards traditionalism, which tends to neglect Scripture as well as sterilize the spiritual life of the Church. At the same time, we shall try to argue that the interpretation of Scripture in the context of tradition, seen as an icon, offers a comprehensive model for the preservation of a relevant orthodox faith, whatever challenges history brings before the Church. We shall pursue our study from inside the Orthodox theological framework, although we are aware that, whatever degree of intellectual honesty we will manifest, it is impossible to overcome totally our Protestant background, inclined towards understanding tradition as a token. I. The Orthodox Theological Framework |
| At its session in Amman, Jordan, in September 2014, the Joint Theological Commission on the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue deliberated on the prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares in the first millenium in order to establish what might be his prerogatives if, hypothetically, there were a restoration of full communion between East and West. Some argued that in such a situation the Bishop of Rome should be given the right to convoke Ecumenical Councils and preside at them. In addition, he would also preside over the Eucharistic celebration when the primates of the autocephalous Churches gathered for it. To some members of the Commission it seemed to be obvious that such prerogatives follow from primacy of honor at the universal level. Yet early church history offers no grounds for such claims. As we have seen, there has not been a single case of a pope presiding over an Ecumenical Council. Nor has there been any case when a pope would have concelebrated with Eastern patriarchs and presided over such concelebrations. The issue of primacy in the Universal Church divided Orthodox and Catholics throughout the second millenium. It became a commonplace for the Orthodox, in their polemics with the Catholics, to insist that in the Universal Church there can be no visible head because Christ Himself is the Head of the Body of the Church. I will not quote from the relevant abundant writings since they are well known. Throughout the twentieth century, however, this way of thinking was contested by some Orthodox theologians. The late Dean of this Seminary, Fr Alexander Schmemann, believed that " if the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head, because Christ is her invisible head, is theological nonsense. " Current opinion in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, however, clearly indicates that most Orthodox representatives concur with the millenium-old polemics against papacy rather than with the view expressed by Fr Alexander. The notion that a supreme hierarch for the Universal Church is a necessity has been approached from different angles over the last fifty years, but invariably the consensus among the Orthodox is that primacy as expressed in the Western tradition was and remains alien to the East. In other words, the Orthodox are not prepared to have a pope, even though different voices call for the adoption of a more centralized structure. |
| If the locality of the Church is not to be absorbed and in fact negated by the element of universality, the utmost care must be taken so that the structures of ministries which are aimed at facilitating communion among the local Churches do not become a superstructure over the local Church. It is extremely significant that in the entire course of church history there has never been an attempt at establishing a super-local eucharist or a super-local bishop. All eucharists and all bishops are local in character – at least in their primary sense. In a eucharistic view of the Church this means that the local Church, as defined earlier here, is the only form of ecclesial existence which can be properly called Church. All structures aiming at facilitating the universality of the Church create a network of communion of Churches, not a new form of Church. 566 This is not only supported by history, but rests also upon sound theological and existential ground. Any structural universalization of the Church to the point of creating an ecclesial entity called “universal Church” as something parallel to or above that of the local Church would inevitably introduce into the concept of the Church cultural and other dimensions which are foreign to a particular local context. Culture cannot be a monolithically universal phenomenon without some kind of demonic imposition of one culture over the rest of cultures. Nor is it possible to dream of a universal “Christian culture” without denying the dialectic between history and eschatology which is so central, among other things, to the eucharist itself. Thus, if there is a transcendence of cultural divisions on a universal level – which indeed must be constantly aimed at by the Church – it can only take place via the local situations expressed in and through the particular local Churches and not through universalistic structures which imply a universal Church. For a universal Church as an entity besides the local Church would be either a culturally disincarnated Church – since there is no such a thing as universal culture – or alternatively it would be culturally incarnated in a demonic way, if it either blesses or directly or indirectly imposes on the world a particular culture. |
|
|
