In the Creed, the Church is called Conciliar: this word is translated into Slavic Greek, literally meaning “universal”, “all-encompassing”, “ecumenical”. For translation in Russian scientific and theological literature, the word “catholic” is most often used (the Latin version of the same word, “catholic,” was reserved for itself by the Roman Catholic Church). The meaning of the concept “catholic” is explained by Cyril of Jerusalem in the Catechetical Teaching dedicated to the presentation of the doctrine of the Church:

The Church is called Catholic (Catholic) because it is located throughout the entire universe from the ends of the earth to the ends of it, that everywhere and in its entirety it teaches all the teaching that people should know, the teaching about things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, that the entire human race leads to true faith, superiors and subordinates, scientists and ordinary people, and which everywhere heals and heals all kinds of sins committed by soul and body, has in itself every kind of perfection, which appears in deeds, words and in all spiritual gifts.

So, the Church, according to Cyril’s interpretation, is Catholic, because it is spread throughout the world, open to every person, regardless of his ethnic origin and social status. The lack of geographical boundaries of the Catholic Church is emphasized by comparing it with states, each of which is limited by certain territorial boundaries: “Kings of countries and peoples have limits to their power, one Holy Universal Church throughout the world has unlimited power.”

The term “catholic” is also used to distinguish the true Church from heretical communities. Since assemblies of heretics, who should rightly be called “the church of the evil ones,” also call themselves churches, the Creed teaches us to believe “in one Holy Catholic Church,” so that Christians avoid heretical assemblies and always remain in the Holy Universal Church. Therefore, Cyril continues, if you come to any city, then do not simply ask “where is the temple of the Lord?”, for other wicked heretics call their caves the temples of the Lord, and do not simply ask “where is the church?”, but “where is the Catholic Church?” Church?" For this is precisely the proper name of “our Holy and universal Mother Church, who is the Bride of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God.”

Each Local Church, that is, the Church of a specific place, is part of the Universal Church. This is emphasized by Cyprian of Carthage, comparing the Church with the sun from which rays emanate, with a trunk from which branches extend, with a source from which streams flow:

Separate the sunbeam from its beginning - unity will not allow a separate light to exist; break off a branch from a tree - the broken one will lose the ability to grow; If a stream is separated from its source, the separated one will dry up. In the same way, the Church, illuminated by the light of the Lord, spreads its rays throughout the world; but the light spreading everywhere is one, and the unity of the body remains undivided. Throughout the earth she will spread her branches laden with fruits; its abundant streams flow over a long distance - despite all this, there remains one head, one beginning, one mother, rich in the abundance of fruitfulness.

In his interpretation of the 1st Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, speaking about the Church as the Body of Christ, John Chrysostom focuses on the words “you are the body of Christ, and individually you are members” (1 Cor 12:27). What does "separate" mean? - asks Zlatoust. And he answers:

He said “body,” and since the whole body was not the Corinthian Church, but the universal one, he added “separately,” that is, your Church is part of the universal Church, a body made up of all Churches, so you must be in the world not only with each other, but also with the entire universal Church, if you are truly members of one body.

Thus, the Local Church, be it Corinthian, Roman or any other, is only a part of the Universal Church, which embraces all the Local Churches. This, however, does not mean that the Local Church has some kind of partial, incomplete character. Each Local Church, being a member of a single whole, the Universal Catholic Church, at the same time possesses within itself the fullness of churchliness and catholicity. In other words, the Catholic Church is not only the Universal Church as a collection of Local Churches, but also each Local Church in communion with other Churches.

This is particularly emphasized by the so-called “Eucharistic ecclesiology”, developed in the second half of the 20th century by Protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasyev, developed by Protopresbyters Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff, as well as Metropolitan John Zizioulas. Eucharistic ecclesiology is an attempt to reconstruct the ecclesiology of the primitive Church, that is, the Church of the apostolic time and the first post-apostolic generations. The main sources for constructing this ecclesiology are the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, the Council Epistles, the writings of Ignatius the God-Bearer and other apostolic men, as well as the works of Western authors of the 3rd century, in particular Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthage.

Eucharistic ecclesiology proceeds from the fact that the original church unit was the eucharistic community, united in one place around one primate (bishop or senior presbyter). As we said in our place, the first Christian Church was the community of Christ’s disciples in Jerusalem: this was the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which possessed all the fullness of ecclesiastical and catholicity. As Christianity spread to other cities of the empire, local communities began to arise in them, but each local community was perceived not only as part of the Universal Church, but also as the Catholic Church itself in its entirety. The guarantee of the catholicity of each Local Church was the presence in it of a single Eucharistic assembly, headed by a bishop as the elected primate of the people of God or a presbyter to whom the bishop delegated this primacy.

Speaking about early Christian ecclesiology, Protopresbyter Nikolai Afanasyev emphasizes that the experience of catholicity belonged to the members of each Local Church:

In empirical reality, the unity and fullness of the Church of God are expressed in the multiplicity of local Churches, each of which reveals not a part, but the entire Church of God. Therefore, the plurality of local Churches in empirical reality protects the unity and completeness of the Church, that is, its catholicity. The unity of the local Church itself is expressed in its single Eucharistic meeting. The Church is one because it had a single Eucharistic meeting, to which the people of God, consisting of priests, gathered... No matter how the number of local Churches grew, the unity of the Church remained unbroken, since in all There were not different Eucharistic meetings, but one and the same thing. Unity and completeness was not in the totality of local Churches, not in their confederation, which never existed, but in each local Church.

The catholicity, universality, and universality of the Church, according to Afanasyev, in the minds of the first Christians were associated not with the totality of Local Churches, but with their own Local Church. Catholicity was perceived as an internal quality of the Church, and not just as its external attribute:

Being united in all its completeness, the Church always remained internally universal, since each local Church contained within itself all the other local Churches. What was accomplished in one Church was accomplished in all the others, since everything was accomplished in the Church of God in Christ. Due to this catholic-universal nature, isolation and provincialism were completely alien to the local Churches. No Church could separate itself from another or others, since it could not separate itself from Christ. Everyone was united in love. Each Church was an object of love for everyone, and everything was an object of love for everyone.

The main line of church structure in the ancient Church “went from internal to external universalism,” Afanasiev believes. In other words, the primary thing was the consciousness of the catholicity of the local Church, and secondarily, catholicity was perceived as a quality inherent in all Local Churches collectively.

This is partly confirmed by the words of Ignatius the God-Bearer: “Where the bishop is, there will be the people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there will be the Catholic Church.” The context of Saint Ignatius’s words allows us to assert that he is talking specifically about the local Church led by a bishop. However, his words can also be understood in the sense of comparing the local Church, headed by a bishop, with the Catholic, Universal Church, headed by Christ.

How does the catholicity of the local Church relate to the catholicity of the Church on a universal scale? Protopresbyter John Meyendorff defines this ratio as follows:

The idea of ​​a Local Church, headed by a bishop, who is usually elected by the entire Church, but is invested with charismatic and apostolic functions as the successor of Peter, is the doctrinal justification for conciliarity, as it has come into practice since the 3rd century. For Eucharistic ecclesiology presupposes that each Local Church, although it belongs to the fullness of catholicity, is always in unity and fellowship with all other Churches participating in the same catholicity. Bishops not only bear moral responsibility for this community: they participate in a single episcopal ministry... Each bishop performs his ministry together with other bishops, because it is identical with the ministry of others and because the Church is one.

Thus, the Local Church, although catholic in its entirety, is not self-sufficient: its catholicity is realized in communion with other Local Churches. A clear confirmation of this is the fact that a bishop cannot ordain his successor: according to ancient canonical practice, the bishop of one Local Church (diocese) is elected by the people of God, but is appointed by the bishops of neighboring dioceses. Consequently, the catholicity of the Local Church is ensured not only by the fact that it is headed by a bishop, but also by the fact that this bishop has received ordination from bishops of other Local Churches and is in communion with them. Communication between bishops is an integral feature of catholicity as conciliarity.

Here it is appropriate to say that the Slavic word “conciliarity” has firmly entered into the modern church language and is widely used not only in Russian, but also in other European languages ​​(including even Greek) not so much as a synonym for catholicity, but in its own in its own capacity - as a term indicating the conciliar structure of the Church, its conciliar government.

This use of the word “conciliarity” was initiated by Russian Slavophiles, primarily A.S. Khomyakov, in whose ecclesiology this concept was of utmost importance. Khomyakov perceived the Church not only and not so much as an organization held together by the external authority of the hierarchy, but as a single conciliar organism, whose members are bound by the unity of faith on the principles of equality and freedom:

In matters of faith there is no difference between the learned and the ignorant, the clergyman and the layman, man and woman, sovereign and subject, slave owner and slave, where, when necessary, at the discretion of God, a child receives the gift of vision, a child is given the word of wisdom, the heresy of a learned bishop is refuted an illiterate shepherd, so that all would be one in the free unity of living faith, which is the manifestation of the Spirit of God. This is the dogma lying in the depths of the idea of ​​the council.

The idea of ​​conciliarity as the unity and equality of all members of the Church was the most important element of A.S.’s ecclesiology. Khomyakov and other Slavophiles. Khomyakov perceived the mystery of salvation in the light of the doctrine of conciliarity: “When one of us falls, he falls alone, but no one is saved alone. The one who is saved is saved in the Church as its member and in unity with all its other members.”

In the language of the Slavophiles, “conciliarity” is not a legal term, and it refers not so much to church governance as to the Church as such, to its internal character. Summarizing the views of A.S. Khomyakov for conciliarity, N.A. Berdyaev writes:

For him, the subject of the Church was the church people. The conciliarity of the church people was a free unity in love. The conciliarity of the Church, the basic idea of ​​all Slavophilism, in which the Slavophiles saw the essence of Orthodoxy, does not contain formal and rational features; in conciliarity there is nothing legal, nothing reminiscent of state power, nothing external and coercive. Although Khomyakov himself did not like to use this word, the conciliarity of the church is mystical, it is a mysterious order... Conciliarity is a living organism, and the church people live in it. The conciliar spirit of the Church was most clearly reflected in the activities of the Ecumenical Councils. But the authority of the Ecumenical Councils is not external, not formal, not rationally expressible, not translatable into legal language. Ecumenical Councils are authoritative only because in them the truth was revealed for the living, conciliar organism of the Church. The Church is not an authority, the Church is the life of a Christian in Christ, in the body of Christ, a free, grace-filled life.

The teaching of the Slavophiles about the conciliarity of the Church had a great influence on modern Orthodox theology. It was developed by the theologians of the “Paris School”. Archpriest Georgy Florovsky is close to the Slavophiles when he states:

The catholicity (conciliarity) of the Church is not a quantitative or geographical concept. It does not at all depend on the fact that the faithful are scattered throughout the world. The universality of the Church is a consequence or manifestation, and not the cause or foundation of catholicity. The universality of the spread, or the universality of the Church, is only an external sign, and the sign is completely optional; the Church was catholic even when Christian communities were only lonely and rare islands in a sea of ​​unbelief and paganism. And the Church will remain catholic until the end of time... The Church is catholic not because of its external spread, or, in any case, not only because of this, the Church is catholic not only because it represents some kind of comprehensive formation, not only because it unites everyone its members, all the Local Churches, but because it is catholic through and through, in every smallest part of it, in every act and event of its life. The nature of the Church is catholic; the very fabric of the church body is catholic. The Church is catholic, for it is the one Body of Christ; it is union in Christ, unity in the Holy Spirit, and this unity is the highest integrity and completeness.

In the catholicity of the Church, says Florovsky, “the painful duality between freedom and authority is resolved. There can be no external authority in the Church. Authority cannot be a source of spiritual life.” In the Church, everyone has freedom and is called not to formal submission to external authority, but to “curb your subjectivity, free yourself from psychologism, raise the level of your consciousness to the full catholic measure.” The Christian must “live in spiritual and conscious harmony with the historical fullness of church experience,” overcoming subjectivity and particularism. It is necessary to “enter the life of the Church with humility and trust and try to find yourself in it.” The difficulties and doubts of an individual Christian are resolved “in united, catholic, ascetic efforts.”

Florovsky links the idea of ​​conciliarity with eucharistic ecclesiology, which was developed by theologians of the “Parisian school.” According to Florovsky, “the Church recognizes and realizes its unity and conciliarity primarily in the Eucharistic sacrament.” The Eucharist reveals “the spiritual unity of the coming Church, the indivisible catholicity of prayerful address.” Liturgical prayer has a catholic scope and boldness, for it embraces the whole world. The Eucharistic prayer “with loving attention embraces all the fullness and all the complexity of life’s situations and conditions, all the complexity of earthly destiny”: this is the meaning of commemorating the living and the dead at the liturgy. The Eucharist is celebrated not only on behalf of those present in the church, but as if on behalf of the entire Church and “in connection with the whole Church.”

In the 20th century, the doctrine of conciliarity was quite effectively used by Orthodox theologians in polemics with Catholicism. There has even been a tradition of contrasting the conciliarity of Orthodoxy with Roman papism. Many Orthodox believe that in the Orthodox Church the supreme power is vested in the Council, while in Catholicism the supreme power belongs to the pope; in Orthodoxy, the guarantor of theological infallibility is the conciliar reason of the Church, while in Catholicism, infallibility is assigned to the Bishop of Rome.

Such oppositions, however, suffer from a certain schematism and require significant clarification in terms of content. The Orthodox categorically do not accept the idea of ​​papal infallibility, but they do not at all consider the Church Council infallible. As we noted, speaking about the significance of the Ecumenical Councils, in history there were “robber councils” that had all the signs of Ecumenical Councils, but after the fact the Church rejected them. No external attribute, as the history of the Church shows, can guarantee the unimpeded implementation of conciliarity.

Considering the history of the Ecumenical Councils, we came to the conclusion that the Ecumenical Council is by no means the highest governing body in the Orthodox Church: the Orthodox Church has lived without Ecumenical Councils for more than twelve centuries. But even at the level of the Local Church, the Council is, although desirable, but not at all an indispensable and not the only way of expressing conciliarity. For more than two hundred years, during the entire synodal period, Councils of Bishops were not convened in the Russian Church. At the same time, the Church lived a full-blooded spiritual life, carrying out its saving mission.

The catholicity of the Church is expressed not only in Councils, but also in the communication of bishops among themselves; in the exchange of messages; in that the bishop is supplied by two or more bishops of the region; is that, upon assuming the see, the newly installed bishop notifies the bishops of neighboring dioceses about this. The most important connecting factor and guarantor of conciliarity is precisely the participation of all bishops, clergy and laity of various Local Churches in the Eucharist, which is celebrated everywhere, but remains one and indivisible.

Conciliarity, according to the Orthodox understanding, is manifested in the fact that all bishops, despite possible differences in position, rank and significance, are equal to each other. The Primate of the Local Church (patriarch, metropolitan or archbishop) is first among equals: in sacramental terms, as well as in terms of theological infallibility, he is by no means higher or better than other bishops. In this sense, the words of Saint Cyprian, spoken at the Council of Carthage in 256, are guiding for the Orthodox Church: “None of us will make ourselves a bishop of bishops.”

It is precisely this “bishop of bishops”, from the point of view of the Orthodox, that the Pope of Rome has become, officially calling himself the “Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church”, and this is one of the reasons why the Orthodox do not accept the idea of ​​papal primacy in the form in which it exists in Catholicism , and papal infallibility. From an Orthodox point of view, there is not a single quality that can be acquired by one bishop that another bishop would not possess. If the Pope of Rome possesses infallibility when he speaks from his pulpit, then the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Patriarch of Moscow, as well as any diocesan bishop of any Local Church should possess the same infallibility when they speak from their pulpits. If the Pope is the “Vicar of Christ,” then every other bishop should be called the Vicar of Christ.

Here it is appropriate to once again recall the words of Cyprian of Carthage that “there is one bishopric, and each of the bishops participates integrally in it.” In sacramental and theological terms, each bishop has episcopal authority in its entirety and integrity, being equal in everything to any other bishop. And each department, be it Rome, Constantinople, Moscow, Samara or Vladivostok, is equal to any other department. Primacy among bishops can only be a primacy of honor, but not a primacy of jurisdiction, and certainly not a primacy of theological infallibility. The assignment to one bishop of any special sacramental or theological privileges is, from the Orthodox point of view, a gross violation and radical distortion of the principle of conciliarity of the Church.

Conciliarity in the Church exists not only at the level of bishops, but also at the level of the lower clergy and laity. The Slavophiles linked the concept of conciliarity with the idea of ​​the people of God as the bearer of church truth, and the “people of God” meant the laity. The ideas of the Slavophiles inspired Russian hierarchs and theologians of the early 20th century to involve the laity in preparing the Local Council and participating in its work. In the Local Council of 1917-1918, the laity participated as full delegates and played a very significant role. However, this was an obvious innovation, since all Councils of the ancient Church - both Ecumenical and Local - were Councils of bishops, and the laity did not participate in them. The exceptions were the emperor as (supreme pontiff) and officials appointed to maintain order, as well as possibly secretaries and clerks who attended the Councils without the right to vote.

While Catholicism is most often associated with the belief and practice of the Catholic Church, led by the Pope, features of catholicity and therefore the term "Catholic Church" also apply to other denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East, etc. This also occurs in Lutheranism, Anglicanism, as well as independent Catholicism and other Christian denominations.

What is the Catholic Church

While the traits used to define catholicity, as well as the recognition of these traits in other faiths, vary among different religious groups, common attributes include: formal sacraments, episcopal polity, apostolic succession, highly structured worship, and other unified ecclesiology.

The Catholic Church is also known as the Roman Catholic Church, a term used especially in ecumenical contexts and in those countries where other churches use the word "Catholic" to distinguish adherents of that church from broader meanings of the concept.

In Protestantism

Among Protestant and related traditions, catholicity or conciliarity is used in the sense of indicating a self-understanding of continuity of faith and practice from early Christianity, as outlined in the Nicene Creed.

Among the Methodist: Lutheran, Moravan and Reformed denominations, the term "catholic" is used in the statement that they are "heirs of the apostolic faith." These denominations consider themselves catholic churches, claiming that the concept "denotes the historical, orthodox mainstream of Christianity, whose doctrine was determined by ecumenical councils and creeds" and therefore most reformers "turned to this catholic tradition and considered themselves to be in continuity with it."

Common features

A common belief associated with Catholicism is institutional continuity from the early Christian church founded by Jesus Christ. Many temples or congregations identify themselves individually or collectively as the authentic church. Any subject literature outlines the major schisms and conflicts within Christianity, especially within groups that identify as Catholic. There are several competing historical interpretations about which groups fell into schism with the original early church.

Times of popes and kings

According to the theory of the Pentarchy, the early undivided church was organized under three patriarchs: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, to which the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem were later added. The Bishop of Rome at that time was recognized as the first among them, as stated, for example, in canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople (many interpret "first" to mean "place among equals").

The Bishop of Rome was also considered to have the right to convene ecumenical councils. When the Imperial capital moved to Constantinople, Rome's influence was sometimes contested. However, Rome claimed special authority because of its connection with Saints Peter and Paul, who were all agreed to have been martyred and buried in Rome, and so the Bishop of Rome saw himself as Saint Peter's successor.

Catholicity of the Church: History

The Third Ecumenical Council in 431 was mainly concerned with Nestorianism, which emphasized the difference between the humanity and divinity of Jesus and declared that at the birth of the messiah, the Virgin Mary could not speak of the birth of God.

This Council rejected Nestorianism and affirmed that since humanity and divinity are inseparable from each other in Jesus Christ, his mother, the Virgin Mary, is thus the Theotokos, the God-Bearer, the Mother of God.

The first great break in the Church followed this Council. Those who refused to accept the decision of the Council were mainly Persian Christians and are represented today by the Assyrian Church of the East and its associated Churches, which, however, now do not have a “Nestorian” theology. They are often called ancient eastern temples.

Second break

The next major split occurred after (451). This Council rejected Euphian Monophysitism, which held that the divine nature had completely subordinated human nature in Christ. This Council declared that Christ, although human, manifested two natures: "without confusion, without change, without division, without division" and thus he is fully God and fully man. The Church of Alexandria rejected the terms accepted by this Council, and Christian churches which follow the tradition of not recognizing the Council - they are not Monophysites in doctrine - are called Pre-Chalcedonian or Eastern Orthodox Churches.

The final break

The next big break in Christianity was in the 11th century. Years of doctrinal disputes, as well as conflicts between methods of church government and the evolution of individual rites and customs, precipitated a schism in 1054 that divided the Church, this time between "West" and "East". Spain, England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Scandinavia, the Baltic countries and Western Europe as a whole were in the Western camp, while Greece, Romania, Kievan Rus and many other Slavic lands, Anatolia and Christians in Syria and Egypt , who accepted the Council of Chalcedon, formed the Eastern camp. This division between the Western and Eastern Churches is called the East-West Schism.

In 1438, the Council of Florence held a dialogue dedicated to understanding the theological differences between East and West, with the hope of reuniting the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Several eastern churches reunited, constituting some of the Catholic churches. They are sometimes called Orthodox Catholic churches.

Reformation

Another major division in the Church occurred in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation, after which many parts of the Western Church rejected papal authority and some of the teachings of the Western Church at the time and became known as "Reformers" as well as "Protestants".

A much less extensive rupture occurred when, after the first Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church, in which it formally proclaimed the dogma of the infallibility of the papacy, small clusters of Catholics in the Netherlands and in German-speaking countries formed the Old Catholic (Alcatolid) Church.

Terminology difficulties

The use of the terms "catholicity" and "Catholicism" depends on the context. During the times preceding the Great Schism, this refers to the Nicene Creed and especially to the principles of Christology, i.e., the rejection of Arianism. In the aftermath of the Great Schism, Catholicism, represented by the Catholic Church, unites the Latin, Eastern Catholic Churches of the Greek tradition and other Eastern Catholic parishes.

Liturgical and canonical practices differ between all of these specific Churches that make up the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches (or as Richard McBrien calls them, "the Communion of the Catholic Churches"). Compare this with the term "Catholicos" (but not Catholicism) to refer to the head of a Particular Church in Eastern Christianity. However, the significance of the Orthodox Catholic Church is rather nominal.

In the Catholic Church, the term "catholic" is understood to include "those who are baptized and in communion with the Pope."

Sacraments

Churches in this tradition (such as the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church) administer seven sacraments or "holy mysteries": Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, also known as Reconciliation, Anointing of God, Blessing of the Saints, and Fraternity.

What about Catholics?

In churches that consider themselves Catholic, the sacrament is considered a visible sign of God's invisible grace. While the word "mystery" is used not only for these rites but also for other meanings with reference to revelations about God and God's mystical interaction with creation, the concept of "sacrament" (Latin for "solemn obligation") is a common term in the West, which refers specifically to these rituals.

The Eastern Orthodox Church takes the position that it is their communion that actually constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Eastern Orthodox Christians consider themselves heirs to the patriarchal structure of the first millennium, which developed in the Eastern Church in the model of the pentarchy, a theory recognized by the Ecumenical Councils that "continues to dominate official Greek circles to this day."

Dissenters against schismatics

In Orthodoxy, the catholicity or conciliarity of the church plays a huge role. Since the theological disputes that occurred in the 9th-11th centuries, culminating in the final schism in 1054, the Eastern Orthodox churches viewed Rome as a schismatic species that violated the essential Catholicism of the Christian faith by introducing new doctrines (see Filioque).

On the other hand, the pentarchy model was never fully applied in the Western Church, which preferred the theory of the Primate of the Bishop of Rome, favoring ultramontanism over the council. The title "Patriarch of the West" was rarely used by popes until the 16th and 17th centuries and was included in the Annuario Pontifio from 1863 to 2005, being dropped and passed into history, obsolete and practically unusable.

The Eastern (Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Malankara) also maintain the position that their community constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In this sense, Eastern Orthodoxy maintains its ancient ecclesiological traditions of apostolate (apostolic succession) and catholicity (universality) of the Church. There is even a Catholic Orthodox Church in France.

The beginning of the existence of the non-canonical religious organization "Russian Orthodox Catholic Church" was laid in January 1991, when Metropolitan of Lvov Vladimir Sternyuk accepted into the jurisdiction of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC) the "hierarch" of the "Seraphim-Gennadiev" branch of the Catacomb Church, "Bishop of Yasnopolyansky" Viketia (Chekalin) and appointed him manager of the Russian parishes of the UGCC. At the same time, the union of Greek Catholic parish communities in Russia received the name “Russian Orthodox Catholic (Catholic) Church” (ROC), and “Bishop” Vikenty (Chekalin) was given the title of Primate.

Despite the personal patronage of Metropolitan Vladimir Sternyuk, the acceptance of “bishop” Vikenty (Chekalin) into the “bishop” rank did not receive the approval of the Vatican, and in the same 1991 he was forced to leave the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Continuing to head the “Russian Orthodox Catholic Church,” “Bishop” Vikenty in the early 1990s. performed the ordination of “bishops” Mikhail (Anashkin) and Alexy (Lobazov).

By 1992, “Bishop” Vikenty (Chekalin) removed himself from the management of the “Russian Orthodox Catholic Church” and the leadership of this non-Knaonic religious organization was taken over by “Bishop” Mikhail (Anashkin), endowed with the title of “Archbishop of Moscow, Metropolitan of All-Russia,” Chairman of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Wanting to increase the status of their own legitimacy, the “hierarchs” of the Russian Orthodox Church developed a theory according to which they trace the succession of their ordination to the “Danilov” opposition, i.e. to the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church of the 1920s, who denied the admissibility of any compromise with the Soviet regime and united around the Archbishop of Volokolamsk Theodore (Pozdeevsky). Avoiding mention of accepting ordination from such an odious person as “Bishop” Vikenty (Chekalin), the “hierarchs” of the Russian Orthodox Church declare that they were ordained by the “Danilovsky” bishops Nikandr (Ovsyuk) and Maxim (Kharlampiev), who in reality never didn't exist.

In 1993, “Metropolitan” Mikhail (Anashkin) registered four parishes of the “Russian Orthodox Catholic Church” with the Moscow Department of Justice, and in February 1994 he managed to obtain official registration for the “Center of the Catholic Orthodox Church.” By this time, the RPCC included 12 parish communities.

In its liturgical practice, the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church adheres to the Byzantine-Russian tradition with the inclusion of elements of Latin worship. The language of worship is modern Russian.

In March 1996, “Metropolitan” Mikhail (Anashkin) and “Bishop” Alexy (Lobazov) ordained the third “hierarch” of the Russian Orthodox Church, which became “Bishop of Klimovsky” Manuil (Platov), ​​who had already been arrested in 2000 on suspicion of pedophilia and subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison.

In 2001, “Archbishop” Alexy (Lobazov) left the jurisdiction of the “Russian Orthodox Catholic Church”, after which only one “hierarch” remained in its composition in the person of “Metropolitan” Mikhail (Anashkin). Since that time, the religious activities of the Russian Orthodox Church have lost their intensity and practically come to a standstill.

Catholic Orthodox Church of France(fr. Église catholique orthodoxe de France, abbreviated ECOF, was previously known as Orthodox Church of France, fr. l'Église Orthodoxe de France) is a non-canonical jurisdiction that uses a modified Gallican rite in worship. At various times she was part of the Moscow Patriarchate, the ROCOR, and the Romanian Patriarchate.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 1

✪ Intelligence interrogation: Klim Zhukov about the acquisition of Slavic writing

Subtitles

Story

Under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate

The emergence and establishment of this jurisdiction is associated with the name of Evgraf Evgrafovich Kovalevsky (later Bishop of Saint-Denis John-Nectarius (1905-1970)), who in 1937, as a priest, led the community of the deceased Archimandrite Irenaeus (Winera), who was accepted shortly before his death into the Russian the Orthodox Church with the right to serve the local rite, use the Gregorian calendar, Western vestments, etc. Evgraf Kovalevsky, as well as his brother Maxim, actively gave lectures, preached a lot, and the number of communities grew.

In 1944, Kovalevsky created, taking it as a model. The composition of the teachers is quite representative - members of the Orthodox Mission of France, created by Evgraf Kovalevsky and Vladimir Lossky, French secular professors of various Christian denominations.

In 1948, the association, headed by Evgraf Kovalevsky, began to be called the “Orthodox Church of France.” Clergymen were required to be French citizens. Divine services were performed in French, the liturgy was served in the restored Gallican rite. Contacts magazine began to be published.

However, many mistakes and, above all, a frivolous attitude towards church discipline - communion of heterodox people, non-canonical weddings, secondary ordination, the use of esoteric practices and much more - became the reason for a critical attitude towards the brainchild of Evgraf Kovalevsky on the part of the hierarchy of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople

In 1953, Archpriest Evgraf Kovalevsky, together with a significant part of the believing communities of the Western rite, left the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate and formed the “French Catholic Orthodox Church” (“Eglise catholique orthodoxe de France (ECOF)”). It is noteworthy that several years before leaving for the schism, Archpriest Evgraf secretly registered the Charter of the religious organization and the organization itself under the name “French Orthodox Church”. Together with Kovalevsky, the Theological Institute of St. Dionysius also left the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Until 1956, Archpriest Evgraf was under the jurisdiction of the Russian Western European Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then for several years the communities subordinate to Archpriest Evgraf remained independent.

In the jurisdiction of the Russian Church Abroad

In 1960, the “French Orthodox Church” became part of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, where it received the name “Orthodox Catholic Church of France”. Joining the ROCOR was carried out by the Bishop of Brussels and Western Europe, John (Maximovich), who treated the ancient Gallican liturgical tradition with great reverence and saw in its revival not only a return to the liturgical diversity of the ancient undivided Church, but also saw enormous potential for the Orthodox mission in the Western world.

On November 11, 1964, Archpriest Evgraf Kovalevsky, with the consent of the Synod of the ROCOR, was ordained Bishop of Saint-Denis at the Cathedral of Sorrows in San Francisco. The consecration was performed by Archbishop John (Maximovic) and Bishop Theophilus (Ionescu). Bishop John-Nectarius led a flock of 5,000 Orthodox Frenchmen of the Western Rite.

After the death of Archbishop John (Maximovich) in 1966, the Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR in September 1966 entrusted the leadership of the affairs of the French Orthodox Catholic Church to Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinov) of Canada. On October 9, Archbishop Vitaly attended the General Assembly of the FPCC, where he declared the need to stop celebrating the Western rite of liturgy and insisted on the full adoption of the Byzantine rite. As a sign of protest, on October 19, Bishop John Nektary announced his withdrawal from the ROCOR. Some of the FPOC communities refused to leave the ROCOR; they were formalized as the French Mission of the ROCOR, while the Gallican rite was preserved in them, subject to the Byzantine rite as the main one. In 1986, part of these parishes, led by Archimandrite Ambrose (Fontrier), joined one of the non-canonical Old Calendar Synod of Auxentius, others completely switched to the Eastern rite.

At the end of the same year, Bishop John Nektarios addressed the primates of the Orthodox Local Churches with a request to accept the ECOF while preserving the Gallican rite. According to the report of Bishop Vitaly (Ustinov), Bishop John-Nectarius was defrocked “for inappropriate behavior,” which he did not admit. In 1967, he was excommunicated from the Church by the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR.

Under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Patriarchate

At the suggestion of the Romanian emigrant priest Virgil Gheorghiu, Bishop Ioan-Nectarius Kovalevsky made new attempts to regulate the canonical status of his jurisdiction and in 1967 began negotiations with the Romanian Patriarch Justinian, but did not have time to complete them, dying in 1970. The accession of the “Orthodox Catholic Church of France” to the canonical Romanian Orthodox Church took place only in 1972.

On June 11, 1972, Bishop Herman (Bertrand-Hardy) with the title of Saint-Denis was consecrated for the PCTF.

In 1988, due to the position of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a conflict arose with the Romanian Patriarchate, which in March 1993 withdrew its blessing for the activities of ECOF, and most of the latter’s parishes left the Romanian Church. The parishes that did not want to go into schism were organized into a special deanery of the Gallican rite, headed by Archpriest Gregory Bertrand-Hardy, brother of the deposed Bishop Herman. These parishes actually became biritual - according to the Gallican rite, they are allowed to serve only six times a year. .

Independent existence

On April 3, 1997, the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of France, by a special resolution, expressed a negative attitude towards ECOF.

A church that broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. Not officially recognized by other Orthodox Churches.

According to some sources, this church is led by a former Catholic who studied at a Catholic seminary and may even have been ordained as a deacon. The Center of the Orthodox Catholic Church was registered by the Moscow Department of Justice in February 1994.

The basis of the doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church is the denial of the division of the Churches in 1054 and the claim to create a new Church that unites the traditions of Eastern and Western Christianity. The followers of this church recognize as legal only the decisions of the Ecumenical and Local Councils held before 1054. In line with the appeal to the ancient pre-schism tradition, the celibacy of the clergy, the Gregorian calendar, the mandatory presence of an iconostasis in the church, etc. are also denied. In addition, the institution of deaconesses has been restored. In general, the teaching is an eclectic combination of elements of the doctrine of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It is significant that the Eucharist is celebrated with both red and white unfortified wine.

The church is headed by a Synod of five people.