Shevyrev s p in modern pedagogy. Political views of S.P.

Today, in our country, everyone can talk about the Church "and not too lazy." Any journalist, even one who knows only the first phrase of the Lord's Prayer, becomes an expert in the field of ecclesiology. The deputies solve the issues of "church policy" without even realizing that these two words cannot coexist with each other in principle.
Ecclesiological heresy corrodes 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 a “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 its essence? Unfortunately, our experience shows that not all professionals in the field of religion understand what the Church is. Let's try to remember the basic foundations of Orthodox ecclesiology.

The basis for understanding the essence of the Church was the words of the Apostle Paul - the Church is the BODY OF CHRIST. A very important comparative text of his First Epistle to the Corinthians. In one case (1 Corinthians 10:16-17) Apostle Paul calls the Eucharistic Bread the Body of Christ, and right there in (1 Corinthians 12:27) he calls the local church (or community) the Body of Christ. It is important that in both cases, Paul means the same thing. Namely, that 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 by partaking 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. Therefore, EVERY EUCHARIST ASSEMBLY IS THE CHURCH IN ITS COMPLETENESS.
The first important conclusion we must draw is that the Church cannot be composed 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 are related to each other not as a sum of terms, but as a unity of identity. For example, the Georgian, Bulgarian, Greek Churches are not three Churches, but One. The expression Russian Orthodox Church, or Ukrainian, Serbian stands for the 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 metropolis, in fact, has no sotereological 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 is to be venerated as true, which is celebrated by the bishop or by one to whom he himself granted 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, this primate was the first of the presbyters. It was to them that the prayer of thanksgiving was said, which is known to us as the Eucharistic canon. For St. 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. Today the bishop is the primate of the local church, and the presbyters are delegated to them as primates of the Eucharistic assemblies. The local Church is a diocese. and the eucharistic assembly is a parish. This change occurred 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 functions of the bishop passed to the presbyter. Today he is a regular worshiper, pastor and mentor of the church, and these are all the 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 isolate parishes, especially in the countryside. Thus, the parish began to receive its catholicity in a higher diocese.
Prot. Alexander Schmemann in his essay "The Eucharist" writes that despite the changes that have taken place in the church's consciousness, the idea of ​​pastor 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 the priest as a "father". This is due to the fact that the main thing in the Church has always been not a hierarchical structure, but the Chalice of Christ. Because only in it, and through it, does Christians unite 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 our entire ecclesiology. It has always been and will always be eucharist-centric.
Today we cannot put an equal sign between the local Church and the parish, as it was during the time of St. Ignatius of Antioch. The priestly-led local congregation lacks the essential attributes of the Church. There is not only no bishop, but also no college of presbyters, and often no deacon. There are cases when a priest serves even without the laity, 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 the emerging trend of rapprochement with the practice of the ancient church, which meant that the place of the current dean is occupied by the bishop, whose main concern is the Eucharistic service.
According to the concept of Eucharistic ecclesiology, a priest (bishop, presbyter, deacon) accepts the authority and charisma of ordination not for himself, but for the service of 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 meant for others. It is impossible to raise the question somehow: “what gives ordination to a priest”? It is correct to pose the question: “In what relation does the ordination of a priest put a priest to the community”?
The service of a clergyman is service to the unity of the local, and consequently the catholic Church. The ordained presbyter, like the bishop, portrays and actualizes the priesthood of the people of God. The priestly people of God cannot exist without a primate, but 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.
At every Eucharistic gathering, when the Eucharist is celebrated together 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 is woven in the image of the unity of the Holy Trinity. None of the Divine Hypostases is more or less Divine than the others, and none of them is a part of the Divine: each is the whole of God, in its entirety, and, nevertheless, only in communion with other Hypostases . According to this analogy, the local Churches, representing the entire conciliar fullness, depend on each other, in the image of the unity of the Divine Persons. This is the essential understanding of what the Church is in its essence.

Universal ecclesiology sees the Church as a universal organism, where local churches are only parts of it, where a legal hierarchy of churches necessarily exists, and where legally understood primacy is inevitable. This idea of ​​the Church appears for the first time in the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage. It quickly established itself in the era of Constantine and dominates in its various versions to this day. Peter Planck wittily defined the difference between eucharistic and universal ecclesiology as the difference between a qualitative and quantitative understanding of the Church. However, a similar thought sounds, albeit in passing, in Afanasiev himself (for example, in the article "The Church of God in Christ").

Afanasiev considers Eucharistic ecclesiology to be the most appropriate for the meaning and task of the Church. It is important to emphasize that it is not a theological speculation of Fr. Nicholas. Its features were established by him empirically - by studying the history of the Church. Of course, he did not do this alone, but based on the data of the science of his time. It is these features that are clearly seen through the historical clothes of the Church in the first three centuries of Christianity. It is there about. Nicholas found the ideal of the fullness, catholicity of the Church. The era of early Christianity was for him a beacon that illuminates the path to the future for us, an age by which each subsequent era must test itself. To use the famous comparison of Fr. Nicholas, that historical sediment has not yet formed in early Christianity, which now makes it so difficult for the movement of the joints of the church organism. Father Nicholas sought and found in ancient Christianity not so much specific forms as permanent principles of church organization. This is a kind of creative apprenticeship in antiquity, the purpose of which, as our contemporary wrote about one of the authors of the Renaissance, “is not the search of the material left from it, but ... a sanction for the limit of the tasks posed.”

The phrase "Eucharistic ecclesiology" was, apparently, a godsend of Fr. Nicholas. It became especially popular after the opposition between Eucharistic and universal ecclesiology, along with the name of Afanasiev, was mentioned in the preparatory documents of the Second Vatican Council. This mention caused a wave of interest in Afanasiev - primarily among Catholic, but also among Protestant theologians. The term "Eucharistic ecclesiology" became widespread and has since been used in relation to very different works emphasizing the special importance of the Eucharist for the Church. In Orthodoxy, this name was also established over time for the theological trend, represented primarily by Fr. Nicholas and his two younger contemporaries, Fr. Alexander Schmemann and Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon.

The term "Eucharistic ecclesiology" is perhaps not very successful, because for people who are far from theology or brought up on a more traditional ecclesiastical science, it gives the impression of something purely special, associated with liturgy, the discipline of worship. Apparently, this is where the often-repeated reproach comes from, that the Eucharistic ecclesiology “reduces” everything to the liturgy. This reproach has nothing to do with reality: Eucharistic ecclesiology does not reduce anything, but raises the beginning of everything in the Church to the Eucharist and by no means cancels either other phenomena in the Church or other topics of theology.

3. Catholic Church

Based on the opposition between Eucharistic and universal ecclesiology, Afanasiev tries to clarify the features of the first. One of the important details here is the concept of the catholicity of the Church. On the basis of historical data, he claims that in ancient times every local church was catholic. The fact that in the Ancient Church by catholicity, or universality, at first was understood not the geographical distribution, but the internal quality of the church, was already noticed by several contemporaries of Afanasiev. This topic was touched upon. Nicholas repeatedly with varying degrees of detail. He devoted a separate article (The Catholic Church, 1957) to elucidating the meaning of the term "Catholic Church", καθολική έκκλησία , in the two oldest works of ancient Christian literature, where this phrase is found, - “The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp" and the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch. In fact, it turns out that the local church is called catholic in them. The word "catholic" here is dominated by the aspect of fullness. The Catholic Church has everything to be the Church, and there is no lack of anything that is inherent in the Church. A little earlier about Nicholas touched on this topic in the already mentioned, extremely important for his understanding of theology article "The Church of God in Christ." Here he considered the issue of the fullness of the local church from a different point of view - as the presence of the entire Body of Christ in every Eucharistic sacrifice of any local church. The idea of ​​the identity of the Eucharistic assembly, i.e. the Church (“You are the Body of Christ”, ), and the Eucharistic sacrifice (“This is My Body”, ; ; ; ), elaborated in detail in the article, can rightly be considered the “basic intuition” of Afanasiev’s mature ecclesiology. He had not yet found or failed to express it in the works of the 1930s. In a mature version of ecclesiology, it becomes both the starting point and the connecting link of his theology.

But what is a local church, i.e., strictly speaking, the Church as such, for the concept of a universal church did not exist before Cyprian, and decisive steps towards the practical organization of a universal church along the lines of the Empire must be attributed to the times of Constantine? Until the emergence of permanent secondary presbyter meetings, which apparently began no earlier than the second half of the 3rd century, the local church completely coincided with its single Eucharistic meeting. The Eucharist is not one of the sacraments, but the sacrament par excellence. She stands at the center of Afanasiev's vision of the Church. It was established as the center, the focus of the future Church at the Last Supper by Christ himself, who commanded to make this Meal in His remembrance. The Eucharist is the actualization of the Church in a given place. Just as the whole Christ is present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, so in the assembly of the faithful who have come together for thanksgiving, the whole Church is actualized. From the Eucharist flow the main services of the Church. She sets the order of the Church. The local church is the whole Church, gathered in this place at the altar. Subsequently, an aphorism expressing the essence of Eucharistic ecclesiology became the statement of Cardinal Henri de Lubac "The Eucharist creates the Church" (eucharistia facit ecclesiam). Peter Planck was again on the mark when he chose the phrase "The Church as a Eucharistic Assembly" as the title for his book on Afanasiev's theology. This phrase, perhaps, can be one of the shortest, aphoristic definitions of Afanasiev's ecclesiology.

4. Ministries

The Eucharistic Assembly makes clear the origin and meaning of the main ministries of the Church, above all the laiki and primates. All in the Church are “drunk with one Spirit” () - all share the ministry of the priesthood, into which they are delivered by baptism and chrismation. The Church is a collective priesthood, for everyone in it is baptized and chrismated, which means that everyone received the gift of serving God as members of God's people. Afanasiev repeatedly returns to the theme of the priestly dignity of all members of the Church, including the laity. This New Testament idea (; ), of course, was never rejected, but actually receded far into the background under the influence of the theology of a special, “pure” priesthood of clergy, a theology for which it is just difficult to find a basis in the New Testament. More about. Nicholas writes about the priesthood of all in the first three chapters of the book "The Church of the Holy Spirit" (they also make up the book "Ministry of the Laity in the Church"). Afanasiev considers the Eucharist, and indeed any divine service, as a concelebration of all, people and primates, where each rank has its own role and where each of them is necessary. Moreover, he notes, the rites of the liturgy that we use are conservative and clearly contain the idea of ​​concelebration, despite the later, thin layer of individualistic, “priestly” inserts that contradict it. According to Fr. Nicholas, to expose the idea of ​​concelebration, a liturgical reform is not necessary: ​​a simple rearrangement of accents is enough, it is enough to stop emphasizing the secondary, but to properly use the features of concelebration inherent in the liturgical rites.

The same Spirit, who gives to all in baptism with water and the Spirit (i.e., in baptism and chrismation) the general gift of the “royal priesthood,” gives to the members of the Church also special gifts on which individual ministries are based. “The gifts are different, but the Spirit is the same; and the ministries are different, but the Lord is one and the same ... but to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the benefit ”(). “But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He pleases” (ibid., 12:11). One of these services is the service of the primate, who places the sacrifice on the altar. Without such a primate, the Eucharistic assembly is impossible. Over time, in the Christian ecumene, the name of the bishop is assigned to the senior of the college of presbyter bishops, who originally headed the local church. This service is liturgical in origin and main function. The ministry of the elder presbyter, who leads the Eucharist, has existed in the Church since its inception - at the Last Supper, where the Eucharist was established, Christ himself led the meal of the apostles, and on the day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter presided at the first church meeting. But from the ministry of the oldest presbyter of the most ancient church to the ministry of a bishop, as we find it in the third century, and even more so in the Nicene era, is a considerable distance. Afanasiev examines the evolution of this ministry in detail in chapters 5–7 of The Church of the Holy Spirit. Probably not earlier than the second half of the 3rd c. the bishop begins to delegate on a permanent basis his primate functions to the presbyters so that they lead the Eucharistic meetings affiliated to the episcopal in the same local church. Such, in any case, was the main path, and thus the parish was born (see the article “The United Eucharistic Assembly of the Ancient Church” in this collection).

The local church of antiquity is formed, firstly, by the people who perform the service of the priesthood common to all, secondly, by the primate appointed by the whole church, heading the Eucharist, and, thirdly, by the council of presbyters, also appointed by the whole church. In it, every internal act - baptism, appointment to special ministries, weddings, repentance of those who have returned to the Church, etc. - is public. The theme of the publicity of everything that happens in the Church and the common participation in this happening is clearly heard in the "Church of the Holy Spirit" and the lectures of Fr. Nicholas about joining the clergy. This phenomenon can be called internal reception to distinguish it from external reception, which acts as a mechanism for agreement between individual local churches.

5. Reception

A model for universal ecclesiology, of which he acted as herald in the middle of the 3rd century. St. Cyprian of Carthage, served the unity of the Empire (see the article "The Church Presiding in Love"). With the conversion of the emperor himself, unexpected for the Church, its organization began to develop rapidly in line with universal ecclesiology. But what was this organization like before Constantine? Afanasiev discovers that under the idea of ​​catholicity, that is, completeness, and consequently independence, of any local church, which prevailed before Cyprian, and for some time after him, relations between individual local churches were regulated not by law, but by the mechanism of reception. This reception can be called external, in order to distinguish it from internal reception (see about it a little higher). An act of such reception was, for example, the participation of the bishops of neighboring churches in the appointment of the bishop of the local church, which was not obligatory in the most ancient period (see the remark in "Entry into the Clergy", ch. 3, 2). As long as everything happened in the local church in accordance with the will of God, there was no need for a special expression of the position of neighboring churches regarding what was happening in other churches. The mechanism of reception began to work, first of all, when there was a "failure" in the life of a particular local church. Thus, Clement of Rome addresses a letter to the Corinthian church, when there, for no proper reason, the presbyters-bishops who impeccably carried it are removed from the ministry (“First Epistle to the Corinthians” by Clement of Rome). In the same way, the bishops of neighboring churches intervene when the Church of Antioch cannot free itself from the heresy-proclaiming, presumptuous bishop, dignitary Paul of Samosata (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, VII, 27-30). Among the local churches there is a hierarchy of authority, and in certain parts of the Christian ecumene different churches enjoy the greatest authority. In general, in early Christianity, the opinion of the Roman Church is considered the most authoritative. But the reception mechanism is not legal. The opinions and decisions of some churches are not legally binding on others. There is no coercion accompanying the law in this mechanism. It is based on the mutual love of local churches. Now, when the legal organization of the Church is perceived as self-evident, it is difficult for us to understand this. Afanasiev developed this theme and the related question of primacy in the Church in his later articles (see the works "The Church Presiding in Love" and "Una Sancta" in this collection).

6. Zom

The idea of ​​reception was adopted by Afanasiev from the German legal historian Rudolf Sohm, who, perhaps more than other theologians, influenced Fr. Nicholas. This influence is especially noticeable in the early attempts to present Afanasiev's ecclesiology - in the works of the 1930s. ("Two Ideas" and "Ecclesiastical Councils and Their Origins"). It is impossible, however, to attach all-explaining significance to influences. The mere fact that someone influenced someone says little about the end result of that influence. In addition, with the development of the idea of ​​the identity of the Church Body (“You are the Body of Christ”) and the Eucharistic Body (“This is My Body”), i.e., in other words, the Church and the Eucharist, Zomov’s ideas acquire in the Eucharistic ecclesiology of Father Nikolai their important but subordinate places. Zohm does not even have a close resemblance to Afanasiev’s “basic intuition”: the Eucharist is not at the center of his vision of the Church, and Pavlov’s idea of ​​the Church as the Body of Christ does not occupy any significant place in his theology and, rather, looks like a metaphor. One can be convinced of both by reading what and in what context Zom writes about the Eucharist and the Church as the Body of Christ.

Zohm's most important work, the first volume of his "Kirchenrecht" ("Church Law"), was translated in Russia even before the revolution (with Father Pavel Florensky being one of the translators). Afanasiev, apparently, read Zom in German, having taken out his book - with great difficulty, as Μ writes. N. Afanasiev, - when he worked as a teacher at a gymnasium in Skopje.

Zom left to later theology two important ideas that have been much debated and will continue to be debated for a long time to come. One of them was the idea of ​​reception, and the other was the so-called "Zohm's thesis": a statement about the fundamental incompatibility of the Church and law. Afanasiev accepted Zomov's idea of ​​reception and reworked it, as required by his own views. He accepted Zoma's thesis with reservations. On the one hand, in The Church of the Holy Spirit there are statements that sound completely Zomovsky: “... law, being an absolutely necessary beginning of state life, is inapplicable to church life without violating its basic principles on which this life rests” (ch. III, section GU, 4). On the other hand, in 1961, Afanasiev wrote to Schultze: “You reproach me that, contrary to the tradition of the Western and Eastern churches, contrary to their common tradition before their separation, I deny the existence of the idea of ​​law in the Ancient Church. You think that in this I follow Rudolf Szom. I must assure you that I do not fully share Zom's views. I argue that at least until the middle of the III century. there was no legal organization in the Church; I am only stating a fact, an indisputable historical fact, which is recognized by almost all historians.

Over the past decade, the regular holding of church-wide conferences on the most important and topical theological topics has become a good tradition. Such meetings make it possible to unite the efforts of theologians, church scientists, professors of theological schools of our Church and other Churches. Together we discuss the development of theological science in the modern historical period, taking into account the best achievements of the past. This work is necessary for the Holy Church to fruitfully exercise her witness in the world.

The Synodal Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church, formed by the decision of the Holy Synod in 1993, is the organizer of the general church conferences. As is known, its immediate task is to study topical problems of church life and coordinate scientific and theological activities. On the eve of the two thousandth anniversary of Christ the Savior's coming into the world, the Commission turned to the bishops of our Church and the rectors of theological schools with a request to express their opinion on the most important theological problems for the Church. By bringing the feedback received into the system, the Commission builds its work precisely on this basis, also fulfilling some other instructions of His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. Plenary meetings of the Commission are held regularly, and, as necessary, enlarged meetings, at which issues of a theological nature concerning the daily life of the Church are discussed.

Taking this opportunity, as Chairman of the Synodal Theological Commission, in the face of such a representative meeting of theologians and scientists, I express my filial gratitude to the Primate of our Church, His Holiness Patriarch Alexy of Moscow and All Russia, for tireless attention to the work of the Commission and for supporting its initiatives throughout the entire ten-year period of our activity and inspiring us an assessment of our far from perfect work.

In 2000, at the next conference, the conciliar mind gave a general assessment of the state and prospects for the development of Orthodox theology on the threshold of a new century. Then there were thematic conferences devoted to theological anthropology: the teaching of the Church about man and - together with the International Society of Christian Philosophers - the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. For several years, the Theological Commission has regularly held joint seminars with the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, during which there has been a fruitful dialogue between philosophers and theologians on issues of common interest.

The process of work of the Theological Commission has led us to the need to turn to the topic to be discussed at this meeting: "Orthodox Doctrine of the Church".

One can hardly doubt how important this topic is in the modern conditions of church life.

The relevance of ecclesiology

Self-understanding of the Church

Ecclesiology, as is known, is a branch of theological science within which the Church comprehends itself, that is, the self-understanding of the Church is formed. This task is difficult for theological thought not only because this scientific discipline is complex and includes, to one degree or another, all aspects of theology. The difficulty of the ecclesiological approach is also related to the fact that, in essence, the whole life of Christians, including the activity of the believing mind, is church because it takes place in the Church.

On the other hand, the Church itself in its visible, earthly aspect is the community of Christ's disciples. This is an assembly of the faithful, which in the Sacrament of the Eucharist - through Communion to the life-giving Body and Blood of the Savior - itself becomes the Body of Christ, so that the head of the Church is the God-man and our Lord Jesus Christ.

The divine-human nature of the Church means that the task facing ecclesiology is primarily a theological task. Ecclesiology cannot be reduced to questions of external church organization, to the rules of church life, to the rights and duties of clerics and laity. These questions belong to the realm of canon. At the same time, without clear theological criteria, it is impossible to discuss the forms and methods of the Church's realization of her vocation in the world. Ecclesiology just reveals such criteria, referring to the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition, analyzing the historical experience of the Church and being in dialogue with the theological tradition as a whole.

In connection with the question of the place and significance of ecclesiology in the system of theological sciences, attention should be paid to the following circumstances.

It is rightly said that, turning to the era of classical patristics, we are faced with a kind of “ecclesiological silence”. Undoubtedly, some of the works of the Holy Fathers can be called ecclesiological in content, but in general the theology of the ancient Church does not single out ecclesiology as a separate direction, as a special section of ecclesiastical science.

This is due to the fact that during the period of widespread Christianity, everything was perceived in a new light and precisely through the prism of churchness. The Church for Christians was a great God-human, cosmic event and embraced the whole world, in which the saving act of God was accomplished in Christ Jesus.

Later, during the Middle Ages, the Church also for a long time did not feel the need to define itself. At that time, the need to single out the actual ecclesiastical from the common life of the world, society and culture, which has already become Christian. The situation changed in the New Age, when non-Christian, secular and quasi-religious worldview systems began to be present in society, and sometimes dominated.

The paradox of secularization

In the 19th and especially in the 20th century, inter-Christian ties intensified; In the past century, a regime of militant state atheism has been established in a number of historically Orthodox countries. Under such conditions, there was urgent the need to formulate the Orthodox doctrine of the Church. Much has already been done in this regard, but today the need for further development of Orthodox ecclesiology, taking into account the theological results of the past, is felt even sharper. Globalization processes are intensifying in the world; The world is becoming ever closer and more interconnected. In the public space, not only different Christian denominations, but also different religions, both traditional and new, meet face to face.

At the same time, today it is necessary to realize and comprehend what can be called the paradox of secularization. On the one hand, the secularization of culture in the historically Christian part of the world is an indisputable fact. We Christian theologians must soberly assess the reality with which we are dealing. In the sphere of political decision-making, cultural creativity, and public life, secular values ​​and standards dominate. Moreover, secularism is often understood not as a neutral attitude towards religion, but as anti-religiousness, as a basis for ousting religion and the Church from the public space.

However, on the other hand, it can be argued that secularization - as a process of de-Christianization of culture, and ultimately the complete destruction of religion - did not take place. Many people are believers, although not all of them actively participate in church life. The Church continues to live and fulfill its mission in the world, and in some countries and regions there are signs of a religious revival. The role of the religious factor in politics and in international relations is growing. In this situation, which is characterized new historical circumstances the responsibility of the Church is also growing.

The Practical Importance of Ecclesiology

The Church is always identical to itself - as a Divine-human organism, as the Path of salvation and a place of communion with God. At the same time, the Church lives in history and is called to carry out her missionary task in the specific social and cultural conditions in which she carries out her witness. Therefore, ecclesiology has not only theoretical, but also practical, missionary value.

The general theological task in the field of ecclesiology is to build a coherent system of ideas in which all aspects of church life would find their place. This is the task of a socio-theological synthesis.

The core of the ecclesiological concept should be the dogmatic teaching about the Church. At the same time, it is important to emphasize the exclusivity of Christianity as a religion. Only in Christianity, if we consider it in comparison with other religious traditions, does there exist both the institution of the Church and the phenomenon itself, called the Church. Strictly speaking, Christianity from the point of view of its inner meaning eatChurch. In other words, as Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) formulated in the title of his well-known work, “there is no Christianity without the Church.” This is the Orthodox point of view, and it must be clearly expressed, as well as consistently explained and disseminated in society. After all, one of the results of secularization and prolonged persecution of the Church was the loss in culture, in society, and even in the minds of many people who consider themselves Orthodox, of a true understanding of the Church, its nature and mission.

From a missionary point of view, it is important to show the dynamic nature of the Church, to pay attention to the fact that the establishment, or rather the spiritual birth of the Church, was an event in sacred history, that it was a revelation of the Divine will for the salvation of the world in Christ. The Church living in history is Kingdom of God come in power(Mk 9:1) into this world for its transfiguration. Despite its two thousand years of age, the Christian Church is still a place for the renewal of the old man, it is eternally young and always shows the world the novelty of the Gospel, because in its essence the Church is always a “modern” meeting of God and man, their reconciliation and communion in love.

From a theological point of view, the Church cannot be reduced to a "religious institution", to a national-cultural custom, to a ritual. God Himself acts in the Church, she is the House of God and the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Scary place cue because the Church is a judgment seat in which we must give an answer about our life before the face of God. The Church is also a hospital, in which, by confessing our sinful ailments, we receive healing and gain unshakable hope in the saving power of the grace of God.

Aspects of ecclesiology

How does the Church, led by the Savior, carry out her saving ministry in the world? The answer to this question should be that part of the ecclesiological concept, which provides a theological interpretation of various aspects not just of church practice, but of church life itself.

First, there is the liturgical aspect.

It includes church sacraments and other sacraments. However, they should not be considered abstractly scholastically, but precisely as stages and recurring events in the sacramental life of the Church: entry into the Church, the Eucharist as a manifestation of the conciliar and theanthropic nature of the Church, the daily, weekly and annual liturgical rhythm, and other sacramental rites. Ecclesiology reveals the theological meaning of both public and private worship, drawing attention to its catholic, church-wide significance.

Secondly, it is a canonical, church-legal aspect.

In this case, we are talking about the theological understanding of the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church. Only in light of that dogma about the church which ecclesiology reveals and formulates, we will be able to solve many problems of the modern church structure and canonical regulation of church life on the scale of both the Local Churches and Ecumenical Orthodoxy.

It is known that many church rules were adopted in a very distant past and in various historical circumstances. At the same time, we feel the need for our church life to be built on solid canonical foundations. Therefore, today the question arises of the need to start serious work on the creation of a pan-Orthodox church-legal code.

Undoubtedly, it is impossible to carry out such work without a preliminary theological understanding of the nature and functions of ecclesiastical statutes as such. And this belongs to the field of ecclesiology.

Thirdly, it is a moral and ascetic aspect.

Theological thought faces many problems when missionary tasks are taken into account. Briefly, they can be described as follows.

Ecclesiology must compare, connect, and, where necessary, delineate the various forms of Churchness. Individual ascesis, deeply personal spiritual work, on the one hand, and conciliar liturgical service, the joint participation of members of the Church in the Eucharistic sacrament of communion with God, on the other.

The spiritual and moral efforts of a Christian, aimed at harmonizing his sinful will with the will of God, must be associated with his participation in the Sacraments of the Church, in which the believer is given the contributing grace of the Holy Spirit. For without the perception of the grace of God, according to the teaching of the Fathers, neither the creation of goodness is possible, nor even the transformation in the image of the God-man Jesus Christ our Lord.

In other words, ecclesiology is meant to warn Christians against being locked into individual religious experiences. The Church is a common being. In the church all included in the love of God, which embraces all people and all humanity. God addresses each person personally, but at the same time creates, builds a single Church, in which everyone finds his place - in the community of believers and faithful.

Therefore, one more thing can be said - social-aspect of Orthodox ecclesiology. The Church in this world is a community of people who are united not by pragmatic interests, not simply by the unity of "beliefs and views", not by common blood or cultural tradition. Christians are united by the common experience of living in communion with God. And therefore the Church, as a community of Christ's disciples, is called to show the world the possibility and reality of the transformation of both man and society by the power of God's grace, according to the Savior's word: So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in Heaven.(Matthew 5:16).

Alas, Christians do not always fulfill this God-commanded mission to the extent that they should fulfill it. But without understanding this maximum task given to us by God, it is impossible to comprehend the essence of the Church.

The Paradoxical Being of the Church

What is this essence of the Church, which can be called paradoxical?

The fact that the Church in its sociological quality, that is, as a community of Christians, is not separated from society as a whole and is part of it, since it is made up of full members of society.

But at the same time, the Church is not a public organization, but something immeasurably greater: it is a human community, a member and Head of which is the God-man and the Lord Jesus Christ, who still dwells among the faithful. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.(Matthew 18:20), says the Savior. - I am with you all the days until the end of time(Matthew 28:20).

The Church lives and acts in the world and in society, but at the same time offers the world its own social ideal. Metropolitan Anthony of Surozh, blessedly reposed, expressed this well: “The construction of a society where everyone could get along can be imagined, but the City of God, which should grow out of the city of man, has a completely different dimension. The city of man, which could open itself in such a way as to become the City of God, must be such that its first citizen could be the Son of God, who became the Son of Man, Jesus Christ. No human city, no human society, where God is cramped, can be the City of God.” .

Ecclesiology as “applied” theology

Thus, modern ecclesiology is called upon to reflect the multidimensional reality of the Church: both its essential theological characteristics and its missionary activity, church service to the world. We must avoid the biggest mistake - inattention to what is happening today in society, in culture, in the minds of people living in conditions of secularism, sometimes aggressive.

Therefore, we need, so to speak, an applied ecclesiology, that is, a theology of culture, a social theology, and perhaps even a theology of management or economics. The starting point for such a theological approach can be precisely the doctrine of the participation in the history of mankind of God and man, that is, the Church as a community of the faithful.

In the Church and through the Church, God participates in the life of the world. Through the incarnation of the Son of God, He entered the complex fabric of the historical existence of human society, not violating the freedom of man, but calling him to spiritual deepening, to the realization of his supreme dignity. And the earthly Church is a response to the call of God. The Church is that place- as a rule, not noticed by the world - where the Creator and Provider enters into real communication with the inhabitants of the world, granting them the most abundant grace that transforms a person and the world around him.

But we would be theologically inconsistent if we confine ourselves to these general considerations. Our ecclesiological task is to provide answers to many particular questions that can be satisfactorily resolved only from a general theological perspective.

This is a question of how the church community should be built correctly and what is the importance of the laity in it in comparison with the importance of the clergy. And in a broader sense - the question of cooperation and joint service of the hierarchy, clergy and laiks as the people of God in a single church body.

This is a question of the special ecclesiological status and vocation of monasticism and monasteries, which must acquire a new meaning in the current situation.

It is also a question of what kind of church service should be in modern cities and villages, so that it corresponds to the pastoral and missionary calling of the Church.

This is the problem of spirituality and spiritual care, that is, various forms of spiritual guidance for believers, which is aimed at strengthening their faith and understanding the will of God.

Finally, this is a more general problem of overcoming phyletism, that is, identifying the church community with the ethnic and national community, which takes place in different countries and is the cause of church schisms and intra-church confrontations.

It is impossible to enumerate all the specific issues of an ecclesiological nature that concern us in a short introductory speech. Their discussion is precisely the task of our conference. For my part, I would like to emphasize once again the main thing: the theological understanding and comprehension of the Church should be focused on helping to resolve specific, pressing problems of church life, in particular, overcoming internal church discord.

The value of any theory, including theological one, lies in its vitality, that is, in the ability to provide answers to the demands of the time, based on the eternal, enduring laws of the existence of the world and man. This, in fact, is the meaning of the church theology.

The development of ecclesiology is a pan-Orthodox task

In conclusion, I would like to say one more thing. Among us are representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches, hierarchs and theologians. We are grateful to them that they found it possible to take part in our work. It is very important that we can exchange views on the issues under discussion. However, the most significant in this case is something else.

The development of a modern Orthodox ecclesiology, based on fidelity to Tradition and at the same time oriented towards church service to the world, is impossible within the confines of one Local Church. This is a universal task.

Its “ecumenical” character becomes even more obvious if we remember that, due to historical cataclysms and mass migrations, Orthodox communities now exist all over the world, far from the canonical boundaries of the Local Churches. These communities live in different socio-political and cultural conditions, they belong to different ecclesiastical jurisdictions, but at the same time they are parts of a single Catholic Orthodox Church. Ecclesiology must take into account this new scale of the Orthodox presence in the world and place special emphasis on the unity of world Orthodoxy.

In the face of globalization processes, the unification of culture and new conflicts on religious grounds, Universal Orthodoxy must be consolidated. The Orthodox Churches must resume constant consultations, both on theological and on ecclesiastical practical issues. We should return to the process of preparing a pan-Orthodox Council, regardless of when and how such a Council can take place.

Concluding my speech, I would like to express a few thoughts on the work of our conference. Let me tell you straight: we have not gathered for a diplomatic reception and not to deliver ritual speeches. Our task is to frankly and honestly outline the most acute, pressing problems of the daily life of the Church, but from the point of view of their theological understanding.

I invite all participants to a free exchange of opinions, to the expression of different points of view on the issues under consideration. The significance of this conference for the life of the Church will depend on the productivity of our discussion, on the depth and balance of arguments and assessments.

I call on all its participants the help of God in the forthcoming works.