| 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 Metropolitan Hilarion: Holiness is a constant striving to imitate the Lord Jesus Christ On June 27th, the 1 st week after Pentecost, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for external church relations (DECR) and rector of the Ss Cyril and Methodius Institute of Post-Graduate Studies (CMI), celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the Church of the Beheading of St. John the Baptist in-the-Woods. The church is a part of the Patriarchal Chernigov Metochion, which houses the CMI. Among the archpastor’s concelebrants were the head of the doctoral department of the CMI, Archpriest Alexy Marchenko, the vice-rector for educational work of the CMI, Hieromonk Pavel (Cherkasov), clergymen of the Metochion. During the Litany of Fervent Supplication, petitions were offered up for deliverance of the coronavirus infection. After the Litany, Metropolitan Hilarion lifted up a prayer recited at the time of the spread of baneful pestilence. In his sermon at the end of the divine service, Metropolitan Hilarion said the following: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit! On the first Sunday after the Pentecost, the Church commemorates all the saints. On the feast of the Pentecost, we remembered how the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles, and they spoke in tongues, and everyone from different nations began to recognize their dialect; how the illiterate Galilean fishermen became bold preachers of the Resurrection of Christ. And today, on the 1st Week after Pentecost, we remember how the Holy Spirit continued to work in the Church throughout the two thousand year period of its history. The Holy Spirit descended on the disciples of the Savior and inspired them to preach Crucified and Risen Christ. During the following centuries, up to the present time, the Holy Spirit has been acting and will continue to act in the Church. Thanks to His action and the assistance of people, the Church has never become impoverished and will not become impoverished in saints. |
| 6. Ministry and Communion I. The Theological Perspective Discussions about ministry and ordination have usually been dominated by a certain problematic inherent in scholastic theology. Some of the characteristics of this theology 440 are worthy to be mentioned, for they form basic components of the theological perspective in which the ministry is usually placed. In the first place, both ministry and ordination are approached as autonomous subjects; they are treated quite apart from Christology or Trinitarian theology. Secondly, Christology itself is treated as an autonomous subject and not as an integral part of both Trinitarian theology and ecclesiology. This gives rise both to Christomonistic tendencies in understanding the person and ministry of Christ, and – what is more significant for us here – to great difficulties in relating the Church’s ministry to that of Christ. Finally, and because of all this, ministry and ordination are not basically approached from the angle of the concrete ecclesial community but of the individual person (his “ontology” or his “function”). The theological perspective in which the Church at the time of the Greek Fathers would place her ministry does not leave any room for approaching it as an autonomous subject. This is to be seen in the way this ministry is to be related to the ministry and person of Christ. Here the following principles, typical of the Greek patristic tradition, may be mentioned briefly: (a) There is no ministry in the Church other than Christ’s ministry. This assertion, which seems to go back to the New Testament Church, 441 is understood by the Fathers so realistically that not only the dilemma of choosing between an opus operantis and an ex opere operato is avoided but also any other question implying a distance between the Church’s and Christ’s ministry becomes irrelevant and misleading. This identification of the Church’s ministry with that of Christ has gone beyond the theology of the Fathers and entered the liturgical life of the ancient Church in a decisive way: in the eucharist, Christ is not only the one who is offered and who receives but also the one who offers. 442 This identification lends itself to “mystical-monophysitic” interpretations, but the fact that it is to be found in theologians such as St John Chrysostom, who shares the Antiochene “down-to-earth” mentality, indicates that it is along lines other than those of monophysitic mysticism that we should try to understand its meaning. 443 |
| 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). |
| Despite its wide popularity, the story of the wise men bringing their gifts to the newborn Christ has virtually no support in the Gospel. Everything that we know about these people originated in early Christian literature and developed into its current form in the Middle Ages. The Bible does not even mention their number. The widespread assumption of there being three wise men (attributed to Origen) is based on the number of their gifts to the Saviour. There are however many traditions indicating much larger numbers. For example, Armenians and Syrians believe that there were 12 wise men, arriving in Jerusalem with a large retinue. In the Gospel, the wise men are denoted with the Greek word “μγοι”, usually translated in the Latin tradition as “magi” (magicians). In ancient literature, there are two meanings of this term, Zoroastrian priests of Persian origin and Babylonian astrologers forming a separate occupational group. The tradition of the Persian origin of the Magi is mainly contained in Byzantine iconography. European art either makes no mention of their ethnicity, or completely correlates it with the Arab or Byzantine East. Saint Gregory the Theologian considered the Magi to be Chaldean astrologers. According to St Matthew, the wise men lived somewhere in the east. The fact that they were following the Star of Bethlehem for about five months, makes the Bible scholars believe that they may have lived in Babylon, Mesopotamia, or India. The possibility of the emergence of an unusually bright star, leading the Magi to Jesus, is not only not entertained but also explained by researchers. For example, astronomer Johannes Kepler writes about the periodically appearing conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation Pisces, synchronously approaching Mars and ultimately giving a bright celestial phenomenon. Since the time of early Christianity, there have been various versions of the time when the Magi visited the infant Christ. According to the ancient Eastern legend, the adoration of the Magi took place after the meeting of Jesus Christ with Simeon the God-receiver and before the flight of the holy family to Egypt. |
| Every age has certainly had its challenges when it comes to following God and the truth He’s revealed. Today’s culture with its dominant secular ‘religion’ of humanism is no different. Increasingly, our Orthodox beliefs are coming under assault, religious liberties are being challenged in many places. This Sunday of the Myrrh-bearing women would have us draw some lessons from their courage, living in a culture where they faced great dangers for witnessing to their faith in Christ. They didn’t hold back or bow to the pressure to keep silent. We recall that while the disciples fled, the holy myrrh-bearers were the first to bravely come to Christ’s tomb. Likewise, St. Joseph, also remembered today, boldly asked for Jesus’ body even as St. Peter denied him three times. The Orthodox Faith is the same yesterday, today, and forever, not because it’s a collection of manmade, and therefore, changeable doctrines, but because it’s the timeless truth of relationship, communion with God, as He’s revealed Himself to His Church from the beginning. Those of us living in this age, where the definition of marriage is being twisted, where sin is increasingly defined subjectively and personally, need to remember that the Faith has been “once delivered to the Saints” (Jude 1:3). Being a faithful Orthodox means we don’t change that ‘faith once received’; rather, we become grafted into it—into an ever deeper communion with Christ God. To this end, St. Paul warns us, saying, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…” (Rom. 12:2) We’re called to be vigilant in not preferring our own ideas, preferences, or that of the rapidly changing norms of our culture, which are constantly being hammered into us, over the timeless truth that Christ is and that He’s entrusted to us in order to experience the fullness of life in Him, find healing, and become inheritors with His Saints of eternal salvation. We’re vigilant so that we can experience that life in Him now and freedom from enslavement to this world with all its passions and twisted thinking. |
| Introduction The general meaning of the word “catholicity” in the under- standing of linguists and theologians is approximately the following: catholicity means general, common, universal (in the qualitative and quantitative senses), whole, total, existing and meaningful for all, one and plural at the same time, possessing organic unity. In the Christian understanding, catholic means possessing the fullness of all the positive qualities necessary for the well-being and salvation of all mankind; 1 accepted by the Church everywhere, always and by everyone; 2 possessing the wholeness of truth and holiness; infinitely multiform but united in God in faith and church organization. According to the Slavophiles, catholicity unites all Christians in faith, freedom, and love, in the Holy Spirit, in the revelation of God, and in Holy Tradition. Catholicity can be related to the whole universe inasmuch as it is renewed in Jesus Christ and inasmuch as the Church has the gift and the purpose of communicating the fullness of God to the whole world. Catholicity means particularly confessing the true doctrine (Orthodoxy), or belonging to the Orthodox Church. In Patristic thought catholicity is not only the inner property of the Church, but is manifested with evidence in her unity in time and space and also in the general organization of the Church (according to the Roman Catholics, in the Papacy). Finally, catholicity originates in the will of God the Father to save mankind. It is accomplished in Jesus Christ 3 in whom dwells the saving fullness and perfection. Catholicity is given by the universal life-creating power of the Holy Spirit in a variety of His gifts. The Protestant understanding differs from that of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic in that catholicity is recognized to be limited and relative; it means general comprehensiveness, a rather vague principle of unity acceptable for many. It can also be understood as something which is generally accepted by all mankind. The general abstract scheme of catholicity can be described in this way: any being in which unity and plurality are internally united possesses catholicity. This being does not possess catholicity if it is comprised of parts which are united only externally. The unity on which catholicity can be based must possess such a fullness of existence which would be capable of comprehending the whole being. This unity can possess two forms: it can be the principle from which all other forms of the being proceed (for example Jesus Christ as the source of the existence of the Church) ; or it can be a principle of consubstantiality which from within determines the form of existence of all the component elements of the being (for example, the common nature of the Church of all nations throughout all ages). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Canon Law ANDREI PSAREV Canon law is the sum of ecclesiastical regulations recognized by church authorities; the discipline, study, or practice of church jurisprudence. The term derives from the ancient Greek word kanon, meaning “yardstick” or “standard.” It has been used since the time of the early church for the rule of faith (regula fidei) established by Christ and the apostles ( Gal. 6.16 ; Phil. 3.16 ). THE TASKS OF CANON LAW As a field, canon law deals with the following issues: the sources of canon law, church order, the foundation of new Orthodox churches, the canonization of saints, the ecclesiastical calendar, control for the execution of justice, the ecclesiastical court, marriage regulations, reception of converts from other confessions, the church’s relations with civil authorities, the correlation of church law with civil law, finances, and ownership relations. Canon law includes the subjects and methods of other theological disciplines: critical analysis (church history), doctrinal teaching (dogmatics), canons of the holy fathers (patristics), baptism, and reception into the church (liturgics). The New Testament is the disclosure of the essence of the “Covenant of the Law” contained in the Old Testament Pentateuch: “Not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” ( 2Cor. 3.6 ); thus, for Christian Orthodox: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but rather faith working through love” ( Gal. 5.6 ). The Decalogue and all the commandments of Christ and his apostles have received in the Christian Church the status of law. Every church regulation is supposed to be based on them as on a source. From the very beginning, Christian society had to deal with a diversity of opinions. In order to establish consensus as to whether or not the proselytes had to observe Mosaic Law, a council of apostles was convened in Jerusalem (Acts 15). This principle of conciliarity, the convention of church representatives for an open competition of views, became one of the main mechanisms that the Orthodox Church applied, and still uses, to establish consensus. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Council of Constantinople II (553) JULIA KONSTANTINOVSKY The Second Council of Constantinople, also known as the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553), was the culmination of Justinian’s (527–65) ecclesiastical policy in his struggle to heal imperial Christian divisions. The council’s concern was twofold: the condemnation, firstly, of the so-called “Three Chapters” and, secondly, of Origenism. The appellation “Three Chapters” refers to three 4th- and early 5th-century theologians: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa, widely believed to be adherents of Nestorius’ “two-sons” and “two-natures” Christology, sharing with Nestorius an aversion to the title Theotokos applied to the Virgin Mary. In condemning these figures, Justinian sought to reconcile dissident parties with the Chalcedonian definition (451), whereby Christ was “one person in two natures.” Chalcedon’s monophysite opponents claimed to follow only St. Cyril of Alexandria’s theological formula of “one incarnate nature of God the Logos.” To achieve the unification of the imperial Chalcedonian church with the anti-Chalcedonian ecclesiastical bodies of Syria and Egypt, Justinian procured the anathemas of the person and writings of Theodore, the writings of Theodoret, and one letter by Ibas. Justinian’s intention was to demonstrate to the non-Chalcedonians that Chalcedon’s “in-two-natures” Chris- tology was no avowal of Nestorius, but that it was to be apprehended in the light of Cyril’s “one-incarnate-nature” formula and as proclaiming the single hypostatic synonymity of Christ and the divine Logos. Yet, because these condemnations were of persons long dead and since Chalcedon had deemed Theodoret orthodox and the letter of Ibas beyond reproof, they were perceived as controversial and caused hostilities in the West. Moreover, in the East, they failed in their purpose of reconciling Chalcedon’s opponents with its supporters. The condemnations of Origenism combated the following ideas allegedly traceable to Origen of Alexandria and further developed by Evagrios Pontike: that bodiless minds were fashioned first, while bodies for them were made second and as a consequence of their delinquency (the double creation); that numerically and ontologically the human Christ was not the divine Logos, but was created and united with the Logos in a moral union (a type of adoptionism); that the end of things will be just like the primordial beginning and that all will inevitably be saved, including the Devil (the apokatastasis belief). Far from being a counterbalance to the condemnation of the Three Chapters, the condemnation of |
| John Anthony McGuckin Monasticism TENNY THOMAS The term “monasticism” refers to a form of life involving separation from the world for the purpose of ascetical dedication to prayer, with a view to achieve perfect obedience to the gospel life. In the Eastern Christian tradition, monasticism is understood as full discipleship of Jesus Christ and traced back to the New Testament example of St. John the Baptist, to Jesus’ own virginal celibacy, and to the many calls for renunciation (e.g., Mt. 10.37 ; Mk. 10.21 ). Itis often called the “barometer of the spiritual life of the church.” So great has the influence of and appreciation for this way of life been, that its existence and status have been equated with those of the church as a whole: as flourishes the monastic life, so flourishes the church. Monasticism is not just a part ofthe greater scope of Eastern Christian life; it is the very center and heart ofthe church. The monastics (both men and women) choose to follow with singular devotion and obedience the call of Christ. They are thus the models in which the church sees one of her most radiant icons: a communion of souls wholly living the life in Christ. Monasticism refers to that ascetic movement characterized by anachoresis, or withdrawal from the Christian community and the rest of society. Monasticism does not have a monopoly on asceticism, as this is a characteristic of all Christians following the gospel prescripts; thus all monasticism is ascetic, while all asceticism is not necessarily monastic. What distinguishes monasticism from the broader category of Christian asceticism is monasticism’s emphasis on withdrawal, on solitude. The Greek word for “monk,” monachos, meant, in its origins, “a solitary.” Two classic forms of monasticism emerged from early times: the anchoritic, or solitary life or the hermit, and the coenobitic (the Greek koinos bios means “common life”), that is, a life within a structured (and often secluded) community. Monastic life required from the outset stark renunciations: of family, property, marriage, and career. Early monks typically joined together ascetical disciplines (fasting, vigils, poverty, and lifelong celibacy) with a life of manual labor. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Soteriology STEPHEN THOMAS The ecumenical councils of the Orthodox Church do not give a soteriology or doctrine of salvation, but offer rather a rich and exhaustive Christology. Nevertheless, there is a profound soteriology underlying the Christology which the fathers used to support it. The main idea of salvation found in the eastern fathers, as well as western fathers such as Pope St. Leo the Great of Rome, concerns the victory over death which Christ won, and the victory over all the morbid limitations which humanity has acquired though sin, the alienation from God. Orthodox soteriology is extremely hopeful because it thinks of salvation as a victory over the malicious powers exercised by the demons (Heb. 11.35). It has two elements, which complement one another: salvation is, firstly, therapy, and, secondly, deification or divinization. The victory motif dominates Orthodox liturgical texts, especially in the paschal liturgy. Continually repeated during the paschal season is the following poem: “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and on those in the graves, bestowing life” (Pentekostarion 1990: 27). In Orthodox soteriology sin and death are personified as forces which belong to the sphere of the Devil and the demons, who, through divine respect to their freewill, are still active until the judgment. Christ’s voluntary sacrifice on the cross brought the depths of suffering into intimate contact with the divine light, so that suffering could be transfigured and conquered. The victorious Christ descended to Hades, conquered the power of the Devil, and brought out the souls imprisoned there. While this idea is found in medieval Catholicism, in the form of the harrowing of hell, it is not as prominent as it is in the Orthodox services which accord to Holy Saturday an essential role in the process by which Christ saves humankind: “He quenched Death by being subdued by Death. He who came down into Hades despoiled Hades; And Hades was embittered when he tasted of Christ’s flesh” (Pentekostarion 1990: 37). |
|
|
