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 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Theologia, 2017
The Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow have been at loggerheads throughout much of the 20th and 21st century without any reconciliation in sight. This might not be readily noticeable to a casual observer since both Churches are in communion with each other as part of a canonical federation of Orthodox Churches. If one, however, were to inspect the issue a little closer, one would see a subtle but complex historical and scholarly narrative which developed in such a way that it has led to an escalation of tensions between the two. This paper seeks to give a succinct historical analysis of the conflict between the two Patriarchates in order to focus more specifically on the scholarly and ideological aspect of the dispute. This will entail an analysis, i) of the historical background and polemical discourse of the Russian nationalist and canon law professor S. V. Troitsky (1878-1972); ii) of Troitsky’s major article against the extra-jurisdictional rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was adopted by the Moscow Patriarchate; and iii) of the “Greek” response of Professor Photiades of the Chalki School of Theology, who defended the rights of Constantinople through a historico-canonical narrative.
The development of the concept of authority within the Russian Orthodox Church
2005
This study attempts to answer the question as to `how and what type of authority was developed within Russian Orthodox Church during its turbulent and controversial history and how does this affect its operation today? This objective required the investigation of the historical contexts and events, which led to a particular concept of authority being formulated in the Russian Orthodox Church within the wider framework of time, geography, theology and philosophy. The thesis is organised chronologically. Since Russian Orthodoxy derived from Byzantium and from the beginning shared its spiritual and ecclesiological outlook, the first two chapters discuss the ecclesiological and ideological principles that held sway within the Byzantine Church and became the modus operandi for the Russian Church. This in turn was set against the wider historical, theological and ideological setting of Roman and Hellenistic civilization. Whilst the Russian Church reflected Byzantine's ecclesiological structures, the actual exercise and development of this authority took place in reaction to different historical and theological controversies and events such as the union of Florence, the collapse of the Byzantine empire and the ascendancy of the Muscovite kingdom between fourteenth and sixteenth century. In this regard the Muscovite period with its ecclesiastical conflicts and the autocratic State proved determinative. The subsequent three chapters discuss different controversies and developments, which took place in time and space between Kievan Rus' and post-Soviet Russia. The actual development of the authority within Russian Orthodox Church was formulated and shaped by Church's relationship with the autocratic Muscovite State, the handling of the Judaizers' and the Strigol'niki's controversies, Possessors' and Non-Possessors' movements. Further, it was affected by Nikon's raskol, the reforms of Peter the Great and the events of the twentieth century with its historical 1917-18 Sobor and the changes in the political system and its ideological orientation at the beginning and the end of the twentieth century. The uniqueness and the significance of Russian developments in relation to mystical authority is noted and discussed in its appearance of the Third Rome formula. It will be argued that within Russian Orthodoxy mystical and apocalyptic perceptions of authority came to play and to exercise a much greater role than in Byzantium, leading to the appearance of the notion of Moscow as Third Rome and a neo-messianic self-consciousness of Russian people. I conclude that the twentieth century did not bring about a finalisation of the development and the actual perception of the authority. It rather emerges as a period of transition during which the actual type of authority within Russian church was largely hijacked by the State and affected by the tragic events of a wider Russian history.
Looking Toward Unity: How the Russian Church Abroad Viewed the Patriarchate of Moscow, 1927-2007
Greek Orthodox Theological Review 1-4 (2007) [c] 2010
In 1920 the Russian refugee bishops established the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), also known as the Russian Church Abroad. In 1927 this church renounced subordination to the Church in Russia (also known as the Moscow Patriarchate). On May 17, 2007, representatives of both churches concelebrated Divine Liturgy in the Moscow Christ Savior Cathedral. The process of reconciliation between the Moscow Patriarchate and the ROCOR became a rare example of true ecumenical dialogue, helping the two estranged branches identify common ontological grounds. The author sketches the historical antecedents of the ROCOR's relations with the Moscow Patriarchate and analyzes the ROCOR's conciliar pronouncements and other representative documents from the period of estrangement. This paper demonstrates that the ROCOR ecclesiology of the studied period had been struggling to avoid the perils of isolationism. The history of the Orthodox Church teaches us that ecclesiastical divisions tend to be most persistent when one of the estranged factions believes that the separation is predicated on doctrine. Despite the ROCOR's occasional reference to doctrinal reasons underlying the estrangement, this division was in fact a result of political considerations and therefore was easier to overcome than, for instance, in the case of the Old Believers.
DE LA LUMINA RUGĂCIUNII LA TEOLOGIA LUMINII. ASPECTE ALE CERCETĂRII DOCTORALE ACTUALE, 2022
The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church is admittedly one of the most important Orthodox ecclesiastical events of the 21 st cent. The Council's 2016 convening was finally made possible after a very long and arduous preparatory process of circa 93 years, in which process the Patriarchate of Romania appears to have played an important and constructive role. In fact, the Church of Romania, in 1920, shortly before the official preparation begins, dispatched Prof. Dragomir Demetrescu to the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the mandate to exchange views on the possibility of convoking a "Council of the Orthodox Churches", and to propose potential issues to be considered in such a Council. Since then, the Church of Romania has responded positively to all the relevant invitations of the Great Church of Constantinople and participated constructively in all the preparatory bodies and phases of the Holy and Great Council, while the Romanian Primates-from Patriarch Myron to Patriarch Daniel-demonstrated a profound synodical awareness and fought devotedly for the unity and cooperation of the Orthodox Churches. The current article has a double scope: on the one hand, it presents the historical contribution of the Patriarchate of Romania at the beginning of preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, and on the other hand, it attempts to evaluate it.