The Authority of Canons at the Birth and Rebirth of the Russian Patriarchate: St Meletius Pigas at the Council of Constantinople in 1593 and St Hilarion Troitsky at the Council of Moscow in 1917

This article examines the limits of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, which arose in connection with the deposition of Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople by Emperor Michael III of Byzantium (842–867), which Pope Nicholas I (858–867) considered uncanonical, and the elevation of the imperial secretary Photius, a layman, to his position. The correspondence emerged during the period of the Photian Schism between Rome and Constantinople, marking a significant turning point in the development of the concept of papal supremacy within the Christian Church. The objective of this work is to analyse the theological, historical, and legal arguments presented in Nicholas’s letters to justify Roman jurisdiction over the Church of Constantinople and the right of popes to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent patriarchate. The research methodology involves a comparative analysis of the letters of Pope Nicholas and Photius in terms of their differing views on the structure of the Church and the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. The author refers to the letters of Pope Nicholas and Patriarch Photius, the Life of Patriarch Ignatius by Nicetas the Paphlagonian, conciliar canons, and papal decretals. The correspondence reviewed indicates that as early as the ninth century, the Roman and Constantinople churches held divergent views on the church structure and Constantinople’s position within it. Additionally, they had different ecclesiastical and legal foundations. The Roman Church, in its ideology of ‘primacy’, rejected local traditions, declaring them to be the product of ‘arbitrariness’, and relied only on carefully selected written texts, namely: 1) Holy Scripture (about Peter as the ‘rock’ on which the Church would be founded); 2) papal decretals; 3) selected church canons, which in one way or another mentioned the privileges of the Roman Church. Due to the differing approaches of the two churches, a dispute emerged regarding the interpretation of jurisdictional boundaries. Constantinople proceeded from the traditionally understood ‘sovereignty’ of each individual Church (patriarchate), whereby internal matters were resolved by a local council, and matters of significance to all of Christianity were dealt with by an Ecumenical Council. This traditional scheme was not merely challenged by Pope Nicholas but categorically rejected. In the papal letters to Photius, the Roman Church was assigned comprehensive jurisdiction within Christianity, with the right to intervene in disciplinary matters arising within local Churches and the obligation of all Churches to seek permission from Rome to resolve disciplinary conflicts.

Preface. List of Illustrations. List of Abbreviations. Note on Sources. Introduction: Strange Encounters. 1 The Pilgrimage of the Orthodox through History . A Brief History of the Orthodox from the Apostolic Era to the Middle Ages. Perspectives of History. Earliest Christian Foundations. The Development of Ecclesiastical Centres. The Age of the Fathers. Creeds and Councils. East and West: The Parting of Ways. The Slavic Mission. The Organization of the Orthodox Churches from Medieval to Modern Times. The Extension of the Orthodox Church. Synopsis of the Organization of the Orthodox Churches. The Ancient Patriarchates. The Orthodox Church of Cyprus. The Church of Sinai. The Russian Orthodox Church (Patriarchate of Moscow). The Wider Russian Heritage. The Orthodox Church of Greece. The Patriarchal Church of Bulgaria. The Patriarchal Church of Serbia. The Patriarchal Church of Romania. The Church of Georgia. The Church of Poland. The Church of Albania. The Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. The Three Autonomous Orthodox Churches. The Various Orthodox Diaspora Communities. The Orthodox Church in America. 2 The Orthodox Sense of Tradition . The Holy Tradition. Sources of Authority in Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy's Reading of the Scriptures. An Ecclesial Reading. The Principle of Consonance. The Principle of Authority. The Principle of Utility. Patristic and Conciliar Authorities. The Symbolical Books. The Pedalion (Holy Canons). Tradition and Revelation. 3 The Doctrine of the Orthodox Church. I: The Glory of the Lord . The Christian God. The Holy Spirit. The Lord Jesus. The Immortal Father. The Holy Trinity. 4 The Doctrine of the Orthodox Church. II: The Economy of Salvation . Humanity and its Sufferings. Salvation and the Call to Ascent. The Song of Creation. The Blessed Theotokos: Joy of All Creation. The Dance of the Blessed: The Angels and the Saints. Outside the Gates: Demonology and the Enigma of Evil. The Church: Bride of the Lamb. 5 The Holy Mysteries and Liturgies . Greater and Lesser Mysteries:. The Mystery of Baptism. The Mystery of Chrismation. The Mystical Supper: Communion in the Holy Eucharist. The Eucharistic Liturgy. The Mystery of Metanoia. The Mystery of the Great Anointing. The Mystery of Marriage. The Mysteries of Ordination. The Lesser Blessings of the Church. The Services of Prayer. The Trisagion Prayers. The Daily Offices. Personal Prayers. Traditions of Orthodox Prayer and Spirituality. Methods of Prayer. The Prayer of the Heart. The Jesus Prayer. Hesychasm. Fasting and Feasting. The Holy Icons: Doors to the Kingdom. Sacred Art. The Orthodox Vocabulary of Worship. Icons and Iconoclasm. Icons of the Lord. Icons of the Virgin. Icons of the Saints. 6 'The God-Beloved Emperor': Orthodoxy's Political Imagination . Caesaro-Papist Caricatures. Byzantine Models of Godly Rule. The Ambiguity of Scriptural Paradigms of Power. The Concept of the Priestly King. Dominion as an Apostolic Charism. Patristic Ideas on Symphonia. New Polities in the Aftermath of Byzantium. 7 Orthodoxy and the Contemporary World . The Poor at the Rich Man's Gate. The Grace of Peace and the Curse of War. Freedom in an Unfree World. A New Status for Women. Biological and Other New Ethical Environments. Sexual Ethics and Pastoral Care. Ecumenism and the Reconciliation of the Churches. Religious Pluralism in the Global Village. Evangelism in a New Millennium. Glossary of Orthodox Terminology. Select Bibliography. Index

This chapter looks at what is commonly called the Roman Catholic Church. It gives an overview of the 19 Eastern Catholic Churches currently within the Roman Catholic communion of Churches, along with their sometimes troubled place and role within this communion. Ecclesiology, church structure and functioning are the chapter’s salient points. It is written for those interested in examining and addressing issues in the internal and external functioning of religious bodies. It is also written for those with little or no knowledge of the Eastern Catholic Churches. It addresses some of the differences within the universal (“catholic”) Church in an effort to remind religious educators that religious thought and practices can differ even within an apparently “monolithic” religious body like the Roman Catholic Church; that differences need not mean separation, but they cannot be ignored.

The Protestant Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther in the 16th century, was a pivotal event in Christian history that shook the structure of the Catholic Church and had a profound impact on many aspects of life. This movement arose from dissatisfaction with church practices believed to be in conflict with Biblical teachings, such as the sale of indulgences. Through his 95 Theses, Luther emphasized that salvation could only be achieved through faith (sola fide) and that the Bible was the sole source of authority (sola scriptura). These teachings led to a split between the Catholic Church and Protestantism, sparking a broader theological reformation across Europe. Beyond its theological influence, the Protestant Reformation also brought about significant social, political, and cultural changes. Luther's teachings on the importance of education and literacy encouraged the translation of the Bible into local languages, allowing the faithful to access the Scriptures directly. The Reformation also introduced the concept of religious freedom and reshaped the relationship between church and state, with several countries adopting Protestantism as their official religion. Overall, the Protestant Reformation not only transformed the church's structure but also had a major impact on the development of Western social and political systems, creating new concepts of individual freedom and religious authority.

As the traditional Baptist aversion to tradition has its roots in the modern milieu in which Baptists flourished, the reconstruction of Baptist life after the collapse of modernity may require the formulation of a new hermeneutic of tradition that is both postmodern and distinctively Baptist. After reevaluating the Baptist tendency to reject tradition as a source of authority, I survey several non-Baptist theologians and theological movements that have made constructive use of tradition and consider the contributions they may make to a postmodern Baptist hermeneutic of tradition. Finally, the article proposes a hermeneutic of tradition that (1) has its locus in the universal Church, the larger community under the Lordship of Christ to which local churches and denominations belong; (2) focuses on the narrative that is shared by the churches and rehearsed in their worship; and (3) requires constructive dissent for the health of the tradition.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the experience of social partnership between the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) and the Russian state in charity and social service. The points of contact and mechanisms of interaction between the Church and state structures as social institutions are investigated, as well as a description of the state of this sociocultural partnership is revealed. The theoretical and methodological basis of the research is the principles of system and structural-functional analysis. Social partnership is viewed as a consensus in social and cultural interaction in which social actors build relationships with each other as with allies in achieving common results. This point of view is presented in the works by D. Bell, F. Taylor, P. Sorokin and others. In conclusion, the notes that in Russia social partnership between state institutions and the Church exist as well as the need for its further development; charity is an important consolidating socio-cultural practice for secular society and the state church, it is a phenomenon that contributes to the harmonization of social relations.

Summary. The purpose of the study is to research the interpretations of the Ukrainian-Moscow treaty of 1654 in the works of Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century; study the approaches of scientists to identify the reasons for the mutual understanding of the Ukrainian Cossacks with the tsarist authorities; analyze the peculiarities of the study by Polish scholars of the history of the relations of the Hetman’s Chancellery of B. Khmelnytsky with Moscow; consider the specifics of historians’ vision of the circumstances of concluding the agreement in Pereyaslav and Moscow as well as the course of negotiations between the parties and their implementation; study the researchers’ assessments of the significance of the Ukrainian-Moscow agreement in the history of Ukraine, Tsardom of Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The research methodology is based on the general scientific principles of objectivity, historicism, scientific pluralism and reliance on historical sources. General scientific (analysis, synthesis, comparison) and special-historical (historical-genetic, historical-typological, problem-chronological, historical-systemic) methods have been used in the work. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the analysis of a wide range of historiographical sources that reflect the interpretations of Polish scholars of the first half of the twentieth century history of the conclusion of the Ukrainian-Moscow treaty of 1654. The peculiarities of the historians’ approaches to the causes of the union between the Cossacks and Moscow and the circumstances of its conclusion are particularly studied. The ideological influences of historical schools and political concepts on the assessments of scholars of the Pereyaslav agreement and bereznevi statti (March articles) have been analyzed. Conclusions. Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century considered 1654 a milestone in the fate of Ukraine and one of the most important in the history of Poland. It was from the Cossack-Moscow treaty that they deduced the beginning of the rejection of the eastern lands of the Commonwealth in favor of Russia. Scholars saw the causes of these fateful events in the significant depletion of the Ukrainian uprising. As another reason, they also pointed to the complication of the international situation of the Cossacks due to frustration with the Turkish protection and the dual role of assistance to the Crimean Khanate. Polish scholars have drawn attention to the long history of Cossack-Moscow relations since the uprisings of the first half of the seventeenth century. However, they also pointed to Moscow’s unpreparedness for the war against the Commonwealth and its indecision. In their interpretations of Cossack-Moscow relations during the national liberation war Polish historians emphasized the parties’ differing views on the terms of the union. Thus, the scholars indicated that B. Khmelnytsky understood the agreement as a military understanding directed against Poland, where there was no talk of any restriction of Ukraine’s broad autonomy. Instead, the tsarist government understood the treaty as a simple incorporation of Ukrainian lands. This, in turn, as scientists have pointed out, it has caused many sharp misunderstandings. Among the most irritating researchers named the issue of financing the Cossack register and the disagreement of the Ukrainian clergy with the attempts of the Moscow Patriarchate to absorb its church structure. Thus, in the vision of Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century, the Ukrainian-Moscow union was perceived as hopeless and even utterly dangerous for the very existence of the Ukrainian people.

Catherine of Aragon’s support during Henry VIII’s campaign to annul their marriage relied on an affinity formed through her estates, specifically through the familial and regional connections between the queen and her local officials, tenants, and councillors. Using receivers’ accounts, land indentures, royal grants, and household accounts, this article traces the legal, administrative, and political activities of the men and women who served the queen. Existing scholarship of early modern queens’ estates has focused on the legal status of the queen’s council and the solvency of her household, but Catherine’s use of her estates demonstrates that their primary importance was as a source of authority, legitimacy, and independent patronage.

Catherine of Aragon's support during Henry VIII's campaign to annul their marriage relied on an affinity formed through her estates, specifically through the familial and regional connections between the queen and her local officials, tenants and councillors. Using receivers' accounts, land indentures, royal grants and household accounts, this article traces the legal, administrative and political activities of the men and women who served the queen. Existing scholarship of early modern queens' estates has focused on the legal status of the queen's council and the solvency of her household, but Catherine's use of her estates demonstrates that their primary importance was as a source of authority, legitimacy and independent patronage.

Relations between Orthodox Christians in Ukraine in the Context of the War Andriy Dudchenko (bio) This article is about the Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine in the context of the war begun by the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Orthodoxy in Ukraine is represented now by two main jurisdictions: the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC). First some statistics OCU is an autocephalous Church, created at the Unification Council in St. Sophia Cathedral of Kyiv on December 15, 2018. On January 6, 2019, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew granted this Church the Tomos of autocephaly. In OCU there are now 60 bishops, about 7,700 parishes and 4,900 priests, and about 80 monasteries. Before the war, 24.1% of Ukrainians considered themselves members of the OCU, which amounts to 39.8% of Orthodox Ukrainians.1 UOC is a self-governing Church under the Moscow Patriarchate. UOC has 104 bishops, about 12,000 parishes and about the same number of priests, and over 250 monasteries (these figures include the territories of Ukraine occupied by Russia before the current war). Before the war, 13.3% of Ukrainians identified themselves as members of the UOC, or 21.9% of Orthodox Ukrainians. To complete the picture, it should be added that 21.9% of respondents, or 36.2% of Orthodox, called themselves "just Orthodox" not identifying with either jurisdiction. As you can see, the number of parishes [End Page 189] and monasteries was much larger in the UOC, but OCU had far more worshippers. On the other hand, according to the data from the same research, UOC had twice as many permanent parishioners as OCU, that is, those who participate in liturgy at least once a week. The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has made a huge difference. According to an Omnibus Info Sapiens poll,2 73% of believers in the UOC, Moscow Patriarchate, have ceased to identify themselves with this church. As early as March, the number of supporters of the UOC-MP for the first time fell to a record low of 4%. At the same time, the percentage of OCU supporters increased to 52%. The survey was conducted even before the data on the atrocities of the Russian invaders near Kyiv were published. On May 27, 2022, at a council in Feofaniya, the UOC announced that it is breaking all ties with Moscow Patriarchate, but did not proclaim autocephaly. The canonical status of this Church today needs to be clarified, as I will discuss later on. In addition to the two main jurisdictions, the Kyiv Patriarchate again exists in Ukraine. This jurisdiction was self-dissolved on the day of the Unification Council in 2018 and fully joined the OCU. However, in the summer of 2019, Bishop Filaret Denisenko convened a Local Council, at which he announced the revival of the Kyiv Patriarchate with himself as patriarch, and he began to consecrate new bishops. The OCU, which considers Filaret a bishop with the title of "Honorary Patriarch," called the new consecrations of bishops in the Kyiv Patriarchate non-canonical and stated that they would not be recognized by the OCU. Today there are 14 bishops in the Kyiv Patriarchate, but only a few parishes within the borders of Ukraine.3 A little background Many believers in Ukraine remember the times when there was only one Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union—the Russian Church, also known as the Moscow Patriarchate. In 1989, the revival of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church or UAOC was proclaimed in Lviv. By the beginning of 1990, about 200 parishes had moved to the UAOC, mainly in western Ukraine. The head of the Ukrainian Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church at the time was then-Metropolitan Filaret. He sharply criticized the new autocephalous church, which he [End Page 190] interpreted as a schism. In October of the same year the Ukrainian Exarchate of Moscow Patriarchate was transformed into the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.4 Metropolitan Filaret received the title of His Beatitude. In the Blessed Charter issued by Patriarch Alexiy of Moscow, the UOC was called "independent and self-governed in its administration," united with the universal Church through the...

This article will examine the role the first four ecumenical councils played in the controversial enterprises of John Jewel (1522-71) as well as two later early modern English theologians, Richard Hooker (1553-1600) and George Carleton (1559-1628). In three different polemical contexts, each divine portrays the councils as representing definitive catholic consensus not only for doctrine, but also ecclesiastical order and governance. For all three of these theologians, the manner in which the first four ecumenical councils were summoned and conducted, as well as their enactments touching the Church’s life provided patristic norms for its rightful administration. Jewel, Hooker, and Carleton each argued that the English Protestant national Church as defined by the Elizabethan Settlement exemplified a faithful recovery of patristic conciliar ecclesiastical government as an essential component in England’s overall endeavor to return to the true Church Catholic. Jewel employed these councils in order to impeach the Council of Trent’s (1545-63) status as a general council, and to justify the transfer of the authority of general councils to national and regional synods under the direction of godly princes. Hooker proposes the recovery of general councils as a means of achieving Catholic consensus within a Christendom divided along national and confessional lines while at the same time employing the pronouncements of the first four general councils to uphold the authoritative patristic and catholic warrant for institutions and practices retained by the Elizabethan Church. Finally, amid the controversy surrounding the Oath of Allegiance during the reign of James VI/1 (r. 1603-25), George Carleton devoted his extensive examination of these councils to refute papal claims to coercive authority with which to depose monarchs as an extension of excommunication. In so doing, Carleton relocates this ‘coactive jurisdiction’ in the ecclesiastical authority divinely invested in the monarch, making the ruler the source of conciliar authority, and arguably of catholic consensus itself.

In the canon law studies, the Conferences of Bishops are mentioned among the sources of the canon law. Bishops have been and are substantially aware of their role in the diocese. The Conference of Bishops is a new, post-conciliar authority in the structure of the universal Church. Pastoral letters are one of the forms of apostolic activity of the Conference of Bishops. The primary source of these letters is the Revelation contained in the Bible and Tradition, as well as natural law. Proclaiming the Gospel is the primary task of bishops. They are the first preachers in their dioceses. They perform munus docendi individually in connection with the pope or collectively, e.g. during the Conference of Bishops. By jointly announcing the Catholic truth concerning the faith and morals, bishops gathered at the Conference preach to the People about God more effectively. The purpose of this study is to signal the significant role of this authority in the apostolic actions through bishops’ activity regarding preaching via pastoral letters. The Conferences of Bishops fulfil their tasks using various forms and methods of apostolate corresponding to the current situation of local particular Churches. Thus, the scope of analysis is not the competences of the Conference of Bishops regarding munus docendi from a legal perspective but those competences relating to pastoral preaching. Therefore, the role of a bishop in a diocese as the inspirer and person responsible for apostolic activity will be discussed first, followed by a description of the institution of the Conference of Bishops as a collective body responsible for the effective and authentic announcing the faith and morals. The conclusion will be an attempt to define the essence of pastoral letters.

Abstract. Apparently, until now, researchers have not paid attention to the fact that the “Declaration” of Met. Sergius Stragorodsky (1927) contains an almost direct quotation from Blessed Augustine's “De civitate Dei”, which speaks of the common joys and sorrows that in this life unite the citizens of the heavenly city and the citizens of the earthly city. As a consequence, the question arises as to what extent this borrowing could be, as well as whether this parallel legitimizes the ecclesiological (church-state) concept of Metropolitan Sergius. Evidently, Blessed Augustine was not among his favorite and even frequently quoted authors. This could result from the critical attitude towards the Bishop of Hippo, which was revealed even before 1917 by representatives of the “new theology”, whom Met. Sergius belonged to. However, since at the beginning of the 20th century “De civitate Dei” was too often the subject of church and public discussions, Met. Sergius, with his well-known erudition, could not be completely unfamiliar with it. At the same time, the conducted research shows that the position of Met. Sergius on the issue of church-state relations was changing throughout his life due to changing historical circumstances. Nevertheless, we can say for certain that his position was constant in the idea of the inviolability of the canonical structure of the local Church. This idea is formed against the background of the struggle for the restoration of the patriarchate. It considers the autocephalous local Church (not the diocese, as it was in ancient times) as a structural unit of the universal Church. Consequently, it implies the need to maintain a single church organization throughout the USSR. This, in turn, required the legal functioning of the Church, and, as a result, had a much greater dependence on the earthly city than blessed Augustine supposed.

The Council of Nicea was beyond doubt a logistical feat that owed its success not only to the transportational support and organizational machinery of the imperial authorities but also to the tight structure of the clergy and the intact channels of communication that had developed into a tightly woven network since the early years of Christianity. Increasing institutionalization beginning in the 2nd century offered the churches of the Lycus Valley a basis for participating in the structures of the universal church. The bishops traveled to synods and councils; the surviving Acta provide some highlights: Ancyra, Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. At any rate, the metropolitan of Laodicea was an important enough figure to invite to a synod towards 380 involving colleagues from the entire diocese of Asia, which earned great respect in the course of efforts to give fixed and stable form to ecclesiastical law.Keywords: Christianity; council of Nicea; ecclesiastical law; institutionalization; Laodicea; Lycus Valley

In this article has been shown the ecclesiology of the pre-council period in Italy. The twentieth century called the century of the Church. The biggest event at the time was the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II was not a random event, but preceded by a renewal, which goes back to the early twentieth century. Also in Italy, an important role to fulfill the liturgical renewal, biblical movement, the activity of the lay faithful. In the period preceding the publication of the encyclical of Pope Pius XII on the Mystical Body of Christ, distinctive theology of the Italian representatives are: Giuseppe Siri, Francesco Chiesa, Antonio M. Vellico and Grazioso Ceriani. New impetus in the development of ecclesiology has become encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (29.06.1943) Pope Pius XII. For example, taken by Pietro Parente (1891–1986) Mysterium Ecclesiae study with the intent to recover its original splendor to bind legal structure of the hierarchical Church, with its inner nature. Disclosure by Pope John XXIII on 25 January 1959, just three months after his election to the See of Peter, the convening of a general council, and then consult widely on the subject of proceedings has contributed significantly not only to revive interest in the Church, but also to take the very important issues related. In developing a new concept of the Church, that is more in line with the spirit of the period immediately preceding the ecclesiology of Vatican II, the priest put a significant contribution to the Diocese of Alba Natale Bussi (1907–1988), whose lectures were recorded and issued the first time already in 1961. Also noteworthy is the emphasis on the ground of Italian interest in the phenomenon of sanctity and the cult of saints. The overall look of the ecclesiology of the Italian twentieth century, which precedes the Second Vatican Council should be noted that it is not as discovery and pioneering, as ecclesiology German or French.