The Orthodox Confession was originally compiled in Latin by the Metropolitan of Kyiv Peter Mohyla and his closest collaborators Isaiah Kozlovsky and Sylvester Kossov. In the year the "Confession" was approved at the Council in Kyiv, convened by Peter Mohyla, it was sent for approval to the Patriarch of Constantinople Parthenius and submitted by the latter for consideration to the Local Council in Iasi in 1641-1642.
There, the Latin text was translated into the Greek vernacular by the learned theologian Meletius Syrigus. He fairly redid it, throwing out or changing the most obvious Latin deviations from the Orthodox faith of the original text, such as, for example, about the time of the change of the Holy Gifts, about purgatory, etc. This alteration was done, however, very hastily, and Meletius himself Sirig, although a staunch opponent of the Roman Catholic Church, was, as a graduate of the University of Padua, under Latin influence in theology. Naturally, the “cleansing” he carried out in the Latin text of Met. Peter Mohyla, could not be sufficient, and the Greek Orthodox Confession, even in such a corrected form, still remains the most “Latin-wise” text from the symbolic monuments of the 17th century. In this revised form, it was approved in Constantinople by a patriarchal letter dated March 11, signed by four Eastern patriarchs and 22 bishops and sent by Met. Peter Mogila in Kyiv.
Metropolitan Peter (Mogila), however, did not agree with the changes made to the text and refused to accept and publish the corrected Orthodox Confession sent to him. Instead, he published his "Small Catechism" in the year, where he again returns to his Latin errors. Be that as it may, the Orthodox Confession remained unknown in the Russian Church until the year when it was translated in Moscow from Greek into Church Slavonic under Patriarch Adrian.
“Orthodox Confession truly constitutes an epoch in ... history (of Orthodox theology). Until now, the sons of the Eastern Church did not have a special symbolic book in which they could find for themselves the most detailed guidance given on behalf of the Church itself, guidance in the matter of faith. The Orthodox Confession of Peter Mohyla ... was the first symbolic book of the Eastern Church. Here, for the first time, all the dogmas are set forth in her name as accurately as possible ... Here, therefore, the most detailed and at the same time most reliable guidance in the matter of faith is given, both to all Orthodox, and, in particular, to Orthodox theologians, with a detailed disclosure of dogmas.
"Mogila was not alone in his crypto-romanism. Rather, he expressed the spirit of the times. The Orthodox Confession is the main and most expressive monument of the Mogilyan era. It is difficult to say exactly who was the author or compiler of this Catechism: they usually call Mogila himself , although it may be a collective work of several of his associates.The "Confession" was originally composed in Latin, and in this first version there is a much more Roman influence than in the final version, which was critically revised at the councils of Kyiv (1640) and Iasi (1642) However, what is important for us is not so much individual deviations into Catholicism - they can be explained by chance - as the fact that the entire "Confessio Orthodoxa" is built on Catholic materials. Its connection with Roman Catholic writings is deeper and more direct than with spiritual life of Orthodoxy and the Tradition of the Eastern Fathers. Separate Roman dogmas - for example, the doctrine of papal primacy - are rejected, but the general style remains Roman ".
"[Confession is] an Orthodox symbolic monument of its era and in all controversial issues that separate the Orthodox from Roman Catholics, such as the Filioque, papal primacy, or from Protestants, like the veneration of holy icons and relics, the invocation of saints, the sacraments, etc. d., it always adheres to Orthodox teaching, but this does not prevent it from being a vividly Latin document in form, and sometimes in content and spirit.Following in its exposition the well-known Roman Catholic catechism of Peter Canisius, and almost literally borrowing from him whole pages, especially in its moral part, the Orthodox Confession fully assimilates Latin scholastic terminology, such as, for example, the matter and form of the sacrament, the intention (intentio) of the performer of the sacrament as a condition for its validity, transubstantiation (transsubstantiatio), the Aristotelian doctrine of substance and accidents to explain transubstantiation , the doctrine of the celebration of the sacraments ex orere orerato, etc.. In Latin forms Orthodox Is the narrative tries to invest Orthodox content. With a few exceptions (Basil the Great, Pseudo-Dionysius, Pseudo-Athanasius, Augustine), references to the holy fathers are almost completely absent in the Orthodox Confession - a characteristic sign of separation from the patristic tradition, which is felt throughout the theology of this symbolic monument. It can also be said that the most characteristic of it is not the presence in it of certain inaccuracies or deviations from Orthodox theology ... but the absence of any theology, the paucity of theological thought ... "
Catholicity of the Church
On September 25-29, 1972, the Second International Conference of the Orthodox Society in America was held at St. Vladimir's Theological Academy near New York. The general theme of the conference was the catholicity of the Church in its various aspects. We print below the introductory report of the chairman of the conference, Professor Archpriest Fr. .
The very word "catholicity" is of comparatively recent origin. Tradition, reflected in the writings of the Church Fathers and the texts of the Creeds, knows only the adjective "catholic" and proclaims our faith in "catholic". The concept of "catholicity" reflects a preoccupation with abstract ideas, while the real subject of theology is the Church itself. Maybe if St. If the Fathers had developed a special branch of theology called "ecclesiology" (as modern theology has done), then they would use the term "catholic" as an abstraction or generalization of the adjective "catholic", just as they spoke of "God" and "humanity" etc., defining the hypostatic unity.
Nevertheless, the fact is that patristic thought avoids talking about the "properties" of the Church in abstracto. At St. The Fathers also lack the desire to “hypostatize” or “objectify” the Church itself. When they spoke of the Catholic Church, they primarily meant the Church as the "Body of Christ" and the "Temple of the Holy Spirit." All four adjectives that describe the Church in our Creed—including the adjective "catholic"—refer to the divinity of the Church, that is, to the presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the world. In patristic times, the Church was not the subject of abstract speculation or even controversy (except in the 2nd and 3rd centuries); it was the vital context of all theology. We all know that this, unfortunately, is no longer the case. In the ecumenical movement, the nature and being of the Church is understood differently by different Christian groups. And even in modern Orthodox theology, the strange division of concepts and areas (most often adopted from the West) has led to a kind of schism between theology and this schism underlies the deep crisis that theology is now experiencing.
We must strongly insist that we Orthodox need to return to the concept of "ecclesiastical" theology in order for it to be truly Christocentric and pneumatocentric. And this, in turn, presupposes the unity of life and dogma, worship and theology, love and truth. Trust in what we proclaim on the part of our own youth, other Christians, and the world around us (which has lost Christ, but often still seeks Him) depends on the restoration of this churchness. We thought that the joint focus during this conference on the confession of our common faith in the "catholic" could help in this urgent need.
We have several introductory talks before us, and we look forward to hearing answers and participating in a general discussion in three areas in which everything related to "catholicity" is crucial, namely: the structure of the Church, its relations with other Christians, and its mission in the world. The authors of the reports give fundamental references to the Holy Scriptures and St. Fathers: they assert that according to the traditional and the only possible understanding for the Orthodox, “catholicity” is rooted in the fullness of the divine trinitarian life and is therefore God’s gift to people, which makes the Church the Church of God. They also recognize that this gift involves human responsibility. The gift of God is not just a treasure to be kept, or a purpose to be used; he is the seed sown in the world and in history, the seed that man, as a free and responsible being, is called to cultivate, so that the catholicity of the Church is realized daily in the constantly changing conditions of the life of the world.
There is surprising agreement on these points between the authors of our reports. I have always been struck by the ease with which Orthodox theologians agree among themselves at international meetings as they affirm and describe the divine, eternal, and absolute truths of Orthodox theology about God, Christ, and the Church, even when they differ in temperament and methodology. There is indeed a guarantee in this basic agreement; it behooves us all to sincerely rejoice in this fundamental unanimity and agreement in faith. Here and only here is hope for the future.
But isn't it just as obvious that when it comes to the practical application of these divine truths that unite us all, the Orthodox presents a picture of division and inconsistency. This gap between "theory" and "practice" or, if you like, between "faith" and "deeds" is noticeable both from outside and to ourselves. Fortunately, we are not always completely devoid of a sense of humor. For, as I have often heard at Orthodox meetings - even at the hierarchal level - the semi-cynical remark: "Orthodoxy is the right faith of wrong people."
Of course, the gulf between Divine perfection and the shortcomings of sinful people is nothing new in the life of the Church. At all times, it is appropriate to take into account, together with N. Berdyaev, the "dignity of Christianity" and the "unworthiness of Christians." But what is especially tragic in our present situation is that we so often declare with peace of mind that we are indeed “true Catholic” and at the same time continue our games, knowing that they are incompatible with what the Church is for us.
As I just said, we urgently need to restore our moral consistency. To indicate the guiding norms of such a restoration is the first task of theology if it wants to be something more than a purely academic exercise, if it is to serve the Church of Christ and proclaim divine truth to the world created by God. And this is indeed urgent, for among our clergy and laity a confusion of thought is beginning to be felt, which leads to dubious surrogates, sectarianism, false spirituality, or cynical relativism.
All these surrogates appeal to many because they are easy solutions that reduce the Mystery of the Church to human dimensions and give the mind some deceptive security. But if we agree that all these are deviations from the “narrow path” of catholicity, then we can not only define what catholicity is as a gift of God, but also say what it means to be Catholic Orthodox in our day, and show that our Orthodox Church witness to this catholicity. For only if theology can bridge the gap between "theory" and "practice" will it again become the theology of the Church, as it was in the time of Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, and not just a "rattling cymbal" ().
In each of the three subdivisions of our general theme, there are vital questions that our theology must deal with not only on a theoretical level, but also as a concrete guide that could help the future pan-Orthodox Great Council, if and when it takes place, and also serve the immediate needs our Church.
I. Structure of the Church
When we say that it is “catholic,” we affirm a property or “sign” of the Church, to be realized in the personal life of every Christian, in the life of a local community or “church,” and in manifestations of the universal unity of the Church. Since we are now concerned with the structure of the Church, I will only talk about the local and universal dimension of catholicity in the Christian community.
A. Orthodox ecclesiology is based on the understanding that the local Christian community, gathered in the name of Christ, led by a bishop and celebrating the Eucharist, is truly "catholic" and the Body of Christ, and not a "fragment" of the Church or only a part of the Body. And this is so because the Church is "catholic" because of Christ, and not because of her human composition. "Where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church". This local dimension of catholicity, which is one of the foundations of our theology of episcopacy, our understanding of councils and tradition, is probably accepted by all Orthodox theologians and has gained some recognition in recent years even outside of Orthodoxy. It does have important practical implications for the life of local churches. These consequences are often called "canonical", but in fact they go beyond the legal aspect of the canonical texts. The authority of the canonical rules is based on the theological and dogmatic truth about the Church, which the canons are called to express and protect.
Thus the catholicity of a local church presupposes in particular that this latter includes all Orthodox Christians in a given place. This requirement is not only "canonical", but also doctrinal, it is necessarily included in catholicity, and this becomes clear if one sees in Christ the highest criterion of the structure of the Church. It also expresses the basic gospel commandment to love your neighbor. The gospel calls us not only to love our friends, or only to preserve our national ties, or to love humanity as a whole, but to love our neighbors, that is, those whom God has been pleased to place on our life path. The local "catholic" Church of Christ is not only a gathering of those who love each other as neighbors, but are also fellow citizens of the Kingdom of Christ, jointly recognizing the fullness of love expressed by their one Head, one Lord, one Teacher - Christ. These become joint members of the one catholic Church of Christ, revealed in the local Eucharistic assembly under the leadership of a single local bishop. If they do otherwise, they change the commandments of love, obscure the meaning of Eucharistic unity, and do not recognize the catholicity of the Church.
These data of our faith are quite obvious, but also obvious is our unwillingness to take this Christian faith seriously enough to draw the appropriate conclusion, especially here in America. The usual reference to liturgical communion existing between different, territorially intertwined "jurisdictions" as a sufficient expression of their unity is clearly untenable. The true meaning of the liturgy (and of Eucharistic ecclesiology, which, correctly understood, is the only true Orthodox ecclesiology) lies in the fact that Eucharistic unity is realized in life, is reflected in the church structure, and in general reveals that Christocentric norm on which the whole life of the Church is based.
Therefore, it is our duty, theologians and Orthodox Christians, to recognize that our systematic unwillingness to accept our mission as witnesses to the catholicity of the Church and our preference for permanent ethnic divisions is a betrayal of catholicity.
C. The "catholicity" of the local church provides a theological basis for the Orthodox teaching about various ministries, and in particular about the episcopal ministry. As we all know and acknowledge, apostolic succession is conferred on bishops as heads and pastors of particular local churches. Orthodox ecclesiology is faithful to the ancient tradition of the Church, which never knew "bishops in general", but only bishops of concretely existing communities. That Orthodoxy so insists on the ontological equality of all bishops among themselves is based on the principle that each of them leads the same catholic church in a given place and that no local church can be "catholic" to another. Therefore, no bishop can be more bishop than his brethren who lead the same Church elsewhere.
But how then to look at so many of our "titular" bishops? How can they speak on behalf of the "catholic" Church if their bishopric is deprived of specific pastoral responsibility for the clergy and laity in any given place? How can we Orthodox Christians defend episcopacy as belonging to the very essence of the Church (as we always do in ecumenical meetings), when episcopacy has in many cases become only an honorary title given to individuals only for the sake of prestige? What is the authority of synods and councils composed of titular bishops?
C. There is also a universal dimension to catholicity. According to the tradition since St. According to Cyprian of Carthage, each catholic church has as its center its own cathedra Petri ("Peter's chair"), occupied by its local bishop, but since there is only one catholic Church everywhere, there is only one episcopate (episcopatus unus est). The specific function of a bishop is that he is the shepherd of his local church and at the same time is responsible for the ecumenical communion of all churches. This is the theological meaning of episcopal catholicity, which is an ontologically necessary element of episcopal consecration, which involves the gathering of all the bishops of a given province, who represent a single episcopate of the universal Church. Episcopal catholicity is also the highest evidence of apostolic truth, the most authentic authority in matters of dogma and canonical rights. This catholicity is traditionally expressed in two ways - locally and ecumenically, and in each case it requires a structure, some kind of organizational channel through which catholicity becomes a permanent feature of church life. Hence the early appearance in the history of the Church of many local "primary sees" and one ecumenical primacy. It is clear that the basic principle of Orthodox ecclesiology, which affirms the complete catholicity of the local church and thus the ontological identity of the episcopal office in all places, can admit primacy only inter pares, and the location of such primal sees can only be determined through the consent of local churches (ex consensu ecclesiae). The most essential function of all "primary sees" is to ensure the regular and coordinated action of episcopal conciliarity at the local and ecumenical levels.
I think that the above principles are indisputable and generally accepted in the Orthodox world. But what is really happening?
The heads of our various "autocephalous" churches exercise their primacy in general accordance with canonical tradition, as chairmen and leaders of local synods of bishops. However, most of them are not regional, but national chapters. The ethnic factor has largely replaced the regional and territorial principle of church structure, and this evolution should be viewed as a secularization of the Church. Of course, the phenomenon of "national churches" is not entirely new. There is a perfectly legitimate degree to which it can identify with the ethos and tradition of a given people and take responsibility for the society in which it lives. The Orthodox East has always striven for the churching of those elements of the national tradition that could contribute to the development of Christianity in a given people. But since the secularization of nationalism that took place throughout Europe in the 19th century, the hierarchy of values has been turned upside down. The “nation” and its interests began to be regarded as an end in itself, and instead of directing their peoples to Christ, the majority of the Orthodox Churches “de facto” recognized the predominance of purely worldly national interests over themselves. The principle of "autocephaly" began to be understood as perfect self-sufficiency and independence, and relations between "autocephalous" churches were understood in terms borrowed from secular international law. In fact, the only, and, I emphasize, the only ecclesiologically and canonically, legitimate understanding of "autocephaly" is that it gives a certain group of dioceses the right to choose their bishops without the intervention of the "higher" hierarchy, that is, the patriarch, archbishop, or metropolitan. "Autocephaly" presupposes conformity with the universal structure of the Orthodox Church. Historically and canonically, one "autocephalous" church unit may include several nationalities, and one "nation" may include several autocephalous groups of dioceses. Not "autocephaly", but local unity is the main requirement of Orthodox ecclesiology.
A no less dangerous confusion of plans occurred in connection with the universal "primacy." Since the universal episcopate is one – just as the universal Church is one – sacred tradition has always recognized the ecclesiological necessity of a coordinating center of communication and joint action. In apostolic times, this service to unity was performed by the Jerusalem. In the second century there is already a general agreement about some advantage of the Roman Church.
The divergence between East and West regarding the criteria determining the recognition and location of the universal primacy is also noticed very early. The Orthodox East has never considered it possible to attach a mystical significance to the fact that this or that local church was founded by the apostles themselves or is located in any particular place; he believed that universal primacy (as well as local) should be established where it is practically most convenient. For this reason, Constantinople was elevated to second place after Rome, “because the emperor and the senate are there” (28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon) and after the schism, the ecumenical primacy, which had previously belonged to the Pope, naturally passed to this church. The reason for this rise was the existence of a (nominally) universal Christian empire, whose capital was Constantinople.
After the fall of Byzantium (1453), the circumstances that caused the election of Constantinople as the seat of the universally preeminent throne disappeared. Nevertheless, the Orthodox was so firmly attached to its Byzantine forms and traditions that no one began to dispute the primacy of Constantinople, especially since the Ecumenical Patriarchate received de facto power over all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Even Russia, which was outside Turkish rule and whose kings inherited the imperial title of the Byzantine basileus, never claimed the universal primacy of its newly formed patriarchy (1589). In fact, however, Constantinople outside the Ottoman borders was never again capable of such direct and intelligent leadership as in times past. The feeling of Orthodox unity suffered greatly from this situation. As the various Balkan states gained their political independence (Greece, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and later Albania), they fell out of the Phanar's ecclesiastical oversight and sought to ignore its leadership role.
These are the historical facts with the ultimate consequences of which we are dealing today. But what about the ecclesiological necessity of a world center of communication and activity?
We find the answer to this question in Orthodox tradition. There is no doubt that we need such a center. It is desirable that it has an international governing body and the possibility for all local churches to have their permanent representatives in place. An ecumenical patriarch heading such a center would immediately act as a genuine initiator of Orthodox catholicity, if only he would be sufficiently free from political pressures from outside and would himself always act ex consensu ecclesiae. In such a case, no one can dispute its usefulness and authority.
The restoration of an ecclesiastical structure based on catholicity is not a matter of ecclesiastical politics, but a matter of theology. Therefore, I believe that a conference such as ours can help the Church find a way to truly bear witness to her catholicity. We, as theologians, are called to remind the Church that she is truly “catholic” only because she is Christ’s, and that she can therefore manifest and exercise her catholicity only if she always sees in Christ the highest and only model of her structure and organization.
II. Relationships with other Christians
As some speakers at this conference will show, the doctrine of "catholicity" implies the legitimate possibility of cultural, liturgical, and theological diversity in the one Church of Christ. This diversity does not mean disagreements and contradictions. The unity of the Church presupposes a complete unity of faith, vision, and love—that unity of the one Body of Christ, which transcends all legitimate plurality and diversity. We believe that the Orthodox Church still possesses this unity, despite all the individual or collective shortcomings of its members, and that therefore it is one, true, catholic. Catholicity and unity are given to the Church not by people, but by Christ; our task is to realize this unity and catholicity in such a way as not to betray these great gifts of God's grace.
Therefore, to be an "Orthodox Catholic" is not only an advantage, but above all a responsibility before God and people. The Apostle Paul could in his ministry be “a Jew with Jews” and “Greeks with Greeks,” but who better than him denounced these same “Jews” and “Greeks” when they refused to form a single Eucharistic community in Corinth?
Diversity is not an end in itself, it is only legitimate when it is overcome by unity in the fullness of Christ's truth. It is to this unity that we Orthodox should call non-Orthodox Christians. And again, our main claim is that such unity has already been found in the Orthodox Church, and not on some invisible or pseudo-spiritual level, to which all divided Christians share equally.
Unfortunately, the most serious obstacle to believing in the authenticity of our claim is again the appearance of the Orthodox Church: our inconsistency, which does not allow us to even try to carry out catholicity in life! We have given several examples of this inconsistency when speaking about the structure of the Church. And I emphasize once again that so far any evidence of Orthodoxy is contradicted by the observable facts of the concrete reality of the Orthodox Church, which are obvious to everyone.
The difficulties of our witness to catholicity are contained in it itself, since it is a task as well as a gift from God. Catholicity implies active vigilance and reasoning. It implies an openness to all manifestations of the creative and saving power of God everywhere. The Catholic Church rejoices in everything that shows the action of God, even outside her canonical limits, because the eye of the Church is the same one God, who is the source of all blessings. Despite all the fallacies and heresies that we reject in the Western Christian tradition, it is clear that even after the schism, the Spirit of God continued to inspire Western saints, thinkers, and millions of ordinary Christians. The grace of God did not suddenly disappear when the schism happened. The Orthodox Church has always recognized this, however, without falling into any kind of relativism and without ceasing to consider itself the only true Catholic Church. For to be "catholic" precisely means to recognize everywhere that the work of God is, and therefore fundamentally "good", and to be ready to accept this as one's own. Catholicism rejects only evil and error. And we believe that the power of "reasoning", the power of refuting errors and accepting what is true and correct everywhere, works by the Holy Spirit in the true Church of God. In the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, one can say: “Truth is realized by destroying all heresy and yet accepting what is useful for it from everyone” (Catechetical Word, 3). This quotation should become our ecumenical slogan. It is also especially important for us, whom the Lord has made witnesses of Orthodoxy among Western civilization.
The important biblical and canonical concepts of “reasoning” (diakrisis, especially in 1 Corinthians 12i) and “confessions” (from the meaning of the verb “know” (gignoskein) in 1 John), both in a positive and negative sense, are the true basis Orthodox approach to ecumenism. We change the catholicity of the Church as soon as we lose the ability to see error or the property of true Christian love, to rejoice in all truth and goodness. To stop seeing the finger and the presence of God, wherever they appear, and to take a purely negative and self-protective position in relation to non-Orthodox Christians, means not only betraying catholicity; this is a kind of neomanichaeism. And vice versa, to lose the feeling that delusions and heresies really exist and that they have a mortifying effect on people, and forgetting what is built on the fullness of truth, is also a betrayal not only of Orthodox tradition, but also of the New Testament, on which this tradition is based.
One of the contemporary difficulties of our participation in the organized norms of the ecumenical movement lies in the recent fascination of many ecumenical institutions with the fashionable theology of "secularization", which goes back to a long-standing Western tendency to regard man as "autonomous" in relation to God, and his "worldly" life as an end in itself. Some Orthodox react to this in a panicked and sectarian way, others are unaware of the seriousness of the situation and find it convenient to enjoy the (often imaginary) advantages that they get from being known to be part of the ecumenical movement. Our responsibility as theologians is to avoid such traps and to find ways for the Church to act and testify. In this regard, our task of defining a truly Orthodox approach to ecumenism is inseparable from the theology of "peace" - another polysemantic word of the Holy Scriptures - for, in one sense of this word, God "loved" him and gave His Son for his life, and in another meaning we are called to "hate" it.
III. catholicity and mission
The Christian assertion that Jesus is indeed the "Word of God" - the Logos "In whom all things were" - is a universal assertion that includes not only all people, but the entire cosmos. John's identification of Christ and the Logos signifies that Jesus is not only the "Savior of our souls." He is not only the bearer of a message concerning a certain area called "religion", but in Him lies the final truth about the origin, development and ultimate fate of all creation. Therefore, His Church must be catholic - katolou - "pertaining to everything."
We are probably all in agreement in rejecting the temptation to oversimplify, the temptation to which Christians have often succumbed in the past, to use the Bible as a guide to physics or biology, or to claim the right of the ecclesiastical hierarchy to control scientific research and knowledge. Such a relationship was based on a misinterpretation of Revelation, and in particular on the identification of human words - with which the Lord speaks in the Bible - with the one, living and personal Logos, who speaks in His Church by the Holy Spirit. We actually believe that there is this personal, Divine Logos, in which all the relative truths revealed in the Old Testament found their fulfillment and in which one should also look for the highest meaning of the origin and destiny of man, about which science also gives us many important information.
The purpose of the mission is really that all people know Christ and in Him find communion with God. But the knowledge of Christ and communion with God (what the Holy Fathers call "deification") are communicated to people not in order to somehow replace the knowledge of man about himself and about the cosmos, but in order to complete this knowledge, to give him new meaning and new creative dimension. Thus, the knowledge gleaned from Revelation - from Scripture and Tradition - does not replace culture and science, but frees the human mind from the secular, or non-religious, that is, inevitably one-sided approach to the reality of man to the world.
These basic premises have always been the basis of the Orthodox approach to "the world" and to mission. The traditional use of the languages of different peoples in worship (the so-called Cyril-Methodian ideology) in itself already means that it does not abolish local cultures, but perceives them as a united variety of catholic tradition. Nevertheless, with this approach, in each case, there are problems specific to this position. The pluralistic and partially Christian culture of America, for example, is an unprecedented challenge for Orthodoxy, which the emerging American Orthodoxy must immediately respond to. This requires a dynamic and creative approach. Shutting up Orthodoxy in ethnic ghettos, which contributed to the transfer of the Orthodox faith to the New World, on the one hand, is a betrayal of catholicity, on the other hand, it is a very deceptive defense against the overwhelming pressure of American social reality. But even unconditional Americanization does not seem to be the right solution, because "peace" can never be accepted, without any conditions, into the Kingdom of God; he must first pass through the Paschal change and transfiguration, through the cross and resurrection. And this is indeed a dynamic and creative process for which the Church needs the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
We all know that modern theology about "the world" is in a state of great confusion. Many Protestant and some Roman Catholic theologians strongly advance the traditionally Western notion of "the autonomy of all that is worldly". The new secularist current leads not only to the conviction that the world is in a certain sense the only source of revelation, but, paradoxically, the very understanding of the world is reduced to purely sociological categories. human rights is explained almost exclusively by the concepts of economic development and social justice. Freud's pansexualism is the only competitor to this "social" orientation.
It seems to me that a clearly expressed Orthodox reaction to these currents is today one of the main tasks within the framework of the “catholic” witness of our Church. Without any triumphalism, we can assert and show that the Orthodox tradition about human nature is indeed extremely rich, and not only in its patristic roots, but also in more recent developments in theology, I, in particular, think about some aspects of Russian religious philosophy of the late XIX and early 20th centuries. On the one hand, Schleiermacher's unjustified monopoly in modern Western theology, and Hegel's, on the other hand, is based on one-sidedness and partly on ignorance. The Orthodox must come forward with the theocentric anthropology of the Greek St. fathers, and then they will soon find influential allies in the West (I think, for example, of a significant part of the works of Karl Rahner).
At the same time, we must not forget that, by its very nature, true Christian evangelism cannot find its expression in directly understandable terms and therefore cannot easily find a response in the world. Having become a man - and having assumed the fullness of humanity - the Son of God did not associate Himself with any existing ideology or system of activity. We cannot do it either. The Christian, for example, is bound to be a champion of social justice, but at the same time he must warn that man's final destination is not simply the fair distribution of material wealth. To those who believe in social revolutions, he will inevitably seem rather uncertain and unfaithful ally, reminding that the revolution is not the solution of all evils and that it can even become a real opium for the people. With right and left, a Christian can only go part of the way and is likely to disappoint both. His own and total commitment remains eschatological: "I have tea for the resurrection of the dead."
Thus, it cannot completely identify itself either with the social cause and ideologies of "change" or with the conservative philosophy of "status quo". But there is a more natural and more reliable ally of Christianity that is often overlooked by most Christians. This ally I offer is science.
The history of the relationship between and science, as you know, is tragic, and the Church is largely responsible for this conflict. If the Western Church tried to impose its coercive control on science, which led to the development of anti-religious “scientism” and to positivism, then the Orthodox East was often too exclusively contemplative and (why not admit it?) somehow in a Monophysite way. The East had no time to think about this issue. Moreover, modern science was created in the European West, not in the Byzantine or Slavic East.
Nevertheless, today science and are no longer real enemies, but between them there is a tragic mutual ignorance. Christian theologians know little about the natural sciences, partly because their own field of activity is quite extensive and partly because real science quickly discourages amateurs, which cannot be said about sociology and politics. Therefore, many theologians are seduced by easy and deceptive success, and they become amateurs in sociology and amateurs in political activity in order to maintain a "dialogue" with what they consider to be "the world." But representatives of the natural sciences, for their part, usually know no more about Christianity than some of them learned in childhood, at school. However, the modern world is run by the natural sciences and the technology they generate, not by politicians or social ideologues. The natural sciences require mental discipline and rigor, which is also necessary for good theology: the theologian and scientific researcher can and should understand each other. If they do not know each other, then this is most often due to centuries of hostility and excessive preoccupation with their own separate interests. This is where the Church must manifest her catholicity, that is, through overcoming any narrowness! Some of our contemporaries showed us the way: Father Pavel Florensky in Russia and Teilhard de Chardin in the West. They may have made some intellectual mistakes, but are we not obliged to forgive them, remembering how tragically they were alone among the theologians of their time, trying to show that theology and the natural sciences are really looking for the same truth? ?
Here we have an extremely urgent task of "catholic" responsibility, not, of course, in the sense of creating a new kind of "Orthodox science" that knows more about atoms, molecules and genes than ordinary science, but in the sense that theology and natural science should again seriously consider each other. with a friend. Today, there is almost no direct hostility between them, but it has been replaced by mutual disregard. The situation is such that theologians recognize that science and technology represent a huge power in the hands of man, given to him by God for power over nature. But scientific researchers must, for their part, agree that their competence is limited to their own task. They establish facts, but the higher significance of these facts is beyond their specialty. Therefore, they should have turned to theology, that is, to the basic mental and spiritual statements of faith, in order to find the highest criteria and moral standards.
Conclusion
Here are some of the problems we have with our reflection on the catholicity of the Church at this conference. The reports that you have in your hands are introductions to this topic, and in the coming days we will hear the answers and hope that a useful discussion will take place. But the real task is yet to come: catholicity should not only be discussed, it should be lived. It should be a clear indicator that each of our diocese, each of our parishes is truly a local catholic one, possessing the divine gift of Christ's Presence and called to manifest this gift to all people.
The gap between theory and practice, as I have already said, is so great in the historical Orthodox Church of our day that this gap could be a cause of despair for the Orthodox themselves, and only compassionate irony for those who look at us from the outside, if this theory was would in fact be only a “theory”, and not a gift of God, if the Divine Eucharist did not transform - again and again - our poor human community into a true Catholic community of God, if from time to time the Lord did not work such miracles as, for example, the preservation of the Orthodox faith in totalitarian secularized societies, or the emergence of an Orthodox dispersion in the West, again providing an opportunity for a worldwide witness to Orthodoxy.
To heal this gap and thus become more worthy of the great deeds of God, which are so clearly done for our benefit and salvation, remains our sacred duty. Nothing can be healed through deceit, lies and boasting of the past glory of this or that local tradition or this or that church institution. There is one positive feature of the critical age in which we live: it is its search for existential truth, its search for holiness...
I have just uttered a word which must never be forgotten in our discussions of catholicity. not only one and catholic, she is also holy. Holiness is a divine attribute, just like true unity and true universality, but it is made available to people in the Church. The people whom we call "saints" are precisely those Christians who, more than others, realized in themselves this divine holiness communicated to them in the holy Church. As we all know, the Fathers of the Church never made a distinction between "divine vision" and "theology." They never entertained the idea that intellectual ability had any meaning in understanding the gospel without holiness. In the past, saints - and not "professional churchmen" - were able to present the image of Christ to the world, for only in the light of holiness can one really understand the meaning of the Cross and the meaning of the description of the Church by the apostle Paul in his day: “We are considered deceivers, but we are faithful; we are unknown, but we are recognized; we are reckoned dead, but behold, we are alive; we are punished, but we do not die; we are grieved, but we always rejoice; we are poor, but we enrich many; we have nothing, but we have everything" (
In the symbolic texts that enjoyed fame and authority in the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as in the courses of dogmatic theology intended for its theological schools, the concepts of the "Cathedral" or Catholic Church were very often identified with the concept of the "Universal" Church.
So in the "Orthodox Confession" it says: "The Church is One, Holy, Catholic (Cathedral, universal) and apostolic."
The Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs says: “We believe that the testimony of the Catholic Church is no less valid than the Divine Scripture. The Universal Church... The Universal Church... can in no way sin, neither deceive nor be deceived; but, like Divine Scripture, it is infallible and has everlasting importance" (part II).
In the Long Christian Catechism we read:
"Question: Why is the Church called Catholic, or, what is the same, Catholic, or Ecumenical?
Answer: Because it is not limited to any place, time, or people, but includes the true believers of all places, times and peoples.
Metropolitan Macarius in his "Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" writes: "The Catholic, Catholic or Ecumenical Church is called and is: 1) in space. It is intended to embrace all people, wherever they live on earth; 2) in time. The Church is intended to lead all people to faith in Christ and exist until the end of the age...; 3) according to its structure, the teachings of the Church can be accepted by all people... without being connected, like pagan religions and even the Jewish religion itself, with any civil system (" My kingdom is not of this world" - John 18, 36)... The worship of the Church can also be performed, according to the Lord's prediction, not only in Jerusalem, but everywhere (John 4, 21)... The hierarchical power in it is by no means not assimilated, as it was in the Jewish Church, to one specific tribe of a specific people ... but it can be communicated from one private church to another ... "(T. 2. - § 180).
The Church, says Bishop Sylvester, commanded all believers to "always confess it (in the Nicene-Tsaregrad Symbol (not only the one, holy and apostolic, but together with the Ecumenical or Catholic Church" (T. 4. - § 122).
“The Church of Christ,” writes Archpriest N. Malinovsky, “is the Catholic Church (καθολική εκκλησία), Ecumenical, or, according to the Slavic translation of the Symbol, Cathedral” (T. 3. - § 120).
It is true, of course, that the true Orthodox Church of Christ is both catholic (according to the Slavic translation of the Symbol, catholic) and universal. But this does not mean that the very terms "catholic" and "universal" express identical concepts.
“We must resolutely abandon the simple identification of the concepts of “cathedral” and “universal,” writes V.N. Lossky in his article “On the Third Property of the Church.” - a consequence that necessarily follows from the catholicity of the Church and is inseparably connected with the catholicity of the Church, since this is nothing but its external, material expression.From the first centuries of the life of the Church, this property was called "universality" from the word η οικουμένη (universe).
"Ecumene", in the understanding of ancient Hellas, meant "inhabited land", the known world, in contrast to the unexplored deserts, the ocean surrounding the orbis terrarum (circle of lands) inhabited by people, and also, perhaps, in contrast to the unknown countries of the barbarians.
"Ecumene" from the first centuries of Christianity was mainly a combination of the countries of the Greco-Latin culture, the countries of the Mediterranean basin, the territory of the Roman Empire. That is why the adjective οικουμενικός (universal) became the definition of the Byzantine Empire, "universal empire." Since the boundaries of the empire by the time of Constantine the Great more or less coincided with the spread of the Church, the Church often used the term "ecumenikos". It was given as an honorary title to the bishops of the two capitals of the empire - Rome and later the "new Rome" - Constantinople. Mainly, this term denoted the general church councils of the bishops of the universal empire. The word "ecumenical" also meant that which concerned the entire church territory as a whole, as opposed to everything that had only a local, provincial significance (for example, a local Council or local veneration "(ZHMP. -1968, No. 8. - P. 74 - 75).
One should not think that the word "cathedral" comes from the word "cathedral". Before the Councils appeared in the history of the Church (and even the first of them - the Apostolic Council, dating from 48-51 years), the Church of the disciples of Christ, who gathered in the Zion Upper Room on the day of Pentecost, was undoubtedly Catholic. On the contrary, Church Councils are a manifestation and expression of the catholicity of the Church.
"We must clearly understand the difference between "universality" and "cathedralism." The Church as a whole is called "Universal", and this definition is not applicable to its parts; but every part of the Church, even the smallest, even only one believer, can be called "Cathedral ".
“When Saint Maximus, whom church tradition calls a confessor, answered those who wanted to force him to take communion with the Monothelites: “Even if the whole universe (“ecumene”) took communion with you, I alone would not take communion,” he “universe”, whom he considered to be in heresy, he contrasted with his catholicity" (ibid.).
The well-known thinker and theologian, a deeply religious and devoted son of the Orthodox Church, Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov (1804 - 1860), whose works had a significant influence on the development of Russian theological thought, considered it beyond doubt that the Slavic translation of the Creed came down to us from the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius. It was they who "chosen the word 'cathedral' to convey the Greek word καθολική... "The word καθολική in the concept of two great servants of the Word of God sent by Greece to the Slavs, came from κατά and ολον... The Catholic Church is the Church in all, or in unity of all believers, the Church of free unanimity... that Church about which the Old Testament prophesied, and which was realized in the New Testament, in a word, the Church, as St. Paul defined it... She is the Church according to the understanding of all in their unity."
The idea expressed by Khomyakov regarding the translation of the word "Catholic" by the word "Cathedral" is repeated by Father Pavel Florensky.
“It is remarkable,” he writes, “that the Slovenian primary teachers Saints Methodius and Cyril translated “καθολική” through “Cathedral”, of course, understanding catholicity not in the sense of the number of votes, but in the sense of the universality of being, purpose and all spiritual life, gathering in itself all , regardless of their local, ethnographic and all other characteristics.
Father Sergei Bulgakov changed his point of view on this issue. In the article "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (in English, 1931), he wrote that the word "catholicity" is absent from the Greek text of the Creed, and that in fact its appearance is due to "the inaccuracy of the Slavic translation, if not a simple mistake of the translator , an error which, however, we must regard as providential."
But in the "Theses on the Church" (in German, 1936) written on the occasion of the First Congress of Orthodox theologians in Athens, Father S. Bulgakov calls the translation by the word "Cathedral" already "an authentic interpretation of the Greek word" καθολική" (Thesis VI ).
The term "Catholic Church" enters into ecclesiastical usage in early patristic literature. As far as is known, it was first used by Saint Ignatius the God-bearer. In his Epistle to the Smyrnians, he wrote:
“Follow the bishop all... Without the bishop, no one should do anything related to the Church. Only that Eucharist should be considered true, which is celebrated by the bishop or by those to whom he himself gives it. Where there is a bishop, there must be a people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
The meaning of the word "catholic" is explained in detail by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the XVIII Announcement:
"The Church is called Catholic, because it is in the whole universe, from the ends of the earth to its ends; that it teaches in fullness all the doctrine that people should know - the doctrine of things visible and invisible, - heavenly and earthly; that the whole the human race is subject to piety ... and that heals and heals all kinds of sins in general, committed by the soul and body; and everything called virtue is created in it, both in deeds and in words and in every spiritual gift "(Occitation Word // ZhMP. - 1987, No. 3. - S. 36).
Guided by this explanation, one can apparently characterize the third essential property of the Church, that is, her catholicity, as follows:
The catholicity (or catholicity) of the Church is the fullness of the grace granted to it and the integrity (not - defectiveness) of the truth stored by it, and, consequently, the sufficiency for all members of the Church of the spiritual forces and gifts communicated and received in it, necessary for free and reasonable participation in all aspects of her life as the body of Christ, including all aspects of her saving mission in the world.
Catholicity is an inherent quality and sign of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. There is no reason to speak of some non-church catholicity or "secular catholicity." And all the experience of witness and service acquired and carried out by the Church in the world, no matter how it is improved over time and under the influence of various circumstances, can neither increase nor decrease the catholicity of the Church. The Church does not cease to be catholic at all times.
Page generated in 0.08 seconds!
| Catholic Orthodox Church of France | |
| General information | |
|---|---|
| Founders | John-Nectarius (Kovalevsky) |
| Management | |
| Primate | Herman (Bertrand-Hardy) |
| Center | Paris |
| worship | |
| Musical tradition | Gregorian chant |
| Calendar | Gregorian |
| Statistics | |
| Bishops | 1 |
| educational institutions | 1 |
| Monasteries | 1 |
| parishes | 27 |
| Website | eglise-orthodoxe-de-france.fr |
Catholic Orthodox Church of France(fr. Eglise catholique orthodox de France, abbreviated ECOF, previously known as Orthodox Church of France, fr. l'Église Orthodoxe de France) is a non-canonical jurisdiction that uses a modified Gallican rite in worship. At various times, she was part of the Moscow Patriarchate, ROCOR, and the Romanian Patriarchate.
Story
Under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate
The emergence and formation of this jurisdiction is associated with the name of Evgraf Evgrafovich Kovalevsky (later Bishop of Saint-Denis John-Nectarius (1905-1970)), who in 1937, being a priest, headed the community of the deceased Archimandrite Irenei (Viner), who was accepted shortly before his death into the Russian the Orthodox Church with the right to serve as a local rite, use the Gregorian calendar, Western vestments, etc. Evgraf Kovalevsky, as well as his brother Maxim, actively lectured, preached a lot, the number of communities grew.
In 1944, Kovalevsky created, taking as a model. The composition of the teachers is quite representative - members of the Orthodox Mission of France, created by Evgraf Kovalevsky and Vladimir Lossky, French secular professors of various Christian denominations.
In 1948, the association, headed by Evgraf Kovalevsky, became known as the "Orthodox Church of France." The clergy were required to be French citizens. The service was performed in French, the liturgy was served by the restored Gallican rite. Contacts magazine began to be published.
Nevertheless, many mistakes and, above all, a frivolous attitude towards church discipline - the communion of the heterodox, non-canonical weddings, secondary ordination, the use of esoteric practices, and much more - caused a critical attitude towards the brainchild of Evgraf Kovalevsky from the Moscow Patriarchate hierarchy.
Under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
In 1953, Archpriest Evgraf Kovalevsky, together with a significant part of the believing communities of the Western Rite, left the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate and formed the "French Catholic Orthodox Church" ("Eglise catholique orthodoxe de France (ECOF)"). It is noteworthy that a few years before going into schism, Archpriest Evgraf secretly registered the Charter of the religious organization and the organization itself under the name "French Orthodox Church". Together with Kovalevsky, the Theological Institute of St. Dionysius also left the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.
Until 1956, Archpriest Evgraf was under the jurisdiction of the Russian Western European Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then for several years the communities subordinate to Archpriest Evgraf remained independent.
Under the jurisdiction of the Russian Church Abroad
In 1960, the "French Orthodox Church" became part of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, where it received the name "Orthodox Catholic Church of France". Joining ROCOR was carried out by Bishop John (Maximovich) of Brussels and Western Europe, who treated the ancient Gallican liturgical tradition with great reverence and saw in its revival not only a return to the liturgical diversity of the ancient undivided Church, but also saw a huge potential for the Orthodox mission in the Western world.
On November 11, 1964, Archpriest Evgraf Kovalevsky, with the consent of the ROCOR Synod, was ordained Bishop of Saint-Denis in the Sorrowing Cathedral of San Francisco. The consecration was performed by Archbishop John (Maximovich) and Bishop Theophilus (Ionescu). Bishop John Nektarios led a 5,000-strong flock of Western Rite Orthodox Frenchmen.
After the death of Archbishop John (Maximovich) in 1966, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops in September 1966 entrusted the leadership of the affairs of the French Orthodox Catholic Church to Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) of Canada. On October 9, Archbishop Vitaly was present at the General Assembly of the FPOC, where he announced the need to stop the celebration of the Western rite of the Liturgy and insisted on the full adoption of the Byzantine rite. As a sign of protest, on October 19, Bishop John Nektarios announced his withdrawal from ROCOR. Part of the FPOC communities refused to leave ROCOR; they were formalized as the French Mission of ROCOR, while the Gallican rite was preserved in them, provided that the Byzantine rite was performed as the main one. In 1986, some of these parishes, headed by Archimandrite Ambrose (Fontrier), joined one of the non-canonical Old Calendar Auxentiev Synod, others completely switched to the Eastern rite.
At the end of the same year, Bishop John Nektarios asked the primates of the Local Orthodox Churches to accept the ECOF while maintaining the Gallican rite. According to the report of Bishop Vitaly (Ustinov), Bishop John Nektary "for inappropriate behavior" was defrocked, which he did not admit. In 1967 he was excommunicated from the Church by the ROCOR Council of Bishops.
Under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate
At the suggestion of the Romanian emigrant priest Virgil Georgiou, Bishop Ioan-Nectarios Kovalevsky made new attempts to settle the canonical status of his jurisdiction and in 1967 began negotiations with the Romanian Patriarch Justinian, but did not have time to complete them, having died in 1970. The accession of the "Orthodox Catholic Church of France" to the canonical Romanian Orthodox Church took place only in 1972.
On June 11, 1972, Bishop German (Bertrand-Hardy) was ordained for the PCCF with the title of Saint-Denis.
In 1988, due to the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a conflict arose with the Romanian Patriarchate, which in March 1993 withdrew its blessing on the activities of ECOF, and most of the parishes of the latter withdrew from the Romanian Church. Parishes that did not want to go into schism were organized into a special deanery of the Gallican rite, headed by Archpriest Gregory Bertrand-Hardy, brother of the deposed Bishop Herman. These parishes have actually become biritual - according to the Gallican rite, they are allowed to serve only six times a year. .
independent existence
On April 3, 1997, the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France expressed a negative attitude towards ECOF by a special resolution.
In 2001, the ECOF was rocked by a scandal when it was revealed that Bishop Herman Bertrand-Hardy had secretly married in 1995. 10 parishes then left ECOF and formed the "Union of Western Rite Orthodox Cult Associations" ( Union des Associations Cultuelles Orthodoxes de Rite Occidental, abbr. UACORO). About 50 parishes and communities, however, remained faithful to their bishop.
History of the term
The first Christian theologian to use the term "catholic church" (Gr. καθολικὴ Ἐκκλησία ), was the Hieromartyr Ignatius the God-bearer. In his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna, he declares thus: "Wherever there is a bishop, there must be a people, for where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Word (Greek) καθολικὴ ) (universal, catholic, catholic) is transmitted in the Church Slavonic tradition as "catholic". At the core of the teachings of St. Ignatius the God-bearer about the Church, as well as the Apostle Paul, about the existence or sojourn of the Church of God in each local Church lies Eucharistic ecclesiology: the Church of God abides in the local Church because Christ abides in its Eucharistic assembly in all its fullness and in all the unity of His body. Because St. Ignatius the God-bearer, using this term, does not explain it, it can be assumed that it was already understood by his contemporaries.
Meanwhile, we clarify that the term "catholic" comes from the Greek words - "kaf olon" - throughout the whole (according to the whole). What does the full church mean. A full church is a church that has at least one bishop and one lay Christian. In other words, the Catholic Church is the Episcopal Church. The need for the emergence of the term "catholic church" shows us the presence of a problem in the 2nd century AD. e., among the heirs of the apostles. The post-apostolic bishops insisted on the episcopal structure of the church, the presbyters insisted that they were followers of the apostles. Until our time, only the terms - Catholic, Episcopal and Presbyterian Church - have come down from this opposition.
In the Catholic Church itself, we should take special care to maintain what what was believed everywhere, always, everyone; for what is truly catholic in its own mind, as the meaning and meaning of this name shows, is that which embraces everything in general.
original text(lat.)
In ipsa item catholica ecclesia, magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim uere proprieque catholicum, quod ipsa uis nominis ratioque declarat, quae omnia fere uniuersaliter conprehendit.
Memoirs of Peregrinus on the antiquity and universality of the Catholic faith against the indecent novelties of all heretics
Noun καθολικότης (rus. catholicity) appeared much later.
In the Russian Church, in the Church Slavonic text of the Creed, it is used as the Slavonic equivalent of the term καθολικὴν the term is used Cathedral.
The concept of catholicity (catholicity) in Russia
Russian school dogmatic theology of the 19th century gave a completely conservative and correct interpretation of the term:
... it [the Church] is not limited to any place, time, or people, but includes the true believers of all places, times and peoples.
The Catholic, Catholic or Ecumenical Church is called and is:
see also
Notes
Literature
- Protopresbyter John Meyendorff. catholicity of the church
- Prot. Livery Voronov. Catholicity (or catholicity) of the Church
- A. S. Khomyakov. On the meaning of the words "catholic" and "cathedral"
- Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein). CATHOLICITY AND CHURCH ORGANIZATION// Comments on the report of S. S. Verkhovsky
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
See what "Catholicity of the Church" is in other dictionaries:
catholicity- ♦ (ENG catholicity) (Greek katholikos ecumenical, universal) a term used to denote the universal nature and prevalence of the Christian church ... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms
CHURCH BORDERS- a term used in Christ. theology to determine belonging to the one Church of Christ, both individuals and Christ. communities (confessions, denominations, communities). The question of G. Ts. is one of the most relevant in modern times, including ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUES OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH- permanent bilateral or multilateral meetings and meetings of representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church with Christ. and non-Orthodox churches and confessions in the XX XXI centuries. The formation of this process in the 60-70s. 20th century contributed to several factors: the entry of the ROC ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia
Seven Ecumenical Councils, with the Creation of the World and the Council of the Twelve Apostles (an icon of the 19th century)