The concept of primacy: Origins and contexts: Collective monograph / Ed. by P. Ermilov, M. Gratsi... more The concept of primacy: Origins and contexts: Collective monograph / Ed. by P. Ermilov, M. Gratsiansky. Moscow: St Tikhon's University, 2022. 640 p.
Коллективная монография посвящена комплексному изучению происхождения понятия первенства и сфер его употребления. Исследование ведется методами исторического, филологического, богословского, юридического и церковно-правового анализа. Авторы раскрывают античное происхождение понятия первенства, описывают последующее его бытование на протяжении Средних веков, Нового и отчасти Новейшего времени, анализируют употребление понятия первенства в широком круге источников и наряду с другими смежными понятиями, такими как старшинство и председательство. Особое внимание уделяется современным церковным дискуссиям вокруг темы первенства. Ряд глав посвящен реализации принципа первенства Константинопольской кафедры в разные исторические эпохи.
Понятие первенства: Истоки и контексты: Коллективная монография / Отв. ред.: П. В. Ермилов, М. В. Грацианский. Москва: ПСТГУ, 2022
The chapter reconstructs the historical context of the 34th Apostolic Canon in order to clarify t... more The chapter reconstructs the historical context of the 34th Apostolic Canon in order to clarify the terminology used in it. The authors begin their exposition from the times pf classical antiquity, when the institution of federal states — koina (κοινά) — is observed in the Greek world. These survived the Hellenistic era and served as an integral unifying structure of Greek society during the Roman period. The authors draw attention to the competition of cities for regional primacy in Roman times. They also describe the existence of “first” or “leading” citizens, who also competed at the provincial level for personal primacy. Such primacy was reflected in the occupation of posts of provincial high-priests, who are attested as “the first in the ethnos” (πρῶτος τοῦ ἔθνους). Already in pagan society the position of the “first” was inextricably linked with the occupation of the priestly position both at the city and at the provincial level — in the metropolitan city. The authors regard this system as a quite probable prototype of the administrative structure of the early Church of the period after Constantine the Great. The combination of personal primacy and primacy of the city formed the basis for the church administration, uniting collegiality at the provincial level and hierarchical authority at the city level. At the same time, the rights of the leading Christian bishop of the metropolis at the provincial level were similar to the rights that the high-priest of the imperial cult, the head of the provincial συνέδριον, had in civil society. It is important to note that church structures and provincial structures associated with the imperial cult existed in the Roman Empire in parallel throughout the 4th-5th centuries. Having established the similarity of both systems, the authors proceed to the analysis of the 34th Apostolic Canon and conclude that the fundamental desire of the Church to eradicate the atmosphere of rivalry inherent in pagan society found expression in the 9th Canon of Antioch, which eliminated the concept of “first” or “primate” from the church lexicon of the Greek East, while the Latin West retained them (primas and primatus). This circumstance largely explains the subsequent conflicts around this concept on church grounds.
В основу статьи положено выступление на конференции «Мировое Православие: первенство и соборность... more В основу статьи положено выступление на конференции «Мировое Православие: первенство и соборность в свете православного вероучения», прошедшей 16–17 сентября 2021 года в Сергиевском зале кафедрального соборного Храма Христа Спасителя в Москве. Текст публикуется в сокращении.
"Correspondence between Patriarch of Alexandria Gerasimos Palladas and Christians of the Church o... more "Correspondence between Patriarch of Alexandria Gerasimos Palladas and Christians of the Church of Antioch: Historical and Textological Aspects": Several decades preceding the split of the Church of Antioch into Orthodox and Catholic branches in 1724 are the least studied period in the early Modern history of the Orthodox Middle East. The authors present preliminary results of their joint project aiming at the commented edition and translation of the Arabic texts of the epistle sent in September 1702 by the Patriarch of Alexandria Gerasimos Palladas to the Orthodox community of Tripoli and the responses from the Christians of Tripoli and Aleppo. The correspondence, only partially edited, reflects intellectual life and ideological confrontation in the Church of Antioch in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The main topic of the correspondence is a dispute on the moment of consecration of the Holy Gifts in the Divine Liturgy, which was one of the traditional themes of polemics between Orthodox and Catholic theologians. The view of the Orthodox Church, expressed by Patriarch Gerasimos, met strong objections from the Christians of Aleppo, probably influenced by Latin Church missionaries. This article analyses the historical background and the context of the correspondence as well as the features of the Arabic manuscript tradition of the Patriarch’s epistle. As a result of the collation of the manuscripts available, the authors identify two versions of the translation of Gerasimos’ epistle and define the features of stylistic revision of the text in the second recension.
Eastern Councils’ Definitions on the Establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in the context of O... more Eastern Councils’ Definitions on the Establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in the context of Orthodox-Catholic controversy about the Headship in the Church The author further develops the approach, outlined in his previous publications, to the reconstruction of the history of the erection of the Moscow Patriarchate, this time clarifying the ideological background of the resolutions of the Council of Constantinople in 1593. As we find in the historiography, this Council is viewed as a failed attempt to achieve a higher place of Moscow in the order of patriarchal sees, what in turn belittles its importance and explains the lack of interest in the history and definitions of the Council. Such an attitude is associated with insufficient attention to the intra-Eastern polemic around the decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 1590 and to the position taken by the Patriarch of Alexandria Meletios Pegas. The author attempts to explain the reasons for the critical attitude of this authoritative in the East theologian and polemicist towards the decisions of the Council of 1590. According to this task, the author employs the history of Orthodox-Catholic relations at the end of the 16th century, focusing on the significance of the issue of headship within the Church in the political rhetoric and interreligious polemics of that period. The author demonstrates that this topic was essential for almost all events where the interests of rival Christian Churches collided: in the West and the Greco-Arab East, in the Kingdom of Poland and the Moscow Tsardom. The same theme was likewise present in the history of the rise of the Moscow See. The author summarizes views of Patriarch Meletios on the primacy and headship in the Church on the basis of his writings, explains what the Patriarch considered unacceptable in the tomos of the Council of 1590 and how he tried to correct the mistakes made in that tomos during the Council of 1593. The analysis proposed in the article clarifies the meaning of the act of the re-recognition of the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and leads to the conclusion that, despite the negative image of the Council of Constantinople of 1593 in Russian history, its definitions were more consistent with the true interests of the Moscow authorities and the principles that Orthodox polemicists defended confronted with aggressive Catholic expansion.
Establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and the councils of Constantinople in 1590 and 1593. The... more Establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and the councils of Constantinople in 1590 and 1593. The author presents a new outlook on the history of the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate with special attention to the conflict within the Greek East triggered by attempts to canonically legalize the new patriarchate. The author shows how the second Council of Constantinople in 1593 revised the decision of the Council in 1590, bringing down a large-scale Greek-Russian project, conceived in Moscow and implemented by Patriarch Jeremiah. The rejection of the synodal act of 1593 in Russia explains the prolonged fallout of the Council and its teaching from Muscovite historical memory. The late reception of the conciliar formulas favorable to the Russian Church predetermined the deformation of the image of the Council in Russian historiography.
В состав греческой хроники псевдо-Дорофея входит важный источник по истории учреждения московског... more В состав греческой хроники псевдо-Дорофея входит важный источник по истории учреждения московского патриаршества. Автор проясняет идейные цели, преследовавшиеся составителем или редакторами текста, а также причины его явной антирусской направленности. В качестве гипотезы выдвигается утверждение о связи данного эпизода с идейным конфликтом, вызванным неприятием на Руси решений Константинопольского собора 1593 г.
Причины и вызовы текущего кризиса межправославных отношений: Материалы научно-практической конференции (ПСТГУ, 25–26 февраля 2019 года). М., 2020. C. 77–96.
Доклад, прочитанный на конференции "Причины и вызовы текущего кризиса межправославных отношений" ... more Доклад, прочитанный на конференции "Причины и вызовы текущего кризиса межправославных отношений" (ПСТГУ, 25–26 февраля 2019 года).
Translation from the Russian original: Украинская автокефалия как начало реформы регионального ур... more Translation from the Russian original: Украинская автокефалия как начало реформы регионального уровня церковной структуры // Причины и вызовы текущего кризиса межправославных отношений: Материалы научно-практической конференции (ПСТГУ, 25–26 февраля 2019 года). М., 2020. C. 77–96.
В основу статьи положен текст доклада, прочитанного на заседании «Византийского клуба» в Белгород... more В основу статьи положен текст доклада, прочитанного на заседании «Византийского клуба» в Белгороде (НИУ «БелГУ») в апреле 2018 г.
Mikhail A. Novoselov’s ecclesiological views according to materials dating to 1920's.
The articl... more Mikhail A. Novoselov’s ecclesiological views according to materials dating to 1920's.
The article focuses on the discourse about the Church voiced by a well-known religious and public figure of the first half of the 20th century, a publisher and a writer, holy martyr Mikhail Novoselov (1864–1938). The authors bring together various ecclesiological passages mainly from the collection entitled “Letters to Friends” (1922–1927), form them into a system and specify its characteristic features. Their description starts from the two dimensions of the Church — Church as a living organism of the Truth (“Church as an organism”) and the structure of this organism based upon clear-cut formal rules which may seem outdated (“Church as an organization”). Novoselov also dwelt on the issues of ecclesiastical hierarchy and particularly the episcopate. He devoted special attention to the teaching authority of the hierarchy as well as to the problem of obedience in searching for the religious truth — the latter issue becoming of utmost importance to the writer, at the latest, during the onomatodoxy (‘Imiaslavie’) dispute in 1913. He also paid great attention to the role of laity in the Church and to the way of searching for the religious truth. The authors attempt to reconstruct the origin and resonance of Novoselov’s ideas through placing them within the context of his like-minded contemporaries and their views. The authors also make ample use of the unpublished sources and remembrances of those who knew M. A. Novoselov intimately. One of the conclusions at which the authors arrive is that Novoselov’s works present a well-thought-out model of the Church founded upon the intersection of its divine and human dimensions. The indicator of this coincidence of dimensions is the sainthood as a criterion of any true ecclesiastical experience, as well as martyrdom which becomes an important criterion at the time of persecutions. This reconstruction, interesting in itself, allows to pose the questions concerning that theological tradition in the framework of which Novoselov had been raised and with which he most sympathized, and concerning the import of this ecclesiology for the ecclesiastical life of the new epoch of martyrdom, when the “Letters to Friends” were composed.
Image of the Church in Works by Holy Martyr Damascene Tsedrik.
The principal direction in the dev... more Image of the Church in Works by Holy Martyr Damascene Tsedrik. The principal direction in the development of the Orthodox ecclesiology in the 20th century was, justifiably, the so-called “Eucharistic ecclesiology”, where the principal role in the structural organisation of the church is assigned to the Eucharistic community headed by a bishop. Valuable contributions to the formation of this theory were made by Russian theologians living abroad. The widely disseminated ideas of émigré theologians and their successors have to a certain extent overshadowed other models of the church which were developed during the first half of the 20th century by Russian New Martyrs. In exile and in jail, far away from churches, often concealing themselves from people and living amidst distrust and suspicion, many laypeople and clerics found themselves in a situation where no regular participation in one common Eucharistic gathering was possible and where there was often no communication with the bishop. It is evident that their ecclesiastical life could hardly be described in terms of the classical model of the Eucharistic ecclesiology, which implies that the community lives in normal conditions. Therefore expressing their experience of ecclesiastical communion, Russian New Martyrs made attempts at formulating alternative approaches applicable to the situation of persecution and internal instability within the church. An approach of this kind can be found in bishop Damascene Tsedrik’s works (martyred in 1937). St. Damascene’s view is rather similar to a pastoral model of the church where the church is conceived as a mystical union of believers formed through the “spiritual and grace-filled linkages between the shepherds and their flock”. The bishop hereby is presented as the archpastor, who guides rather than merely administrates spiritual life of believers. Within this approach, the “mass of believers” is considered to be the living body of the church, which in its wholeness is capable of reproducing the selfconscience of the church. This paper presents little-known theological insights of the Russian New Martyr.
The Controversy on the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the Orthodox Diasp... more The Controversy on the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the Orthodox Diaspora in the First Half of the 20th Century and its Outcome. One of the crucial challenges facing the Orthodox world is the necessity to regulate the canonical status of the Orthodox diaspora. The Council on Crete, held in 2016, accepted a relevant document and stated the willingness of all Orthodox Churches “to resolve the problem of the Orthodox diaspora and its organization in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church”. A model of a compromise that could reconcile the competing approaches of various Orthodox Churches has been long searched for. However, less and less attention is paid to the fact that the theory imposed by the Church of Constantinople is purely arbitrary and devoid of any solid reasons. Throughout the 20th century, it has been more than once challenged as pseudo-canonical. It is clear that any consensus based on erroneous theological assumptions will be leading to failure. This article is intended to show that the repeatedly refuted approach of the Church of Constantinople cannot help in formulating a truly canonical decision of the problem of diaspora.
“I believe it is possible for the Russian Church to accomplish a lot in the world”. The letters b... more “I believe it is possible for the Russian Church to accomplish a lot in the world”. The letters between the archbishop John (Shakhovskoy) and S.V. Troitsky.1954-1965. This publication introduces the correspondence of two well-known emigrant figures of Russian Orthodoxy of the XX century, preserved in the American and Serbian archives of the authors. The main theme of the correspondence is the status of the Russian Church in the United States and attempts to settle the canonical status of the Russian Metropolia in the post-war period. Some obscure aspects of the authors' personal life and their attitude to a number of crucial problems and significant events of the contemporary period are revealed. Of particular interest are canonical assessments, given to various cases discussed in the letters by prof. Troitsky, who was a renowned expert in the Orthodox canon law
The role of the Lausanne Peace Conference in the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as... more The role of the Lausanne Peace Conference in the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as reflected in the 20th-century Greek historiography: stereotypes and realities. The authors analyze the attitudes of Greek scholars towards the role of the Lausanne Peace Conference held in 1922–1923 in determining the fate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Dealing with ecclesiastical as well as secular historiography, the authors single out a manifest tendency on the part of Greek historians towards subjectively viewing the historical data reconstructed by the authors of the present article on the basis of extant sources. The authors demonstrate that Greek scholarly literature abounds in assertions that the future fates of the Patriarchate were on the agenda of the Lausanne Conference from its very beginning, and that in the course of this Conference the terms upon which the Patriarchate could stay within Turkey and its new legal status were agreed upon; according to Greek scholars, the very fact of the Patriarchate issue emerging and being discussed during an international political conference claimed that this religious institution enjoyed a kind of international legal entity. The authors make it clear that the source of such attitudes is to be sought in the Greek government and in the stance of the leading hierarchs of the Greek Church who deemed it important to preserve at any cost the Greek ecclesiastical presence on the Turkish territory. It is precisely this goal that explains the attempt at raising the political weight of the Patriarchate of Constantinople using the authority of a major international event. In conclusion of their article, the authors cast doubts on the view that the Lausanne Peace Conference should be considered a chronological milestone in the history of the Church of Constantinople. Instead, they propose to postulate as such a milestone the emergence of the Turkish Republic and the concomitant transformation of political and religious institutions.
From ancient times the Patriarchate of Constantinople has played a significant role as one of the... more From ancient times the Patriarchate of Constantinople has played a significant role as one of the most important sees of the Orthodox world. However, by the beginning of the 1920s its existence was under threat of total elimination due to the loss of almost all its flock after the Greco-Turkish war. The ensuing political reforms in Turkey called into question the continued residence of the Patriarchate in Istanbul. A possible way out of this situation for the Patriarchate was to prove its special role in the Orthodox world, a role that demanded its preservation in its historical place. Fortunately, this idea coincided with the interests of the great powers. The Phanar’s claims at Pan-Orthodox leadership came as a reaction to the discussions about the possible expulsion of the Patriarch from Turkey, which were conducted within the framework of the peace conference at Lausanne. It was these discussions that created a favorable background for the conception of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as the center of the Orthodox world. The authors deal in the article with the interpretation of the role of the Patriarch by the participant countries in the Lausanne conference against the background of their struggle for their own political interests. The research is based on official diplomatic documents and periodical press.
Alongside the traditional for the Russian theological school concept that all primates of the Ort... more Alongside the traditional for the Russian theological school concept that all primates of the Orthodox Churches possess equal rights, from time to time there appear in Russia advocates of an alternative approach, who attempt at vesting the patriarch of Constantinople with special status within the Orthodox Church, a status implying certain privileges ensuing from his supposed leading position. Such attempts have always triggered strong opposition on the part of the adherents of the traditional doctrine. The most important conflict of these two opposing factions was the discussion at the end of the 19th century between two professors of canon law, Timofey Barsov and Alexey Pavlov. Prof. Barsov put forward a theory according to which in the first millennium of the Christian era the Patriarch of Constantinople was the head of the Christian Church and enjoyed such prerogatives of power, which distinguished him from all other Eastern Patriarchs. Such thinking met absolute rejection of Prof. Pavlov who strongly advocated the unchangeable norms of the canonical law and called Barsov’s ideas “a theory of the Eastern Popery”. The result of these discussions was judging Barsov’s theory as marginal and even non-Orthodox. However, in the 20th century the theory was caught up again and received further elaboration in the Greek theological school. The fact that Greek authors have appropriated the controversial conception of the Russian canonist reveals a weak point in the position of the Greek school and explains the critical attitude towards the theories of modern Greek theologians in Russia.
The author of this article describes the history of how Professor Timofey Barsov received his deg... more The author of this article describes the history of how Professor Timofey Barsov received his degree of Doctor of Canon Law. After a number of failed attempts to defend his dissertation in his native St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Barsov was forced to appeal to the Holy Synod. By the Synod’s decision, Barsov's dossier was transferred to Moscow Theological Academy, but its Academic Council also denied Barsov a doctoral degree. Finally the doctoral degree was conferred upon Barsov without defending a dissertation and despite the negative decisions of two Academic Councils. The author studies the reasons behind the rejection of Barsov’s work by the academies and the content of the criticism offered by his opponents.
Researchers have only recently begun to study in depth the influence of the Cold War on religion ... more Researchers have only recently begun to study in depth the influence of the Cold War on religion and Church politics, although those who lived at the time already remarked on the “political-religious” aspects of the conflict. The Orthodox Churches of the “Free World” were expected to form an anti-Communist religious front under the aegis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This idea was conceived principally by the US President Harry S. Truman. The US lent its support in 1948 to the forced resignation of Patriarch Maximos V and contributed to the election of his successor, Athenagoras (Spirou), formerly the Archbishop of North and South America. The new patriarch attempted to gear his foreign policies in conformity with the wishes of the United States government in the international arena. [French and Greek translations are available (see the links in metadata)].
26 декабря 2013 г. на заседании Священного синода Русской Православной Церкви был принят документ... more 26 декабря 2013 г. на заседании Священного синода Русской Православной Церкви был принят документ «Позиция Московского Патриархата по вопросу о первенстве во Вселенской Церкви». Вскоре после этого, 7 января 2014 г., на официальном сайте Константинопольской Церкви был опубликован «Ответ на “Позицию Московского Патриархата по вопросу о первенстве во Вселенской Церкви”», подписанный именем митрополита Прусского Елпидофора (Ламбриниадиса). Публикуемый ныне текст был написан в марте 2014 г., однако по ряду причин автор не смог тогда же придать его огласке. Сейчас, когда острота дискуссии относительно спала, автор все же решился опубликовать свои соображения уже не столько в целях полемики, сколько ради чисто академического интереса.
The concept of primacy: Origins and contexts: Collective monograph / Ed. by P. Ermilov, M. Gratsi... more The concept of primacy: Origins and contexts: Collective monograph / Ed. by P. Ermilov, M. Gratsiansky. Moscow: St Tikhon's University, 2022. 640 p.
Коллективная монография посвящена комплексному изучению происхождения понятия первенства и сфер его употребления. Исследование ведется методами исторического, филологического, богословского, юридического и церковно-правового анализа. Авторы раскрывают античное происхождение понятия первенства, описывают последующее его бытование на протяжении Средних веков, Нового и отчасти Новейшего времени, анализируют употребление понятия первенства в широком круге источников и наряду с другими смежными понятиями, такими как старшинство и председательство. Особое внимание уделяется современным церковным дискуссиям вокруг темы первенства. Ряд глав посвящен реализации принципа первенства Константинопольской кафедры в разные исторические эпохи.
Понятие первенства: Истоки и контексты: Коллективная монография / Отв. ред.: П. В. Ермилов, М. В. Грацианский. Москва: ПСТГУ, 2022
The chapter reconstructs the historical context of the 34th Apostolic Canon in order to clarify t... more The chapter reconstructs the historical context of the 34th Apostolic Canon in order to clarify the terminology used in it. The authors begin their exposition from the times pf classical antiquity, when the institution of federal states — koina (κοινά) — is observed in the Greek world. These survived the Hellenistic era and served as an integral unifying structure of Greek society during the Roman period. The authors draw attention to the competition of cities for regional primacy in Roman times. They also describe the existence of “first” or “leading” citizens, who also competed at the provincial level for personal primacy. Such primacy was reflected in the occupation of posts of provincial high-priests, who are attested as “the first in the ethnos” (πρῶτος τοῦ ἔθνους). Already in pagan society the position of the “first” was inextricably linked with the occupation of the priestly position both at the city and at the provincial level — in the metropolitan city. The authors regard this system as a quite probable prototype of the administrative structure of the early Church of the period after Constantine the Great. The combination of personal primacy and primacy of the city formed the basis for the church administration, uniting collegiality at the provincial level and hierarchical authority at the city level. At the same time, the rights of the leading Christian bishop of the metropolis at the provincial level were similar to the rights that the high-priest of the imperial cult, the head of the provincial συνέδριον, had in civil society. It is important to note that church structures and provincial structures associated with the imperial cult existed in the Roman Empire in parallel throughout the 4th-5th centuries. Having established the similarity of both systems, the authors proceed to the analysis of the 34th Apostolic Canon and conclude that the fundamental desire of the Church to eradicate the atmosphere of rivalry inherent in pagan society found expression in the 9th Canon of Antioch, which eliminated the concept of “first” or “primate” from the church lexicon of the Greek East, while the Latin West retained them (primas and primatus). This circumstance largely explains the subsequent conflicts around this concept on church grounds.
В основу статьи положено выступление на конференции «Мировое Православие: первенство и соборность... more В основу статьи положено выступление на конференции «Мировое Православие: первенство и соборность в свете православного вероучения», прошедшей 16–17 сентября 2021 года в Сергиевском зале кафедрального соборного Храма Христа Спасителя в Москве. Текст публикуется в сокращении.
"Correspondence between Patriarch of Alexandria Gerasimos Palladas and Christians of the Church o... more "Correspondence between Patriarch of Alexandria Gerasimos Palladas and Christians of the Church of Antioch: Historical and Textological Aspects": Several decades preceding the split of the Church of Antioch into Orthodox and Catholic branches in 1724 are the least studied period in the early Modern history of the Orthodox Middle East. The authors present preliminary results of their joint project aiming at the commented edition and translation of the Arabic texts of the epistle sent in September 1702 by the Patriarch of Alexandria Gerasimos Palladas to the Orthodox community of Tripoli and the responses from the Christians of Tripoli and Aleppo. The correspondence, only partially edited, reflects intellectual life and ideological confrontation in the Church of Antioch in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. The main topic of the correspondence is a dispute on the moment of consecration of the Holy Gifts in the Divine Liturgy, which was one of the traditional themes of polemics between Orthodox and Catholic theologians. The view of the Orthodox Church, expressed by Patriarch Gerasimos, met strong objections from the Christians of Aleppo, probably influenced by Latin Church missionaries. This article analyses the historical background and the context of the correspondence as well as the features of the Arabic manuscript tradition of the Patriarch’s epistle. As a result of the collation of the manuscripts available, the authors identify two versions of the translation of Gerasimos’ epistle and define the features of stylistic revision of the text in the second recension.
Eastern Councils’ Definitions on the Establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in the context of O... more Eastern Councils’ Definitions on the Establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate in the context of Orthodox-Catholic controversy about the Headship in the Church The author further develops the approach, outlined in his previous publications, to the reconstruction of the history of the erection of the Moscow Patriarchate, this time clarifying the ideological background of the resolutions of the Council of Constantinople in 1593. As we find in the historiography, this Council is viewed as a failed attempt to achieve a higher place of Moscow in the order of patriarchal sees, what in turn belittles its importance and explains the lack of interest in the history and definitions of the Council. Such an attitude is associated with insufficient attention to the intra-Eastern polemic around the decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 1590 and to the position taken by the Patriarch of Alexandria Meletios Pegas. The author attempts to explain the reasons for the critical attitude of this authoritative in the East theologian and polemicist towards the decisions of the Council of 1590. According to this task, the author employs the history of Orthodox-Catholic relations at the end of the 16th century, focusing on the significance of the issue of headship within the Church in the political rhetoric and interreligious polemics of that period. The author demonstrates that this topic was essential for almost all events where the interests of rival Christian Churches collided: in the West and the Greco-Arab East, in the Kingdom of Poland and the Moscow Tsardom. The same theme was likewise present in the history of the rise of the Moscow See. The author summarizes views of Patriarch Meletios on the primacy and headship in the Church on the basis of his writings, explains what the Patriarch considered unacceptable in the tomos of the Council of 1590 and how he tried to correct the mistakes made in that tomos during the Council of 1593. The analysis proposed in the article clarifies the meaning of the act of the re-recognition of the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and leads to the conclusion that, despite the negative image of the Council of Constantinople of 1593 in Russian history, its definitions were more consistent with the true interests of the Moscow authorities and the principles that Orthodox polemicists defended confronted with aggressive Catholic expansion.
Establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and the councils of Constantinople in 1590 and 1593. The... more Establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and the councils of Constantinople in 1590 and 1593. The author presents a new outlook on the history of the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate with special attention to the conflict within the Greek East triggered by attempts to canonically legalize the new patriarchate. The author shows how the second Council of Constantinople in 1593 revised the decision of the Council in 1590, bringing down a large-scale Greek-Russian project, conceived in Moscow and implemented by Patriarch Jeremiah. The rejection of the synodal act of 1593 in Russia explains the prolonged fallout of the Council and its teaching from Muscovite historical memory. The late reception of the conciliar formulas favorable to the Russian Church predetermined the deformation of the image of the Council in Russian historiography.
В состав греческой хроники псевдо-Дорофея входит важный источник по истории учреждения московског... more В состав греческой хроники псевдо-Дорофея входит важный источник по истории учреждения московского патриаршества. Автор проясняет идейные цели, преследовавшиеся составителем или редакторами текста, а также причины его явной антирусской направленности. В качестве гипотезы выдвигается утверждение о связи данного эпизода с идейным конфликтом, вызванным неприятием на Руси решений Константинопольского собора 1593 г.
Причины и вызовы текущего кризиса межправославных отношений: Материалы научно-практической конференции (ПСТГУ, 25–26 февраля 2019 года). М., 2020. C. 77–96.
Доклад, прочитанный на конференции "Причины и вызовы текущего кризиса межправославных отношений" ... more Доклад, прочитанный на конференции "Причины и вызовы текущего кризиса межправославных отношений" (ПСТГУ, 25–26 февраля 2019 года).
Translation from the Russian original: Украинская автокефалия как начало реформы регионального ур... more Translation from the Russian original: Украинская автокефалия как начало реформы регионального уровня церковной структуры // Причины и вызовы текущего кризиса межправославных отношений: Материалы научно-практической конференции (ПСТГУ, 25–26 февраля 2019 года). М., 2020. C. 77–96.
В основу статьи положен текст доклада, прочитанного на заседании «Византийского клуба» в Белгород... more В основу статьи положен текст доклада, прочитанного на заседании «Византийского клуба» в Белгороде (НИУ «БелГУ») в апреле 2018 г.
Mikhail A. Novoselov’s ecclesiological views according to materials dating to 1920's.
The articl... more Mikhail A. Novoselov’s ecclesiological views according to materials dating to 1920's.
The article focuses on the discourse about the Church voiced by a well-known religious and public figure of the first half of the 20th century, a publisher and a writer, holy martyr Mikhail Novoselov (1864–1938). The authors bring together various ecclesiological passages mainly from the collection entitled “Letters to Friends” (1922–1927), form them into a system and specify its characteristic features. Their description starts from the two dimensions of the Church — Church as a living organism of the Truth (“Church as an organism”) and the structure of this organism based upon clear-cut formal rules which may seem outdated (“Church as an organization”). Novoselov also dwelt on the issues of ecclesiastical hierarchy and particularly the episcopate. He devoted special attention to the teaching authority of the hierarchy as well as to the problem of obedience in searching for the religious truth — the latter issue becoming of utmost importance to the writer, at the latest, during the onomatodoxy (‘Imiaslavie’) dispute in 1913. He also paid great attention to the role of laity in the Church and to the way of searching for the religious truth. The authors attempt to reconstruct the origin and resonance of Novoselov’s ideas through placing them within the context of his like-minded contemporaries and their views. The authors also make ample use of the unpublished sources and remembrances of those who knew M. A. Novoselov intimately. One of the conclusions at which the authors arrive is that Novoselov’s works present a well-thought-out model of the Church founded upon the intersection of its divine and human dimensions. The indicator of this coincidence of dimensions is the sainthood as a criterion of any true ecclesiastical experience, as well as martyrdom which becomes an important criterion at the time of persecutions. This reconstruction, interesting in itself, allows to pose the questions concerning that theological tradition in the framework of which Novoselov had been raised and with which he most sympathized, and concerning the import of this ecclesiology for the ecclesiastical life of the new epoch of martyrdom, when the “Letters to Friends” were composed.
Image of the Church in Works by Holy Martyr Damascene Tsedrik.
The principal direction in the dev... more Image of the Church in Works by Holy Martyr Damascene Tsedrik. The principal direction in the development of the Orthodox ecclesiology in the 20th century was, justifiably, the so-called “Eucharistic ecclesiology”, where the principal role in the structural organisation of the church is assigned to the Eucharistic community headed by a bishop. Valuable contributions to the formation of this theory were made by Russian theologians living abroad. The widely disseminated ideas of émigré theologians and their successors have to a certain extent overshadowed other models of the church which were developed during the first half of the 20th century by Russian New Martyrs. In exile and in jail, far away from churches, often concealing themselves from people and living amidst distrust and suspicion, many laypeople and clerics found themselves in a situation where no regular participation in one common Eucharistic gathering was possible and where there was often no communication with the bishop. It is evident that their ecclesiastical life could hardly be described in terms of the classical model of the Eucharistic ecclesiology, which implies that the community lives in normal conditions. Therefore expressing their experience of ecclesiastical communion, Russian New Martyrs made attempts at formulating alternative approaches applicable to the situation of persecution and internal instability within the church. An approach of this kind can be found in bishop Damascene Tsedrik’s works (martyred in 1937). St. Damascene’s view is rather similar to a pastoral model of the church where the church is conceived as a mystical union of believers formed through the “spiritual and grace-filled linkages between the shepherds and their flock”. The bishop hereby is presented as the archpastor, who guides rather than merely administrates spiritual life of believers. Within this approach, the “mass of believers” is considered to be the living body of the church, which in its wholeness is capable of reproducing the selfconscience of the church. This paper presents little-known theological insights of the Russian New Martyr.
The Controversy on the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the Orthodox Diasp... more The Controversy on the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the Orthodox Diaspora in the First Half of the 20th Century and its Outcome. One of the crucial challenges facing the Orthodox world is the necessity to regulate the canonical status of the Orthodox diaspora. The Council on Crete, held in 2016, accepted a relevant document and stated the willingness of all Orthodox Churches “to resolve the problem of the Orthodox diaspora and its organization in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church”. A model of a compromise that could reconcile the competing approaches of various Orthodox Churches has been long searched for. However, less and less attention is paid to the fact that the theory imposed by the Church of Constantinople is purely arbitrary and devoid of any solid reasons. Throughout the 20th century, it has been more than once challenged as pseudo-canonical. It is clear that any consensus based on erroneous theological assumptions will be leading to failure. This article is intended to show that the repeatedly refuted approach of the Church of Constantinople cannot help in formulating a truly canonical decision of the problem of diaspora.
“I believe it is possible for the Russian Church to accomplish a lot in the world”. The letters b... more “I believe it is possible for the Russian Church to accomplish a lot in the world”. The letters between the archbishop John (Shakhovskoy) and S.V. Troitsky.1954-1965. This publication introduces the correspondence of two well-known emigrant figures of Russian Orthodoxy of the XX century, preserved in the American and Serbian archives of the authors. The main theme of the correspondence is the status of the Russian Church in the United States and attempts to settle the canonical status of the Russian Metropolia in the post-war period. Some obscure aspects of the authors' personal life and their attitude to a number of crucial problems and significant events of the contemporary period are revealed. Of particular interest are canonical assessments, given to various cases discussed in the letters by prof. Troitsky, who was a renowned expert in the Orthodox canon law
The role of the Lausanne Peace Conference in the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as... more The role of the Lausanne Peace Conference in the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as reflected in the 20th-century Greek historiography: stereotypes and realities. The authors analyze the attitudes of Greek scholars towards the role of the Lausanne Peace Conference held in 1922–1923 in determining the fate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. Dealing with ecclesiastical as well as secular historiography, the authors single out a manifest tendency on the part of Greek historians towards subjectively viewing the historical data reconstructed by the authors of the present article on the basis of extant sources. The authors demonstrate that Greek scholarly literature abounds in assertions that the future fates of the Patriarchate were on the agenda of the Lausanne Conference from its very beginning, and that in the course of this Conference the terms upon which the Patriarchate could stay within Turkey and its new legal status were agreed upon; according to Greek scholars, the very fact of the Patriarchate issue emerging and being discussed during an international political conference claimed that this religious institution enjoyed a kind of international legal entity. The authors make it clear that the source of such attitudes is to be sought in the Greek government and in the stance of the leading hierarchs of the Greek Church who deemed it important to preserve at any cost the Greek ecclesiastical presence on the Turkish territory. It is precisely this goal that explains the attempt at raising the political weight of the Patriarchate of Constantinople using the authority of a major international event. In conclusion of their article, the authors cast doubts on the view that the Lausanne Peace Conference should be considered a chronological milestone in the history of the Church of Constantinople. Instead, they propose to postulate as such a milestone the emergence of the Turkish Republic and the concomitant transformation of political and religious institutions.
From ancient times the Patriarchate of Constantinople has played a significant role as one of the... more From ancient times the Patriarchate of Constantinople has played a significant role as one of the most important sees of the Orthodox world. However, by the beginning of the 1920s its existence was under threat of total elimination due to the loss of almost all its flock after the Greco-Turkish war. The ensuing political reforms in Turkey called into question the continued residence of the Patriarchate in Istanbul. A possible way out of this situation for the Patriarchate was to prove its special role in the Orthodox world, a role that demanded its preservation in its historical place. Fortunately, this idea coincided with the interests of the great powers. The Phanar’s claims at Pan-Orthodox leadership came as a reaction to the discussions about the possible expulsion of the Patriarch from Turkey, which were conducted within the framework of the peace conference at Lausanne. It was these discussions that created a favorable background for the conception of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as the center of the Orthodox world. The authors deal in the article with the interpretation of the role of the Patriarch by the participant countries in the Lausanne conference against the background of their struggle for their own political interests. The research is based on official diplomatic documents and periodical press.
Alongside the traditional for the Russian theological school concept that all primates of the Ort... more Alongside the traditional for the Russian theological school concept that all primates of the Orthodox Churches possess equal rights, from time to time there appear in Russia advocates of an alternative approach, who attempt at vesting the patriarch of Constantinople with special status within the Orthodox Church, a status implying certain privileges ensuing from his supposed leading position. Such attempts have always triggered strong opposition on the part of the adherents of the traditional doctrine. The most important conflict of these two opposing factions was the discussion at the end of the 19th century between two professors of canon law, Timofey Barsov and Alexey Pavlov. Prof. Barsov put forward a theory according to which in the first millennium of the Christian era the Patriarch of Constantinople was the head of the Christian Church and enjoyed such prerogatives of power, which distinguished him from all other Eastern Patriarchs. Such thinking met absolute rejection of Prof. Pavlov who strongly advocated the unchangeable norms of the canonical law and called Barsov’s ideas “a theory of the Eastern Popery”. The result of these discussions was judging Barsov’s theory as marginal and even non-Orthodox. However, in the 20th century the theory was caught up again and received further elaboration in the Greek theological school. The fact that Greek authors have appropriated the controversial conception of the Russian canonist reveals a weak point in the position of the Greek school and explains the critical attitude towards the theories of modern Greek theologians in Russia.
The author of this article describes the history of how Professor Timofey Barsov received his deg... more The author of this article describes the history of how Professor Timofey Barsov received his degree of Doctor of Canon Law. After a number of failed attempts to defend his dissertation in his native St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Barsov was forced to appeal to the Holy Synod. By the Synod’s decision, Barsov's dossier was transferred to Moscow Theological Academy, but its Academic Council also denied Barsov a doctoral degree. Finally the doctoral degree was conferred upon Barsov without defending a dissertation and despite the negative decisions of two Academic Councils. The author studies the reasons behind the rejection of Barsov’s work by the academies and the content of the criticism offered by his opponents.
Researchers have only recently begun to study in depth the influence of the Cold War on religion ... more Researchers have only recently begun to study in depth the influence of the Cold War on religion and Church politics, although those who lived at the time already remarked on the “political-religious” aspects of the conflict. The Orthodox Churches of the “Free World” were expected to form an anti-Communist religious front under the aegis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This idea was conceived principally by the US President Harry S. Truman. The US lent its support in 1948 to the forced resignation of Patriarch Maximos V and contributed to the election of his successor, Athenagoras (Spirou), formerly the Archbishop of North and South America. The new patriarch attempted to gear his foreign policies in conformity with the wishes of the United States government in the international arena. [French and Greek translations are available (see the links in metadata)].
26 декабря 2013 г. на заседании Священного синода Русской Православной Церкви был принят документ... more 26 декабря 2013 г. на заседании Священного синода Русской Православной Церкви был принят документ «Позиция Московского Патриархата по вопросу о первенстве во Вселенской Церкви». Вскоре после этого, 7 января 2014 г., на официальном сайте Константинопольской Церкви был опубликован «Ответ на “Позицию Московского Патриархата по вопросу о первенстве во Вселенской Церкви”», подписанный именем митрополита Прусского Елпидофора (Ламбриниадиса). Публикуемый ныне текст был написан в марте 2014 г., однако по ряду причин автор не смог тогда же придать его огласке. Сейчас, когда острота дискуссии относительно спала, автор все же решился опубликовать свои соображения уже не столько в целях полемики, сколько ради чисто академического интереса.
The author examines the question of who has the right to convoke a Pan-Orthodox Council with refe... more The author examines the question of who has the right to convoke a Pan-Orthodox Council with references to contemporary historical circumstances. He proves that this right never exclusively belonged to the Patriarch of Constantinople, technically the first among equals, and this was accepted by some among Greeks. The attempt to grant this right to the Patriarch of Constantinople stems from the situation shaped just after the fall of the Russian Empire when a battle for primacy started to unfold. On the other hand, the idea of a collective convocation of a future Pan-Orthodox Council developed during the first half of the twentieth century. In spite of this, representatives of the Orthodox Churches agreed in 1968 that the right to convoke the hypothetical council did indeed belong to the Patriarch of Constantinople but always with prior agreement of the chief hierarchs of other autocephalous churches. The author shows that this decision was reached as a type of temporary compromise solution rather than a logical conclusion of previous discussions.
Primacy in the church: the office of primate and the authority of councils 137 никновения. По мыс... more Primacy in the church: the office of primate and the authority of councils 137 никновения. По мысли Бёрнса, рассматриваемые тексты были хорошо знакомы в школе Плотина, и именно их имел в виду греческий философ, когда писал «Против гностиков». Более того, автор предполагает, что сами эти тексты были написаны учениками Плотина, равно хорошо знавшими современную иудеохристианскую мысль и философию своей школы, с подачи Порфирия против них было начато гонение, одним из следствий которого и стал известный трактат «Против гностиков».
Uploads
Books by Pavel Ermilov
Коллективная монография посвящена комплексному изучению происхождения понятия первенства и сфер его употребления. Исследование ведется методами исторического, филологического, богословского, юридического и церковно-правового анализа. Авторы раскрывают античное происхождение понятия первенства, описывают последующее его бытование на протяжении Средних веков, Нового и отчасти Новейшего времени, анализируют употребление понятия первенства в широком круге источников и наряду с другими смежными понятиями, такими как старшинство и председательство. Особое внимание уделяется современным церковным дискуссиям вокруг темы первенства. Ряд глав посвящен реализации принципа первенства Константинопольской кафедры в разные исторические эпохи.
Papers by Pavel Ermilov
The author further develops the approach, outlined in his previous publications, to the reconstruction of the history of the erection of the Moscow Patriarchate, this time clarifying the ideological background of the resolutions of the Council of Constantinople in 1593. As we find in the historiography, this Council is viewed as a failed attempt to achieve a higher place of Moscow in the order of patriarchal sees, what in turn belittles its importance and explains the lack of interest in the history and definitions of the Council. Such an attitude is associated with insufficient attention to the intra-Eastern polemic around the decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 1590 and to the position taken by the Patriarch of Alexandria Meletios Pegas. The author attempts to explain the reasons for the critical attitude of this authoritative in the East theologian and polemicist towards the decisions of the Council of 1590. According to this task, the author employs the history of Orthodox-Catholic relations at the end of the 16th century, focusing on the significance of the issue of headship within the Church in the political rhetoric and interreligious polemics of that period. The author demonstrates that this topic was essential for almost all events where the interests of rival Christian Churches collided: in the West and the Greco-Arab East, in the Kingdom of Poland and the Moscow Tsardom. The same theme was likewise present in the history of the rise of the Moscow See. The author summarizes views of Patriarch Meletios on the primacy and headship in the Church on the basis of his writings, explains what the Patriarch considered unacceptable in the tomos of the Council of 1590 and how he tried to correct the mistakes made in that tomos during the Council of 1593. The analysis proposed in the article clarifies the meaning of the act of the re-recognition of the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and leads to the conclusion that, despite the negative image of the Council of Constantinople of 1593 in Russian history, its definitions were more consistent with the true interests of the Moscow authorities and the principles that Orthodox polemicists defended confronted with aggressive Catholic expansion.
The article focuses on the discourse about the Church voiced by a well-known religious and public figure of the first half of the 20th century, a publisher and a writer, holy martyr Mikhail Novoselov (1864–1938). The authors bring together various ecclesiological passages mainly from the collection entitled “Letters to Friends” (1922–1927), form them into a system and specify its characteristic features. Their description starts from the two dimensions of the Church — Church as a living organism of the Truth (“Church as an organism”) and the structure of this organism based upon clear-cut formal rules which may seem outdated (“Church as an organization”). Novoselov also dwelt on the issues of ecclesiastical hierarchy and particularly the episcopate. He devoted special attention to the teaching authority of the hierarchy as well as to the problem of obedience in searching for the religious truth — the latter issue becoming of utmost importance to the writer, at the latest, during the onomatodoxy (‘Imiaslavie’) dispute in 1913. He also paid great attention to the role of laity in the Church and to the way of searching for the religious truth. The authors attempt to reconstruct the origin and resonance of Novoselov’s ideas through placing them within the context of his like-minded contemporaries and their views. The authors also make ample use of the unpublished sources and remembrances of those who knew M. A. Novoselov intimately. One of the conclusions at which the authors arrive is that Novoselov’s works present a well-thought-out model of the Church founded upon the intersection of its divine and human dimensions. The indicator of this coincidence of dimensions is the sainthood as a criterion of any true ecclesiastical experience, as well as martyrdom which becomes an important criterion at the time of persecutions. This reconstruction, interesting in itself, allows to pose the questions concerning that theological tradition in the framework of which Novoselov had been raised and with which he most sympathized, and concerning the import of this ecclesiology for the ecclesiastical life of the new epoch of martyrdom, when the “Letters to Friends” were composed.
The principal direction in the development of the Orthodox ecclesiology in the 20th century was, justifiably, the so-called “Eucharistic ecclesiology”, where the principal role in the structural organisation of the church is assigned to the Eucharistic community headed by a bishop. Valuable contributions to the formation of this theory were made by Russian theologians living abroad. The widely disseminated ideas of émigré theologians and their successors have to a certain extent overshadowed other models of the church which were developed during the first half of the 20th century by Russian New Martyrs. In exile and in jail, far away from churches, often concealing themselves from people and living amidst distrust and suspicion, many laypeople and clerics found themselves in a situation where no regular participation in one common Eucharistic gathering was possible and where there was often no communication with the bishop. It is evident that their ecclesiastical life could hardly be described in terms of the classical model of the Eucharistic ecclesiology, which implies that the community lives in normal conditions. Therefore expressing their experience of ecclesiastical communion, Russian New Martyrs made attempts at formulating alternative approaches applicable to the situation of persecution and internal instability within the church. An approach of this kind can be found in bishop Damascene Tsedrik’s works (martyred in 1937). St. Damascene’s view is rather similar to a pastoral model of the church where the church is conceived as a mystical union of believers formed through the “spiritual and grace-filled linkages between the shepherds and their flock”. The bishop hereby is presented as the archpastor, who guides rather than merely administrates spiritual life of believers. Within this approach, the “mass of believers” is considered to be the living body of the church, which in its wholeness is capable of reproducing the selfconscience of the church. This paper presents little-known theological insights of the Russian New Martyr.
background of their struggle for their own political interests. The research is based on official diplomatic documents and periodical press.
Коллективная монография посвящена комплексному изучению происхождения понятия первенства и сфер его употребления. Исследование ведется методами исторического, филологического, богословского, юридического и церковно-правового анализа. Авторы раскрывают античное происхождение понятия первенства, описывают последующее его бытование на протяжении Средних веков, Нового и отчасти Новейшего времени, анализируют употребление понятия первенства в широком круге источников и наряду с другими смежными понятиями, такими как старшинство и председательство. Особое внимание уделяется современным церковным дискуссиям вокруг темы первенства. Ряд глав посвящен реализации принципа первенства Константинопольской кафедры в разные исторические эпохи.
The author further develops the approach, outlined in his previous publications, to the reconstruction of the history of the erection of the Moscow Patriarchate, this time clarifying the ideological background of the resolutions of the Council of Constantinople in 1593. As we find in the historiography, this Council is viewed as a failed attempt to achieve a higher place of Moscow in the order of patriarchal sees, what in turn belittles its importance and explains the lack of interest in the history and definitions of the Council. Such an attitude is associated with insufficient attention to the intra-Eastern polemic around the decisions of the Council of Constantinople in 1590 and to the position taken by the Patriarch of Alexandria Meletios Pegas. The author attempts to explain the reasons for the critical attitude of this authoritative in the East theologian and polemicist towards the decisions of the Council of 1590. According to this task, the author employs the history of Orthodox-Catholic relations at the end of the 16th century, focusing on the significance of the issue of headship within the Church in the political rhetoric and interreligious polemics of that period. The author demonstrates that this topic was essential for almost all events where the interests of rival Christian Churches collided: in the West and the Greco-Arab East, in the Kingdom of Poland and the Moscow Tsardom. The same theme was likewise present in the history of the rise of the Moscow See. The author summarizes views of Patriarch Meletios on the primacy and headship in the Church on the basis of his writings, explains what the Patriarch considered unacceptable in the tomos of the Council of 1590 and how he tried to correct the mistakes made in that tomos during the Council of 1593. The analysis proposed in the article clarifies the meaning of the act of the re-recognition of the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate and leads to the conclusion that, despite the negative image of the Council of Constantinople of 1593 in Russian history, its definitions were more consistent with the true interests of the Moscow authorities and the principles that Orthodox polemicists defended confronted with aggressive Catholic expansion.
The article focuses on the discourse about the Church voiced by a well-known religious and public figure of the first half of the 20th century, a publisher and a writer, holy martyr Mikhail Novoselov (1864–1938). The authors bring together various ecclesiological passages mainly from the collection entitled “Letters to Friends” (1922–1927), form them into a system and specify its characteristic features. Their description starts from the two dimensions of the Church — Church as a living organism of the Truth (“Church as an organism”) and the structure of this organism based upon clear-cut formal rules which may seem outdated (“Church as an organization”). Novoselov also dwelt on the issues of ecclesiastical hierarchy and particularly the episcopate. He devoted special attention to the teaching authority of the hierarchy as well as to the problem of obedience in searching for the religious truth — the latter issue becoming of utmost importance to the writer, at the latest, during the onomatodoxy (‘Imiaslavie’) dispute in 1913. He also paid great attention to the role of laity in the Church and to the way of searching for the religious truth. The authors attempt to reconstruct the origin and resonance of Novoselov’s ideas through placing them within the context of his like-minded contemporaries and their views. The authors also make ample use of the unpublished sources and remembrances of those who knew M. A. Novoselov intimately. One of the conclusions at which the authors arrive is that Novoselov’s works present a well-thought-out model of the Church founded upon the intersection of its divine and human dimensions. The indicator of this coincidence of dimensions is the sainthood as a criterion of any true ecclesiastical experience, as well as martyrdom which becomes an important criterion at the time of persecutions. This reconstruction, interesting in itself, allows to pose the questions concerning that theological tradition in the framework of which Novoselov had been raised and with which he most sympathized, and concerning the import of this ecclesiology for the ecclesiastical life of the new epoch of martyrdom, when the “Letters to Friends” were composed.
The principal direction in the development of the Orthodox ecclesiology in the 20th century was, justifiably, the so-called “Eucharistic ecclesiology”, where the principal role in the structural organisation of the church is assigned to the Eucharistic community headed by a bishop. Valuable contributions to the formation of this theory were made by Russian theologians living abroad. The widely disseminated ideas of émigré theologians and their successors have to a certain extent overshadowed other models of the church which were developed during the first half of the 20th century by Russian New Martyrs. In exile and in jail, far away from churches, often concealing themselves from people and living amidst distrust and suspicion, many laypeople and clerics found themselves in a situation where no regular participation in one common Eucharistic gathering was possible and where there was often no communication with the bishop. It is evident that their ecclesiastical life could hardly be described in terms of the classical model of the Eucharistic ecclesiology, which implies that the community lives in normal conditions. Therefore expressing their experience of ecclesiastical communion, Russian New Martyrs made attempts at formulating alternative approaches applicable to the situation of persecution and internal instability within the church. An approach of this kind can be found in bishop Damascene Tsedrik’s works (martyred in 1937). St. Damascene’s view is rather similar to a pastoral model of the church where the church is conceived as a mystical union of believers formed through the “spiritual and grace-filled linkages between the shepherds and their flock”. The bishop hereby is presented as the archpastor, who guides rather than merely administrates spiritual life of believers. Within this approach, the “mass of believers” is considered to be the living body of the church, which in its wholeness is capable of reproducing the selfconscience of the church. This paper presents little-known theological insights of the Russian New Martyr.
background of their struggle for their own political interests. The research is based on official diplomatic documents and periodical press.