| Emperor Constantine the Great (306–337). The Importance of His Faith in the History of the Church V. Rev. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook SOURCE: The Journal of the Chicago Pastoral School by V. Rev. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook This paper was submitted during the Fall '08 semester as a class assignment for course “101 — History and Principles of the Orthodox Church”. Fr. Thaddaeus Hardenbrook is the rector at St. Lawrence Orthodox Church in Felton, California. He and his wife operate an Orthodox business supplying large icon reproductions called Orthodox Images . Head of Constantine " s colossal statue at the Capitoline Museums. St. Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles, First Christian Emperor of Rome, builder of Constantinople and founder the Byzantine Empire. He is a military victor, effective ruler and glorified saint. There is no doubt that his contribution to world history and that of the Orthodox Church is indeed spectacular. Eusebius describes him as “such an emperor as all history records not ” and Ware places him “at a watershed in the history of the Church.” As Meyendorff asserts, “No single human being in history has contributed…to the conversion of so many to the Christian faith.” Norwich reiterates this opinion on a global scales stating that “No ruler in all of history…has ever more fully merited his title of ‘the Great’….[Constantine has] serious claim to be considered…the most influential man in all of history..” Among Constantine’s most significant acts and initiatives of importance in church history are his legal initiation of freedom for Christianity with the Edict of Milan (313), his calling of the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea (325), and moving the capital of the empire from pagan encrusted Rome to Constantinople (330). However, popular and academic loyalty regarding his status as ‘first Christian emperor’ and ‘saint of the Church’ has wavered over time. Dominant opinions have ebbed and flowed in their evaluation of Constantine’s role specifically as a Christian. A religious role of importance that, as Schmemann describes it, no one denies but the evaluators of which are “diametrically opposed.” |
| Chapter 4. THE CHURCH I. Identity of the Church Now we must turn our attention to the Church. There is no undisputed definition of the Church, and many of the definitions on offer could equally be applied to other institutions. Since the Church is an organised community, many of it characteristics are not very different from those of other organisations that have come and gone in the course of history. What is it that makes the Church distinct from any other institution? In its Roman Catholic and Protestant forms, the Church was understood as an association (societas) with its own organisation. Although it has been dominant for centuries, this view of the Church is beginning to disappear, just as the idea that ‘society’ means a nation with a unified culture is also receding. This is not simply because the form taken by the Church varies from one country to another but also because national cultures are being dissolved by new social and economic forces. For the Protestant Churches, the relationship of Church and society, which determines the public aspect of the Church, generally appears in terms that relate to the issue of secularisation. The relationship of the Church to society is not well defined, but it is not very different from the relationship that any other cultural organisation has with society as a whole. Protestant Churches have been profoundly affected by changing views of society, so we can identify communitarian and liberal forms of Church, each denomination with its own definition of the relationship of Church and society. Where the emphasis is on doctrine, as in the Lutheran and Calvinist Churches, it was formulated to create their own particular denominational identity. Protestant Churches in particular are exposed to prevailing secular trends, so their ethics are described in terms of rights and freedoms not very distinct from those held by the population as a whole. The pressures determining Western ecclesiology have left their mark on Orthodoxy too. When Western denominations appeared in the seventeenth century, the Orthodox were asked which of them they recognised, so they described the teaching of the Orthodox Churches by reference to these denominations. In trying to distinguish themselves from these Western Churches, the Orthodox borrowed arguments from the Roman Catholics in order to reply to the Protestants and vice versa. However, to find a truly Orthodox account of the identity of the Church we have to examine its early history. The Church springs from the relationship of man and the world with God, experienced by the Christian community throughout the centuries. |
| Chapter II. The Predicament of the Christian Historian Veritas non erubescit nisi abscondi. – Leo XIII «Christianity is a religion of historians.» 1 It is a strong phrase, but the statement is correct. Christianity is basically a vigorous appeal to history, a witness of faith to certain particular events in the past, to certain particular data of history. These events are acknowledged by faith as truly eventful. These historic moments, or instants, are recognized as utterly momentous. In brief, they are identified by faith as «mighty deeds» of God, Magnalia Dei. The «scandal of particularity,» to use the phrase of Gerhard Kittel, 2 belongs to the very essence of the Christian message. The Christian Creed itself is intrinsically historic. It comprises the whole of existence in a single historical scheme as one «History of Salvation,» from Creation to Consummation, to the Last Judgment and the End of history. Emphasis is put on the ultimate cruciality of certain historic events, namely, of the Incarnation, of the Coming of the Messiah, and of his Cross and Resurrection. Accordingly, it may be justly contended that «the Christian religion is a daily invitation to the study of history.» 3 Now, it is at this point that the major difficulties arise. An average believer, of any denomination or tradition, is scarcely aware of his intrinsic duty to study history. The historical pattern of the Christian message is obvious. But people are interested rather in the «eternal truth» of this message, than in what they are inclined to regard as «accidents» of history, even when they are discussing the facts of the Biblical history or of the history of the Church. Does not the message itself point out beyond history, to the «life of the Age to come»? There is a persistent tendency to interpret the facts of history as images or symbols, as typical cases or examples, and to transform the «history of salvation» into a kind of edifying parable. We can trace this tendency back to the early centuries of Christian history. In our own days we find ourselves in the midst of an intense controversy precisely about this very matter. |
| On Glorification of the Saints. A talk with archpriest Georgiy Mitrofanov Glorification of saints is a very difficult issue. History of the Church is, first of all, the history of sainthood, and the twentieth century in this regard is one of the saddest periods of our church history. The Russian Church, having given the world an enormous number of saints, had no opportunity to complete the glorification . – Glorification of saints is a very difficult issue. History of the Church is, first of all, the history of sainthood, and the twentieth century in this regard is one of the saddest periods of our church history. The Russian Church, having given the world an enormous number of saints, had no opportunity to complete the glorification . From 1917 to 1988 only two ascetics were canonized, and that only because it was important for the international politics of the USSR (for example, the canonization of Nicholas of Japan emphasized the presence of the Russian Orthodox Church, of Russia, and therefore, of the Soviet Union in Japan). Glorification of saints became possible only in the 1980s when under the circumstances of perestroika, the government started to change the politics with respect to the Church. On the eve of the festivities for the 1000 year anniversary of the baptism of Russia, the government agreed to perform several canonizations. In 1987 a Synodal committee on the canonization of saints was formed. For the 18 years of the committee’s work, over 1500 saints have been glorified. These glorification s have demanded from us some very serious and, I will not be afraid of the word, innovative decisions. The Church lives by tradition, but the tradition does not always develop in an uninterrupted and peaceful way. Let us review what are the grounds for canonization. First of all, miracles connected with the life of a Christian and the miracles occurring after his death in connection with his commemoration. Secondly, the veneration of a Christian by the church people and, finally, his righteous life. Everything is clear, it would seem. Yet, here is the problem that we encountered almost immediately. Veneration by the people of many pious Christians is absent in our country. If you were to ask me: “Which of the saints canonized by your committee fully corresponds to the main criteria?” — I would give you only several names. |
| Presenting his report to the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which opened on February 2 in Moscow, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia spoke on the preparations for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Photo: http://www.patriarchia.ru/ ‘We believe that the Church of Christ is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic, as the Creed clearly states. The Church is one by her nature. The existence of many autocephalous Churches in the world is a form of the Church’s existence in history most suitable for carrying out her salvific mission. We also know that the Church’s decision-making important for the Orthodox Plenitude has always required the participation if not of all the Orthodox hierarchs then at all events representatives of each Local Church. In this sense, Ecumenical Councils and some other Councils of pan-Orthodox significance are a visible expression of the Unity of the Church, her conciliar nature, a reflection of her self-awareness as one body in Christ (sf. Rom. 12:5). ‘The reception by the whole Church of a particular Council has always been gradual and, ‘as church history shows, no Council could impose its decisions on the Church if they proved to be rejected by the people of God, if there was no all-church reception of a Council’s resolutions’. For this reason, no Ecumenical Council became such only by the fact of its convocation: its real significance became clear only after some, sometimes very long time. ‘We do not call Ecumenical the forthcoming Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Unlike ancient Ecumenical Councils, it is not called to make decisions on doctrinal issues because such were made long ago and are not subject to revision. It is not called either to introduce any innovation in the liturgical life of the Church and her canonical order. Nevertheless, it may, if prepared correctly, become an important factor in consolidating the inter-church unity and cooperation and contribute to the clarification of the responses that the Orthodox Church gives to challenges of today on the basis of her age-old Tradition’. |
| Presenting his report to the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which opened on February 2 in Moscow, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia spoke on the preparations for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. " We believe that the Church of Christ is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic, as the Creed clearly states. The Church is one by her nature. The existence of many autocephalous Churches in the world is a form of the Church’s existence in history most suitable for carrying out her salvific mission. We also know that the Church’s decision-making, important for the Orthodox plenitude, has always required the participation if not of all the Orthodox hierarchs then at least representatives of each Local Church. In this sense, Ecumenical Councils and some other Councils of pan-Orthodox significance are a visible expression of the unity of the Church, her conciliar nature, a reflection of her self-awareness as one body in Christ (cf. Rom. 12:5). " The reception by the whole Church of a particular Council has always been gradual and, as church history shows, no Council could impose its decisions on the Church if they proved to be rejected by the people of God, if there was no pan-Church reception of a Council’s resolutions. " For this reason, no Ecumenical Council became such only by the fact of its convocation: its real significance became clear only after some, and sometimes a very long time. " We do not call Ecumenical the forthcoming Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Unlike ancient Ecumenical Councils, it is not called to make decisions on doctrinal issues because such were made long ago and are not subject to revision. It is not called either to introduce any innovation in the liturgical life of the Church and her canonical order. Nevertheless, it may, if prepared correctly, become an important factor in consolidating the inter-Church unity and cooperation and contribute to the clarification of the responses that the Orthodox Church gives to challenges of today on the basis of her age-old Tradition. " |
| 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 His Holiness Patriarch Kirill meets with members of Commission for Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church DECR Communication Service, 20.09.2022. On September 20, His Holiness Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, met at the Cathedral Church of Christ the Saviour with members of the Commission for Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church, which is holding its session in Russia. Among the participants in the meeting from the Russian Orthodox Church were Hieromonk Stephen (Igumnov), DECR secretary for inter-Christian relations, and S. G. Alferov, DECR, a member of the Commission. The meeting was co-chaired by Metropolitan Serapion of Los Angeles, Coptic Church, who attended the meeting online. Present at the meeting were Bishop Cyril, secretary of the Commission, dean of the Ss Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria Seminary; Hieromonk Dawoud El Antony, representative of the Coptic Church in Russia; Dr Anton Milad, Patriarchal adviser; Ms Barbara Soliman, head of the Patriarchal department for church projects; and Dr Iskhak Ibrahim Agban, general secretary of the Institute of Coptic Studies. ‘We cherish the longstanding good and friendly relations that tie our two Churches, and, certainly, the ages-old friendship between the peoples of Egypt and Russia’, Patriarch Kirill said welcoming the delegation of the Coptic Church, ‘Now we are going through a special history of international relations, which in many cases are breaking, becoming more strained and burdened with conflicts. However, we should thank the Lord for the relations between our Churches as well as our countries, Russia and Egypt, which are invariably good and lasting’. The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church stressed that in recent years, the development of her relations with Churches in Africa became one of the priorities of the Moscow Patriarchate’s external work. His Holiness recalled that in December 2021 the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church established the Patriarchal Exarchate for Africa, which has created an additional potent base for developing cooperation with the Coptic Church in the continent. |
| Скачать epub pdf History Almost two thousand years ago, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to earth and founded the Church, through His Apostles and disciples, for the salvation of man. In the years which followed, the Apostles spread the Church and its teachings far; they founded many churches, all united in faith, worship, and the partaking of the Mysteries (or as they are called in the West, the Sacraments) of the Holy Church. The churches founded by the Apostles themselves include the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. The Church of Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew, the Church of Alexandria by St. Mark, the Church of Antioch by St. Paul, the Church of Jerusalem by Sts. Peter and James, and the Church of Rome by Sts. Peter and Paul. Those founded in later years through the missionary activity of the first churches were the Churches of Sinai, Russia, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, and many others. Each of these churches is independent in administration, but, with the exception of the Church of Rome, which finally separated from the others in the year 1054, all are united in faith, doctrine, Apostolic tradition, sacraments, liturgies, and services. Together they constitute and call themselves the Orthodox Church. The teachings of the Church are derived from two sources: Holy Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, within which the Scriptures came to be, and within which they are interpreted. As written in the Gospel of St. John, «And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world could not contain the books that should be written» ( John 21:20 ). Much teaching transmitted orally by the Apostles has come down to us in Sacred Tradition. The word Orthodox literally means right teaching or right worship, being derived from two Greek words: orthos (right) and doxa (teaching or worship). As the false teachings and divisions multiplied in early Christian times, threatening to obscure the identity and purity of the Church, the term Orthodox quite logically came to be applied to it. The Orthodox Church carefully guards the truth against all error and schism, both to protect its flock and to glorify Christ whose body the Church is. |
| Archive Time as Judge. Orthodox Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century 12 December 2018 year 14:16 The topic of relationships between the Mother Church and the Sister Church – the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Russia was very painful in the last century. An open discourse about it is initiated by the Rev. Dr Alexander Mazyrin, PhD/Church History, and Andrey Kostryukov, PhD/Historical Sciences, in the collection ‘From the History of Relationships between the Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century’. The publication consists of two essays: ‘Phanar and Renovationism against the Russian Orthodox Church’ by Father Alexander Mazyrin and ‘The Church Diaspora, and the Ecumenical See’ by A. Kostryukov. The below article written by Sergey Firsov, PhD/Historical Sciences, published in the ‘Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii’ (Is. 10, 2018) is devoted to this collection. In fact, the overall title of Father Alexander’s essay already speaks clearly that he regards the actions of the Church of Constantinople as aimed against the Russian Orthodox Church supposing that these actions are conscious and well considered. From the very beginning the author shows that the Phanariots were not embarrassed by the arbitrary actions of the schismatic ‘Supreme Church Administration’ in 1922 and ‘along with the theomachist Bolsheviks and treasonous renovators, became another source of sorrow for the Russian Orthodox Church’. For Phanar, ‘political interests’ proved to be more important than canonical rules and the Orthodox church tradition. The author cites examples of how the Church of Constantinople (in the person of her supreme church authority) while expressing compassion for the Russian Church, sought to use the GRU-inspired church schism for her own political ends. A noticeable role in the negative development of the Greek-Russian church relations was played by two representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch – two Greek archimandrites, un uncles and his nephew, Jacob and Basil (Dimopoulos). The former was a representative of Phanar in Russia since 1894 and lived in his residence in Moscow (Krapivensky Pereulok, 4). Up to his death in 1924, he was an official representative of Phanar in Russia. Since 1924 up to his death in 1934, the same duty was fulfilled by his nephew. |
| On 19 October 2014, when the Orthodox Church honours the memory of the Holy Apostle Thomas who, according to the church tradition, was the first to preach the Gospel in the Celestial Empire, the 5th anniversary of the restoration and consecration of the Church of the Dormition was celebrated in the capital of China, in the territory of the Russian Embassy. The place where the church stands today used to belong to the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in China which contributed to the development of Russia-China relations for over 250 years. On October 17, Bishop Sergiy of Solnechnogorsk, vicar of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, head of the Administrative Secretariat of the Moscow Patriarchate, arrived in Beijing to take part in the celebrations upon the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. Accompanying the archpastor was Mr. Dmitry Petrovsky, a staff member of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations. Mr. Yevgeny Tomikhin, Minister Counselor of the Russian Embassy in China, met Bishop Sergiy at the Beijing airport. On October 18, Bishop Sergiy, Mr. Yevgeny Tomikhin and the clergymen who had arrived in Beijing to take part in the celebrations attended the opening of an exhibition on the Contemporary History of the Church of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos in Beijing. On October 19, Bishop Sergiy of Solnechnogorsk officiated at the Divine Liturgy in the Church of the Dormition. Concelebrating with the archpastor were priest Sergiy Voronin, rector of the Church of the Dormition; archpriest Andrei Stepanov, rector of the Church of the Lord’s Entry into Jerusalem in Irkutsk; archpriest Alexei Kiselevich, rector of the Orthodox community in Shanghai; archpriest Dionisy Pozdnyaev, rector of the Parish of Ss Peter and Paul in Hong Kong; and Hierodeacon Yuvenaly (Lapshin), a cleric of the Moscow Church of the Life-Giving Trinity in Ostankino. During the service, Bishop Sergiy of Solnechnogorsk presented the Patriarchal awards to those who had helped to restore the Church of the Dormition and contributed to the development of parish life in Beijing. |
|
|
