| 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. |
| Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world: Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council Source: DECR Draft document of the Pan-Orthodox Council, adopted by the 5th Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference in Chambésy on October, 10-17, 2015. Photo: http://www.patriarchia.ru/ Published in compliance with the decision of the Synaxis of Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches, Chambésy, January, 21-28, 2016. 1. Orthodox Church, being the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in her profound ecclesiastical consciousness firmly believes that she occupies a central place in matters relating to the promotion of Christian unity within the contemporary world. 2. The Orthodox Church grounds her unity on the fact that she was founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, as well as on the communion in the Holy Trinity and in the Sacraments. This unity is manifested through the apostolic succession and the patristic tradition and to this day is lived within her. It is the mission and duty of the Orthodox Church to transmit and proclaim the truth, in all its fullness, contained in the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition, the truth which gives to the Church her catholic character. 3. The responsibility of the Orthodox Church and her ecumenical mission with regard to the unity were expressed by the Ecumenical Councils. These, in particular, stressed the indissoluble link existing between true faith and the sacramental communion. 4. The Orthodox Church, which unceasingly prays “ for the union of all ,” has always promoted dialogue with those separated from her, both far and near, playing a leading role in seeking ways and means to restore the unity of believers in Christ, participating in the ecumenical movement since its inception, and contributing to its formation and further development. In addition, the Orthodox Church, due to the ecumenical spirit and love for mankind by which she is distinguished and in accordance with the divine dispensation to “ have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:4), has always fought for the restoration of Christian unity. Therefore, the Orthodox participation in the movement for the restoration of Christian unity does not run counter to the nature and history of the Orthodox Church. It is the consistent expression of the apostolic faith and Tradition in a new historical context. |
| 1998 Synodical Decision of the Orthodox Church of Georgia on the Chambésy and Balamand Agreements, the Branch Theory and more INTRODUCTION Among the milestones of contemporary Orthodox ecclesiastical history with regard to the Church's struggle to maintain " the faith once delivered " and Her belief in the " One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, " the 1998 Synodical Decision of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Georgia is of especial importance. Echoing the earlier decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 1983, which condemned the heresy of ecumenism, and in particular made reference to the " Branch Theory, " the Decision of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Georgia is broader in scope, touching on six different manifestations of unorthodox teachings emanating from the contemporary ecumenical movement and ecumenical involvement of the Local Orthodox Churches. In particular, the decision rejects by name the Chambésy and Balamand agreements, the agreement signed by the Patriarch of Antioch with the Non-Chalcedonians in Syria, in 1991, the adoption of the Gregorian Paschalion by the Finnish Church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the idea that the Holy Mysteries exist outside the Church and also the various manifestations of the " Branch Theory , " as well as common prayer and sharing of mysteries with the non-Orthodox. Both the particular and wide-ranging nature of the decision increases its importance and significance for the entire Church in terms of coming to a pan-Orthodox consensus with regard to the heretical nature of syncretistic ecumenism. For this reason, the fact that it has (to our knowledge) never been translated into English - until now - is all the more astounding. It is important to note the following concerning this Synodical Decision, so as to put it into its proper historical and ecclesiastical context: The Holy Synod's decision was based on a review done by a theological commission appointed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, Ilia II. The decision to create the commission and review the above-mentioned six issues and texts came on the heel of a major, popular " uprising " of the faithful of Georgia, in particular, the monastic community. Hence, it was the watchfulness and dogmatic sensitivity, not only or even primarily of the hierarchy, but of the entire pleroma of the faithful that brought about this landmark decision in favor of Orthodox ecclesiology. This point cannot be over-stated and must be seriously considered by the faithful everywhere, in every Local Church, for every believer is co-responsible for the guarding of the deposit of the Faith and the upbuilding of the Church. |
| The Greek government has been the cause of several recent scandals, including an attack on religious education , and notably the legalization of gay civil parternships just days before the great feast of the Nativity of Christ. The country has also been involved in an ongoing struggle over the issue of cremation. The city of Athens recently put out an invitation for bids for a building to house the first crematorium, and the western port city of Patra is now planning the same. Thankfully, through all these troubles, hierarchs of the Church of Greece have raised their voices and proclaimed the eternal truths of Orthodox Christianity. In regards to this latest battle over the dignity of the human body, Met. Seraphim of Piraeus, ever-faithful and never fearful to boldly stand for Orthodox salvific truths, has released a missive to his diocese, published on the website of the Monastery of the Pantacrator near Thessaloniki, explaining the Orthodox respect for the body, and the Church's consequent stand against cremation. Given the firmness of Orthodox conviction on the matter, Met. Seraphim declares that neither funeral nor memorial service be permitted in his diocese for one who has chosen cremation for himself. It is a known fact that certain indigenous circles of internationalist mockery, who, ignoring the long-standing Christian tradition of our spotless faith have been penetrating every form of mass media and through them, the conscience of contemporary man, poisoning it and buckling the foundations of the faith. As such, the indifference regarding the faith and Christian traditions, under the influence of the aforementioned, is putting down roots in the morally listless and religiously sick consciences. Having perceived the signs of the times, and the twists and turns of those moving suspiciously against Her, and in order to safeguard Orthodox tradition today now that the procedure of cremation of the deceased is being fully materialized and suitably prepared, our Holy Church, as a caring mother, has enlightened Her Christ-named flock in an appropriate manner (with Her Encyclical No. 2959/29.10.2014), for the instruction of the saints and the edification of the Body of Christ—per the God-inspired words of the Apostle Paul (Eph. 4:12)—and has stressed to Her members the spiritual dimensions and consequences of such a choice in the spiritual life of the faithful, by having rejected the cremation of the deceased as an act that is incompatible to Her tradition, thus demarcating Her faith and Her respect for the human person, and by extension, for the human body, which is a temple and a dwelling of the Most Holy Spirit. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Church (Orthodox Ecclesiology) TAMARA GRDZELIDZE THE PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH The purpose of the church is to restore fallen humanity and thereby reconcile the whole creation to God. Its sacramental life is the means to fulfill this purpose. The divine economy of salvation is the foundational principle of the church. The mystery of human salvation leads to the mystery of the salvation of the whole creation which is God’s ultimate goal. In this life the church bears witness to a new existence revealed through the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ – “The Church has been planted in the world as a Paradise,” says St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5.20.2) – and this new reality already proclaimed is destined finally to attain the status of the new creation. The nature of the church, as Orthodoxy understands it, is deeply experiential and accordingly it is difficult to describe it by any single formula that carries an overwhelming authority. The early church knew no such single doctrinal definition and the reason for this is that, according to Fr. Georges Florovsky (1972: 57), the reality of the church was only made manifest to the “spiritual vision” of the church fathers. The nature of the church can thus be experienced and described, but never fully defined. The closest approximation to a doctrinal definition within orthodoxy is the clause in the creed, which affirms that the church is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” The church is the place par excellence of a believer’s participation in the mysteries of God. The faithful participate in the divine mysteries from the very beginning of their life in Christ through the sacrament of baptism and reach the height of that participation in the Eucharistic celebration. The very essence of this participation is experiential, something that can be readily observed in the case of children whose love exceeds their understanding, or orthodox people of little knowledge but great faith. The love of God manifested to human beings and creation is reciprocated in faith by the church’s constant returning the love of God through the praise of the faithful. This human participation in the divine mysteries is nurtured always by the belief and knowledge that “God is love” (1 John 4.8), and this movement of praise that constitutes the church’s inner life is the height of creation – its meaning and fulfillment. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Finland, Autonomous Orthodox Church of SERGEY TROSTYANSKIY Finland has a long and dramatic church history. Orthodoxy’s presence in Finland can be traced back to the late 11th century, as contemporary archeological explorations suggest. The 12th century, in turn, was marked by very significant activities of merchants and monks from Novgorod in Karelia (a region which is now divided between Russia and Finland). The missionary activities of Russian and Byzantine monks played a key role in the introduction of the Orthodox faith to the Finnish people. The greatest and most glorious signs of Orthodox presence in Finland are traditionally associated with its monastic communities. The Valamo (in Russian, Valaam) monastery, which was founded in the 12th century, stands out as among the most important of all. Among the other monastic communities, the Konevitsa (Russian, Konevets) monastery, established in the 14th century, and the monastery at Petsamo (Russian, Pechenga), set up in the 16th century beside the Arctic Ocean, are also distinguished as the great centers of Orthodox spirituality. The Orthodox presence in Finland up until the 20th century was primarily localized in the region of Karelia, a territory that was subjected to a number of regional wars (between Novgorod and Sweden, and later between Russia and Sweden). Thus, Karelia, as the spiritual heartland of Orthodoxy in the North, tended always to be caught up in political turmoil and suffered enormously during its history. Even in the 12th century the Valamo monastery experienced several Swedish invasions. In the 16th and 17th centuries the struggle over Finland between Russia and Sweden brought more instability, and the destruction of the monasteries followed, causing the majority of the Orthodox population to flee to Russia as the western parts of Karelia were occupied by Sweden. Those who remained on these territories were generally forced to convert to Lutheranism. In the 18th century, Tsar Peter the Great took control once more of some parts of Karelia, including the most significant sites around Lake Ladoga. Since then, Orthodoxy was restored and the Valamo and Konevitsa monasteries were rebuilt. This period was characterized by many spiritual and material restorations of the Orthodox faith in Finland. At the beginning of the 19th century, when Finland had become a Grand Duchy of the Russian Empire, the Orthodox population there once again increased significantly as many merchants, soldiers, and others moved to Finland from Russia to settle the new territories. Many churches and chapels were built at that time to accommodate settlers. In 1892 an independent diocese of Finland was established in order to serve the multi-ethnic Orthodox population, which included Finns, Karelians, Skolt Saame, and Russians. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf AUTHORITY AUTHORITY. The question of authority, and with it “infallibility,” in the Orthodox Church is primarily dependent on the Holy Spirit (q.v.) or pneumatology, and not upon human agency. Thus, the way the question is handled in the East is different from its treatment in the West. When the Holy Spirit is recognized as the ultimate source of authority, claims to inerrant authority for the hierarchy (e.g., “papal infallibility”) or for Scripture (e.g., sola Scriptura) can be relegated to high-level political posturing; for the claims are actually for a particular hierarch’s interpretation of the matter, and not all hierarchs’ (universal) understanding, and a particular group’s interpretation of Scripture (q.v.), and not how Scripture has been understood by the Church throughout the ages. The Orthodox generally consider the question as posed in the West in the last half millennium, with due respect to Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians, to be a wrong question predicated on unfortunate political developments, both before and after the Reformation. Having said this, it should be pointed out that in the East the same questions of ecclesiastical and civil authority have been as acutely felt as in the West, but with differing appeals: I. The appeal to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as paradigmatic for church decision-making procedure is frequently made by those emphasizing the importance of the hierarchy in the process of defining the faith: “The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter” (v. 6). This citation has as its strength the witness of Scripture and the successful resolution of a difficult problem in the nascent Gentile mission, seemingly a perfect example. On closer examination, the example is problematical. Did the hierarchy really make the decision? First, Peter makes a speech and in it takes responsibility for the Gentile mission; but then James, the brother of the Lord, speaks and states, “I have reached a decision. . . .” Next, we find that “the apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole church decided . . .” (v.22); and again, when we read Paul’s account of what is ostensibly the same Council ( Gal 2:1–10 ), he states that he is the leader of the Gentile mission and the meeting in Jerusalem added nothing to his message or method. Finally, the Council was not really about orthodoxy at all, but about orthopraxy: The decision did not involve theology (q.v.) or the content of the faith, but only whether circumcision and certain types of abstinence would be practiced. Excepting these controversial items, the Orthodox have preserved the formula, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28), in concluding their conciliar deliberations. |
| Скачать epub pdf On the threshold of the third millennium it is legitimate to reflect on the past of Orthodoxy in North America and to think about the future. Taking a systematic survey of the past is certainly outside the scope of our article. Several studies have been made on this subject but since there is an historical continuity, it would be impossible to speak of the future without alluding to the events which have actually led to the present situation. Some very significant data have to be taken into consideration! Originally, the Orthodox Faith was implanted in America among the indigenous population of Alaska by missionaries coming from Russia and in 1840 a diocese was established, its first bishop, now canonized was St. Innocent. The next stage began when this diocese extended its pastoral care to the immigrants of various nationalities settled in California. An event which can be considered as a decisive landmark in the development of Orthodoxy in America was the return to their ancestral Faith of a large segment of Uniates in the last decade of the nineteenth century. In 1890 the name of the diocese was changed and became the «Diocese of the Aleutian Islands and North America.» The ruling bishop and the clergy had to care for the increasing number of immigrants coming from Eastern Europe and the Middle East. In that context, Archimandrite Raphael Hawaweeny, an Arab by birth, was elevated to the Episcopal rank by the Ruling Synod of St. Petersburg and put in charge as auxiliary bishop in order to care for the Arab speaking communities of the diocese (1904). We can notice that at that time both the ecclesiological requirements of territorial unity and the need of taking into account the linguistic and cultural diversity were harmoniously conciliated. Then Archbishop Tikhon, later Patriarch of Moscow, envisioned for the near future the establishment of a status of autocephaly for the Church of America encompassing of course all the Orthodox of the country. Soon after, however, a series of partly connected events modified profoundly the ecclesiastical situation. As a consequence of the Bolshevik Revolution the relations between the Church in Russia and America were perturbed and the material support from Russia was terminated. During the decades following the end of the first World War, the immigration of Orthodox continued under the influence of political and economic factors. Among those new immigrants, there was a majority of Greeks. Although now in regression, this afflux of Orthodox Greeks has thenceforth never ceased and they constitute the largest and the most socially prominent component among Orthodox Christians in the United States. |
| The Romanian Orthodox Church is an institution of apostolic origin. The Christian faith was known south of the Danube river, in the regions inhabited by Illyrians, Thraco-Dacians, and Greeks (today’s Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece), as far back as the second half of the 1st century, through the preaching of St. Paul and his disciples. More specifically, Christianity was spread through the preaching of the Apostle Andrew in what is today the Romanian province of Dobrogea, which, after the administrative reform of Diocletian, was called Scythia Minor. In local traditions St. Andrew is called the “Apostle of the wolves,” which is historically significant in a context where the ethnic symbol of the Dacians was the wolf’s head. In the northern part of the Danube river, in Dacia, which in 106 became a Roman province after being conquered by Trajan, the new faith arrived in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd centuries, brought by merchants, colonists, and the soldiers of the Roman army who were settled in the newly occupied territory. After the retreat of the Roman legions to the south of the Danube (271) and later, after the promulgation of the Edict of Milan (313), through which Emperor Constantine the Great granted liberty for Christians, the new religion expanded. Significant Christian archeological evidence discovered in the northern territories, as well as all the words of Latin origin in the Romanian language which define fundamental notions of the Christian faith, stand as proof of this expansion. During the 4th century there also existed, on the eastern borders of the Danube, several diocesan seats such as Singidunum, Viminacium, Bononia, Ratiaria, Oescus, Novae, Appiaria, Abritus, and Durostorum, whose bishops took care of the spiritual needs of the faithful north of the Danube, too. There was a metropolitan seat at Tomis in Scythia Minor (today, Constanta) with as many as fourteen dioceses, active in the 4th century and led by diligent bishops (Bretanion, Gerontius, Teotim I, Timotei, loan, Alexandru, Teotim II, Paternus, and Valentinian). According to the historian Eusebius of Caesarea, a Scythian bishop was present at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325) and other bishops who followed him took part in the works of the subsequent councils, as well as in the christological disputes of the time. There are also indications of the existence of diocesan seats in other towns. Well- known theologians from Scythia Minor are St. John Cassian and St. Dionysius Exiguus. |
| 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 |
|
|
