While Catholicism is most often associated with the belief and practice of the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, features of catholicity and therefore the term "Catholic Church" also apply to other denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc. This also occurs in Lutheranism, Anglicanism, as well as independent Catholicism and other Christian denominations.
What is the Catholic Church
While the traits used to define catholicity, as well as the recognition of these traits in other faiths, vary among different religious groups, common attributes include: formal sacraments, episcopal polity, apostolic succession, highly structured worship, and other unified ecclesiology.
The Catholic Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church, a term used especially in ecumenical contexts and in those countries where other churches use the word "Catholic" to distinguish adherents of that church from broader meanings of the concept.
In Protestantism
Among Protestant and related traditions, catholicity or conciliarity is used in the sense of indicating a self-understanding of continuity of faith and practice from early Christianity, as outlined in the Nicene Creed.
Among the Methodist: Lutheran, Moravan and Reformed denominations, the term "catholic" is used in the statement that they are "heirs of the apostolic faith." These denominations consider themselves catholic churches, claiming that the concept "denotes the historical, orthodox mainstream of Christianity, whose doctrine was determined by ecumenical councils and creeds" and therefore most reformers "turned to this catholic tradition and considered themselves to be in continuity with it."
Common features
A common belief associated with Catholicism is institutional continuity from the early Christian church founded by Jesus Christ. Many temples or congregations identify themselves individually or collectively as the authentic church. Any subject literature outlines the major schisms and conflicts within Christianity, especially within groups that identify as Catholic. There are several competing historical interpretations about which groups fell into schism with the original early church.
Times of popes and kings
According to the theory of the Pentarchy, the early undivided church was organized under three patriarchs: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, to which the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem were later added. The Bishop of Rome at that time was recognized as the first among them, as stated, for example, in canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople (many interpret "first" to mean "place among equals").
The Bishop of Rome was also considered to have the right to convene ecumenical councils. When the Imperial capital moved to Constantinople, Rome's influence was sometimes contested. However, Rome claimed special authority because of its connection with Saints Peter and Paul, who were all agreed to have been martyred and buried in Rome, and so the Bishop of Rome saw himself as Saint Peter's successor.
Catholicity of the Church: History
The Third Ecumenical Council in 431 was mainly concerned with Nestorianism, which emphasized the difference between the humanity and divinity of Jesus and declared that at the birth of the messiah, the Virgin Mary could not speak of the birth of God.
This Council rejected Nestorianism and affirmed that since humanity and divinity are inseparable from each other in Jesus Christ, his mother, the Virgin Mary, is thus the Theotokos, the God-Bearer, the Mother of God.
The first great break in the Church followed this Council. Those who refused to accept the decision of the Council were mainly Persian Christians and are represented today by the Assyrian Church of the East and its associated Churches, which, however, now do not have a “Nestorian” theology. They are often called ancient eastern temples.
Second break
The next major split occurred after (451). This Council rejected Euphian Monophysitism, which held that the divine nature had completely subordinated human nature in Christ. This Council declared that Christ, although human, manifested two natures: "without confusion, without change, without division, without division" and thus he is fully God and fully man. The Church of Alexandria rejected the terms accepted by this Council, and Christian churches which follow the tradition of not recognizing the Council - they are not Monophysites in doctrine - are called Pre-Chalcedonian or Eastern Orthodox Churches.
The final break
The next big break in Christianity was in the 11th century. Years of doctrinal disputes, as well as conflicts between methods of church government and the evolution of individual rites and customs, precipitated a schism in 1054 that divided the Church, this time between "West" and "East". Spain, England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Scandinavia, the Baltic countries and Western Europe as a whole were in the Western camp, while Greece, Romania, Kievan Rus and many other Slavic lands, Anatolia and Christians in Syria and Egypt , who accepted the Council of Chalcedon, formed the Eastern camp. This division between the Western and Eastern Churches is called the East-West Schism.
In 1438, the Council of Florence held a dialogue dedicated to understanding the theological differences between East and West, with the hope of reuniting the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Several eastern churches reunited, constituting some of the Catholic churches. They are sometimes called Orthodox Catholic churches.
Reformation
Another major division in the Church occurred in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation, after which many parts of the Western Church rejected papal authority and some of the teachings of the Western Church at the time and became known as "Reformers" as well as "Protestants".
A much less extensive rupture occurred when, after the first Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church, in which it formally proclaimed the dogma of the infallibility of the papacy, small clusters of Catholics in the Netherlands and in German-speaking countries formed the Old Catholic (Alcatolid) Church.
Terminology difficulties
The use of the terms "catholicity" and "Catholicism" depends on the context. During the times preceding the Great Schism, this refers to the Nicene Creed and especially to the principles of Christology, i.e., the rejection of Arianism. In the aftermath of the Great Schism, Catholicism, represented by the Catholic Church, unites the Latin, Eastern Catholic Churches of the Greek tradition and other Eastern Catholic parishes.
Liturgical and canonical practices differ between all of these specific Churches that make up the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches (or as Richard McBrien calls them, "the Communion of the Catholic Churches"). Compare this with the term "Catholicos" (but not Catholicism) to refer to the head of a Particular Church in Eastern Christianity. However, the significance of the Orthodox Catholic Church is rather nominal.
In the Catholic Church, the term "catholic" is understood to include "those who are baptized and in communion with the Pope."
Sacraments
Churches in this tradition (such as the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church) administer seven sacraments or "holy mysteries": Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, also known as Reconciliation, Anointing of God, Blessing of the Saints, and Fraternity.
What about Catholics?
In churches that consider themselves Catholic, the sacrament is considered a visible sign of God's invisible grace. While the word "mystery" is used not only for these rites but also for other meanings with reference to revelations about God and God's mystical interaction with creation, the concept of "sacrament" (Latin for "solemn obligation") is a common term in the West, which refers specifically to these rituals.
The Eastern Orthodox Church takes the position that it is their communion that actually constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Eastern Orthodox Christians consider themselves heirs to the patriarchal structure of the first millennium, which developed in the Eastern Church in the model of the pentarchy, a theory recognized by the Ecumenical Councils that "continues to dominate official Greek circles to this day."
Dissenters against schismatics
In Orthodoxy, the catholicity or conciliarity of the church plays a huge role. Since the theological disputes that occurred in the 9th to 11th centuries, culminating in the final schism in 1054, the Eastern Orthodox churches viewed Rome as a schismatic species that violated the essential Catholicism of the Christian faith by introducing new doctrines (see Filioque).
On the other hand, the pentarchy model was never fully applied in the Western Church, which preferred the theory of the Primate of the Bishop of Rome, favoring ultramontanism over the council. The title "Patriarch of the West" was rarely used by popes until the 16th and 17th centuries and was included in the Annuario Pontifio from 1863 to 2005, being dropped and passed into history, obsolete and practically unusable.
The Eastern (Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Malankara) also maintain the position that their community constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In this sense, Eastern Orthodoxy maintains its ancient ecclesiological traditions of apostolate (apostolic succession) and catholicity (universality) of the Church. There is even a Catholic Orthodox Church in France.
A church that broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. Not officially recognized by other Orthodox Churches.
According to some sources, this church is led by a former Catholic who studied at a Catholic seminary and may even have been ordained as a deacon. The Center of the Orthodox Catholic Church was registered by the Moscow Department of Justice in February 1994.
The basis of the doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church is the denial of the division of the Churches in 1054 and the claim to create a new Church that unites the traditions of Eastern and Western Christianity. The followers of this church recognize as legal only the decisions of the Ecumenical and Local Councils held before 1054. In line with the appeal to the ancient pre-schism tradition, the celibacy of the clergy, the Gregorian calendar, the mandatory presence of an iconostasis in the church, etc. are also denied. In addition, the institution of deaconesses has been restored. In general, the teaching is an eclectic combination of elements of the doctrine of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It is significant that the Eucharist is celebrated with both red and white unfortified wine.
The church is headed by a Synod of five people.
Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, one of the symbolic monuments of the 17th centuryThe Orthodox Confession was originally compiled in Latin by the Metropolitan of Kyiv Peter Mogila and his closest employees - Isaiah Kozlovsky And Sylvester Kossov. In the year "Confession" was approved for Cathedral in Kyiv, convened by Peter Mogila, it was sent for approval to the Patriarch of Constantinople Parthenia and submitted to the latter for consideration Local Council in Iasi in 1641-1642.
There the Latin text was translated into colloquial Greek by a learned theologian Meletius Sirig. He considerably reworked it, removing or changing the most obvious Latin deviations from the Orthodox faith of the original text, such as, for example, about time Translation of the Holy Gifts, O purgatory etc. This alteration was done, however, very hastily, and Meletius Sirig himself, although he was a staunch opponent 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 Metropolitan. Peter the Mogila, could not be sufficient, and the Greek Orthodox Confession, even in such a corrected form, still remains the most “Latin-wise” text of 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 Metropolitan. Peter Mogila in Kyiv.
Metropolitan Peter (Mogila), however, did not agree with the changes made to the text and refused to recognize and publish the revised Orthodox Confession sent to him. Instead, he published his “Small Catechism” in the year, where he again returned 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.
“The Orthodox Confession truly constitutes an epoch in... the 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 Mogila... was the first symbolic book of the Eastern Church. Here, for the first time, all the dogmas are set out on her behalf as accurately as possible... Here, therefore, the most detailed and at the same time the most reliable guidance in the matter of faith is given, both to all Orthodox, and, in particular, to Orthodox theologians in a thorough disclosure of dogmas.”
“Mogila was not alone in his crypto-romanism. Rather, he expressed the spirit of the times. “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”: usually Mogila himself is named , although it may be the collective work of several of his associates.The Confession was originally composed in Latin, and this first version shows much more Roman influence than the final version, which underwent critical revision at the councils of Kiev (1640) and Iasi (1642). However, what is important for us is not so much individual deviations into Catholicism - they can be explained by chance - but rather 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 the life of Orthodoxy and the Tradition of the Eastern Fathers. Individual Roman dogmas - for example, the doctrine of papal primacy - are rejected, but the general style remains Roman."
"[The Confession is] the Orthodox symbolic monument of its era and in all controversial issues dividing the Orthodox with the Roman Catholics, such as the Filioque, papal primacy, or with the Protestants, such as the veneration of holy icons and relics, the invocation of saints, sacraments, etc. etc., it always adheres to Orthodox teaching, but this does not prevent it from being a clearly Latin document in form, and sometimes in content and spirit. Following in its presentation the famous Roman Catholic catechism of Peter Canisius, and almost literally borrowing entire pages, especially in its moral part, the Orthodox Confession fully adopts 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 of its reality, transubstantiation (transsubstantiatio), the Aristotelian doctrine of substance and accidents to explain transubstantiation , the doctrine of the performance of the sacraments ex ore orerato, etc.. The Orthodox Confession tries to put Orthodox content into Latin forms. With a few exceptions (Basily the Great, Pseudo-Dionysius, Pseudo-Athanasius, Augustine), the Orthodox Confession is almost completely devoid of references to the holy fathers - a characteristic sign of the break from patristic tradition felt throughout the entire theology of this symbolic monument. One can also say that what is most characteristic of it is not the presence in it of certain inaccuracies or deviations from Orthodox theology..., but rather the absence of any theology, the poverty of theological thought..."
On September 25–29, 1972, the Second International Conference of the Orthodox Society in America took place 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 conference chairman, Professor Archpriest Fr. .
The word “catholicity” itself is of relatively recent origin. Tradition, reflected in the writings of the Fathers of the Church 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. Fathers developed a special branch of theology called "ecclesiology" (as modern theology has done), then they would have used the term "catholicity" as an abstraction or generalization of the adjective "catholic", just as they spoke of "Divinity" and "humanity" etc., defining hypostatic unity.
Nevertheless, the fact is that patristic thought avoids talking about the “properties” of the Church in abstracto. At St. Fathers also lack the desire to “hypostatize” or “objectify” the Church itself. When they spoke of the Catholic Church, they first of all 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 divine nature of the Church, that is, 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 debate (except in the 2nd and 3rd centuries); it was the vital context of all theology. We all know that this is unfortunately 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, a strange division of concepts and areas (most often adopted from the West) has led to a kind of split between theology and theology, and this split underlies the deep crisis that both theology is now experiencing.
We must insist with all our might that we, Orthodox, need to return to the concept of “church” theology, so that it is truly Christocentric and pneumatocentric. And this, in turn, presupposes the unity of life and dogma, worship and theology, love and truth. Confidence in what we proclaim on the part of our own youth, other Christians and the world around us (which has lost Christ, but is often still seeking Him) depends on the restoration of this churchliness. We thought that a common focus during this conference on the profession of our common faith as "catholic" could help in this urgent need.
We have several introductory talks before us, and we look forward to hearing responses and engaging in general discussion in three areas in which everything related to "catholicity" is of critical importance, namely: the structure of the Church, its relationship with other Christians and its mission in world. The authors of the reports provide basic references to the Holy Scriptures and St. fathers: they claim that, according to the traditional and only possible understanding for the Orthodox, “catholicity” is rooted in the fullness of the divine Trinity life and is therefore God’s gift to people, which makes the Church the Church of God. They also recognize that this gift comes with human responsibility. The gift of God is not just a treasure to be treasured 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 world.
There is surprising agreement on these points between the authors of our reports. I have always been amazed by the ease with which Orthodox theologians agree among themselves in 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 befits all of us to sincerely rejoice in this basic unanimity and agreement in faith. Here and only here lies 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 Church 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 the outside and to ourselves. Fortunately, we are not always completely devoid of a sense of humor. For, how often have I heard at Orthodox meetings – even at the bishop’s level – the semi-cynical remark: “Orthodoxy is the right faith of wrong people.”
Of course, the gap between Divine perfection and the shortcomings of sinful people is not something 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 about our present situation is that we so often calmly declare 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 is to be 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 attract many because they are easy solutions that reduce the Mystery of the Church to human dimensions and provide the mind with 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 days, 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 times of Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, and not just a “clanking cymbal” ().
In each of the three divisions of our general theme there are pressing questions that our theology must address not only on a theoretical level, but also in the form of concrete guidance that could help the future pan-Orthodox Great Council, if and when it takes place, and also serve immediate needs our Church.
I. Structure of the Church
When we say that the Church is “catholic,” we affirm a property or “sign” of the Church that is to be realized in the personal life of each Christian, in the life of the local community or “church,” and in the manifestations of the universal unity of the Church. Since we are now concerned with the structure of the Church, I will speak only 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 just part of the Body. And this is so, because the Church is “catholic” thanks to Christ, and not due to its 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 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 canonical texts. The authority of the canonical rules is based on the theological and dogmatic truth about the Church, which the canons are designed 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 we see in Christ the highest criterion of the structure of the Church. It also expresses the basic gospel commandment to love one's 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's path. The local “catholic” church of Christ is not only a collection 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. Such become collectively members of the one Catholic Church of Christ, revealed in the local Eucharistic assembly under the leadership of a single local bishop. If they act otherwise, they change the commandments of love, obscure the meaning of Eucharistic unity and do not recognize the catholicity of the Church.
These facts of our faith are abundantly clear, but so is our reluctance to take this Christian faith seriously enough to draw a 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 Eucharistic ecclesiology, which, correctly understood, is the only true Orthodox ecclesiology) lies in the fact that Eucharistic unity is realized in life, reflected in the church structure and generally reveals the Christocentric norm on which the entire life of the Church is based.
Therefore, it is our duty as theologians and Orthodox Christians to recognize that our systematic reluctance to accept our mission as witnesses to the catholicity of the Church and our preference for permanent ethnic divisions is a betrayal of catholicity.
B. The “catholicity” of the local church provides theological justification for the Orthodox teaching on various ministries, and in particular on the episcopal ministry. As we all know and recognize, apostolic succession is transferred to bishops as heads and shepherds of specific local churches. Orthodox ecclesiology is faithful to the ancient tradition of the Church, which never knew “bishops in general,” but only bishops of specifically existing communities. The fact that Orthodoxy so insists on the ontological equality of all bishops with each other is based on the principle that each of them heads the same Catholic Church in a given place and that no local church can be “more catholic” than another. Therefore, no bishop can be more of a bishop than his brethren who head the same Church in another place.
But then how can we look at so many of our “titular” bishops? How can they speak on behalf of the “catholic” Church if their bishopric lacks 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 in many cases has become only an honorary title, bestowed on individuals only for the sake of prestige? What is the authority of synods and councils consisting of titular bishops?
C. There is also a universal dimension to catholicity. According to generally accepted practice since the time of St. According to Cyprian of Carthage, each Catholic Church has as its center its cathedra Petri (“Cathedral of Peter”), 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 bears responsibility for the universal communion of all churches. This is the theological meaning of episcopal conciliarity, which is an ontologically necessary element of episcopal consecration, which presupposes a meeting of all the bishops of a given province, who represent a single episcopate of the universal Church. Episcopal conciliarity is also the highest testimony of apostolic truth, the most authentic authority in matters of doctrine and canonical rights. This conciliarity is traditionally expressed in two ways - local and ecumenical, and in each case it requires a structure, a certain organizational channel through which conciliarity becomes a permanent feature of church life. Hence the early appearance in the history of the Church of many local “primary departments” and one ecumenical primacy. It is clear that the basic principle of Orthodox ecclesiology, which affirms the complete catholicity of the local church and thereby the ontological identity of the episcopal ministry in all places, can only allow primacy inter pares, and the location of such primacy sees can only be determined through the consent of local churches (ex consensu ecclesiae). The most essential function of all “primary thrones” 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 looked upon as the secularization of the Church. Of course, the phenomenon of “national churches” is not a complete innovation. There is a legitimate extent to which the Church 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 strived 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 occurred throughout Europe in the 19th century, the hierarchy of values has been upended. The “nation” and its interests began to be seen as an end in itself, and instead of directing their people 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 complete self-sufficiency and independence, and the relationship between "autocephalous" churches was 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 “highest” 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 can include several nationalities, and one “nation” can include several autocephalous groups of dioceses. It is not “autocephaly,” but local unity that is the main requirement of Orthodox ecclesiology.
An equally dangerous confusion of plans occurred in connection with the universal “superiority”. Since the universal episcopate is one - just as the universal Church is one - sacred tradition has always recognized the ecclesiological need for a coordinating center of communication and joint action. In apostolic times such service to unity was performed by the Jerusalem Church. In the 2nd century there was already general agreement about some advantage of the Roman Church.
Very early on, there is also a divergence between East and West regarding the criteria determining the recognition and location of the universal primacy. The Orthodox East has never considered it possible to attach mystical significance to the fact that this or that local church was founded by the apostles themselves or is located in any specific place; he believed that the universal primacy (as well as the local one) should be established where it is practically most convenient. For this reason, the Church of Constantinople was elevated to second place after Rome, “because the emperor and the senate are there” (28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon) and after the schism, the ecumenical primacy that had previously belonged to the Pope of Rome naturally passed to this church. The reason for this rise was the existence of a (nominally) universal Christian empire, the capital of which was Constantinople.
After the fall of Byzantium (1453), the circumstances that caused the election of Constantinople as the seat of the ecumenical throne disappeared. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church was so firmly attached to its Byzantine forms and traditions that no one began to challenge the primacy of Constantinople, especially since the Ecumenical Patriarchate received de facto authority over all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. Even Rus', which was outside Turkish rule and whose kings inherited the imperial title of the Byzantine basileus, never laid claim to the universal primacy of its newly formed patriarchate (1589). However, in reality, Constantinople outside the Ottoman borders was never again capable of such direct and meaningful leadership as in past times. The sense 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 tended to ignore its leadership role.
These are the historical facts whose ultimate consequences we are dealing with 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 would preferably have an international governing body and the possibility for all local churches to have permanent local representatives. The Ecumenical Patriarch heading such a center would immediately act as a genuine initiator of Orthodox catholicity, if only he turns out to be sufficiently free from political pressures from the outside and always acts ex consensu ecclesiae. In such a case, no one can dispute its usefulness and authority.
The reconstruction of a church structure based on catholicity is not a matter of church 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 reveal and realize her catholicity only if she always sees in Christ the highest and only example of her structure and structure.
II. Relationships with other Christians
As several of the speakers at this conference will demonstrate, 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 disagreement and contradiction. The unity of the Church presupposes complete unity of faith, vision and love - that unity of the one Body of Christ, which transcends all legal plurality and diversity. We believe that the Orthodox Church still possesses this unity, despite all the personal or collective shortcomings of its members, and that it is therefore the one, true, catholic Church. Catholicity and unity are given to the Church not by people, but by Christ; Our job is to realize this unity and catholicity in such a way as not to betray these great gifts of God’s grace.
Therefore, being an “Orthodox Catholic” is not only an advantage, but above all a responsibility before God and people. The Apostle Paul could be “Jew with Jews” and “Greek with Greeks” in his ministry, 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 Christians, must call non-Orthodox Christians. And again, our main claim is that such unity has already been found in the Orthodox Church, and not at some invisible or false spiritual level, to which all divided Christians are equally involved.
Unfortunately, the most serious obstacle to faith 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 implement catholicity in life! We have given several examples of this inconsistency when talking 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 of God. Catholicity implies active vigilance and reasoning. It involves openness to all manifestations of God's creative and saving power everywhere. The Catholic Church rejoices in everything that shows the action of God, even outside its canonical limits, because the Church is eyed by the same one God, who is the source of all good. Despite all the errors 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 occurred. The Orthodox Church has always recognized this, without, however, falling into any relativism and without ceasing to consider itself the only true Catholic Church. For to be “catholic” precisely means to recognize everywhere that there is a work of God, and therefore fundamentally “good,” and to be ready to accept this as one’s own. Catholicity rejects only evil and error. And we believe that the power of “reasoning,” the power of refuting errors and accepting what is true and right everywhere, works by the Holy Spirit in the true Church of God. In the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, one can say: “The truth is realized by destroying all heresy and yet accepting what is useful for it from everyone” (Catechetical Word, 3). This quote should become our ecumenical slogan. It is also especially important for us, whom the Lord has made as witnesses of Orthodoxy among Western civilization.
The important biblical and canonical concepts of "reasoning" (diakrisis, especially in 1 Cor. 12f) and "recognition" (from the meaning of the verb "to know" (gignoskein) in 1 John), in both the positive and negative sense, are the true basis Orthodox approach to ecumenism. We betray the catholicity of the Church as soon as we lose the ability to see error or the quality of true Christian love, to rejoice in all truth and goodness. To cease to see the finger and presence of God wherever they appear, and to take a purely negative and self-defensive position towards non-Orthodox Christians, means not only to betray catholicity; this is a type of neo-Manichaeism. And conversely, to lose the sense that errors and heresies really exist and that they have a killing effect on people, and forgetting that the Church is built on the fullness of truth, is also a betrayal of not only the Orthodox tradition, but also the New Testament on which this tradition is based .
One of the modern difficulties of our participation in the organized norms of the ecumenical movement is the recent infatuation of many ecumenical institutions with the fashionable theology of “secularization,” which goes back to the long-standing Western tendency to consider man as “autonomous” in relation to God and his “secular” life as an end in itself. Some Orthodox Christians react to this in a panicked and sectarian manner; others are unaware of the seriousness of the situation and find it convenient to take advantage of the (often imaginary) benefits that come from being known as participants in the ecumenical movement. Our responsibility as theologians is to avoid such pitfalls and to find ways of activity and witness for the Church. In this regard, our task of defining a truly Orthodox approach to ecumenism is inseparable from the theology of “peace” - another polysemantic word of Holy Scripture - for, in one meaning of this word, God “loved” him and gave His Son for his life, and in another meaning we are called to “hate” him.
III. Catholicity and mission
The Christian assertion that Jesus is truly the “Word of God” - the Logos “In Whom all things were” - is a universal statement that includes not only all people, but also the entire cosmos. John's identification of Christ and Logos means that Jesus is not only the “Savior of our souls.” He is not only the bearer of messages concerning a certain area called “religion,” but in Him lies the final truth about the origin, development and ultimate destiny of all creation. This means that His Church must be a catholic Church - katolou - “pertaining to everything.”
We probably all agree in rejecting the temptation to simplify, a temptation that Christians have often succumbed to in the past, which is to use the Bible as a reference book on physics or biology, or to claim the right of the church 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 we 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 truly for all people to come to know Christ and in Him to find fellowship with God. But the knowledge of Christ and communication with God (what the Holy Fathers call “deification”) are communicated to people not in order to in any way replace man’s knowledge about himself and about the cosmos, but in order to complement this knowledge, to give him new meaning and new creative dimension. Thus, the knowledge gleaned from Revelation - in Scripture and Tradition - does not replace culture and science, but frees the human mind from a worldly, or non-religious, that is, inevitably one-sided approach to the reality of man and the world.
These basic premises have always served as the basis for the Orthodox approach to “the world” and to mission. The traditional use of languages of different peoples in worship (the so-called Cyril and Methodius ideology) in itself already means that it does not abolish local cultures, but perceives them in the united diversity of Catholic tradition. However, with this approach, each case encounters problems specific to the given situation. The pluralistic and partly Christian culture of America, for example, represents an unprecedented challenge for Orthodoxy, which the emerging American Orthodoxy must immediately respond to. This requires a dynamic and creative approach. Closing 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 represents a very deceptive defense against the overwhelming pressure of American social reality. But unconditional Americanization does not seem to be the right solution, because the “world” can never be accepted, unconditionally, into the Kingdom of God; he must first go through the Easter change and transfiguration, through the cross and resurrection. And this is truly 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 promote the traditionally Western notion of the "autonomy of all things worldly." The new secularist movement 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 development is explained almost exclusively in terms of economic development and social justice. The only competitor to this “social” orientation is Freud’s pansexualism.
It seems to me that a clearly expressed Orthodox reaction to these trends today is one of the main tasks within the framework of the “catholic” witness of our Church. Without any triumphalism, we can affirm 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 think in particular about some aspects of Russian religious philosophy of the late 19th century and early 20th centuries. The unjustified monopoly in modern Western theology of Schleiermacher, on the one hand, and Hegel, on the other hand, is based on one-sidedness and partly on ignorance. The Orthodox must come forward with a theocentric anthropology of the Greek saints. 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).
We must not forget that, by its very nature, the true Christian gospel 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 this either. A Christian, for example, will necessarily be a champion of social justice, but at the same time he must warn that the final purpose of man is not simply the fair distribution of material goods. To those who believe in social revolutions, he will inevitably seem like a rather uncertain and undevoted ally, reminding that revolution is not the solution to all evils and that it can even become a real opium for the people. With the right and the left, a Christian can only go part of the way and is likely to disappoint both. His own and entire commitment remains eschatological: “I hope for the resurrection of the dead.”
Thus, the Church cannot completely identify itself with either the social cause and ideologies of “change” or the conservative “status quo” philosophy. But there is a more natural and more reliable ally of Christianity that most Christians often do not notice. This ally I offer is science.
The history of the relationship between the Church 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 “scientificism” and positivism, then the Orthodox East was often too exclusively contemplative and (why not admit it?) somehow monophysitically inclined. 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 science are no longer real enemies, but there is a tragic mutual ignorance between them. Christian theologians know little about the natural sciences, partly because their own field is quite extensive and partly because real science quickly discourages amateurs, which is not the case with 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 the “world.” But representatives of the natural sciences, for their part, usually know no more about Christianity than what some of them learned in childhood, at school. However, the modern world is governed by natural sciences and the technology generated by them, and not by politicians or social ideologists. The natural sciences require the mental discipline and rigor that good theology also requires: the theologian and the scientific researcher can and should understand each other. If they do not know each other, this is most often explained by centuries of hostility and excessive preoccupation with their own separate interests. This is where the Church must demonstrate its catholicity, that is, through overcoming all narrowness! Some of our contemporaries showed us the way: Father Pavel Florensky in Russia and Teilhard de Chardin in the West. They may have had some intellectual errors, but aren’t we obliged to forgive them, remembering how tragically alone they were among the theologians of their time, trying to show that theology and natural sciences are actually looking for the same truth ?
Here we have before us the most urgent task of "catholic" responsibility, of course not 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 will again be seriously considered as each other. with a friend. These days there is almost no immediate hostility between them, but it has been replaced by mutual disregard. The situation is such that theologians recognize that science and technology represent enormous power in the hands of man, given to him by God to control nature. But scientific researchers must, for their part, agree that their competence is limited to their own task. They establish facts, but the ultimate meaning of these facts goes beyond their specialty. Therefore, they should turn to theology, that is, to the basic mental and spiritual statements of faith to find higher criteria and moral standards.
Conclusion
These are some of the problems associated 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 answers and hope that a useful discussion will take place. But the real task is still ahead: catholicity should not only be discussed, it must be lived. It should be a clear indicator that each of our diocese, each of our parishes is truly a local Catholic Church, possessing the divine gift of Christ's Presence and called to show 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 days that this gap could be a cause of despair for the Orthodox themselves, and only a compassionate irony for those who look at us from the outside, if this theory were would in fact be only a “theory” and not a gift of God, if the Divine Eucharist had not transformed - again and again - our poor human community into the true Catholic Church of God, if from time to time the Lord had not worked such miracles as, for example , the preservation of the Orthodox faith in totalitarian secularized societies, or the emergence of the Orthodox dispersion in the West, again providing the opportunity for a worldwide witness to Orthodoxy.
To heal this gap and thus become more worthy of the great works of God, which are so clearly accomplished for our benefit and salvation, remains our sacred duty. Nothing can be healed through deception, lies and boasting about the past glory of this or that local tradition or this or that church institution. There is one positive feature of the critical era in which we live: it is its search for existential truth, its search for holiness...
I have just uttered a word that must under no circumstances be forgotten in our discussions of catholicity. The Church is not only united and catholic - it is also holy. Holiness is a divine property, just like true unity and true universality, but it becomes accessible 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 imparted to them in the Holy Church. As we all know, the Fathers of the Church never made a distinction between “vision of God” and “theology.” They never allowed the idea that intellectual ability in the understanding of the Gospel had any value without holiness. In the past, saints – and not “professional churchmen” – knew how to display the image of Christ to the world, for only in the light of holiness can the meaning of the Cross and the meaning of the Apostle Paul’s description of the Church in his day be truly understood: “We are considered deceivers, but we are faithful; we are unknown, but we are recognized; we are considered dead, but behold, we are alive; we are punished, but we do not die; we are saddened, but we always rejoice; We are poor, but we enrich many; We have nothing, but we possess everything" ( – – Protopresbyter Mikhail Pomazansky