| Another interesting aspect was the bishop’s focus on Christian unity, which translated into a lengthy meeting with the Lebanese Maronite patriarch, head of the largest Rome-affiliated Eastern church. It was also perhaps not a coincidence that Hilarion left Beirut for Rome, where he had an appointment with Pope Francis on Nov. 11. At the meeting with the head of the Catholic Church, the status of Levantine Christians will be at the forefront of discussions, Hilarion said. It would appear that Moscow, as a state and a church, has the following in mind: Just as the Syrian chemical weapons crisis constituted an opportunity for US-Russian “reconciliation” and paved the way for a strong Russian resurgence on the world stage as a full-fledged decision-making partner, so the issue of Levantine Christians could be an opportunity for Moscow to achieve reconciliation between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. This would be deemed necessary and vital by Russia in its quest to complement said political resurgence, in the Middle East, Europe and farther afield internationally. In light of the dwindled Christian dimension to Western policies, and as Muslim affairs continue to gain importance in the identities, policies and countries of the Muslim world, a reconciliation between Moscow and the Vatican might be the first opportunity toward the former imposing itself as a Christian equalizer vis-à-vis the Muslim world around the globe. The Russian state’s agenda might entail a third aspect, for it seems that Moscow is trying to recover the role it played when it was the capital of the Soviet Union. The difference is that during the Kremlin’s communist days, revolutionary Marxism stood at the core of the regime’s ideology, which was reflected in foreign policy rhetoric centered around backing liberation movements, revolution in third world countries, and establishment of a series of international institutions, ranging from the Comintern to global conferences of communist youth. Now that Moscow is Orthodox again, it seems that this religious component has merely replaced communism as the most prevalent aspect at the regime’s ideological core. This is a core whose legitimacy, to be consecrated, requires an external element, the best embodiment of which would be the issue of protecting Christian minorities, in particular, those of the Levant. |
| And now the Patriarchate of Constantinople has supported the schism within the Ukrainian Church. — You know that Constantinople accuses the Russian Orthodox Church of systematically undermining its ecumenical status, including by cultivating the theory of “Third Rome.” A whole book on this was published in Greece saying you want to somehow lead Orthodoxy in the world, because you have the largest flock. Is there any truth to this? — There is not a single drop of truth in these claims, except that we are indeed the most numerous Church. This fact is not something we get proud about, but something that imposes great responsibility upon us for our flock, for preserving its unity. If to touch upon the overblown mythology about the Russian Church, including the accusation that we supposedly preach the “Third Rome” theory, then provide at least one official document of our Church, one decision of our Church Council, the words of the Patriarch, or, for example, my speeches, which would say that we recognize Moscow as the Third Rome. There are none. This was an idea formulated several centuries ago and long since left in the past. It’s of no interest to us, as we have no desire to lead world Orthodoxy. We are quite satisfied with the place we occupy. We officially recognized the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople when the document “On Primacy in the Universal Church” was written and adopted at the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 2013. It says there in black and white that we recognize the Patriarch of Constantinople as first among equals in the family of the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches. But we recognize him as first in honor, not first in power. We don’t believe that the Patriarch of Constantinople has any authority outside his canonical jurisdiction or has the right to interfere in the internal life of the other Local Churches—we categorically disagree with such ideas. The document I’m talking about was adopted in 2013, when we were in unity with the Patriarch of Constantinople, but now this Patriarch is not to be found in our diptychs. Now there is a different ecclesiological situation, reminiscent of situations that arose in the past, for example, when Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople was teaching in the fifth century that the Theotokos must be called the Christotokos. The Third Ecumenical Council was called, which the Patriarch of Constantinople certainly did not preside over. He was accused there and was condemned for his heresy. Then another Patriarch of Constantinople was elected. So, history knows situations when the Church existed without an Orthodox patriarch on the throne in Constantinople. |
| Saint Maximus and Saint Martin suffered greatly for opposing the Monothelite position. They were both arrested by the imperial authorities and brought to Constantinople, where they were tried on false charges, condemned, imprisoned, and exiled. Saint Maximus even had his right hand and his tongue cut off by the imperial powers, who were determined to force the Chalcedonians and the Non-Chalcedonians into theological agreement. Ironically, by then real reconciliation between the two sides had been made virtually impossible by the Arab conquests, which in effect sealed off Egypt, Palestine, and Syria from the Byzantine world, preventing the possibility of further theological discussion. The Sixth Ecumenical Council The doctrine of Saint Sophronius, Saint Maximus, and Saint Martin prevailed at the Third Council of Constantinople, known as the Sixth Ecumenical Council, held in 680–681. This council verified their teaching and condemned Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople and his successors Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, as well as Pope Honorius of Rome, together with all who defended the false doctrine about Jesus that deprived Him of His genuine humanity. Pope Saint Agatho of Rome (r. 678–681) did much to prepare the way for this council and its decision, whereby communion between Rome and the Eastern Churches was restored. The Council of Trullo or the Quinisext Council In 692, just eleven years after the Sixth Ecumenical Council was held, another major council of Eastern bishops was held in the imperial palace called Trullo in Constantinople-hence the name, the Council of Trullo. This Council made no doctrinal proclamations; rather, it issued 102 canonical regulations on a wide variety of topics. This council is probably more often called the Quinisext Council (meaning “fifth-sixth”), because its canonical legislation is understood as having completed the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, neither of which had passed any canons. So its rulings are held by the Orthodox Church to be at the same level of authority as the canons passed by the first four Ecumenical Councils. |
| 61 Rankin D. Tertullian’s vocabulary of the divine “individuals” in “Adversus Praxean”//Sacris erudiri 40 (2001). P. 5–46. 62 MacCruden K. B. Monarchy and economy in Tertullian’s “Adversus Praxeam”//Scottish Journal of Theology 55 (2002). P. 325–337. 74 Spanneut M. Le stoïcisme des Peres de l’Eglise. De Clement de Rome a Clement d’Alexandrie. Paris, 1957. 77 Stead G. C. Divine Substance in Tertullian//Journal of Theological Studies, 14 (1963). P. 46–66. 86 D ’Ales A. Novatien. Etude sur la theologie romaine au milieu du III e siecle. Paris, 1924. 87 Kriebel M. Studien zur älteren Entwicklung der abendländischen Trinitätslehre bei Tertullian und Novatian. Diss. Marburg, 1932. 89 Kleibach G. Divinitas Filii ejusque Patri subordinatio in Novatiani libro De Trinitate//Bogoslivska Smotra, 21 (1933). P. 193–224. 90 Simonetti M. Alcune ossrvazioni sul “De Trinitate” di Novaziano//Studi in onore di Angelo Monteverdi, 2. Modea, 1959. P. 771–783. 91 De Simone R. J. The Treatise of Novatian the Roman Presbyter on the Trinity: a Study of the Text and the Doctrine. (Studia Ephemeridis «Augustinianum», 4). Rome, 1970. 92 Dunn G. D. The diversity and unity of God in Novatian’s “De Trinitate”//Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 78 (2002). P. 385–409. 93 Papandrea J.L. The Trinitarian Theology of Novatian of Rome. A Study in Third-Century Orthodoxy. Lewiston, Queenston, Lampeter, 2008. 103 Pichon R. Lactance. Etude sur le mouvement philosophique et religieuse sous le regne de Constantine. Paris, 1901. 105 Thomas L. Die Sapientia als Schlüsselbegriff zu den Divinae Institutiones des Laktanz. Freiburg, 1959. 107 Perrin M. Le Platon de Lactance//Lactance et son temps. Recherches actuelles. Actes du IV Colloque d’ Etudes Historiques et Patristiques. Chantilly, 21–23 Septembre 1976/Ed. J. Fontaine et M. Perrin. Paris, 1978. P. 203–231. 112 Courcelle P. Les sages de Porphyre et les “viri novi” d’ Arnobe//Revue des etudes latines, 31 (1953). P. 257–271; idem. Anti-Christian Argument and Christian Platonism from Arnobius to Saint Augustine//The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the IV cent./Ed. A. Momigliano. Oxford, 1963. P. 151–192. |
| The persecutions by Decius and Valerian, as well as the peaceful times which preceded and followed, brought a great interior crisis to the Christian Church in the third century. The question arose about how to care for the “lapsed”-Christians who had denied Christ under the threat of torture and execution, but who afterwards wanted to return to the Church. This sin of apostasy, as well as the sins of murder and adultery, were considered the three most heinous sins, and many in the Church thought that it was entirely inappropriate, if not downright impossible, for the Church, as the pure Bride of Christ, to offer the possibility of repentance and forgiveness for such sins. Hence, they felt that such sinners must endure lifelong excommunication. Gradually, however, through the first half of the third century, most of the bishops were realizing that as the Body of Christ, the All-Merciful One Who came “not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” ( Mt 9.13 ), the Church must allow for the possibility of heartfelt repentance for even the worst of sins. They were careful to stipulate, though, that such repentance must be worked out through a lengthy period of penitence, after which absolution and restoration to Eucharistic communion would be given through the proper channels under the authority of the bishops. Many rigorists in the Church, however, refused to accept this pastoral decision. They preferred a concept of the Church as “the society of the pure” rather than as “the hospital for sinners.” One such figure was the illustrious Carthaginian theologian and Apologist, Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220), known as “the Father of Latin theology” for his prolific, insightful writings on many topics. But he always had rigorist tendencies. This made him susceptible to the claims of the Montanists, whom he joined in about 205, despite their having been officially condemned by several Church councils. Very sadly, he died outside the Church. Another rigorist who objected to the Church offering the possibility of repentance for the worst sins was Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 235), a leading priest and theologian in Rome. He felt strongly that Bishop Zephyrinus (r. 198–217) of Rome and his successor Bishop Callistus (r. 217–222) were too “soft on sin” since they held a more lenient view. |
| 228 So J. Behr, The Mystery of Christ: Life in Death (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2006); and J. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness. Further Studies in Personhood and the Church, ed. P. McPartlan (London and New York: T. &T. Clark, 2006). 229 In particular, the third (Ephesus, AD 431) and fourth (Chalcedon, AD 451) councils were fraught with political rivalry and motivations; see J. A. McGuckin, St Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2004). 231 Which it has been since at least the middle of the third century, though other models, particularly a two-fold model of presbyter (equivalent to bishop) and deacon, are strongly evidenced in the early patristic corpus; cf. the Didache and Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians. 235 Cf. the prayer at the end of the funeral and memorial services of the Church: «May his/her memory be eternal!» 238 In Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Belmont, MA: Notable and Academic Books, 1987). 240 See further J. Jillions, " Orthodox Christianity in the West: the ecumenical challenge», below. 243 Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, Sermons, vol. II (Paris, 1866); L. Ouspensky, Theology of the Icon, trans. A. Gythiel with E. Meyendorff, vol. II (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1978: repr. 1992), p. 214. 244 S. Bigham, Early Christian Attitudes Towards Images (Rollinsford, NH: Orthodox Research Institute, 2004); E. Kitzinger, " The cult of images before the age of Iconoclasm», Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954), 83–150. 246 For an illustration, see J. Elsner, Imperial Rome and Christian Triumph (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 157, pl. 104. 253 John of Damascus, On the Divine Images I. For an illustration of this iconographic type, see L. Ouspensky and V. Lossky, The Meaning of Icons (Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1983), p. 70. 258 Archimandrite Vasileos of Stavronikita, Hymn of Entry. Liturgy and Life in the Orthodox Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1984), p. 85. |
| Later, the Mongol invasion in the 13th century resulted in Russia being cut off from Byzantium. As a result, the monasteries, which had been left alone by the Mongols, started to develop their own style. For centuries, the monasteries would be the only real institutions of art and culture. New centres arose, such as Vladimir, Suzdal and Yaroslav. Novgorod, the northern trading city, escaped conquest by the Mongols and developed a form of art which, although it remained true to Byzantine tradition, also had its own individual style. This was characterised by pure, unmixed colours, pronounced dark outlining and a simple drawing style. 67] Many icons from Novgorod and other cities in the North remained completely medieval in character until the 17 th century. Then, towards the end of the 14th century, Moscow began to grow in political and economic importance, and after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, it became the centre of the Orthodox world. The words of the monk Filofei of Pskov are famous: ‘Two Romes have fallen, the third Rome will not die, there will be no fourth.’ Ivan the Great married a niece of the last Byzantine emperor, took the symbol of the two-headed eagle from the Byzantine emperor, and gave himself the title of Tsar, derived from Caesar. The yoke of the Mongols, who had destroyed Kiev, was thrown off; Novgorod and the other princedoms were conquered; and the Roman Catholic Poles and Lithuanians were forced back. ‘Holy Russia’ was established. As Chateaubriand, who accompanied Napoleon in 1812 on his Moscow campaign, wrote in his memoirs: ‘Moscow, the city of gilded cupolas, shone in the sun, with its two hundred and ninety-five churches, with its fifteen hundred castles and its ornamented wooden houses in yellow, green and pink; it lacked only cypress trees and the Bosphorus.’ Kapuscinski added: ‘This is what it was like, because Moscow was for them a holy city, the capital of the world, the third Rome, the boundary of history, the end of the earthly wandering of the human race, the open gates of Heaven.’ One important icon painter who moved to Russia was Theophanes the Greek. His work is characterised by powerful brushstrokes and subdued colours, which he strengthened with light effects. Together with his pupil Andrei Rublev (1360–1430), he painted the iconostasis in the Cathedral of the Annunciation in the Kremlin. And it was Rublev who painted the most famous icon of all time: the Trinity. The Church encouraged painters to follow Rublev’s style of painting, which they did for more than a hundred years after his death. |
| The Gospels and Epistles, and all of the 27 writings which the Church eventually selected to be the New Testament Scriptures, were written in the first century. Also in this time, Christian communities were established in the main cities of Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Egypt, and even as far as Armenia and India. Because the Church in Antioch was growing so much, Saints Paul and Barnabas went there to preach and teach. It was there that the followers of Christ were first called Christians (Acts 11.19–30). Also, this Church sent forth Saints Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey (Acts 13.1). Antioch probably surpassed Jerusalem as the leading Christian center by the time the Christians fled from Jerusalem shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish Revolt against the Romans in 66 A.D. The Church was also established in Rome. The natural prestige of the Church in Rome as the capital of the Empire was enhanced when the two greatest Apostles, Saints Peter and Paul, were both martyred there under Emperor Nero around 67 A.D. Their graves became important places of pilgrimage, and their common feastday (June 29) was established in the Church by the middle of the second century. Though the first Christians were Jews, the early Christians wrote in Greek, the prevalent language in the Roman Empire. Even the Church in Rome used Greek until the beginning of the third century. The Church The Christian Church was at first an urban phenomenon which only later spread to the rural areas. It was composed mainly of people from what we would call today the “middle classes” of society. It is not true that Christianity gained its foothold in the world primarily among uneducated and backward people who were looking for heavenly consolation in the face of oppressive and unbearable living conditions on earth. The most important decision the Church had to make during the first century was whether non-Jewish people (Gentiles) could be received into the Church by faith in Christ without being required to follow the ritual requirements of the Mosaic Law, including circumcision. Based on Saint Paul’s understanding of the Old Testament, and on Saint Peter’s testimony about how the Roman centurion Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit even while Peter was still speaking to them (Acts 10 and 11), the first council of the Church, held in Jerusalem in about 49 A.D., decided that Gentile converts would not be subject to the Mosaic Law (Acts 15). Held under the leadership of Saint James, the Brother of the Lord and the first Bishop of Jerusalem, this council is considered the prototype of all subsequent Church councils. |
| And of Tullus Hostilius, who was the third king of Rome, and who was himself destroyed by lightning, Cicero in the same book says, that he was not supposed to have been deified by this death, possibly because the Romans were unwilling to vulgarize the promotion they were assured or persuaded of in the case of Romulus, lest they should bring it into contempt by gratuitously assigning it to all and sundry. In one of his invectives, too, he says, in round terms, The founder of this city, Romulus, we have raised to immortality and divinity by kindly celebrating his services; implying that his deification was not real, but reputed, and called so by courtesy on account of his virtues. In the dialogue Hortensius, too, while speaking of the regular eclipses of the sun, he says that they produce the same darkness as covered the death of Romulus, which happened during an eclipse of the sun. Here you see he does not at all shrink from speaking of his death, for Cicero was more of a reasoner than an eulogist. The other kings of Rome, too, with the exception of Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius, who died natural deaths, what horrible ends they had! Tullus Hostilius, the conqueror and destroyer of Alba, was, as I said, himself and all his house consumed by lightning. Priscus Tarquinius was slain by his predecessor " s sons. Servius Tullius was foully murdered by his son-in-law Tarquinius Superbus, who succeeded him on the throne. Nor did so flagrant a parricide committed against Rome " s best king drive from their altars and shrines those gods who were said to have been moved by Paris» adultery to treat poor Troy in this style, and abandon it to the fire and sword of the Greeks. Nay, the very Tarquin who had murdered, was allowed to succeed his father-in-law. And this infamous parricide, during the reign he had secured by murder, was allowed to triumph in many victorious wars, and to build the Capitol from their spoils; the gods meanwhile not departing, but abiding, and abetting, and suffering their king Jupiter to preside and reign over them in that very splendid Capitol, the work of a parricide. |
| 112 Soldatow, Selected Letters, Sermons, and Articles, vol. 3, 1(1–2). 113 Ibid., p. 3(9–10). 114 Ibid., p. 5 (13). Kalakuts is a derogatory term referring to a group of Slavic people in the region of Chelm (Kholm) and Podlachia (Podlasie) who accepted Roman Catholicism and adopted a Polish self-identity despite retaining their Ukrainian language. Toth claimed that the East-West divide occurred in the ninth century in other places as well. He seemed to be unaware of the 879–880 reunion council that healed the rift between Rome and Constantinople. 115 Ibid., 25–26 (63, 70–71). 116 Although Rome and the Eastern Churches did separate in 869, a reunion council in 8789–880 revoked the 869 council and healed the division. Ironically, however, the 869 council is considered the eighth ecumenical council by the Roman Catholic Church, and this likely shaped Toth’s views. Most scholars date the separation of the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Churches in 1054, when Cardinal Humbert, hotheaded a papal legate, slammed a bull of excommunication upon the altar of Hagia Sophia, the main Orthodox Christian temple in Constantinople. This act, brazen as it was, however, did not become the touchstone it now is until the crusades, which were truly the final rupture between the churches. 117 Ibid., 29 (79). 118 Ibid., 1–2 (6–8). 119 See John Douglas Strickland, The Making of Holy Russia – The Orthodox Church and Russian Nationalism Before the Revolution (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Publications,2013). Interestingly, Nicholas Bjerring had also adopted «Orthodox patriotism.» See my article, «A Catholic, Presbyterian, and Orthodox Journey,» 64. Toth, however, did not use the imagery and culture of the Israelites to make sense of Russian history and culture, as was common amongst «Orthodox patriots.» For more on this aspect of «Orthodox patriotism,» see Daniel Rowland, «Moscow – The Third Rome or the New Israel?» The Russian Review 55 (1996), 591–614. 120 I assume, here, that this is likely the immediate reaction of most contemporary readers, given the secondary literature on ethnoreligiocity. See for example, Paul Mojzes, Yugoslavian Inferno: Ethnoreligious Warfare in the Balkans (New York: Continuum, 1994), where Mojzes analyzed the conflict in the Balkans and relegated religion to a secondary factor, falling in line behind nationalism. It may be worth noting, though, that even Paul Mojzes was later still willing to speak of the «specifically religious factor.» See Paul Mojzes, «The Role of Religious Leaders in Times of Conflict in Multinational and Multi-Religious Societies: A Contribution Toward Interreligious Dialogue in Macedonia,» Journal of Ecumenical Studies 39:1–2 (2002), 83. |
|
|
