Hieromonk Kirill (Zinkovsky), Doctor of Theology [now Bishop of Sergiev Posad],
Hieromonk Methody
(Zinkovsky), Doctor of Theology [now Bishop of Yegoryevsk],
And Hieromonk Varnava
(Snytko)
English translation by Daria Pletneva.
Christ is the Head of the
Orthodox Catholic Church
In our day we are being
challenged with the aggravation of the internal ecclesiastical problem, which
may be designated as the “self-institution” of the Constantinople Patriarchate,
the would-be head of the Orthodox Catholic Church. In fact, this has been a
decades-long issue rooted in Church history. Evidently, it is associated with
man’s inexhaustible inclination to the sin of pride, which sometimes may grow
worse if one is granted the authority of being a priest.
The terrible experience of Judas
– who shared the Last Supper as well as many other meals with Christ – is a
vivid example to all ages and nations. According to the testimony of many holy
fathers, the sin of pride is at the root of every fall. And this sin causes
enormous harm to the Church body, to all God’s people, actually headed by the
Humblest and Meekest Jesus Christ our Lord.
Many great saints of antiquity –
specifically including primates in the See of Constantinople – would denounce
the current theological speculation of the Constantinople Patriarchate, which
identifies the Constantinople Patriarch as the “head of all the Orthodox”.
Truly, any Patriarch is the “Primate” rather than the “head” of the Church. In
accordance with the Holy Scriptures, saints Gregory the Theologian and John
Chrysostom would declare that we have only one head of the Church, and that is
Christ. [1] “We make up one Church, which is harmoniously represented by the
members of one Head” – the Lord Jesus Christ. [2]
The Twentieth Century Idea of
Neo-Papism
It was in the twentieth century,
in the Church of Constantinople, that the idea of Eastern neo-papism was
revived. As early as 1950, almost 70 years ago, Archimandrite Sophrony
(Sakharov) warned against the dangerous trends gaining strength in the Constantinople
Patriarchate.
“At present, in the depths of
our Holy Church, lies a great danger of perverting the dogmatic teachings
concerning Her, and therefore the danger of perverting Her being, because
dogmatic thinking is organically connected with the whole course of inner spiritual
life. Any minor change in dogmatic thinking would inevitably incur changes in
the corresponding mode of one’s spiritual being. And vice versa: evading the
truth of inner spiritual life would produce change in dogmatic thinking. The
violation of dogmatic truth would inevitably lead to evading the possibility of
true knowledge of God, the fullness of which is granted to the Church ... Any
particular distortion would certainly affect the whole. If we distort Church
doctrine now, and thus ... the mode of Her being, then how could She serve Her
sons and provide the way to the Truth? You would ask, in which way is this
distortion visible now? The answer is: in Constantinople’s neo-papism, which is
quickly trying to move from the theoretical phase into the practical one.”
[3]
Archimandrite Sophrony stresses
that papist tendencies in the fallen world are quite common. Unfortunately,
“they are characteristic not only of ancient Rome, but also of the East, of
Byzantium, which was the place where they frequently spread. Mercifully, God
still guards over the Eastern Church, and these tendencies have faded away
without disturbing the deep peace of the Church.” [4]
The long-standing dispute – over
the possibility of granting the title “Ecumenical” to the Primate of the Church
in Constantinople – may prove to be the flammable “spark”, produced by the sin
of pride. The term “Ecumenical” was originally used in reference to the
entirety of the Roman Empire (both before and after the capital was moved to
the city of Constantinople). Completely groundless are the weak attempts to
apply this term to the Primate of a single Local Church (in Constantinople), at
the expense of all others.
At this point, A. V. Kartashev
cites “the testimony of Anastasius the Librarian (9th century), who also
happened to be the pope’s representative in Constantinople,” that in Byzantium
the term “Ecumenical” was used in reference to the Patriarchs of
Constantinople, due to the narrowing definition of the term to mean “Eastern
imperial, all-Greek, all-Byzantine.” [5] However, according to Kartashev, who
pointed to the unjustified usage of such “narrowing”, the practice of
conferring on the Patriarchs the title “Ecumenical” is directly linked to “the
tendency of exaltation.” [6] It
is not by chance that he cites the historical evidence of St. Gregory the
Great’s disagreement – even indignation – with the adoption and approval of
such a practice in the East. After all, the Gospel itself identifies the
universe precisely with the whole world, where it should be preached: “And this
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world (ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ)”
(Matt. 24:14). In this verse, the Greek word “οἰκουμένῃ” (oecumene) is
where we get the word “ecumenical” (universal), and it is used in reference to
all of planet earth – the entire world – and not in reference to the boundaries
of a particular country (regardless of whether the country is supportive of the
Orthodox Church, regardless of whether the country seeks to have its activities
consecrated by the prayers and sacraments of the Church).
Patristic writings use the
term “universal” to designate the whole world
Patristic works primarily use the
term “universal” (ecumenical) not in the narrow sense of the “Byzantine” world,
but in reference to the entire world of humanity. Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem
comments in his Catechetical lectures that “Jesus took upon Himself the
sins of the universe,” [7] while the primordial Adam brought about “universal
death” by his sin. [8] The councils, which are called and recognized by the
Church as “Ecumenical”, were also by no means a purely “Byzantine” phenomenon,
as they bore and continue to bear the importance of precisely global
significance, being the highest authority on the human side of our Church!
The word “Ecumenical” corresponds
to the fullness of the Orthodox Catholic Church. (Catholicity is one of the
features of Christ’s One Church.) This title describes an essential
characteristic of all the local churches together, considered as a single, unified
whole. The term “Ecumenical” cannot properly be applied to one isolated local
church. Consequently, when a single local church adopts this title, it is
usurping something which belongs to all churches together. Indeed, the Roman
Catholics did this very thing, usurping the universal Church’s title of
“Catholic”, and applying it solely to their own local church.
For a period of time, the term
“Ecumenical” was illicitly used as a mere title for the Primates of the local
church in Constantinople. Initially, this was only an honorary title, not
accompanied with false pretenses. But in our day, some have begun to assume
that the title is meaningful, supposedly giving the right of authority, power,
and primacy to its owners.
The Dogma of the Holy Trinity
as the Foundation of the Church Doctrine
Archimandrite Sophrony’s article “The
Unity of the Church in the Image of the Unity of the Holy Trinity” was
intended to oppose such trends. It is based on the idea that the doctrine of
the Church is based on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity – Orthodox
Triadology is the basis of Orthodox Ecclesiology. Archimandrite’s primary
idea is that “The catholic component of the Orthodox Church is its existence
in the image of the Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity.” [9]
The author highlights the triadological aspect, because of the division and
damage to the Church which neo-papism causes.
Fr. Sophrony argues, “The
fullness of Church’s dogmatic life is never interrupted or diminished in
essence. However, in different historical epochs, one or another aspect of a
single, organically-integral, dogmatic teaching of the Church becomes the focus
of attention. This happens because of the imminent danger of losing the truth
in its whole, as a result of neglecting something in the particular.” [10]
The loss of dogmatic vision – the
surrender of positions – printed out in the historical pathway of the Church,
far from the perfection to which She is called, would take place as soon as
love dries up. We have lost love, and this is the cause of our divisions and
non-Christian aspirations to prevail over our brothers,” [11] “therefore we are
unable to fully comprehend our universal consubstantiality and equality.” [12]
A little bit earlier than
Archimandrite Sophrony, the Athonian ascetic and theologian hieroschemamonk
Theodosius Karulsky († 1937) would comment concerning the modern realities of
church life:
“The catholic truth should be
defined not by means of the current and unfortunately blurred ‘modern thinking
of the whole church’ the clarity whereof ‘we miss so much’, but according to
“the Tradition of the whole church”, which should be consistent with the
ancient Church.” [13]
Church Tradition rather than
“the common opinion” should become a criterion of truth for the complex issues
of the present.
That is, Church Tradition rather
than “the common” or politically imposed opinion should become a criterion of
truth for any complex issues of our time. In V.N. Lossky’s view, this ensures
“the catholic authenticity to be actualized” [14] in the minds of Christians,
who desperately need paradoxical catholic church thinking, due to the depletion
of love predicted by the Gospel.
St. Sergius of Radonezh taught
our ancestors that “contemplation of the Holy Trinity overcomes the odious
enmity of this world”. Overcoming discord and disintegration may be realized
only in the Church. In the light of Trinitarian dogma, a proper vision of the
Church allows us to think, live, and preserve the church’s unity in the image
of the Triune Existence.
Archimandrite Sophrony argues
that the incomprehensible perfection of Trinitarian Existence points to “the
assertion of equality of divinity, equality of kingship, equality of power…
equality of absoluteness of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.” [15] And
just as there is no “shadow of subjection or subordination” [16] within the
Triune Existence, so the relations between the Local Churches, called to
display the image of the Triune Existence, should exclude any domination in
relation to each other.
The dogma of the Holy Trinity
testifies to perfect love, “excluding any kind of predominance of one Person
over others. Therefore, the Church rejects “all kinds of subordination and
professes in regard to the Holy Trinity, “There is nothing more, and nothing
less (within It): but the three hypostases are integral, consubstantial and
equal.” [17] Fr. Sophrony stresses that “triadological subordination applied to
the Church structure results in forms of papism which are analogous to various
forms of triadological subordination. Hence, Roman papism, elevating the
bishop of Rome to a degree that separates him from the rest of the Church body
– making him not just great but OTHERWISE-EXISTING – is an example of
ecclesiological subordination corresponding to the ontological aspect of the
Arian triadological subordination.” [18] The Roman Catholic Filioque
theology ultimately led to “a certain Christ-centrism” due to the Holy Spirit
“losing Its equal absoluteness in regard to the Father and the Son and becoming
only the power of Christ, the power given to the authority and discretion of
the Bishop of Rome.” [19]
On the Heresy of
Constantinople’s Neo-papism
The Canons of Councils denying
such a right for any Local Church
And now, in the middle of the
twentieth century, Archimandrite Sophrony warned us against Constantinople’s
neo-papism developing rapidly, despite its embryonic state. “For its having
changed faces many times, we cannot clearly characterize it.” [20] The
adherents thereof “first recognized the preeminence of jurisdictional rights
for Constantinople, “because it holds primacy in the Orthodox Catholic
Church”. Then they began to assert for Constantinople the right of the highest
appellate instance in the Orthodox Catholic Church, having forgotten the
age-old struggle against the claims of Rome to this right; having forgotten that
it was these claims of Rome that led to the great and final division of the
Churches (1054).” [21] Supporters of Constantinople’s neo-papism also forgot
that, at the Council of Florence in 1439, Rome sought from the East the
recognition of its “rights of the highest appellate instance in the Orthodox
Catholic Church.” [22] However, the
canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils deny such a right for any Local
Church. And the Church of Constantinople would firmly adhere to such an
Orthodox position in its struggle against the claims of Rome.
“By proclaiming the Roman
Catholic principle of development,” continues Fr. Sophrony, they recognized for
Constantinople the exclusive right regarding the entire Orthodox diaspora
world-wide, denying that right for the other autocephalous Churches in relation
to their diaspora. Finding no reason for this either in the canonical structure
of the Church or in Her age-old practice, they, in the manner of the First
Rome, started asserting these rights not on the basis of canons, but on the
basis of the commands of “God Himself”. [23]
Archimandrite Sophrony is amazed
with their quoted phrase that “GOD commanded” them to “observe not only the
unity of faith and beneficial institutions, not only the unity of love, but
also the indissoluble UNITY of the sacred hierarchy and CHURCH GOVERNANCE, both
in the UNIVERSE and in each place where the Church exists.” [24] How far may
such a thought proceed, and at what point is a limit put to this kind of
assertion, to say nothing of the dogmatic, moral, and human aspects?
In the word of Archimandrite
Sophrony, “Roman papism brought the hierarchical structure to a close” since it
distinguished a certain bishop from the whole body of the Church as the only
bearer of infallibility, which lead to “neglecting the mode of being of the
Holy Trinity, its consubstantiality and equality of Hypostases.” [25] Constantinople’s
neo-papism took the same path, which found its most vivid expression in
Patriarch Athenagoras’ “Circular letter” published in 1955. The logic of the
message is simple:
“The First Rome having
disappeared, the Second Rome occupied its place, with the same rights and the
same reasoning.” [26]
This message stipulates that
participation in the Orthodox Catholic Church should be in direct relation to
Constantinople – the Second Rome. Truly, Constantinople “does not establish its
peculiar mode of existence with regard to other autocephalous Churches, yet it
treats them as already diminished: Constantinople is everything – it is the
Orthodox Catholic Church – and the others are just parts thereof since they
belong to the Orthodox Catholic Church only insofar as they relate to
Constantinople.” [27]
Fr. Sophrony questions “whether
this form of papism is also an ecclesiological heresy, which is analogous to
Roman papism.” Do we need to say that, realized in the life of the Church, it
would inevitably lead to the perversion of the whole spiritual mode of our
being? Like the First Rome – which would give a particular geographical
location exclusive rights to authority and teaching in the Church [28]–
this form of papism would bring us back to the Gospel times: “Our fathers
worshipped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where
men ought to worship” (John 4:20).” [29]
On Constantinople’s Violation
of the Autocephaly Principle
Constantinople rudely violates
the rights of the other churches, and its actions trample the very principle of
autocephaly. They allegedly defend the rights of other churches to claim
autocephaly, and yet simultaneously go beyond proper canonical and dogmatic
limits. The lies of Istanbul are especially evident, as they try to redraw the
ecclesiastical-political map of the world. It is not difficult to see the
ambitions that drive them, both politically and within the Church.
If we talk of this day, the lies
of the church-political ambitions of the Istanbul re-cutters of the
church-political world map are especially evident in the fact that by allegedly
defending the right of other Churches to autocephaly and yet going beyond the
limits of both the canonical and the dogmatic fields, Constantinople rudely
violates such a right, since its actions trample the principle of autocephaly.
Reflecting on one of the most significant points of Patriarch Athenagoras’s
Encyclicals, Archimandrite Sophrony emphasizes a pronounced tendency to
“undermine the principle of equal dignity of autocephalous Local Churches,” in
other words, it is a question of Constantinople’s combatting the “autocephaly
principle”. [30]
Fr. Sophrony points out that the
Church neither thinks or believes in this manner:
“One Church is primarily the
Holy Church ... The unity of God, and the unity of the Church with the Lord, is
the source of the Church’s oneness. The Church is one due to a single source of
Her holiness, and cannot be but one by virtue of Her holiness ... When the
apostle Paul relates to the Church’s oneness, he relates it not to the
subordination to a single governance, but to the communion with the same bread
of the Body and Blood of the Lord (1 Cor. 10:14-17) and to Christ, the Head,
heading the Church (Eph. 4:15-16).” [31]
Prof. S.V. Troitsky’s words
confirm this idea:
“Drawing its consecration
directly from the Spirit of God from above, each Local Church remains
self-sufficient, but since this source of sanctification is one, it remains at
the same time one Church. There can be no unifying earthly center to which all Local
Churches should be subordinate, since the existence of such a center, with the
existence of a unifying heavenly center, would introduce dualism into the
Church and violate its unity.” [32]
Even allowing the fact that
Constantinople “would really identify itself with the Mother Church… all the
same”, in Fr. Sophrony’s phrase, “to deduce submission from the fact of
historical motherhood, would be a violation of the Orthodox triadology,
according to which the Fatherhood or Sonship does not eliminate full equality.
The Begotten essentially is equal to the Begetter. This was the position held
by the holy fathers.” [33]
To substantiate the above voiced
opinion even more, Archimandrite Sophrony gives the example of the Jerusalem
Church, which is “the only indisputable Mother of all Churches, not excluding
the First Rome.” [34] It serves as a vivid example of the fact that “in the
life of the Church, the fact of motherhood has not been recognized as the basis
of authority, nor even as the basis of honor.” [35]
“Rome boasts of the tomb of
Peter. In Jerusalem, there is the Holy Sepulcher of the Savior Himself. Rome
boasts of Peter and Paul’s ‘scarlet blood’. In Jerusalem, the Redeemer of the
world shed His Divine Blood. Rome boasts of the glory of the ‘eternal city.’ In
Jerusalem, the Great King of Glory, the Lord, taught and suffered, and was
resurrected. There, on the Mount of Olives, He blessed the Disciples and
ascended in glory to heaven. In Jerusalem, in the upper room, the Holy Spirit
descended on the apostles and those who were with them – that is, on the
Church. In Jerusalem the life of the Most Holy Mother of God passed. The first
Apostolic Council, chaired by James, the brother of the Lord, was also held
there. And yet, despite all this, in the period before the First Ecumenical
Council, the city lost even its independence and was subordinate to the
Metropolitan of Caesarea of Palestine.” [36]
It is not surprising that
Constantinople began to fight against the autocephaly of Local Churches, since “such
is the nature of all papism.” [37] Archimandrite Sophrony states that Roman
Catholicism cannot be reconciled with autocephaly, and this sentiment is
substantiated by a quotation from Fr. S. Tyshkevich, a Roman Catholic writer:
“In the Church, it is
permissible to strengthen and weaken ‘centralization’, depending on the
conditions of time and place, but in no case will we allow the full autocephaly
of Local Churches. This would make the Church polycephalic – many-headed –
which is unthinkable from the perspective of Her divine-human nature… There can
be only one hierarchy in the Church. A federation of several completely
independent hierarchies hinders Her essence.” [38]
We see that such a paradigm
offers Church organization, not in the image of the Holy Trinity, but in a
completely earthly image, based on the idea of an administrative center,
similar to the “infallible Vatican”, which declares such things through its
apologists:
“We will never forget that
there is a connecting point between God and us, and this connecting point is
Rome.” [39]
The same idea is communicated by
the message from the high priest of the “Second Rome”, as well as by the church
policy of his successors who insist on “having links with the Constantinople
chair and submission to it as an obligatory condition of participation in the
Orthodox Catholic Church.” [40]
Fr. Sophrony argues, “Would true
Christians who worship ‘in spirit and truth’ accept this word? And if, suppose,
the First and Second Rome happen to disappear from the face of the earth due to
this or that catastrophe, then will the world be left without a true connection
with God, since the ties connecting us with Him would supposedly have
disappeared? For they know not the voice of strangers (John 10:5). This
is not our Christian faith.” [41]
In the following statement, Fr.
Sophrony denounces neo-papism, which rose from the depths of the Holy Church:
“We reject any ‘Rome’,
including the First, and the Second, and the Third, when it comes to
introducing the principle of subordination into the existence of our Church. We
reject the papism of Rome, as well as that of Constantinople, Moscow, London,
Paris, and New York, and any other papism, as an ecclesiological heresy that
distorts Christianity.” [42]
The principle of autocephaly
testifies to the equal dignity of Local Churches, in the image of the equal
dignity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity.
The rightly practiced principle
of autocephaly, which is based on the idea of consubstantiality,
testifies to the equal dignity of Local Churches, in the image of the
equal dignity of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. To put it succinctly:
“Neither a place, nor a title,
nor a racial origin grants preeminence over other places or nations concerning
the Church and Her authority or teaching.” [43]
The above phrase maintains a
dogmatic vision and understanding of autocephaly, which from an eschatological
perspective allows us to speak of “the general hope that not only each Local
Church, but also each individual member of Hers, each single person-hypostasis,
would be a bearer of THE WHOLE OF CATHOLIC FULLNESS of church life in the image
of the Holy Trinity, wherein every Hypostasis is the bearer of the absolute
fullness of Divine Being; evidently not through eliminating or absorbing other
Persons-Hypostases, but through dwelling in the fullness and integrity of one
essence.” [44]
Following our guiding star, we
avoid the mistake of reducing or diminishing the eternal design of God for man,
for His Church. Of course, as witnesses to what is happening, we see
historically “how far the Church’s life has been from the perfection to which
we are called.” [45] And yet, by overcoming the “odious enmity of this world,”
each member of the Church of Christ is motivated to implement God’s command for
unity through catholic oneness and perfection – in the Savior’s
words: “that they may be one” (John 17:21), and “Be ye therefore perfect, even
as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).
In relation to the Church’s
history and life, such perfection in the image of the Divine Trinity manifests
itself in “catholicity and autocephaly,” in other words, “in the freedom of
catholic love and equality of consubstantiality.” [46] This confirms the
inseparable connection of Orthodox ecclesiology with Orthodox triadology.
On the Dogmatic Vision and
Church Thinking
In the context of current events,
we see once again how dogmatic vision determines the spiritual, canonical, and
every other aspect of the Church’s life. It is true that “the projection of the
imperishable, gracious element of the Church in the conditions of our earthly,
fallen existence inevitably acquires a certain conventionality, and therefore
the Church canonical structure is not an absolute legal norm;” nevertheless it
“has always kept intact its deep roots, its essence, and may not contradict our
dogmatic thinking.” [47] Thus, the Orthodox teaching on the Church cannot
contradict the Orthodox teaching on the Holy Trinity.
The current situation
demonstrates how the supporters of “Ukrainian autocephaly” are trying to level
up precisely the dogmatic aspect of this issue, seeking to “resolve” it outside
the ecclesiastical sphere, without any discussion. Despite the arguments of
those who desire and seek primacy for themselves, they prove to be a
Pharisaical manifestation, a hypocritical movement against love – that is, sin
– which is a crime against the Father's love, rather than just a violation of
ethical norms.
Unfortunately, the Phanar’s
recent actions are putting Church unity at risk, as well as the preservation of
peace. Patriarch Bartholomew has unilaterally made a deliberate decision which
calls for a separation. Instead of healing the schism, he is going to aggravate
it even more. And regardless of what canonical and historical reasons may be
given to justify the actions committed, they invoke neither the gospel spirit
nor fraternal love, being only an attempt to assert authority and superiority
over “lesser” members of the Church.
This desire for predominance is a
destructive presence on earth. It is symptomatic of a falling away from
dogmatic thinking, and a loss of proper ecclesiastical thinking, by leaders who
are supposed to be protecting the Church’s God-ordained unity in the first
place. According to Archimandrite Sophrony, these erring leaders are not
listening to the voices of those who called for resolving “the burning ...
dogmatic issues as issues of cardinal significance for the matter of salvation.”
[48]
Archimandrite Sophrony speaks
explicitly of the spirit of lust for power and the desire to prevail over the
brethren, which was inherent to Tsargrad’s Patriarchs, who would initially
support the renovation split (Meletius IV) and strike a blow at the Primate St.
Tikhon of Moscow during the time of tribulation for the Russian Church, and
then would proclaim the doctrine of exclusive rights for the Patriarch of
Constantinople (Athenagoras). Archimandrite Sophrony believes their actions
were not only a gross trampling of the canons, but primarily the result of a
serious dogmatic error, incurred by the First Hierarchs and their supporters
occupying the Tsargrad chair. In their quest for power and domination, they
became like princes of the world, crowning the top of the “pyramid of humanity”
and dominating the nations. This is alien to the spirit of Christ, Who “came
not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for
many” (Matt 20:28).
Fr. Sophrony states that Christ
“came and overturned the pyramid of human existence,” [49] and consequently
“those who follow Him should go the same way: They go down to unite with the
Head of the inverted pyramid. A Christian goes down, to the depth of the
overturned pyramid which is at the center of terrible pressure, where Christ
is, He who took upon Himself the sin of the world.” [50] According to the holy
Fathers, the true movement is the movement of love, which is
always humble. Therefore, authority – especially the Church’s authority
– is treated by Fr. Sophrony “as service for everybody, as taking care of the
weaker.” [51]
In conclusion, echoing Archimandrite
Sophrony’s views on the subject, we would like to quote a statement from
Patriarch Alexy I, which is written as a prayer for the oneness of the Church.
He was reasoning about the High Priesthood of the First Rome, yet in the light
of today's events, we might certainly perceive this statement as a prayer for
the High Priesthood of the Second Rome as well:
“Christ said to his disciples,
‘Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever
will be chief among you, let him be your servant’ (Matt. 20:26-27). May the
Lord enlighten the mental eyes of the Roman (and Constantinopolitan) high
priesthood, so that with the help of God they may receive the power of the
Spirit, and abandon the ambitious desire to establish their earthly primacy
over all the apostolic successors!” [52]
NOTES
1. Gregory
the Theologian, st. Oration 37. On the Gospel words, “when Jesus had
finished these sayings” // By the same author. Writings. In 2 volumes.
SPb: P. P. Soikin Printing House, 1912. V. 1. P. 510–522, here: P. 514.
2. John
Chrysostom, st. Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles. Homily 24. 4 //
Writings of Our Father, St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in
Russian translation. In 12 volumes. St.Petersburg: SPbDA edition, 1898–1906. V.
9. Part 1. P. 226–235, here: P. 234.
3. Sophrony
(Sakharov), hieromonk. Unity of the Church in the image of the Unity of the
Holy Trinity (Orthodox Triadology as the basis of Orthodox Ecclesiology) //
Bulletin of the Russian West European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1950. № 2–3. P.
8–32, here: P. 18–19.
4. Ibid. P.
19.
5. ‘While in
Constantinople, I would often condemn the Greeks for the word “ecumenical” and
reproach them for vanity and pride, yet they objected they would title the
Patriarch Ecumenical – ikumenikos (by many translated as “universalis”),
not by virtue of his being a bishop over the whole world, but because he had
the authority over a certain part of the world in which Christians lived. For
the Greeks the word ikumeni means “universe”, while in Latin it
designates not only “the world” (orbis terrarum)”, from which, in the
sense of “universe” the name ‟ecumenical” is derived, but also “every dwelling
or habitable place”. Ikumenikos in this context would mean: ‟Eastern
imperial, all-Greek, all-Byzantine"’ (Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils.
Klin: Christian Life, 2002. P. 479).
6. Ibid. P.
478.
7. Cyril
of Jerusalem, st. Catechetical lecture 3. 9. // By the same author.
Catechetical and Mystical Lectures. Moscow: Blagovest Publishing House, 2010.
P. 36–47, here: p. 44.
8. Cyril
of Jerusalem, st. Catechetical lecture 13. 2 // Ibid. P. 180–209, here: P.
181.
9. Sophrony
(Sakharov), hieromonk. Unity of the Church in the image of the Unity of the
Holy Trinity. P. 17.
10. Ibid. P.
16.
11. Ibid. P.
17.
12. Ibid.
13. The
Voice of Mount Athos. Holy Mountain’s Hieroschemamonk Elder Theodosius Karulsky
on the Old and New Style //
http://afonit.info/biblioteka/nasledie-svyatoj-gory/o-novom-i-starom-stile
14. Lossky,
V.N. Catholic Consciousness. Anthropological Application of the Dogma of
the Church // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1969, № 10. P. 74–80, here:
P. 80.
15. Sophrony
(Sakharov), hieromonk. Unity of the Church in the image of the Unity of the
Holy Trinity. P. 17.
16. Ibid.
17. P. 20.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid. P.
20–21.
22. Ibid. P.
21.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid. P.
24.
26. Cited
from: ibid.
27. Ibid. P.
25.
28. The
outrageous declaration of the current Primate of the Church of Constantinople
that “the Slavs cannot accept the primacy of our (Greek) nation in Orthodoxy”!
See: URL:
http://nk.org.ua/politika/varfolomey-slavyane-ne-mogut-smiritsya-s-perve...
(the date of reference is 12/01/2018). It should be stressed that the heresy of
ethnophyletism was condemned by the Church long ago, at the Local Council of
Constantinople in 1872.
29. Sophrony
(Sakharov), hieromonk. Unity of the Church in the image of the Unity of the
Holy Trinity. P. 25.
30. Ibid. P.
27.
31. Ibid. P.
25.
32. S.
Troitsky. On Church Autocephaly // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate.
1948, No. 7. P. 33–54, here: P. 34.
33. Sophrony
(Sakharov), hieromonk. Unity of the Church in the image of the Unity of the
Holy Trinity. P. 25.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid. P.
28.
38. Ibid. P.
32. See: Tyshkevich S. Church of the God-Man. Lvov: Varyag Printing house,
1993. P. 70:256.
39. Ibid. P.
32.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Ibid. P.
31.
43. Ibid. P.
30.
44. Ibid. P.
31.
45. Ibid. P.
17.
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid. P.
32.
48. Ibid. P.
17.
49. Sophrony
(Sakharov), archimandrite. Spiritual conversations: In 2 volumes. V. 2. St.
John the Baptist Monastery, Essex-M., 2007. P. 131.
50. Sophrony
(Sakharov), archimandrite. Saint Silouan the Athonite. The Trinity Lavra of
St.Sergius, 2010. P. 266.
51. Sophrony
(Sakharov), archimandrite. Letters to Close Friends. Moscow, 1997. P. 117.
52. Acts of
the Moscow Meeting of Heads and Representatives of Autocephalous Orthodox
Churches in connection with the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the
autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church. Moscow: ed. Moscow Patriarchy,
1949. V. 1. P. 90.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.