| Even more significant and overtly ecumenical in tone was the encyclical of Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos, issued in 1920, which was addressed “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere” and which announced its theme in the epigraph taken from the First Letter of Peter: “Love one another earnestly from the heart” ( 1Pet. 1.22 ) (Limouris 1994). This encyclical is considered foundational to the ecumenical movement in general, setting forth the very notion of creating a “league” or fellowship of churches. It speaks about the “blessed union” of the churches that awaits the faithful and urges all the different traditions to engage in joint study of the central issues surrounding the concept of reunion. The letter suggests that, as a first step towards union, the fostering of contacts between the churches is a most important thing. When the first such contacts were initiated, two prerequisites were asked to be kept in mind: first, “the removal and abolition of all the mutual mistrust and bitterness”; and secondly, that “love should be rekindled and strengthened among the churches.” Germanos then went on to list some eleven fundamental points as a working proposal and agenda for future collaboration among the churches: a list which indeed became the basis of the programmatic work of the WCC at the time of its creation in 1948. Then, only three Orthodox churches participated: the ecumenical patriarchate itself, the Church of Cyprus, and the Church of Greece; though the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in the USA sent representatives. The spirit of Germanos’ influential agenda was the mutual enrichment of divided Christians through the sharing of experience, the common study of existing problems, and the charitable recognition of one another at various levels. In its final paragraph the encyclical referred to the fellowship it envisaged growing between the churches by using the Greek word Koinonia, which has since become a landmark, a focal idea, in the history of the worldwide ecumenical movement. It was on this encyclical that W. A. Visser’t Hooft, the first general secretary of the WCC, commented: “With its 1920 encyclical, Constantinople rang the bell of our assembling.” |
| Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world: Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council Source: DECR Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council, adopted by the 5th Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference in Chambésy on October, 10-17, 2015. Photo: http://www.patriarchia.ru/ Published in compliance with the decision of the Synaxis of Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, Chambésy, January, 21-28, 2016. 1. Orthodox Church, being the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in her profound ecclesiastical consciousness firmly believes that she occupies a central place in matters relating to the promotion of Christian unity within the contemporary world. 2. The Orthodox Church grounds her unity on the fact that she was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as on the communion in the Holy Trinity and in the Sacraments. This unity is manifested through the apostolic succession and the patristic tradition and to this day is lived within her. It is the mission and duty of the Orthodox Church to transmit and proclaim the truth, in all its fullness, contained in the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition, the truth which gives to the Church her catholic character. 3. The responsibility of the Orthodox Church and her ecumenical mission with regard to the unity were expressed by the Ecumenical Councils. These, in particular, stressed the indissoluble link existing between true faith and the sacramental communion. 4. The Orthodox Church, which unceasingly prays “ for the union of all ,” has always promoted dialogue with those separated from her, both far and near, playing a leading role in seeking ways and means to restore the unity of believers in Christ, participating in the ecumenical movement since its inception, and contributing to its formation and further development. In addition, the Orthodox Church, due to the ecumenical spirit and love for mankind by which she is distinguished and in accordance with the divine dispensation to “ have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), has always fought for the restoration of Christian unity. Therefore, the Orthodox participation in the movement for the restoration of Christian unity does not run counter to the nature and history of the Orthodox Church. It is the consistent expression of the apostolic faith and Tradition in a new historical context. |
| Скачать epub pdf No one can doubt that nowadays there is a malaise in the Orthodox world regarding the position which must be adopted vis-B-vis Ecumenism, namely with our involvement in the organized Ecumenical Movement (World Council of Churches) and the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church. This situation is the result of circumstantial factors and unsolved substantive questions. Both of them are so intricate that disentangling them is very difficult. This situation, moreover, is not something new because it has existed from the twenties of our century when the Ecumenical Movement was sketched. The problem became more acute when it had definitely taken shape after the Second World War. In both cases ecclesiastical politics played a role probably more important than ecclesiological considerations and this ambivalence has ever since lasted. In the twenties a widespread atmosphere of optimism prevailed and led to a conciliatory attitude in inter-church relations. Suffice it to bear in mind the recognition by Economy of the validity of Anglican Orders by some Orthodox Churches during the twenties and thirties. By that time, however, two different factors affected the Orthodox world, namely the lack of involvement of the Russian Church because of the Bolshevik persecution and the weakening of the Constantiopolitan Patriarchate after the treatise of Lusanne in 1923. Shortly before, in 1920, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had made a proclamation favoring the organization of the various Christian Churches modeled on that of The League of Nations. It is also noteworthy that with the exception of Fr. Geroges Florovsky, the majority of the Orthodox theologians supporting Ecumenism belonged to a liberal tendency and accepted relativistic views on the oneness of the Church (branch theory). The strongest reaction against ecumenism came later in a completely different historical context: In 1948, the resolutions adopted by the Moscow Conference of the Autocephalous Churches contained an unconditional condemnation of the goal and method of the WCC and consequently turned down any participation in its activities. Furthermore this conference expressed its hostile feelings toward the Vatican. Those negative positions were brought about by an unholy alliance between the Soviet government intending to isolate the Eastern block from the West and the most retrograde elements of the Orthodox Church. Actually only the Churches located behind the Iron Curtain followed strictly this line. |
| Chapter IX. The Orthodox Churches and the Ecumenical Movement Prior to 1910 For many centuries, the Eastern and Western Churches lived in almost complete separation from one another. Yet this separateness is always to be understood in the light of the complementary truth that these differing blocks of insights and convictions grew out of what was originally a common mind. The East and the West can meet and find one another only if they remember their original kinship and the unity of their common past. Christian unity was not long maintained, or rather has never been fully realized. Yet there is justification for speaking of the undivided Church of the first millennium. Throughout that period, there was a wide consensus of belief, a common mind such as has not existed at any later date. Men were convinced that the conflicting groups still belonged to the same Church, and that conflict was no more than estrangement caused by some grievous misunderstanding. The disruption of the Church was abhorred by all concerned, and division, when it came, was accepted with grief and reluctance. Permanent separation between East and West was preceded by the decay of the common mind and of the sense of mutual responsibility within the one Body. When unity was finally broken, this was not so much because agreement could not be reached on certain doctrinal issues, as because the universe of discourse had already been disrupted. The East and the West had always been different, but the differences had prevented neither Jerome from being at home in Palestine nor Athanasius in his western exile. But gradually the point was reached at which the memories of the common past were obliterated and faded away, and Christians came to live contentedly in their own particular and partial worlds, mistaking them for the Catholic whole. This separation was partly geographical, a matter literally of east and west. It was also in part a matter of language. Greek had been the universal language of the Mediterranean world, the common tongue of civilization, as of Christian thought and expression. But this factor of unity grew weaker, as Greek came to be generally forgotten in the west. Even Augustine knew it only imperfectly. Translations of Greek Christian classics into Latin were rare, of Latin classics into Greek even rarer. When the new barbarian nations came on the scene, they were unable to assimilate __________ |
| 1998 Synodical Decision of the Orthodox Church of Georgia on the Chambésy and Balamand Agreements, the Branch Theory and more INTRODUCTION Among the milestones of contemporary Orthodox ecclesiastical history with regard to the Church's struggle to maintain " the faith once delivered " and Her belief in the " One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, " the 1998 Synodical Decision of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Georgia is of especial importance. Echoing the earlier decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 1983, which condemned the heresy of ecumenism, and in particular made reference to the " Branch Theory, " the Decision of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Georgia is broader in scope, touching on six different manifestations of unorthodox teachings emanating from the contemporary ecumenical movement and ecumenical involvement of the Local Orthodox Churches. In particular, the decision rejects by name the Chambésy and Balamand agreements, the agreement signed by the Patriarch of Antioch with the Non-Chalcedonians in Syria, in 1991, the adoption of the Gregorian Paschalion by the Finnish Church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the idea that the Holy Mysteries exist outside the Church and also the various manifestations of the " Branch Theory , " as well as common prayer and sharing of mysteries with the non-Orthodox. Both the particular and wide-ranging nature of the decision increases its importance and significance for the entire Church in terms of coming to a pan-Orthodox consensus with regard to the heretical nature of syncretistic ecumenism. For this reason, the fact that it has (to our knowledge) never been translated into English - until now - is all the more astounding. It is important to note the following concerning this Synodical Decision, so as to put it into its proper historical and ecclesiastical context: The Holy Synod's decision was based on a review done by a theological commission appointed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, Ilia II. The decision to create the commission and review the above-mentioned six issues and texts came on the heel of a major, popular " uprising " of the faithful of Georgia, in particular, the monastic community. Hence, it was the watchfulness and dogmatic sensitivity, not only or even primarily of the hierarchy, but of the entire pleroma of the faithful that brought about this landmark decision in favor of Orthodox ecclesiology. This point cannot be over-stated and must be seriously considered by the faithful everywhere, in every Local Church, for every believer is co-responsible for the guarding of the deposit of the Faith and the upbuilding of the Church. |
| Dnu Mnstireanu Introduction The importance of studying the implications of an appeal to tradition on the interpretation of Scripture is underlined by at least two facts: 1. The renewed interest for the study of tradition in modern scholarship For centuries the sola scriptura principle of the Reformation has been an unchallenged basis for Western scholarship. This brought about a concentration on the text of Scripture alone and a neglect of the Sitz im Leben in which the books of the New Testament have originated. However, as comments Von Herder, one of the first to do so, in 1796–97, did not begin with books, but with oral preaching». 2 The progress made in folklore research and the birth of Formgeschichte with scholars such as Dibelius 3 and Bultmann 4 in the twenties has in turn brought about a new appreciation of the different literary forms in the Gospels and the role they played in the oral stage of the Gospel tradition. Later on, in the fifties, the redaction criticism schools of Conzelmann, 5 Marxsen 6 and Bornkamm 7 corrected the fragmented approach of the form-critics, concentrating on the Gospels as literary units and on the Gospel writers as theologians representing the concerns of the early Christian communities. This for a tradition within and behind the received text», says Jaroslav Pelikan, responsible for an entire new era in the long history of biblical interpretation». 8 Commenting on the oral background of the Biblical text, Gerhardsson describes in the following words the implications of this fact in the area of hermeneutics: Awareness of the fact that the gospel is by nature a spoken word is essential for a sound interpretation of the holy scriptures of the church. It is a guard against the tendency – not uncommon within Protestantism – to think that the church believes in the Bible, not in the triune God, and it counteracts dead ecclesiastic routine, legalism and rationalistic literalism in interpretation. 9 The renewed worldwide interest in the study of tradition proved to be a the right occasion for Orthodoxy to make an impact on the modern ecumenical movement. 2. The new insights on tradition provided by the involvement of the Eastern Orthodox Church in ecumenical dialogue |
| John Anthony McGuckin Alexandria, Patriarchate of MATTHEW J. PEREIRA The patriarchate of Alexandria flourished as one of the premier centers of Eastern Christian intellectual, ecclesial, and political life until the middle of the 7th century. Initially, the patriarchate of Alexandria was ranked second to Rome in ecclesial priority. In 381 the third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council declared that the patriarchate of Constantinople would henceforth rank higher than Alexandria and thus it assumed precedence in the whole East, a state of affairs initially resisted in Egypt. In 451 the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the priority of the patriarchate of Constantinople over that of Alexandria. Despite being overshadowed by the sees of Rome and Constantinople, the patriarchate of Alexandria undoubtedly set the foundational framework and trajectory for Christian theology. For example, the Logos theologians of Alexandria, most notably Clement (ca. 150–215) and Origen (ca. 185-ca. 251), significantly shaped future patristic reflections upon the person and nature of Jesus Christ. Also, Alexandrian hierarchs such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. 293–373) and St. Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378–444) advanced what would become the classical Orthodox expression of the mystery of the incarnate Lord. Within the Roman Empire, theological and political allegiances often aligned together in ways that could either strengthen or weaken any given patriarchate, whether Rome, Constantinople, or another major see. In this volatile context, the patriarchate of Alexandria managed to grow into a significant political force. Further, in the 3rd century, Egyptian monasticism developed into a burgeoning movement that indelibly shaped Alexandrian Christianity (Chitty 1999). In brief, the convergence of the ecclesial, political, theological, and monastic streams into one dynamic confluence infused Alexandrian Christianity with long-lasting vitality. The following summary begins with a brief historical sketch of the city of Alexandria, followed by a list of the patriarchs of Alexandria from the 1st century up to the 8th. There then follows an overview of the most influential bishops, pivotal councils, and exceptional theological and spiritual movements that bear witness to the enduring significance of the patriarchate of Alexandria. |
| Скачать epub pdf Preface Every heresy has its own “spirituality”, its own characteristic approach to the practical religious life. Thus, Roman Catholicism, until recently, had a clearly distinguishable piety of its own, bound up with the “sacred heart,” the papacy, purgatory and indulgences, the revelations of various “mystics,” and the like; and a careful Orthodox observer could detect in such aspects of modern Latin spirituality the practical results of the theological errors of Rome. Fundamentalist Protestantism, too, has its own approach to prayer, its typical hymns, its approach to spiritual “revival;” and in all of these can be detected the application to religious life of its fundamental errors in Christian doctrine. The present book is about the “spirituality” of Ecumenism, the chief heresy of the 20th century. Until recently it appeared that Ecumenism was something so artificial, so syncretic, that it had no spirituality of its own; the “liturgical” agenda of Ecumenical gatherings both great and small appeared to be no more than an elaborate Protestant Sunday service. But the very nature of the Ecumenist heresy – the belief that there is no one visible Church of Christ, that it is only now being formed – is such that it disposes the soul under its influence to certain spiritual attitudes which, in time, should produce a typical Ecumenist “piety” and “spirituality.” In our day this seems to be happening at last, as the Ecumenical attitude of religious ”expectancy” and “searching” begins to be rewarded by the activity of a certain “spirit” which gives religious satisfaction to the barren souls of the Ecumenist wasteland and results in a characteristic “piety” which is no longer merely Protestant in tone. This book was begun in 1971 with an examination of the latest “Ecumenical” fashion – the opening of a “dialogue with non-Christian religions.” Four chapters on this subject were printed in The Orthodox Word in 1971 and 1972, reporting chiefly on the events of the late 1960’s up to early 1972. The last of these chapters was a detailed discussion of the “charismatic revival” which had just then been taken up by several Orthodox priests in America, and this movement was described as a form of “Ecumenical spirituality” inclusive of religious experiences which are distinctly non-Christian. |
| Botte=Botte B. From Silence to Participation: An Insiders View of Liturgical Renewal. Washington, 1988. Botte. Foreword=Botte B. Foreword to the third edition//Baumstark A. Comparative Liturgy. London, 1958. Botte. The Short Anaphora=Botte B. The Short Anaphora//The New Bouyer. Liturgical Piety=Bouyer L. Liturgical Piety. Indiana, 1955. Bouyer. Liturgy and Architecture=Bouyer L. Liturgy and Arhcitecture. Indiana, 1967. Bouyer. The Decomposition=Bouyer L. The Decomposition of Catholicism. London, 1970. Bouyer. The Eucharist=Bouyer L. Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Indiana, 1968. Bouyer. The Liturgy Revived=Bouyer L. The Liturgy Revived: A Doc trinal Commentary of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy. Indiana, 1964. Bouyer. The Third Eucharistic Prayer=Bouyer L. The Third Eucharistic Prayer IIThe New Liturgy. Bria=Bria I. The Liturgy after the Liturgy. Geneva, 1966. Brightman=Brightman F.E. Liturgies Eastern and Western. Vol. I: Eastern Liturgies. Oxford 1896. Bugnini=Bugnini A. The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948–1975. Collegeville, Minnesota. 1990. Busch=Busch W. The Liturgical Movement (Letter to the Editor)//Commonwealth. November 4, 1925. Cabrol=Cabrol F. The Mass of the Western Rite. ID. http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/mass.txt. Calivas=Calivas A.C. The Penthekte Synod and Liturgical Reform//Holy Cross Conference: The Council «in Trullo»: Basis for Ecclesiastical reform? A Conference Commemorating the 1300 Anniversary of the Penthekte Ecumenical Council «in Trullo»//The Greek Orthodox Theological Review. 1–2. 1995. Casel. Neue Zeugnisse=Casel O. Neue Zeugnisse fur das Kultmysterium HJahrbuch fur Liturgiewissenschaft. XIII. 1933. Casel. The Mystery=Casel O. The Mystery of the Christian Worship and Other Writings. London, 19632. Champlin=Champlin J.M. The proper Balance: A Practical Look at Liturgical Renewal. Indiana, 1981. Chrichton=Chrichton J.D. The Church s Worship: Considerations on the Liturgical Constitution of the Second Vatican Council. London- Dublin, 1966. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Georgia, Patriarchal Orthodox Church of TAMARA GRDZELIDZE The Church of Georgia has historically existed on territory situated between modern Turkey in the West, Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Southeast, and small Caucasian ethnic groups of the Russian Federation in the North. It is a church of a small nation and its land has long known hardship, yet also benefits from fellow Christians across its borders. Neighboring Byzantium once guaranteed its security, though not unconditionally nor unfailingly. Georgia was Byzantium’s old ally in consolidating Christian forces against Islam in the East, and at certain moments of history it served beneficially in Georgian ecclesiastical and political matters. Georgia’s relations with the Church of Armenia became problematic in the light of the theological tension in the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon (451), and in spite of a significant attempt to find a compromise solution at the Council of Dvin (506) a lasting ecclesiastical division resulted after 609. Georgia’s immediate neighbor, the Christian state of Russia, actively began seeking influence over the Caucasus after the fall of Constantinople (1453) and spread out powerfully, resulting in the gradual annexation of the Georgian kingdoms after 1801, and in the abolition of the longstanding autocephaly of the Church of Georgia in 1811. In 1921 Georgia was made one of the republics of the Soviet Union and the Orthodox Church of Georgia exercised a form of quasi-independence visa-vis other Orthodox churches, as well as within the ecumenical movement, but it was also seriously challenged and threatened by the Soviet ideology and anti-church repressions. It has been exercising its independence once more since 1991. LANGUAGE AND ALPHABET The 5th-century Georgian language (Kartuli) preserved in the oldest manuscripts is not entirely alien to contemporary Georgians. Together with Megrelian, Svan, and Laz, it forms part of the Kartvelian group of southern Caucasian languages. |
|
|
