| 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. |
| The term “Coptic Orthodoxy” has often been used by historians to describe the multicultural Christianity of Egypt from the vantage point of the city of Alexandria, a perspective which tends to approach Coptic Christianity as basically a form of Greek Christianity expressed on Egyptian soil. The word Copt derives from a corruption of the Greek term for “Egyptian” (Aigyptos) signifying (pejoratively at first) a native of the hinterland outside the Greek-speaking littoral cities. The word carried with it in early Byzantine times a freight of disapproval, and this aura of prejudice lasted long into the modern age, with theological historians regularly presuming (without having looked at the evidence) that Coptic Christianity had to be uneducated, peasant, and therefore unsophisticated. It was a colonial blindness among Eurocentric commentators that accounts for the late emergence of the real significance of Coptic theology in the textbooks. This scholarly confusion of earlier times, eliding the life of the Greek Alexandrian Church with the conditions of Christian Egypt in the interior, failed to distinguish sufficiently between native Egyptians (Copts) and their colonial, almost foreign, neighbors to the north in the Romanized cities and in places of power throughout the Egyptian chora (countryside), as well as failing to engage thoroughly with the literature of the Coptic speaking Church, especially as it developed after the Council of Chalcedon. After the 8th century the distinction between Greeks and Copts became less important, given the new circumstances that faced the church in the form of the deep isolation that the overwhelming advent of Islam brought. In the long period of Islamic domination the fortunes of the minority Greek Orthodox were sustained by the favor of the sultans, whose hierarchy was acknowledged as ethnarchs under the terms of the sultan’s ascription of dominion to the patriarch of Constantinople. The Greek patriarch of Alexandria, therefore, became a virtual part of the administration of the Phanar until modern times. The Coptic clergy, heirs of those who had renounced links with Constantinople in the aftermath of the christological controversies of the 5th century, had a closer link with the people of the countryside and the towns, adopting Arabic as their normal mode of discourse, but rooting themselves in the Coptic tongue for liturgical purposes. The use of the ancient Coptic served to underline their distinctive traditions, their sense of ethnic antiquity, and their differentiation from the Byzantine Orthodox world. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Africa, Orthodoxy in JUSTIN M. LASSER Christianity on the African continent begins its story, primarily, in four separate locales: Alexandrine and Coptic Egypt, the North African region surrounding the city of Carthage, Nubia, and the steppes of Ethiopia. The present synopsis will primarily address the trajectories of the North African Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Nubian Orthodox Church. The affairs of Christian Alexandria and the Coptic regions have their own treatments elsewhere in the encyclopedia. ROMAN-COLONIAL NORTH AFRICA After the Romans sacked the city of Carthage in 146 during the Third Punic War, they began a sustained colonizing campaign that slowly transformed the region (modern Tunisia and Libya) into a partially “Romanized” society. In most instances, however, the cultural transformations were superficial, affecting predominantly the trade languages and local power structures. It was Julius Caesar who laid the plans for Carthage’s reemergence as Colonia Junonia in 44 bce. This strong colonial apparatus made North African Christians especially susceptible to persecution by the Roman authorities on the Italian Peninsula. Because the economic power of Carthage was an essential ingredient in the support of the citizens in the city of Rome, the Romans paid careful attention to the region. The earliest extant North African Christian text, the Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs (180 ce), reflects a particularly negative estimation of the Roman authorities. Saturninus, the Roman proconsul, made this appeal to the African Christians: “You can win the indulgence of our ruler the Emperor, if you return to a sensible mind.” The Holy Martyr Speratus responded by declaring: “The empire of this world I know not; but rather I serve that God, whom no one has seen, nor with these eyes can see. I have committed no theft; but if I have bought anything I pay the tax; because I know my Lord, the King of kings and Emperor of all nations.” This declaration was a manifestation of what the Roman authorities feared most about the Christians – their proclamation of a “rival” emperor, Jesus Christ, King of kings. The Holy Martyr Donata expressed that sentiment most clearly: “Honor to Caesar as Caesar: but fear to God.” Within the Roman imperial fold such declarations were not merely interpreted as “religious” expressions, but political challenges. As a result the Roman authorities executed the Scillitan Christians, the proto-martyrs of Africa. Other such persecutions formed the character and psyche of North African Christianity. It became and remained a “persecuted” church in mentality, even after the empire was converted to Christianity. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Bulgaria, Patriarchal Orthodox Church of STAMENKA E. ANTONOVA The Bulgarian state was established in 681 CE by Khan Asparuch (681–700) on the territory of the Roman imperial provinces of Thrace and Illyria to the south of the Danube river. Khan Asparuch was the leader of the Bulgars, who were Turanian nomads originating from Central Asia, who first led his people across the Danube into territory of the Roman Empire, and then established a long line of successors. In addition to the Bulgars, who possessed warlike tendencies and initiated later expeditions and territorial expansions, there were also Slavs who had been gradually immigrating and settling in the same region from the beginning of the 6th century. In spite of the fact that the Slavs were more numerous than the Bulgars, the latter gained hegemony due to their more aggressive policies. In 681 the Byzantine Empire was compelled to negotiate a peace treaty with Khan Asparuch and to legitimize the claims to power and territory by the immigrant population. In spite of the fact that a peace treaty was made, however, the Bulgars continued to pose a challenge to Byzantine authority. In 811 Khan Krum (803–14) defeated and killed the Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus I (802–11), after an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the emperor to vanquish the new state. In 813 Khan Krum defeated Emperor Michael I, in addition to sacking the city of Adrianople and advancing as far as the walls of the city of Constantinople. After the sudden death of Kahn Krum, his successors Khan Omurtag (814–31) and Khan Malamir (831–52) agreed terms with the Byzantine Empire, and stopped the expansion of the Bulgar state to the east, turning instead to Macedonia and territories westward. Although there were pockets of Christians in the new Bulgar state from its inception, they were not only marginal in number but were also suspected by the political leaders as having allegiance to the emperor at Constantinople. In addition to the local Christians (who were indeed under the influence of Byzantine Christian civilization at the time), the Bulgars and the Slavs followed ancestral religious practices and worshipped the sky-god Tengri. Most of the hostile attitude toward Christianity in this era was primarily due to the Bulgars’ fear of Byzantine imperialism and the possibility of strengthening Byzantine influence among the more numerous Slavs. As a result, when Khan Omurtag’s son Enravotas converted to Christianity, he was executed publicly along with others in 833. In order to protect the political and religious integrity of the Bulgar state, Khan Omurtag also formed an alliance with the Frankish Kingdom against Byzantium. |
| 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 Constantinople, Patriarchate of JOHN A. MCGUCKIN The patriarch of Constantinople is today rooted in the ancient former capital city of the Roman Empire (not Rome, but after the 4th-century Christian ascent to power, “New Rome” or Constantine’s City, Konstantinopolis). The city retained the ancient name of Constantinople until the early decades of the 20th century when Ataturk, signaling new beginnings after the fall of the Ottoman sultans whose capital it had also been, changed the name to Istanbul (originally another Greek Christian shorthand for “To the City” – eis tin polin) and at the same time moved the capital of Turkey to Ankara. After the rise of Turkish nationalism, and the disastrous Greco-Turkish War of the early decades of the 20th century (reflected, for example, in Kazantzakis’ novel Christ Recrucified), Constantinople, which had always been a major hub of world affairs, and a massively cosmopolitan city, changed into becoming a monochromatic backwater. The many religious communities that had remained there even after its fall to Islam in the 15th century dwindled, until today, demographically, Orthodox church life in that once great metropolis is a sad shadow of what it once was. From the foundation of the city as a Christian hub of the Eastern Empire by Constantine in the early 4th century, the city was the center of a great and burgeoning Christian empire: the Christian style and culture of Byzantium made its presence felt all over the world, from the Saxons of England, to the Slavs of the cold North, to the southern plateaux of Ethiopia. The Great Imperial Church (once the cathedral church of the patriarchate, too) was Hagia Sophia. After the conquest of the city by Islamic forces in 1453, the last emperor was killed and Byzantine dynastic rule was ended, and the patriarchate took over (under the sultans) political and religious supervision of all the Christians of the large Ottoman dominion. Under Mehmet II and his successors, many churches in Constantinople were seized as mosques. It had lost the Great Church of Hagia Sophia at the time of the conquest, but was also later ousted from the large headquarters of St. Mary Pammakaristos. After many vicissitudes and sufferings, the patriarchate came in 1603 to be established in its present location in the very modest Church of St. George at the Phanar in Istanbul. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Holy Trinity ARISTOTLE PAPANIKOLAOU The Trinity is what Christians eventually came to refer to as the New Testament witnesses to a faith in Jesus as the Son of God, who as a result of his unique relation to the Father, reveals the Father and offers the eschatological gift of salvation by the power of the Holy Spirit. The New Testament itself does not give any definitive or creed-like statements about God as Trinity. What the earliest followers and interpreters of Jesus do is to continue to speak about Jesus and interpret his life, sayings, and deeds, together with the salvation he offers, in terms of Jesus’ relationship to the Father and the Spirit. Although there existed a variety of interpretations of Jesus in the earliest formulations of Christianity, two positions became predominant. The first consists of understanding Jesus as a divine mediator, but not generally seen as divine in the same degree as God the Father (often known as Pre-Nicene subordinationism); the second affirms Jesus as of equal divinity with the Father. It is important for the understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity to notice that these two positions share many common assumptions: (1) that Jesus is the Messiah and, as such, the one who fulfills the promise of salvation; (2) that this salvation consists in the bringing of creation into some form of renewed contact with the divine; and (3) as mediamediator of this contact between divinity and creation, Jesus is revealed as the divine Son of God. The core of the debates of the identity of Christ in the 2nd and 3rd centuries gravitated around the question of the degree and nature of divinity ascribed to Jesus by the church. These two parallel trajectories would ultimately culminate – and critically so – in the famous controversies of the 4th century between St. Athanasius of Alexandria and the Nicene theologians, and the so-called “Arians.” Athanasius would stand in continuity with Sts. Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyon in emphasizing salvation as humanity’s freedom from death and corruption, and that this freedom requires a conceptualizing of the God-world relation in terms of a communion between the created and the uncreated. The unequivocal declaration of the co-equal divinity of the Son with the Father occurs first in Athanasius, who argues that there is no freedom from death and corruption, and hence no eternal life, without a communion of the created with the full divinity as revealed in the person and work of Christ. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Parousia MATTHEW J. PEREIRA The Greek term parousia, within the context of the New Testament, denotes the “presence” or “arrival” of Jesus Christ at the Eschaton (Matt. 24.3; 1Cor. 15.23 ). Early Christian expectations of apocalyptic salvation were foreshadowed in Palestinian literature, as can be seen by reference to the Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the Qumran texts (Russell 1964). The early church’s sense of the delay of the glorious return of Christ in judgment ( Jn. 21.21–23 ) provided Christians the opportunity to rearticulate the Parousia in a manner that reflected their own theological concerns, which were shaped within specific social and ecclesial settings (Aune 1975). Beyond exclusively focusing on the “last days,” patristic theologians extensively interpreted the Parousia as a present spiritual reality, part of the resurrection mystery, which pointed towards a future hope. In the early church the Parousia denoted a wide range of spiritual realities, such as the nearness of the gospel, the day of resurrection, Christ’s healing ministry, judgment, and accommodation to humanity. In his Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35-ca. 98/117) proclaimed that the gospel possesses the transcendent “appearance” of our Lord Jesus Christ, his passion and resurrection ( Phil. 9.2 ). Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165) interprets the Parousia as Christ’s power, whereby the Lord resurrects the dead and heals the sick upon his arrival. In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr also interpreted the deluge as a Christ-event; Noah and his family totaled eight people and thus allegorically represented the eighth day, which is when Christ “appeared” (had his Parousia) and rose from the dead (Dial. 88.2). Further, in his First Apology, Justin parallels the prophecy of Isaiah with Christ’s healing presence; it is at the Lord’s “coming” that the “lame shall leap ... the lepers be cleansed, and the dead shall rise” (I Apol. 48.2). In the Stromateis Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) argues that the “advent” of the Savior will divide the believers from the disobedient (Strom. 1.18). The Lord’s arrival clearly reveals the spiritual state of each person, and thus ensures there will be only just judgment. Further, Clement teaches God has no natural relation with humanity, yet the Lord “accommodated” himself to our weakness (Strom. 2.16). In brief, Christian theologians in the first three centuries interpreted the Parousia as a fundamental christological event associated with Christ’s resurrection power, healing, judgment, and nearness to redeemed humanity. |
| А.Л. Беглов Summary. Alexey Beglov. In search of «ideal church catacombs». Church underground in the USSR This book is the first study of the illegal, i.e. prohibited by the Soviet law, Church life during the Soviet period. It underlines the illegal surviving strategies and describes the variety of forms, used by the Church underground movement (podpolie) as a reaction to the state policy towards the Church. The book describes the illegal parishes and monasteries, the underground charity work and church economy, as well as the pilgrimages to the «non-official» (that is the places located in the closed monasteries) holy places. The period between 1920 and 1940s is the focus of author " s attention, although the most important tendencies of the church underground movement are traced up to the 1980s. It was in the 1920s, during the campaign of the exemption of the church treasures that the state power defined in an arbitrary way what was legal and illegal as far as the Church was concerned. This approach was soon to become an effective tool for oppressing the Church. During 1922–1927 the central and diocesan administration of the patriarchal Church was denied the official registration. The absence of registration immediately became another reason for oppression. When the required registration was obtained in 1927 the decree of VZIK and SNK «On the religious organizations» established an extremely narrow zone of legal church practice by prohibiting the church charity activity and church education. The decree demanded an extremely strict procedure of registration for church communities. As a result mass closure of churches followed, which in turn led many church communities to go underground, thus de facto becoming illegal. The sphere of legal activity for the Church continued to shrink during the 1930s. The existence of Church underground movement became one of the main reasons for State repressions against both the legal Church and the underground communities. The situation changed in the period from 1930 to the beginning of 1940. |
| 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. |
|
|
