| Commemoration of the Holy Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787). The Holy Icons. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, convoked by the Empress Irene and met at Nicaea from September 24 to October 13, 787. Patriarch Tarasios (commemorated February 25) presided. The council ended almost fifty years of iconoclast persecution and established the veneration of the holy icons as basic to the belief and spirituality of Christ's Church. As the Synaxarion says, " It was not simply the veneration of the holy images that the Fathers defended in these terms but, in fact, the very reality of the Incarnation of the Son of God. " " The second Council of Nicaea is the seventh and last Ecumenical Council recognized by the Orthodox Church. This does not mean that there may not be ecumenical Councils in the future although, in holding the seventh place, the Council of Nicaea has taken to itself the symbol of perfection and completion represented by this number in Holy Scripture (e.g. Gen. 2:1-3). It closes the era of the great dogmatic disputes which enabled the Church to describe, in definitions excluding all ambiguity, the bounds of the holy Orthodox Faith. From that time, every heresy that appears can be related to one or other of the errors that the Church, assembled in universal Councils, has anathematized from the first until the seventh Council of Nicaea. " Synaxarion In Greek practice, the holy God-bearing Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council are commorated on October 11/21 (if it is a Sunday), or on the Sunday which follows October 11/21. According to the Slavic MENAION, however, if the eleventh falls on Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday, the service is moved to the preceding Sunday. Holy Trinity Church On the Sunday that falls on or immediately after the eleventh of this month [N.S., 21st O.S.], we chant the Service to the 350 holy Fa thers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which ga thered in Nicaea in 787 under the holy Patriarch Tarasius and during the reign of the Empress Irene and her son, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, to refute the Iconoclast heresy, which had received imperial support beginning with the Edict issued in 726 by Emperor Leo the Isaurian. Many of the holy Fa thers who condemned Iconoclasm at this holy Council later died as Confessors and Martyrs for the holy Icons during the second assult of Iconoclasm in the ninth century, especially during the reigns of Leo the Armenian and Theophilus |
| John Anthony McGuckin Divine Liturgy, Orthodox JOHN A. MCGUCKIN The divine liturgy of the Orthodox Church is its spiritual heart and soul. A closer and more revealing knowledge can be had of Orthodoxy by an observer from the study of the rituals and prayers than of any other external thing related to the church. The word “liturgy” (leitourgia) derives from the ancient Greek (pre-Christian) term for “public works” and grew in significance to mean a work conducted for the benefit of the state or community by a benefactor. It was with some of these residual associations that the term was then taken over by the writers of the Greek Septuagint Bible, and used by them to signify the Temple rituals of ancient Israel. It thus became, for the early Christians, the chief word to signify the divine “worship and sacrifice” of the church, a term which would distinguish it from the pagan sacrificial cults around them. The divine liturgy predominantly means the Eucharistic service of the Orthodox Church (often simply referred to as “the liturgy”) and the other mysteries (what the western churches generally call the “sacramental” services). Orthodoxy’s preferred term is mysterion. The latter word means “thing to be silent about” and was used by the apostles and fathers with deliberate analogous reference to the pre-Christian mysteries, or mystery religions, where the element of the arcana (refusing to divulge the contents of the initiation) became a very important identifying mark of the adherent. The mysteries are experiences of Christian initiation that are not easily explicable, and each one of them is deeply resonant with the grace of the Lord who has empowered them by his Holy Spirit, so as to use them as primary ways of manifesting his life-giving presence and energy within the earthly church until the Eschaton. As Sergei Bulgakov once described it, the mysteries are the continuing signs that Pentecost is still occurring within the heart of Christ’s church, and their youthful, unfailing freshness is a sure sign of the authenticity and truth of the church (Bulgakov 1988: 110–11). All the Christian mysteries are eschatological in essence. They stand, as does the earthly church itself, poised between the two ages: this age of conflicted loyalty to God, the expectation of the kingdom, and the next Aeon where the Kingdom of God will be revealed as all in all. (Each of the greater mysteries – baptism, chrismation, Eucharist, confession [metanoia or exomologesis], ordination, marriage, and anointing of the sick – has a separate entry in this encyclopedia and can be further studied there.) |
| On Glorification of the Saints. A talk with archpriest Georgiy Mitrofanov Glorification of saints is a very difficult issue. History of the Church is, first of all, the history of sainthood, and the twentieth century in this regard is one of the saddest periods of our church history. The Russian Church, having given the world an enormous number of saints, had no opportunity to complete the glorification . – Glorification of saints is a very difficult issue. History of the Church is, first of all, the history of sainthood, and the twentieth century in this regard is one of the saddest periods of our church history. The Russian Church, having given the world an enormous number of saints, had no opportunity to complete the glorification . From 1917 to 1988 only two ascetics were canonized, and that only because it was important for the international politics of the USSR (for example, the canonization of Nicholas of Japan emphasized the presence of the Russian Orthodox Church, of Russia, and therefore, of the Soviet Union in Japan). Glorification of saints became possible only in the 1980s when under the circumstances of perestroika, the government started to change the politics with respect to the Church. On the eve of the festivities for the 1000 year anniversary of the baptism of Russia, the government agreed to perform several canonizations. In 1987 a Synodal committee on the canonization of saints was formed. For the 18 years of the committee’s work, over 1500 saints have been glorified. These glorification s have demanded from us some very serious and, I will not be afraid of the word, innovative decisions. The Church lives by tradition, but the tradition does not always develop in an uninterrupted and peaceful way. Let us review what are the grounds for canonization. First of all, miracles connected with the life of a Christian and the miracles occurring after his death in connection with his commemoration. Secondly, the veneration of a Christian by the church people and, finally, his righteous life. Everything is clear, it would seem. Yet, here is the problem that we encountered almost immediately. Veneration by the people of many pious Christians is absent in our country. If you were to ask me: “Which of the saints canonized by your committee fully corresponds to the main criteria?” — I would give you only several names. |
| 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). |
| 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 On commemoration day of St. Catherine, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk officiated at the Church of St. Catherine the Great Martyr In-the-Fields the representation of the Orthodox Church in America On December 7, 2020, the commemoration day of St. Catherine the Great Martyr, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations, officiated at the festive service at the Moscow representation of the Orthodox Church in America - the Church of St. Catherine In-the-Fields. The archpastor was assisted by Bishop Anthony of Moravichi, representative of the Patriarch of Serbia to the Patriarch of Moscow; Protopresbyter Vladimir Divakov, secretary to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, DECR vice-chairman; Archimandrite Seraphim (Shemyatovsky), representative of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; Archpriest Daniel Andreyuk, rector of the St. Catherine Church and representative of the Orthodox Church in America to the Moscow Patriarchal see; Archpriest Kakhaber Gogoshvili, Georgian Orthodox Church, acting dean of the Moscow church district; Archpriest Sergiy Tocheny, rector of the Church of Jacob Zabedee in-Kazennaya Sloboda and the Church of the Finding of the Lord’s Sepulcher in-Barashi; Archpriest Leonid Kalinin, rector of the Church of Great Martyr Clement the Pope of Rome In-Zamoskvorechie and chairman of the Experts Council for Church Art, Architecture and Restoration; as well as clergy of the St. Catherine Church. After the Prayer of Fervent Supplication, Metropolitan Hilarion lifted up a prayer read at a time of the spread of a pernicious infection. After the liturgy, Archpriest Daniel Andreyuk greeted Metropolitan Hilarion and thanked his concelebrants for their prayers and read out the message of greetings from His Beatitude Tikhon, Metropolitan of All America and Canada. |
| 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 Patriarch Kirill meets with Primate of Malankara Church On September 3, 2019, His Holiness Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, met with the Catholicos of the East and Metropolitan of Malankara, His Holiness Baselios Mar Thoma Paulose II, at the patriarchal and synodal residence in the St. Daniel Monastery in Moscow. Among those who accompanied the high guest were Metropolitan Zachariah Mar Nikolovos, head of the Malankara Church department for external church relations; Metropolitan Yuhanon Mar Diascoros, secretary of the Malankara Church Holy Synod; Rev. Abraham Thomas, secretary of the Malankara Church department for external church relations; and Rev. Aswin Zefrin Fernandis, head of the Malankara Catholicos’s protocol service; Rev. Jiss Jonson, personal secretary to His Holiness the Catholicos; Mr. Jacob Mathew, member of the Malankara Church Council; Mr. Kevin George Koshi, head of the communication service of the Malankara Church department for external church relations; and Dr Cherian Eapen, a representative of the Malankara diaspora in Russia. Taking part in the meeting from the Russian Orthodox Church were Metropolitan Hilarion, head of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations (DECR); Bishop Dionisy of Voskresensk, deputy chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate; Archimandrite Philaret (Bulekov), DECR vice-chairman; Hieromonk Stephan Igumnov, DECR secretary for inter-Christian relations; and R. Akhtamkhanov, DECR secretariat for inter-Christian relations. Patriarch Kirill warmly welcome Catholicos Baselios Mar Thoma Paulose II, noting that His Holiness had already been in Moscow in 1988, when he was the youngest bishop of the Malankara Church. He came for the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus’. ‘That event was really a turning point in the life of our Church’, Patriarch Kirill said, ‘With that celebration the era of persecution and oppression by the Soviet power came to an end and new opportunities opened up for us to engage ourselves in the enlightenment of our people and to bear the message of Christ in the vast lands of the then Soviet Union’. The Russian Church has very much changed, in particular in that 30 thousand churches have been restored and built since that time. ‘That is to say, the restoration of church life took place in the territory of the then Soviet Union and was continued in such states as Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Azerbaijan, and the republics of Central Asia and the Baltics’. |
| Statement of the ROC Holy Synod on the Uncanonical Intervention of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Canonical Territory of the ROC Source: DECR The Statement was adopted at an extraordinary session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on 14 September 2018 (Minutes No. 69). With profound regret and sorrow the Holy Synod the Russian Orthodox Church learned about the statement made by the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople concerning the appointment of its two “exarchs” to Kiev. This decision was taken without an agreement with the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church and His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine – the only canonical head of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine. It constitutes a flagrant violation of the ecclesiastical law and an intervention of one Local Church in the territory of the other. Moreover, the Patriarchate of Constantinople presents the appointment of the “exarchs” as a stage in the implementation of a plan aimed at granting “autocephaly” to Ukraine. This process, according to the statements of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, is irreversible and will be carried through. Trying to justify the claims of the Throne of Constantinople for renewing its jurisdiction over the Kiev Metropolia, the Phanar representatives allege that the Kiev Metropolia has actually never been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Such allegations are untrue and completely contradict the historical facts. The Russian Orthodox Church and its first see – the Kiev Metropolia – constituted a whole for centuries, despite various political and historical tribulations which at times shattered the unity of the Russian Church. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, that originally had jurisdiction over the Russian Orthodox Church, consistently defended its unity until the middle of the 15th century, as was later reflected in the title of the Metropolitans of Kiev – “of All Russia.” And even after the Primatial see had been transferred from Kiev to Vladimir and then to Moscow, the Metropolitans of All Russia were stilled called Metropolitans of Kiev. |
| Statement of the ROC Holy Synod Regarding the Encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the Canonical Territory of the Russian Church Source: DECR Holy Synod meeting in Belarus With profound pain the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church has taken the report of the Patriarchate of Constantinople published on October 11, 2018, about the following decisions of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: confirming the intention ‘to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Church; opening a ‘stauropegion’ of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Kiev; ‘restoring in the rank of bishop or priest’ the leaders of the Ukrainian schism and their followers and ‘returning their faithful to church communion’; ‘recalling the 1686 patent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate as its part. These unlawful decisions of the Synod were adopted by the Church of Constantinople unilaterally, ignoring the appeals of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the plenitude of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as sister Local Orthodox Churches, their primates and hierarchs to hold a pan-Orthodox discussion of the issue. Entering into communion with those who deviated into schism and the more so with those who are excommunicated from the Church is tantamount to deviation into schism and is severely condemned by the canons of the Holy Church: ‘If any one of the bishops , presbyters , or deacons , or any one in the Canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons , let him also be excommunicated as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church ’ (Council of Antioch Canon 2; Apostolic Canons 10, 11). The decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople ‘to restore’ the canonical status and admit to communion former Metropolitan Philaret Denisenko excommunicated from the Church ignores a number of successive decisions of Bishops’ Councils of the Russian Orthodox Church, the validity of which is beyond doubt. |
| 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 of Volokolamsk: Decision demanded by church canons was taken today A briefing for journalists was held after the session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church that took place in Minsk on October 15, 2018. Metropolitan Hilarion, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, told the mass media representatives about decisions taken at the session. “The decision on the complete cessation of the Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople was taken today. This is a forced decision, but our Holy Synod could not take another one as the logic of the latest actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has led to it. Several days ago it was decided at the session of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that it restored in holy orders the anathematized leader of the Ukrainian schism Filaret (Denisenko) and the leader of another schismatic group. The decision was taken “to revoke” the act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1686 on including the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate and on establishing a stravropegia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine. All these decisions are unlawful and canonically void from the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church which does not accept them and will not adhere to them. The schism remains a schism. Its leaders remain the leaders of schism, and the Church which recognizes schismatics and enters into communion with them excludes herself from the canonical space of the Orthodox Church. It is the main reason for which we have to break communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople which has completely identified itself with the schism. I would like to tell you that it is not the first case of this kind in the history of the Orthodox Church. Once the Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople fell into heresy which was condemned at the 3 rd Ecumenical Council and the Patriarch was deposed. A thousand years later the Patriarch of Constantinople signed a unia with Rome. This action was condemned by the heads of other Local Orthodox Churches. The Russian Orthodox Church also condemned it. As patriarch-uniat was elected and there was no canonical patriarch in Constantinople at that time, the Russian Orthodox Church independently elected her metropolitan and since then has begun to live as an autocephalous Church. |
| 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 Russia - Ukraine - Belarus: One Spiritual Space Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, DECR chairman, at the conference on Russia – Ukraine - Belarus: A Common Civilizational Space? ( Fribourg , Switzerland , 1 st June 2019). Russia, Ukraine and Belarus constitute one spiritual space framed by the Russian Orthodox Church. This space was formed over a thousand years, during which national borders appeared, disappeared and were moved many times, but spiritual commonality remained intact despite numerous external efforts aimed at shattering this unity. A witness to it is the thousand-year history of the Russian Orthodox Church. As far back as the 10th century, the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople first mention the Metropolia of Rus’. Initially the title of its head had no additional naming of a city, but was just τ ς ωσας , that is “of Rus’” . When Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and after him the whole Rus’ embraced Christianity, Orthodoxy became the main spiritual and moral pivot for all the East Slavic ethnic groups that soon appeared in these territories. That moment marked the outset of the history of “Holy Rus’” – a historical phenomenon which owed its existence to the powerful unifying role of the Russian Church in the vast territories of the Great, Little and White Rus’ and in other territories which at different times were in the sphere of its influence. “At the outset of every nation, every nationality, a moral idea always preceded the rise of the nationality, for it was this idea that created it,” Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote. Orthodoxy became such idea for the peoples of the Holy Rus’. Throughout its history the Russian Church went through many ordeals, but managed to preserve its unity. During internecine feuds between the princedoms the Church would reconcile the conflicting parties. The most difficult moment of that period was, perhaps, when in the middle of the 12th century Grand Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich organized in Kiev an appointment of Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich without securing approval of the Patriarch of Constantinople, what, in fact, meant the declaration by Rus’ of its ecclesiastical independence and self-willed separation from its Mother Church. The separatist sentiments of the Prince of Kiev influenced the Prince of Northeast Rus’, Andrei Bogoliubsky, who appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with a request to grant him a separate metropolitan. However, it was the Church of Constantinople that defended the unity of the Russian Metropolia in the 12th century. Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges added a word “all” to the old title of Metropolitan of Kiev - τ ς πσης ωσας – “of All Rus’” – in order to emphasize the indivisibility of the Russian Church . |
|
|
