Is the doctrine of the Church as a section dogmatic theology and as an element of theology of this or that St. father.
From the point of view of Orthodox ecclesiology, any deviation both from the faith of the Church (heresy) and from the divinely instituted structure of the Church (schism) will inevitably lead to a break with the Church. This break is ascertained by the Church in anathematization, that is, a statement about the impossibility for the Church to bear further responsibility for this or that heretic or schismatic who stagnates in his rejection.
see also
Links
- K. H. Felmi. Development of Traditional Orthodox Ecclesiology
- K. H. Felmi. Eucharistic ecclesiology of Fr. Nikolay Afanasyev
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
- MPO North-West
- SFF Siberia
See what "Ecclesiology" is in other dictionaries:
ecclesiology- n., number of synonyms: 2 theology (11) ecclesiology (1) ASIS synonym dictionary. V.N. Trishin. 2013 ... Synonym dictionary
ecclesiology- ecclesiolo / guia, and ... Together. Apart. Hyphened.
Ecclesiology- ♦ (ENG ecclesiology) (from the Greek. Ekklësia church and logos doctrine) biblical and theological teaching about the church. Different images of the church are presented in the New Testament, so the early church strove for self-understanding in the light of the Gospel and controversy ... ...
Ecclesiology- English: Ecclesiology Teaching about the nature and ministry of the church ... Dictionary of theological terms
Ecclesiology- (from the Greek "doctrine of the Church") a section of theology dealing with the clarification of the mystical meaning and salvific purpose of the Church of Christ ... Orthodoxy. Reference dictionary
ECCLESIOLOGY (Greek EKKLE-SIA - church and LOGOS - teaching)- in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, theological. teaching about the church as deities. establishment, about its role, functions and prerogatives. Most elaborated in Catholicism ... Atheistic Dictionary
ECCLESIOLOGY BIBLICAL- see the Church and the Holy Scriptures ... Bibliological dictionary
Pneumatic Ecclesiology- ♦ (ENG pneumatic ecclesiology) recognition that the church is built and supported only by the Holy Spirit ... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms
ecclesiology- Ecclesiology ... Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms
SUPREME CHURCH AUTHORITY- the supreme power in the Ecumenical or autocephalous Local Church. According to Orthodoxy. creed, the Head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph 5:23; Col 1:18). However, in the earthly, historical being, the Church is like Christ. community or collection of communities ... Orthodox encyclopedia
Books
- Buy for 926 rubles
- Eucharistic Ecclesiology Today. Perception, embodiment, development,. Eucharistic ecclesiology protopres. Nikolai Afanasyev, during her conversion in the theological and church-practical plane, collected a wide variety of reviews, managed to undergo ...
What makes a church truly a church? What lifestyle is in line with her New Testament calling and the needs of our time? How can we build bridges between the brilliant theological insights of the 20th century and the modern practice of church life? The theological symposium, which was held on May 10-12 by the St. Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute, was devoted to the comprehension of such questions.
The starting point for reflection was Eucharistic ecclesiology - created in the 20th century by the outstanding Orthodox theologian Protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasyev, the reconstruction of the norm of church life, an attempt to break through age-old layers and distortions to the original spiritual experience ancient church, which the early Christian texts convey to us.
Widely accepted not only in the Orthodox, but also in the Catholic world, the prophetic intuition of Father Nicholas gave a powerful impetus to the spiritual renewal of church life. Not only because it became an alternative to the prevailing universal ecclesiology, which emphasized the external hierarchical structure of the church, but also because it gave food for thought to theologians and church leaders who, after Fr. difficult questions.
The key one is the question of the Eucharistic assembly itself. How does it arise? Where are its borders? Who can be considered a member of such an assembly? Indeed, in his reconstruction Afanasyev describes not just some kind of church, not a church of the catechumens, not a church of seekers, but what he called the “church of the faithful” - a collection of people who give their hearts to God and do His work in the world.
Rooted in the spiritual experience of church revival experienced by the leaders of the Russian emigration, Fr. Nicholas's theological intuition says that the Church that he sees is not just an ideal. The search for a primordial evangelical life coming from Christ, which has a universal, constitutive significance for the church, imparts prophetic power and persuasiveness to the theology of Fr.
But, willingly or unwillingly, the boundaries of this longed-for Church find themselves outside the boundaries of the present church reality, remaining, in the words of one of the conference participants, “in the area of God's hope”.
In search of the undead church
Father Nicholas wanted to see the people of God in the church - "laiks", not "biotics", not "everyday", questioning the very possibility of using the word "laity". As the rector of the SFI reminded, “it is impossible to call the members of the Eucharistic assembly laity:“ laikos ”is not translated as a layman, it is a member of the people of God, and when we talk about the royal priesthood, we do not mean laymen,“ worldly, ”“ worldly ”."
Can such a congregation be found or created in modern parish practice? What constitutes an ecclesiastical assembly, how are its boundaries determined? How is the search for God conceived, what is meant by the participation of a Christian in the life of the church, what is this life itself?
Modern parish experience, to a large extent focused around rituals and sacraments, understood in an individualistic way, as a path to health and well-being, is rather focused on serving the everyday needs of "biotics" and "cosmic". The everyday-ritual paradigm of church life leads to the fact that both the requirements for members of the church meeting, and its boundaries are built according to the ritual criterion and quite consumerist, completely coinciding with the logic of this world. In practice, a person is considered a Christian if he was, from a ritual point of view, more or less normally baptized and with some periodicity receives communion and confessions (despite the fact that the quality and frequency of confession and its connection with life constitute a separate big question).
With such accents, the waves of this world wash away meaningful, meaningful things, and if someone wants to live by them, then he lives by them, as it were, separately, remaining deprived of church communication. A person with an "undead" request who is in spiritual quest, cannot come to the truth without Christ and the gathering of His disciples and is forced, in the expression, "to seek the Church in the church." The parish meeting itself rather needs an intelligible word about Christ and an example of the Christian life than is able to say this word to an external person.
A person wants to find a channel for the flow of the unceasing life of Christ, filled with the gospel spirit and meaning, in order to be nourished with His life and enter into its depths. However, in the parish, he is more likely to find a boundary between the altar and the temple, or between the church-corporation, which provides ritual services, and the church of the laity "biotics" - the consumers of these services.
Body contours
In 20th century theology, the question of the boundaries of the Church was one of the main ones. Father Sergiy Bulgakov and Father Georgy Florovsky, reflecting on the "contours of the church body", distinguished between its mystical boundaries, which include the entire universe, and the empirical (canonical) boundaries of the local community. This distinction (churches with a capital and a small letter) was widely accepted. Father Nikolai Afanasyev, while maintaining this distinction, shifted the emphasis from canonical boundaries to mystical ones, which gave impetus to the development of interfaith dialogue, since he recognized the validity of the sacraments beyond the canonical boundaries of Orthodoxy.
But if the mystical Church of Christ is revealed in the Eucharist, does this mean that she - "Una Sancta", "Laos", "Church of the faithful" - is created by the performance of this sacrament?
Archpriest Alexander Lavrin recalled the discussion that unfolded several years ago around the question of the frequency of communion, and as a result of which many agreed that it makes sense to come to the Liturgy precisely for the sake of conciliar communion. But reflecting on how this affected the meeting, Father Alexander remarked that “although understanding new information can force a person to search and understand thoughtfully, it cannot by itself change his relationship with God and neighbor, which is the basis of spiritual life. ". “If there is no movement in this direction, then frequent communion does not bear fruit,” said Father Alexander. - Man still continues to live by himself, a completely mundane external life.
This contradiction is resolved by a closer examination of the issue of the boundaries of the Church, said the rector of the SFI. He emphasized that along with the mystical and canonical, it is necessary to distinguish between the mysterious boundaries of the church, which should not be identified with the mystical: the sacraments by themselves do not lead to the birth of the Eucharistic community.
Father George recalled that the ancient church relied on the prophetic ministry, the ministry of the word, and it is likely that it was this that formed the congregation capable of bringing thanksgiving "with one heart and one mouth." The modern church life, in which the prophetic component is not realized and is often diminished by false humility, gives little grounds for hopes for the revival of “the central ministries characteristic of the ancient church,” Fr George believes. However, “where there is freedom of the spirit, there is the Church, and the saints, and the communion of the gifts of the spirit,” he is sure, and church services related to the disclosure of the spirit and meaning of Christian life, such as teaching life by faith, preaching in a church meeting, the comprehension of the secrets of faith is undoubtedly involved in the prophetic gift.
The sacramental myth of the Eucharist
Professor of the Aristotelian University in Thessaloniki Petros Vasiliadis, commenting on the idea of Fr. George about the need to distinguish between mystical and mysterious boundaries of the Church, confirmed that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Greek concept of "mystery." In early Christian texts, it does not mean a sacrament, but God's plan for the salvation and transformation of the world, the boundaries of which, in the limit, must coincide with the boundaries of the Church. He recalled that the ancient church just distanced itself from the understanding of the Eucharist as a “sacramental cult,” and in this sense, the lack of distinction between the mystical and mysterious boundaries of the church really introduces a fair amount of confusion.
According to Professor Vasiliadis, baptismal ecclesiology (the theological development of Father John Erickson) is more fruitful, which more precisely articulates the qualitative boundaries of the Church, focusing on the problem of the very first and only real consecration to the people of God that occurs, or at least should take place, in baptism.
2nd or 20th century?
The dean of the Holy Vladimir Seminary in New York, Archpriest John Baer, who took part in the conference in absentia, connects the emphasis on the Eucharist, which Afanasyev, and other figures of emigration did, with the unique spiritual experience they experienced. In this sense, Eucharistic ecclesiology reflects not so much the realities of the 2nd century, which Father Nicholas tried to reconstruct, as their special reading by theologians of the 20th century, says Father John. At the same time, he expressed the idea that reducing the question of the boundaries of the Church to the administration of the sacraments somehow returns to the territorial-parish principle and episcopal ecclesiology.
Dear sisters and brothers!
According to many modern theologians, one of the hottest issues in the field of ecclesiology is the question of the ministry of lay people (more precisely, laiks). And the most significant gap between theology and life here, as Professor Vasiliadis says, concerns the ministry of women. Judging by the New Testament texts, for the ancient church there was no problem at all, the ministry of women was a fact that did not require justification. Discussions did not begin until the second century, when the church began to grow into the traditional structure of Roman society. The reconstruction of the ideas about the place of the sisters in the ancient church according to the New Testament texts was presented by the senior lecturer of the SFI Gleb Yastrebov.
Of course, ecclesiology is a local phenomenon, an attempt by such an insignificant minority as the church to “measure its own pulse”, to comprehend its path and vocation in the world. But in essence, we are talking about the quality of that small amount of salt, which is designed to protect the world from decay and make a person similar to himself (and therefore, at least remotely resembling the Creator). And in order to respond to this vocation, it is so important for the church to periodically remind itself that it is not provided with the "correct" sacraments or a special sacred structure, but by the fact that here a person discovers an inextricable connection with God and neighbor - his only chance to come to his senses and become partakers of eternity.
The SFI scientific and theological symposium "Eucharistic Ecclesiology Today: Perception, Incarnation, Development" was attended by 97 people from eight countries, 25 cities and 18 dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as from the Greek Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church in America. The conference was attended by representatives of ten secular and theological educational and scientific institutions. During the symposium, two round tables were held, 14 reports were presented.
Sofia Androsenko
Photo by Alexander Volkov, Evgeny Gurko, Kirill Mozgov, Oleg Svechnikov
Name
"Eucharistic ecclesiology" called his teaching about. Nikolay Afanasyev. Over time, this name was established in the theological direction represented by the names of Afanasyev himself, his disciple and successor, Fr. Alexander Schmemann and the Greek theologian John Zizioulas (now Metropolitan of Pergamon in the Patriarchate of Constantinople).
Although, when discussing the problems raised in the works of these three authors, it is convenient to use the now traditional name "Eucharistic ecclesiology", it should be noted that it is conditional and reflects the content of their theology is incomplete. Already Afanasyev's theology goes beyond ecclesiology alone. The work of Schmemann and Zizioulas goes even further beyond them. Actually "Eucharistic ecclesiology" in the works of the three named authors is the starting point for broader theology. Schmemann, for example, is more likely to refer to his subject matter as liturgical theology. Perhaps it would be more correct to speak in relation to this trend about "Eucharistic theology", but I am not sure that it is worth introducing a new name instead of the usual old one.
"Eucharistic ecclesiology" - conveying its content in the most concise manner - insists on the primacy of the Eucharist and the Eucharistic assembly for the existence of the church. She claims that the church is incarnated, actualized in the Eucharistic assembly, and where there is none, there is no church either. In other words, she identifies, first and foremost, the church with the Eucharist. This identification, which often serves as a reason for criticism of "Eucharistic ecclesiology" and, as a rule, is exaggerated by its critics, does not mean a denial of other manifestations of the church. It only emphasizes that O the essence of the church, and th O an attribute without which the church cannot exist, and without which it continues to remain a church.
Such in and The concept of the church may seem new, unexpected and even strange, but this happens only against the background of a different perception of the church that has dominated now and for many centuries - as an institution, ideology, and a "sanctuary." In fact, this is "new" in and There is, according to the remark of Archbishop Peter Lulier (by the word of the former Bishop of Korsun in the Moscow Patriarchate), the ecclesiology of the Scriptures and the Ancient Church. To return to the original and still preserved in the depths of Orthodoxy - and, above all, in its liturgical tradition - the perception of the church does not need any reform. He needs a "change of mind", a critical and creative look at his own tradition. Orthodoxy needs to see in its tradition that which constitutes its real meaning, to get rid of the "historical sediment" (Afanasyev), "historical scales" (Schmemann), which fetters our church, and to abandon the late strata distorting this meaning - "customs without truth" ( St. Cyprian of Carthage).
I will not refrain from citing two reviews of people who are well acquainted with Fr. Nikolai Afanasyev on the significance of his "Eucharistic ecclesiology". These reviews can be attributed without hesitation to the entire theological direction as a whole.
“Those who have seriously familiarized themselves with his work, with his works, can directly, fearlessly say that after Khomyakov, in the entire Orthodox world, in the field of teaching about the Church (ecclesiology), no one has yet said such a weighty word as Father Nikolai Afanasyev. And therefore he alone created in this area, in modern times, a theological school. Almost all of his former students followed him, and one might think that the time is not so far away, that all the most essential that is said to them about the Church will become common Orthodox teaching. "
Bp. Alexander (Semyonov Tyan-Shansky)
"I am sure that when the time comes to sum up the results, when history puts everyone in their true places, the words spoken by him, and the paths open to them, will be more important and more significant than many things that more amazed the imagination and more dominated the minds. And his small, always impeccably constructed, but seemingly dry sketches will turn out to be, in the end, "volumes are much heavier" "
Prot. Alexander Schmemann
Work
If I were asked what one the book presents "Eucharistic ecclesiology" most vividly, I would call Schmemann's "Eucharist: The Sacrament of the Kingdom".
Other major works that are important for understanding this trend are "The Church of the Holy Spirit" and "The Lord's Trapeza" by Afanasyev, "Diaries" by Schmemann, "The Church and the Eucharist" by Zizioulas.
A more extensive list of literature on "Eucharistic ecclesiology" includes the following works (I indicate only the output of the first editions; for the works of Afanasyev and Schmemann, as a rule, there are reprints; most of the named works are available on the Internet):
Nikolay Afanasiev
"The Lord's Meal". Paris, 1952.- One of the "program" works of Fr. Nicholas. The main publication before The Church of the Holy Spirit, setting out the key ideas of “Eucharistic ecclesiology”.
Entry into the Church. Paris, 1952 (revised edition: Moscow: Palomnik, 1993). - Lectures about. Nicholas about baptism.
Church of the Holy Spirit. Paris: YMKA-Press, 1971.- The main work of Afanasyev, which is an exposition of the history of early Christianity from the point of view of "Eucharistic ecclesiology".Here the ideas of the latter are presented most fully. This is a difficult book for the modern reader, because the categories in which Fr. Nikolai talks about the church,unusual for the current church consciousness. The work is replete with fresh ideas and, correctly understood, can make a real revolution in the perception of the church.
Alexander Schmemann
An Introduction to Liturgical Theology. Paris: YMKA-Press, 1971. A brief outline of the formation of the liturgical tradition of Orthodoxy, indicating the main problems and metamorphoses inherent in this process.
For the life of the world. New York, 1983. A short introduction to Orthodoxy, written initially for an American, predominantly Protestant audience, but useful not only for them. English version: For the Life of the World. New York, 1963 .
The Eucharist: The Sacrament Of The Kingdom. Paris, 1984. The last book of Fr. Alexandra, his will. It will not be news to say that the Eucharist is the central theme of Eucharistic ecclesiology.
By Water and Spirit: On the Sacrament of Baptism. M., 1993. Translated from the English original (1974).
Diaries. ! 973-1983. Moscow: Russian way, 2005. Not a theological treatise, but nevertheless one of the most influential theological books of our time.
John Zizioulas
The Church and the Eucharist: A Collection of Articles on Orthodox Ecclesiology. Mother of God-Sergius Hermitage, 2009. Here the main ideas of Zizioulas are consonant with the thoughts of Afanasyev and Schmemann.
Today in our country everyone can talk about the Church "and not laziness." Any journalist, even one who knows only the first phrase of the prayer "Our Father", becomes an expert in the field of ecclesiology. The deputies decide issues of "church politics" without even realizing that these two words cannot coexist with each other in principle.
Ecclesiological heresy is eating away at the souls of contemporaries. Its essence is one but there are many subspecies. This includes such concepts as "God is in my soul, why do I need intermediaries", "Christian liberalism" where heresy has become "theological opinion", "the church is a social institution." The list goes on. Regardless of the names and differences, they are all deadly to the soul.
What is the "Church" in essence? Unfortunately, our experience suggests that not all professionals in the field of religion understand what the Church is. Let's try to recall the basic foundations of Orthodox ecclesiology.
The basis for understanding the essence of the Church was the words of the Apostle Paul - the Church - the BODY of CHRIST. A very important comparative text of his First Epistle to the Corinthians. In one case (1 Cor. 10: 16-17) the Apostle Paul calls the Eucharistic Bread the Body of Christ, and right there in (1 Cor. 12:27) he calls the local church (or community) the Body of Christ. What is important is that in both cases, ap. Paul means the same thing. Namely, the community is the same Body of Christ as the Eucharist.
According to the Apostle Paul, Christ lives in the Eucharistic assembly of believers just as he is present in his Eucharistic Gifts - Bread and Wine. Every local Church is the Body of Christ. It is through the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ that we become members of His resurrected Body. It is important to understand - not some part of Him, but the whole Body. Consequently - EVERY ECHARIST CONGRESS IS A CHURCH IN ALL ITS FULLY.
The first important conclusion that we must draw is that the Church cannot be made up of parts. The expression “part of the Universal Church” or “its component” is not accurate. The body of Christ is not divided into parts. When we say that the Orthodox Church consists of fifteen Local Churches, we must understand that they relate not as a sum of terms, but as a unity of identity. For example, the Georgian, Bulgarian, Greek Church is not three Churches, but One. The expression Russian Orthodox Church, or Ukrainian, Serbian stands for One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church located on the territory of Russia, Ukraine, Serbia, etc. At the same time, for its believers and clergy, the status of these local churches, such as patriarchy, autonomy or metropolitanate, in fact, have no soterological significance. Only one thing matters - the truth of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ.
According to Ignatius of Antioch: "Only that Eucharist should be considered true, which is performed by the bishop or by those to whom he himself has given it." Therefore: "where there is a bishop, there must be a people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." The head of the local community personifies its unity. Initially, the first of the elders was such a primate. It was to them that the prayer of thanksgiving was recited, which is known to us as the Eucharistic Canon. For Saint Ignatius of Antioch, the Church and the Eucharistic assembly are identical concepts. Each of them is the Church in its entirety.
Over time, the situation began to change. The head of the local church today is the bishop, and the elders are delegated to him as the heads of the Eucharistic assemblies. The local Church is a diocese. and the Eucharistic assembly is a parish. This change took place after the bishop had several Eucharistic communities under his control.
But empirically, it is the parish that continues to be the only visible "ecclesia" for believers. The diocese is more perceived by them as an administrative link. Therefore, many of the functions of the bishop were transferred to the presbyter. Today he is a regular worshiper, pastor and mentor of the church, and these are all those functions that belonged to the bishop in the early Church. The ancient Church did not begin to increase the number of episcopal sees, but preferred to single out parishes, especially in the countryside. Thus, the parish began to receive its catholicity in the higher diocese.
Prot. Alexander Schmemann in his essay "The Eucharist" writes that despite the changes that have taken place in church consciousness, the idea of shepherding is still connected with the presbyter. The priest is the "father" and the bishop is the "lord." The bishop began to be perceived more as an administrator, head of the clergy, and a priest as a “father”. This is due to the fact that the main thing in the Church has always been not the hierarchical structure, but the Chalice of Christ. Because only in her, and through her, is the union of Christians with the Risen Christ, and in Him with each other. And there is no other mechanism for obtaining this unity. This fact is the foundation of all our ecclesiology. She has always been and will be eucharist-centered.
Today we cannot equate the local Church with the parish, as it was during the holy days. Ignatius of Antioch. The priestly-led local community lacks the essential attributes of the Church. There is not only a bishop, but also a college of elders, and often a deacon. There are times when a priest serves even without lay people, which contradicts the essence and meaning of the Eucharistic assembly. But for the Orthodox Church it was important to preserve all the characteristics of church fullness, therefore, it is the diocese that becomes the Body of Christ about which the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians. The modern practice of increasing the number of dioceses and, accordingly, the episcopate speaks of an emerging trend of convergence with the practice of the ancient church, which implied that the place of the current dean is taken by the bishop whose main concern is the Eucharistic ministry.
According to the concept of Eucharistic ecclesiology, a priest (bishop, presbyter, deacon) accepts the authority and charisma of ordination not for himself, but for serving the people of God. The grace that a priest receives at his ordination is given to those who need it. Those. it is a Gift for others. It is impossible to pose the question somehow: “what gives the ordination to a priest”? It is correct to pose the question: "What relation does the ordination put a priest to the community"?
The ministry of a clergyman is a ministry to the unity of the local, and therefore catholic, Church. An ordained presbyter, like a bishop, depicts and actualizes the priesthood of the people of God. The priestly people of God cannot exist without the primate, but even the primate of the Eucharistic assembly cannot act priestly without the people of God. Therefore, the ordination of a priest must be confirmed by the consent of the people.
For each Eucharistic assembly, when the Eucharist is celebrated with the bishop, all catholic fullness is present. This assembly is dependent on other similar Eucharistic assemblies and cannot exist on its own. Thus, the unity of all local Churches woven in the image of the unity of the Holy Trinity. None of the Divine Hypostases is more or less Divine than others, and none of them is a part of the Divine: each is all God, in its entirety, and, nevertheless, only in communion with other Hypostases ... By this analogy, the local Churches, being in themselves the entire conciliar fullness, depend on each other, in the image of the unity of Divine Persons. This is the essential understanding of what the Church is in its essence.
December 4, 2016 marked the 50th anniversary of the death of Protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasyev (1893-1966). In memory of this outstanding Russian theologian, the St. Philaret Orthodox Christian Institute is holding a scientific and theological conference on May 10-12 on issues of contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology.
The conference is invited to discuss the following issues: the gathering value in the church of the Eucharist and other sacraments; the eucharistic assembly, its formation and composition; the nature of the Church and the question of church boundaries; typology of church meetings (parish, monastery, community, brotherhood, movement); clergy and laicas in the Eucharist and other ecclesiologies; the universal and local dimension of the church; universal, local and local church; authority in the Church and churches. Kifa asked the members of the conference organizing committee to answer a few questions.
Members of the organizing committee of the conference answer the questions of "Kifa"
For many years in a row, the theological conference of the St. Philaret Institute was devoted to the issues of catechesis and churching. Why did the organizers change the topic so dramatically this year?
Dmitry Gasak, chairman of the organizing committee of the conference, vice-rector of the SFI: On the one hand, we have completed a series of conferences dedicated to the problems of catechesis. Last year we discussed the topic of kerygmatic preaching about Christ, that is, the main issue was the issue of distinguishing between kerygmatic and dogmatic preaching. It was an extremely interesting and fruitful conversation. But the next step in this direction involved a conversation about mystagogy, sacrament. This is a rather difficult subject, and we decided to stop for now. On the other hand, the topic of ecclesiology has been asking for a long time, and many participants have recommended that one of our conferences be devoted to the issues of modern church structure, the implementation of conciliarity in the church, inter-Orthodox relations, and so on.
Our time raises the questions of church life quite sharply, since the world has changed extremely quickly in the century that has passed since the Council of 1917-1918. The cathedral was an epoch-making, milestone event that has not yet been fully comprehended. To date, our church has not yet reached the level of theological knowledge and understanding of the issues of church structure, which the leaders of the Council possessed. Nevertheless, life raises these questions all the time. Almost thirty years have passed since the celebration of the millennium of the baptism of Rus. And the peculiarities of the development of church life in recent decades prompt us to ask ourselves questions: has the revival of the Russian Church taken place as a kind of integral organism, as a full-fledged assembly of the people of God, has there been a revival of faith in Christ in our people? What is a church meeting today, how does it manifest itself during liturgical time, in non-liturgical time? There are a lot of questions. That is why we decided to hold a conference on ecclesiology.
Eucharistic ecclesiology is widely known, but most theologians perceive it purely theoretically, this knowledge remains abstract for many people. How to overcome this?
This is not a problem today, but, nevertheless, we have serious discrepancies between teaching about the Church and church practice. Both the XX century and the beginning of the XXI century showed that this distance is so great that it is impossible not to notice it. In the current state of church affairs, we must soberly ask ourselves the question: either the practice of church life is little consistent with the teaching of the Church and its name, or we must say that the teaching of the Church has a distant relationship to church reality. The believing heart cannot reconcile itself with either one or the other. And consequently, this question must at least be adequately raised and move towards its solution.
But have there been attempts to consistently implement Eucharistic ecclesiology - say, in the American Orthodox Church?
The fact of the matter is that Eucharistic ecclesiology in the form in which it was revealed by Father Nikolai Afanasyev had the realities of the 2nd and 3rd centuries as a way of church life. But we live in the 21st century! Despite the fact that even then the Church lived in a non-Christian society, and we now live in a non-Christian society, the difference of 1700 years means something both in history and in the church consciousness. It is another matter that today we have no other point of reference other than Eucharistic ecclesiology. Because this is the only complete description of the way of church life today, accepted, more or less, by all Orthodox.
Has the communal fraternal ecclesiology been developed in some way?
It is more developed practically, in oral tradition. Perhaps this is even more important, but regarding the communal and fraternal tradition in the church, there is not even a stable terminology. And in the case of Eucharistic ecclesiology, the situation is different. But with it, rather, the opposite problem - the predominance of the theoretical side of the doctrine over the practical side of its implementation.
And how traditional is the very statement of the existence of different ecclesiologies today?
This is fine. If biblical scholars find a difference already in the traditions of the apostles John, Paul, Peter, then this says something. After all, we are dealing with several different views on the importance of certain accents in church life already in the first - beginning of the second century. What can we say about our time. The Christian tradition contains a tremendous experience of spiritual life. But we hardly know him.
It is normal that there are different points of view on church life. It has always been and always will be. This is the unity in diversity that is quite characteristic of the Christian worldview. But today, especially after the events of last year in the inter-Orthodox world, we state that there is more external diversity than unity - that unity of spirit in a peaceful union that the apostle commanded us.
What do the organizers of the conference hope for, when everything is so complicated with ecclesiology now and there are almost no those among modern theologians who would deal with this topic, central to the past and the next century?
Priest Georgy Kochetkov, Rector of SFI: We hope that the experience of the most important, unique ecclesiological developments of the 20th century in the Orthodox Church will be known not only to a few people - that it will become known to the church, that people will be interested when they see that there are solvable problems here. There are many problems, they now look like dead ends, but it is necessary to show the ways of resolving these problems associated with the Eucharistic, local parish, clerical, communal fraternal ecclesiology. Everywhere there are serious big problems, there is still no consensus on them, there are practically no specialists. There are several people who write more or less successfully on these topics, but they can be counted on one hand all over the world, and this does not mean that they will answer any question. It is necessary to gather this experience, it is necessary to gather the strength of the Church, even when there are very few of them. This is what we hope for. And we are ready to devote not even one year to this, but a whole series of years.
Why was the decision made to change the traditional theme?
Alexander Kopirovsky, member of the conference organizing committee: On the one hand, because we have worked so much in catechesis that it will be perceived for many years and, moreover, in small doses, before the use of our experience begins on a mass scale. Continuing development means “breaking away from the carts”, talking in a very narrow circle. But even for us, there is enough work in the materials of published conferences - to study, analyze what was printed in order to correct our own practice.
On the other hand, the main thing has really been done. And we need to move on to more relevant topics, but not local, but general ones. Hence - the theme of the Church and the Church, that is, ecclesiology.
Many perceive Eucharistic ecclesiology purely theoretically, this knowledge remains abstract. How to overcome this?
It is hardly known enough, at best the term is known, but not its content. Hence the extremes: either they suspect it of some kind of innovation, or vice versa - they look at it as a panacea, at the solution of all church problems, they forget that the main thing in the Church is a new life of grace for people in Christ and with Christ, which cannot be reduced to participation in the sacraments. To overcome the extremes, at least in part, through a lively discussion of this topic, through deepening it or refuting established opinions, stereotypes - this is one of the goals of the conference.
Why did the idea arise to discuss in detail the ecclesiological concept of Fr. Nikolai Afanasyev?
David Gzgzyan, Head Department of Theological Disciplines and Liturgy SFI: Oddly enough, she is poorly known. Eucharistic ecclesiology, of course, is well known, the very phrase itself is not a curiosity, but the authentic theory of Fr. Nicholas was subjected to all kinds of distortions in the course of her perception. And we would like to make an effort to restore the true form of this doctrine. I must say that over the past 50 years, no equally large and equally developed ecclesiological concept has arisen. But ecclesiology, according to Vladimir Nikolaevich Lossky, was the hottest topic of the 20th century. We can add: it remains so in the XXI century. No one can remove from the agenda questions about the future prospects of the Church. And about. Nikolai Afanasyev, with his Eucharistic ecclesiology, retains priority in this sense as the only noteworthy theoretical aid in developing adequate models of church structure, church life, etc.
Do you often have discussions, conferences related to ecclesiological topics?
Not really. And this is not surprising. Among those who deal with this problem, there are interesting persons, original positions, but in the whole world there are only a few such people. And this should not be surprising, because now, by and large, there is a crisis of theological thought (if we accentuate the word “thought”, and do not mean specialists in certain texts, in the history of issues, etc.; such specialists are still there are, and thinkers are an almost extinct “breed”). Moreover, this concerns the situation in the Russian Orthodox Church, taking into account the difficult circumstances of its recent past - after all, in Soviet times, the development of theological science was practically impossible. The development of theological thought requires emancipation, freedom of thought and a high culture of critical reflection. But the development of these qualities is hardly a priority for theological educational institutions ...
Moreover, it is worthwhile at least with the available forces to once again refresh in memory the very doctrine of Fr. Nicholas and try to understand its perspectives precisely as a root theology, from which some branches could appear that would claim over time that they are able to improve it.
I remember that in 2003 there was an international conference on ecclesiology organized by the Synodal Theological Commission. And when I interviewed those few people who touched on Eucharistic ecclesiology in their reports (these were the Greeks), and tried to ask them questions about the practical implementation of what they said, this caused very strong bewilderment. It turns out that such knowledge remains abstract for many people?
You need to know the specifics of the Greek approach. This is theological symbolism, which assumes the following general attitude towards all kinds of theological doctrines and ideas: what we are talking about is already present in the Church. If you ask: “Show me where it is,” this will cause confusion, because there are ready-made answers to everything: “it is present in the Trinity dogma,” “it is present in the Orthodox sacraments,” etc.
I would say that very many representatives of various theological institutions here in Russia are just representatives of a purely Greek approach, which is not surprising - after all, we took our faith from Byzantium.
I think this is due to the aforementioned lack of a culture of critical reflection, which is even more characteristic of the Greeks in comparison with Russian Orthodox thinkers. It is no coincidence that living theological thinkers in Russia first of all left the universities and academies of the post-reform period, which had become quite free in terms of the regime and methods of teaching.
All this must be taken into account in order to understand why the situation in theology has developed in this way.
But what can one hope for (including by organizing a conference) when circumstances are opposed to seriously conducting such a conversation and somehow applying it to life?
In fact, the question is "what can you hope for?" we must not be taken by surprise. Because if you think seriously - what could the Lord count on, taking into account the degree of real understanding of the Good News even by the disciples - not to mention how “readily” it was accepted by the people of God? Everyone should have lost heart. And there are no optimistic periods in history, which directly indicate that the golden times of Christianity have come, if you look strictly and impartially. Given that there were great times. But they, too, are not in the least characterized by a massive and at the same time deep perception of Christianity.
I think that the organizers of the conference do not expect to radically change the situation. They rather act on the principle “it is necessary anyway” - after all, if we are seriously believing Orthodox Christians, we cannot ignore the existence of such a phenomenon as the Eucharistic ecclesiology of Fr. Nikolai Afanasyev. By the way, no one seriously objected to her, no one found any conceptual counterarguments. Constructive criticism required its development and deepening. But not putting it into the archive. And if its author approached the norms of churchness, then we must work so that this approximation continues further.
