| 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 The Distortion of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church in the Actions and Words of the Hierarchy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople Document approved at the Episcopal Conference of the Russian Orthodox Church on 19 th July 2023. Having gathered together for joint prayer and brotherly communion in the Holy Spirit by the precious relics of Saint Sergius of Radonezh in the Monastery of the Holy Trinity founded by him, we, the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, cannot pass over in silence the present-day sad division within the Orthodox world generated by the unlawful actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the new teachings spread by its primate and official representatives. We consider it our duty to raise our voice in defense of the Orthodox doctrine of the Church by appealing to our God-loving flock and to our fellow bishops of the Orthodox world. The schismatic actions of the bishops of Constantinople in Ukraine, which have divided the worldwide Orthodox family, have been caused by the innovations forcibly imposed by the very same bishops in the doctrine of the Church aimed at destroying the existing canonical foundations. The new conception of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople, imagined as the earthly head of the Universal Church, ascribes to him rights and privileges extending far beyond the rights of any other primate of a local Orthodox Church and violating the canonical rights of other churches. As far back as in 2008 the Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in its resolution on the unity of the Church generalized the basic theses of the new ecclesiological conception of representatives of the Church of Constantinople, noting that this conception proceeds fr om an understanding of particular canons (in the first instance the 9 th , 17 th and 28 th canon laws of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) not shared by the fullness of the Orthodox Church and has become a challenge to pan-Orthodox unity. |
| The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church will meet in June this year, according to the Athens News Agency-Macedonian Press Agency (ANA-MPA). A decision was made as the Primates are gathered in a Synaxis at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy, Geneva, whose work is done under the presidency of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Of course, for the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church to meet in June, during the period of Pentecost (06/19/2016), the Primates in Geneva must definitely choose the themes and regulations. The decision to convene the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church in Crete, rather than at the headquarters (Constantinople) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, was dictated by the " exceptional objective circumstances " (i.e. the recent Russo-Turkish crisis), which basically prevents the Moscow Patriarch Kyrill and his delegation from visiting the City. That is why this Synaxis of Primates is meeting in Geneva and not in the Phanar, as originally planned. The gathering in Geneva involves eleven of the fourteen Primates, with their delegations. Three are missing: Patriarch John of Antioch, Metropolitan Savvas of Warsaw and All Poland for health reason, and Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece for personal reasons. The work of the Synaxis will continue until January 28th. The convocation, " barring the unexpected, " of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church this year in Constantinople was decided in March 2014 at the Synaxis of the Primates, which had gathered at the Phanar. The themes of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church includes the following ten topics: 1. The Orthodox Diaspora. 2. The manner in which Autocephaly is assigned. 3. The manner of the administration of Autonomy in semi-independent Churches within the limits of Autocephalous Churches, such as the Orthodox Church of Finland under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 4. The Diptychs. This is the order of the Autocephalous Churches, according to honor and ranking, by which the Primates are commemorated. The order of the Churches may change. (For example, the Church of Cyprus, although it is one of the most ancient and was recognized by the Third Ecumenical Synod in Ephesus in 431, is tenth in the order, having been surpassed by Patriarchates, which have been granted Autocephaly in recent times by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and not by an Ecumenical Synod.) |
| 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. |
| Introduction 1. Personhood and Being I. From Mask to Person: The Birth of an Ontology of Personhood II. From Biological to Ecclesial Existence: The Ecclesiological Significance of the Person 2. Truth and Communion I. Introduction: The Problem of Truth in the Patristic Era II. Truth, Being and History: The Greek Patristic Synthesis 1. The “Logos” Approach 2. The Eucharistic approach 3. The Trinitarian Approach 4. The “Apophatic” Approach 5. The Christological Approach 6. The Approach through the “Eikon” III. Truth and Salvation: The Existential Implications of Truth as Communion 1. Truth and Fallen Existence: the Rupture between Being and Communion 2. Truth and the Person 3. Truth and the Savior IV. Truth and the Church: Ecclesiological Consequences of the Greek Patristic Synthesis 1. The Body of Christ formed in the Spirit 2. The Eucharist as the Locus of Truth 3. Christ, the Spirit and the Church I. Introduction II. The Problem of the Synthesis between Christology and Pneumatology III. Implications of the Synthesis for Ecclesiology IV. Conclusions 4. Eucharist and Catholicity I. The “One” and the “Many” in the Eucharistic Consciousness of the Early Church II. The Composition and Structure of the Eucharistic Community as Reflections of Catholicity III. The Eucharistic Community and the “Catholic Church in the World” IV. Some General Conclusions 5. Apostolic Continuity and Succession I. The Two Approaches, “Historical” and “Eschatological,” to Apostolic Continuity II. Towards a Synthesis of the “Historical” and the “Eschatological” Approach III. Concrete Consequences for the Life of Church IV. Conclusions for the Ecumenical Debate 6. Ministry and Communion I. The Theological Perspective II. The Relational Character of the Ministry III. The “Sacramental” Character of the Ministry IV. Ministry and Unity V. The “Validity” of the Ministry 7. The Local Church In a Perspective of Communion I. The Historical and Ecclesiological Background II. Questions Concerning the Theology of the Local Church Today 1. Ecclesiality and Locality 2. Locality and Universality 3. The Local Church in a Context of Division List of Sources |
| 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 the primate of the Serbian Orthodox Church DECR Communication service, 15.03.2024 On 15th March 2024 a meeting took place at the Patriarchal and Synodal Residence of Saint Daniel of Moscow Monastery between His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill and His Holiness the Patriarch of Serbia Porfirije. His Holiness the Patriarch of Serbia Porfirije had arrived in Moscow to attend the funeral and burial of the representative of the Patriarch of Serbia to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the dean of the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul at the Yauza Gates, which serves as the representation church (metochion) of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Moscow, the bishop of Moravica Anthony. Bishop Anthony reposed in the Lord on 11th March 2024. Attending the meeting on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church were the chairman of the Department of External Church Relations the metropolitan of Volokolamsk Anthony and the advisor to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia archpriest Nikolai Balashov. The Serbian Orthodox Church was also represented by the bishop of Baka Irinej. Before the meeting began the primates visited the domestic church of the Patriarchal residence. In conveying his heartfelt good wishes upon greeting the head of the Serbian Orthodox Church, His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia noted that in the past the representatives of the two churches held steadfastly to a common position: “In the person of the representatives of the Serbian Church we have always had the most reliable brothers. And if by the grace of God we have achieved any type of success, then this has always been with the participation of our brothers fr om the Church of Serbia. This is why we always remember with thanks our mutual cooperation.” |
| Triumph, but not Triumphalism: On the Sunday of Orthodoxy Do many today in the West read the works of the ascetic and spiritual writers of the ancient Church? But the Orthodox – monks and laity – read these books and guide their spiritual life by them. Dear Fathers, Brothers, and Sisters, We have gathered today to celebrate the Triumph of Orthodoxy. This feast was established in the ninth century to mark the final victory of the Church over iconoclasm, and also in memory of all the great Fathers and Teachers of the Church – theologians, hierarchs, priests, monks, and laymen – who have dedicated their lives to the defense of Church doctrine from heresy. To all of them, by tradition, we on this day proclaim Eternal Memory, while to heretics and schismatics – Anathema. In many Western countries, the Triumph of Orthodoxy has become a day on which the Orthodox of various jurisdictions gather together in order to pray together and to witness to their unity of faith. This unity is not easy to maintain in conditions in which there sometimes arise contradictions, misunderstandings, and even conflicts between Local Orthodox Churches. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church does not have a single head, apart from the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, nor does it have a single administrative structure; instead, every Local Church has its primate and governs itself independently. Despite this apparent disunity, the unity of world Orthodoxy is preserved, and the witness and ministry of the Orthodox Church continue. What is the Triumph of Orthodoxy today, in our time, so distant from the ninth century, when this feast was established? Above all, it is that – regardless of the most severe persecution – the Orthodox Church has not lost its faith and its liturgical tradition, reflected in its church architecture, iconography, church singing, and the whole structure of its services. The Orthodox Church has been persecuted and oppressed over the course of many centuries – by Arabs, Crusaders, Mongols, Turks, and the Bolsheviks in Soviet Russia. Repression on an unprecedented scale was unleashed against the Russian Church in the twentieth century, when hundreds of bishops, tens of thousands of priests and monks, and millions of laymen were killed; a multitude of churches was destroyed; all monasteries and theological schools were destroyed; and when the goal was to wipe off the Church from the face of the earth. But the Church survived, preserving its faith and its unity at the expense of the blood of the multitude of Confessors and New Martyrs who are our intercessors before God. |
| The Orthodox Church The Orthodox Church is the unity of faith and love (St. Ignatius of Antioch) of all Churches which have preserved Orthodoxy , i.e., the Tradition of Faith, Order, Worship and Piety, as confessed from the beginning " everywhere, always and by all. " 11 January 2005 1. Orthodoxy THE ORTHODOX CRURCH is the unity of faith and love (St. Ignatius of Antioch) of all Churches which have preserved Orthodoxy , i.e., the Tradition of Faith, Order, Worship and Piety, as confessed from the beginning “everywhere, always and by all.” And, although historically she was for a long time confined to the Eastern part of Christendom after the separation of the Christian West from her, the Orthodox Church rejects the idea that hers is a “partial” or “oriental” expression of the Christian faith. On the contrary, she confesses her faith to be full, catholic, and universal. She sees herself as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Tradition of Faith stems from Divine Revelation as recorded in Holy Scriptures and understood and interpreted by the Church in the continuity of her teaching ministry: by her Councils, Fathers, Teachers, Saints, by her worship and by the whole of her Divinely inspired life. Of especial normative character are the dogmatical and canonical decisions of the Seven Ecumenical and Ten local Councils, the writings of the Holy Fathers, the testimony of the liturgical and iconographic tradition and the universal consensus of doctrine and practice. The Tradition of Order is based on the unbroken continuity of the Ministry and, above all, on the Apostolic succession of Bishops who are, in each Church, the guardians of the catholic fullness of faith and the Divinely appointed bearers of the Church’s priestly, pastoral and teaching power and authority. Their unity expresses the unity of the Church; their agreement is the voice of the Holy Spirit. They govern the Church, and in this they are helped by the priests and deacons. They are also helped by the whole body of the Church, for, according to Orthodox teaching, all the faithful are entrusted with responsibility for the purity of faith. Church order is preserved in the Holy Canons, which constitute an integral part of Tradition. |
| Persecution, Church Seizures, and Vandalism Ramp up in Pat. Bartholomew’s Post-Tomos Ukraine Source: OrthoChristian Ukraine, January 15, 2019 – Whereas the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church was experiencing intimidation before, the state authorities have now moved into repressions against the Church, says His Eminence Archbishop Theodosy of Boyarka . Since the creation of a new nationalist structure at the “unification council” on December 15 and the granting of a tomos of autocephaly by Patriarch Bartholomew to “Metropolitan” Epiphany Dumenko on January 6, the canonical Ukrainian Church has experienced increased persecution from the state and nationalist-schismatics. The community of the St. Alexander Nevsky Church in Vinnitsa, located on the territory of a higher professional school, was suddenly forced to evacuate the premises after 13 years and take all their belongings, including the dome on the roof. Several Ukrainian outlets subsequently reported that the priest had destroyed and even set fire to the church in protest of some parishioners supporting the new nationalist church, though the Vinnitsa Diocese refuted this lie. The priest and community of a 340-year-old church in the village of Vorsovka have been locked out of their church, after the warden and candle stand worker at the church collected signatures from throughout the village, whether parishioners or not, to move the parish to the nationalist church. The schismatics had previously tried to demand that the rector, Fr. Basil, stop commemorating His Holiness Patriarch Kirill in the services. Fr. Basil was also hospitalized with a hypertensive crisis. Despite a meeting being called by supporters of the schismatic church to try to force the local church to transfer to the schismatic structure, the residents of the village of Dunaets in the Sumy Province voted almost unanimously to keep their St. George Church in the canonical Church. In the Uman Diocese , the Church of She Who is Quick to Hear was vandalized with graffiti reading “ROC FSB? [Russian Orthodox Church-Federal Security Service of Russia].” |
| 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). |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf CHURCH AND STATE CHURCH AND STATE. Until the 19th-c. rise of nationalism and the consequent appearance of state churches, and with the notable exception of Russia and certain earlier local churches (e.g., Armenia, Georgia [qq.v.], etc.), the understanding of the state in the Orthodox Church had been governed by the latter’s relationship to the two great Empires, Roman and Ottoman (qq.v.), which dominated the eastern Mediterranean basin for two millennia. Early Christian attitudes to the Roman Empire oscillated, depending on persecutions, between seeing the emperor and his imperium as the providential guardians of law and order (e.g., Rom 12 ), or else as the agents of the devil and the antichrist (e.g., Rev). The imperial cult of the emperor’s spirit or genius was, of course, consistently resisted. Radical change came with the accession to power of Constantine the Great (q.v.). Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.), in numerous writings including his Church History and especially his oration In Praise of Constantine, sketched the outlines which would become the official, political theology of Byzantium (q.v.). This held that the Empire was a providential gift, intended by God to stretch across the oikoumene (q.v.; or “inhabited earth”) and to parallel the universal Church of Christ, to become in short the secular arm or reflection of the Church. The emperor, while no longer divine, was presented as the “image of Christ,” i.e., in Christ’s capacity as governor and ordering power of the universe (pantacrator). In a famous phrase, Constantine therefore called himself the “bishop” or overseer of the Church’s outer life-in effect, its chief executive officer-though he never claimed the right to define its faith. (See Caesaropapism.) Some two centuries later, Justinian (q.v.) articulated the doctrine of “symphony”: imperium and sacerdotium coexist as the mutually complementary and supporting aspects of a single Christian polity, with the emperor seeing to its good order and defending its orthodoxy and the bishops retaining full authority (q.v.) for Christian teaching and discipline, and in particular the exclusive right to pronounce on the truth or falsity of doctrine. It was thus the emperor’s general duty to enforce the standards of the Church and, in times of doctrinal debate and imperial crisis, to convoke a universal synod of the episcopate, the Ecumenical Council (q.v.), for a decision on the disputed issues. While this was the theory, the practice depended on the relative strengths of the different emperors, patriarchs, and bishops, and, not least of all, the influence of the monks as a third and often very powerful element. |
|
|
