| 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). |
| The Heresy of Constantinoplés Neo-Papism in Light of Orthodox Trinitarian Theology Скачать epub pdf Christ is the Head of the Orthodox Catholic Church In our day we are being challenged with the aggravation of the internal ecclesiastical problem, which may be designated as the “self-institution” of the Constantinople Patriarchate, the would-be head of the Orthodox Catholic Church. In fact, this has been a decades-long issue rooted in Church history. Evidently, it is associated with man’s inexhaustible inclination to the sin of pride, which sometimes may grow worse if one is granted the authority of being a priest. The terrible experience of Judas – who shared the Last Supper as well as many other meals with Christ – is a vivid example to all ages and nations. According to the testimony of many holy fathers, the sin of pride is at the root of every fall. And this sin causes enormous harm to the Church body, to all God’s people, actually headed by the Humblest and Meekest Jesus Christ our Lord. Many great saints of antiquity – specifically including primates in the See of Constantinople – would denounce the current theological speculation of the Constantinople Patriarchate, which identifies the Constantinople Patriarch as the «head of all the Orthodox». Truly, any Patriarch is the “Primate” rather than the “head” of the Church. In accordance with the Holy Scriptures, saints Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom would declare that we have only one head of the Church, and that is Christ. 1 “We make up one Church, which is harmoniously represented by the members of one Head” – the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 The Twentieth Century Idea of Neo-Papism It was in the twentieth century, in the Church of Constantinople, that the idea of Eastern neo-papism was revived. As early as 1950, almost 70 years ago, Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) warned against the dangerous trends gaining strength in the Constantinople Patriarchate. “At present, in the depths of our Holy Church, lies a great danger of perverting the dogmatic teachings concerning Her, and therefore the danger of perverting Her being, because dogmatic thinking is organically connected with the whole course of inner spiritual life. Any minor change in dogmatic thinking would inevitably incur changes in the corresponding mode of one’s spiritual being. And vice versa: evading the truth of inner spiritual life would produce change in dogmatic thinking. The violation of dogmatic truth would inevitably lead to evading the possibility of true knowledge of God, the fullness of which is granted to the Church ... Any particular distortion would certainly affect the whole. If we distort Church doctrine now, and thus ... the mode of Her being, then how could She serve Her sons and provide the way to the Truth? You would ask, in which way is this distortion visible now? The answer is: in Constantinople’s neo-papism, which is quickly trying to move from the theoretical phase into the practical one.” 3 |
| 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. |
| Patriarch of Jerusalem: The Annunciation of the Theotokos Announces the infinite love of God Photo: en.jerusalem-patriarchate.info On Wednesday, April 7, 2021, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem celebrated the feast of the Annunciation of our Most Holy Lady Theotokos in the city of Nazareth, at the holy shrine where this event took place. On this feast, the whole Orthodox Church in joy and gratitude towards God, commemorates according to Saint Luke the Evangelist (Ch. 1:26-36), that Archangel Gabriel was sent by God to the Virgin Mary and announced that She was going to conceive by the Holy Spirit and bear in the flesh His Only Begotten Son. With Mary’s reply, “behold the maiden of the Lord, let it be done unto me according to thy word”, the Bodiless was made flesh, He became incarnate, for the sake of the rebirth, renovation, and salvation of the humankind from the corruption of death. This festive divine service was officiated by Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem, during which the Patriarch of Jerusalem delivered the following sermon : “O sing unto the Lord a new song: sing unto the Lord, all the earth. Sing unto the Lord, bless his name; shew forth his salvation from day to day” (Psalm 95:1-2), Prophet-King David chants. Beloved Brethren in Christ, Noble Christians “Today there is the true joy and gleefulness of the whole world,” Saint John Damascene says, praising the Annunciation to the Theotokos by Archangel Gabriel, in the holy place where the grace of the Holy Spirit has gathered us all to celebrate in Eucharist the annunciation of the “salvation of God”, the joyful message of the incarnation of God the Word by the pure flesh of the Ever-Virgin Mary in the city of Nazareth. “Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1:28) the Archangel Gabriel exclaimed. The interpreters of Evangelist Luke’s testimony on this say: “because God told Eve she was going to bear children in sorrows, Eva’s sorrow is dispelled through this joy”. “Through ‘Hail’, Christ came to dispel the sorrow”. “He called her ‘full of grace’, as she was granted the grace beyond logic”. And “because the snake brought Eve the sorrow, rejoice, because the Lord is with Thee”. “One should know that at the time of the annunciation the Virgin conceived immediately paradoxically”. |
| 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. |
| 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. |
| Chapter IV. The Iconoclastic Controversy The Iconoclastic controversy was undoubtedly one of the major conflicts in the history of the Christian Church. It was not just a Byzantine conflict; the West was also involved in the dispute. It was true, however, that the West never followed the East in the theological argument nor did it suffer all the implications and consequences of the Byzantine theology of the Icons. In the history of the Christian East it was, on the contrary, a turning point. All levels of life were affected by the conflict, all strata of society were involved in the struggle. The fight was violent, bitter, and desperate. The cost of victory was enormous, and tensions in the Church were not solved by it. The Church in Byzantium has never recovered again her inner unity, which had been distorted or lost in the Iconoclastic strife. Strangely enough, we seem to have lost the key to this momentous crisis of history. The origin, the meaning, and the nature of the Iconoclastic conflict are rather uncertain and obscure. Modern historians do not agree on the main points of the interpretation. It has been fashionable for several decades, since Paparrigopoulo and Vasiljevsky, to interpret the Iconoclastic crisis primarily in political and social categories and to regard its religious aspect as a side issue. It has been variously suggested that originally the conflict had nothing to do with doctrine, and theological arguments or charges were invented, as it were, post factum, as efficient weapons in the struggle. Some historians went so far as to suggest that the religious problem was simply a kind of a «smoke screen,» manufactured and employed by the rival parties as a disguise to conceal the true issue, which was economic. 44 Even quite recently, a prominent Byzantine scholar contended that theology «counted for nothing» in the dispute and that the whole controversy was «concerned with anything but philosophical speculation.» 45 Byzantium was supposed to have been spiritually dead and exhausted long before the Iconoclastic controversy arouse, and the conflict itself was merely a symptom of sterility of the Byzantine Church. A kind of deadlock had been reached in her development. «Intellectual curiosity was practically dead. On the Orthodox side there is scarcely a sign of it.» On the other hand, Iconoclasm «was in itself of little importance intellectually.» 46 The Iconoclastic struggle, therefore, should not be interpreted in the perspective of the great doctrinal conflicts of the preceding centuries; the old Christological heresies had been condemned and were dead issues by that time. Their ghosts were invoked in the Iconoclastic dispute just for the sake of polemical efficiency. 47 And finally, it is contended that we should not dig out these corpses again. |
| Chapter V. Christianity and Civilization A new epoch commences in the life of the Church with the beginning of the IVth century. The Empire accepts christening in the person of the «isapostolic» Caesar. The Church emerges from its forced seclusion and receives the seeking world under its sacred vaults. But the World brings with it its fears, its doubts and its temptations. There were both pride and despair paradoxically intermingled. The Church was called on to quench the despair and to humble the pride. The IVth century was in many respects more of an epilogue than of a dawn. It was rather a finale of an outworn history than a true beginning. Yet, a new civilization emerges often out of the ashes. During the Nicene age for the majority the time was out of joint, and a peculiar cultural disharmony prevailed. Two worlds had come into collision and stood opposed to one another: Hellenism and Christianity. Modern historians are tempted to underestimate the pain of tension and the depth of conflict. The Church did not deny the culture in principle. Christian culture was already in the process of formation. And in a sense Christianity had already made its contribution to the treasury of the Hellenistic civilization. The school of Alexandria had a considerable impact on the contemporary experiments in the field of philosophy. But Hellenism was not prepared to concede anything to the Church. The attitudes of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, on one side, and of Celsus and Porphyrius, on the other, were typical and instructive. The external struggle was not the most important feature of the conflict. The inner struggle was much more difficult and tragic: every follower of the Hellenic tradition was called at that time to live through and overcome an inner discord. Civilization meant precisely Hellenism, with all its pagan memories, mental habits, and esthetical charms. The «dead gods» of Hellenism were still worshipped in numerous temples, and pagan traditions were still cherished by a significant number of intellectuals. To go to a school meant at that precisely to go to a pagan school and to study pagan writers and poets. Julian the Apostate was not the just an out-of-date dreamer, who attempted an impossible restoration of the dead ideals, but a representative of a cultural resistance which was not yet broken from inside. The ancient world was reborn and transfigured in a desperate struggle. The whole of the inner life of the Hellenistic men had to undergo a drastic revaluation. The process was slow and dramatic, and finally resolved in the birth of a new civilization, which we may describe as Byzantine. One has to realize that there was but one Christian civilization for centuries, the same for the East and the West, and this civilization was born and made in the East. A specifically Western civilization came much later. |
| Panayiotis Christou Скачать epub pdf The origin of the monastic life During the fourth century A.D. there appeared within the Church a strong movement of withdrawal from organized society to the desert, a movement which grew ever larger during the subsequent period. To interpret the sudden appearance of this movement historians have put forward various hypotheses, the most favoured of which are two. According to the first, the monastic life was a product of eastern religions, in which from earlier times asceticism was practiced, either in total solitude or in a monastery. According to the second, the monastic life provided a way out when a reaction was provoked by the closer contact of Christianity with the world, and the inevitable decline of moral standards. The first hypothesis is without foundation, because it has not been possible historically to discover a link between oriental asceticism and the Christian monastic life. Moreover, if Christianity had been influenced in this way, the influence should have come from the ascetic groups of the Essene sect, whose environment was that in which Christianity was born; yet the monastic life appeared well after the disappearance of the Essence communities. This, of course, does not mean that in its later stages monasticism did not have certain features in common with the Essence and Neo-Pythagorean communities. The second hypothesis is likewise unacceptable, because there were numerous hermits living in the open country even before the recognition of Christianity by Constantine the Great. Monasticism is a way of life which appeared within the Church and developed organically by pushing the moral principles of Christianity to their limits. Indeed, although Christianity did not enter the world either as a pessimistic philosophy or as a society dissolving force, nevertheless it was governed by principles which separated in the society of that time. It turned its whole attention to the center of life and disregarded the periphery. One thing has supreme value for man: the soul, beside which the whole world is insignificant. “For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? (Matthew XVI, 26). The affairs of this world impede the movements of the soul, and the goods of this world accumulate around it, choking it and preventing it from developing into an integrated personality. A hard struggle therefore awaits man if he is to liberate himself from his lower self, which is attached to worldly things, and develop his higher, ideal self, which will render him capable of standing boldly before God. In this struggle, as Jesus Christ declared, man will have to submit himself and his activities to rigorous examination. He must divorce himself from many earthly goods in order to acquire the heavenly treasure, and submit to the trial of suffering in order to purify his will. |
| His Holiness Patriarch Kirill Delivers Address at a Meeting of the Supreme Church Council Source: DECR On 26 December 2018, the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church held a regular session in the Hall of the Supreme Church Council of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. His Holiness delivered an opening address. Photo: Oleg Varov/foto.patriarchia.ru I greet all the members of the Supreme Church Council at this year’s last session. Of course, we will discuss the results of the year, but first of all, I would like to cordially greet all of you. And I have to say a few words about the year gone by, which, as we all feel, was very difficult. The situation of our Church in Ukraine is still a source of great tension, a factor affecting the well-being of Orthodox Christians, their spiritual welfare. You are well informed, you know what is going on, what developments – radical, extremely dangerous for the integrity of the Ukrainian people, and not only for our Church – have recently taken place in Kiev following the decision of the Ukrainian parliament requiring to change the name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. These changes will be followed by repressions, and it is completely obvious that an ultimatum has been presented: if the Church does not change its name, its registration will be cancelled. And if the Church changes its name, then, naturally, an enormous pressure will be exerted on the Ukrainian people, on the public. There is no doubt that acts of violence will be committed to take away church buildings. People in Ukraine are believers, they are Orthodox Christians, firm in faith and emotional, hence there is a risk that the situation concerning the church buildings can escalate into bloody conflicts. Therefore, I ask you to pray even more zealously for peace in the brotherly Ukrainian land and for the preservation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. As is widely known, what triggered persecutions of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy was the unprecedented decision of Constantinople, going beyond the bounds of any canonical order and therefore criminal, to encroach on the canonical territory of the Ukrainian Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, on the territory of our Church. This encroachment resulted in and was followed by the devastating developments, first of all, the interference of the governmental authorities, also unprecedented. And it occurred in the country which declares its commitment to the European values, one of which is the separation of the Church, of religion, from the state! In violation of this fundamental European value the state in the person of president directly interferes in church administration, one may say, presides at what is called “unification church council” and participates in negotiations with Constantinople on the so-called “tomos,” doing all this in front of TV cameras, in plain view of the whole world. |
|
|
