Единство Церкви

The Church is one. This is an axiom of the doctrine of the Church, which is self-evident to every Christian: “there is one body and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Eph. 4:4-6). Therefore, if the Church is spoken of in the plural, it either has a local meaning - it indicates the presence of many local churches in the bosom of the one Church - or it indicates the presence of different faiths that received separate existence in the bosom of the one Apostolic Church. This expression is, of course, inaccurate and should not be misleading. Just as there are not many truths, although the truth is diverse, there are also no many “Churches,” for there is one true, Orthodox Church. The question of the internal unity of many “churches” and their relationship to the Church will be examined separately. Here we must first of all state that, with all the diversity of historical forms of a single church, its essential pluralism cannot be allowed. According to the theory of “branches of the Church” (theory of branches), the one Church is realized, although differently, but at the same time equally in the various branches of historical Christianity (Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Anglicanism). It leads to the conclusion that the tradition of the true Church exists everywhere, but also nowhere, i.e. returns us to the idea of ​​the “invisible Church”, dissolving the concept of the Church in historical relativism. At the same time, the diversity of gifts and historical achievements of Christianity in life obscures the unchangeable unity and continuity of church tradition, which is preserved in the Orthodox Church. Of course, this also raises a special question: how can we understand, in this case, the self-awareness of each of the various church societies, that it is precisely this that is the true Church. There is a share of human limitations, one-sidedness, ignorance and error here, but it also testifies to the genuine touch of the Church in its depths. But just as from the center one can view the position of all points on the circumference, so only from the one true and intact Church can one understand truth and untruth, the truth and limitations of individual churches, each claiming to be one Church. Such a one true Church in which the continuity of church life is preserved, i.e. the unity of tradition is Orthodoxy. And to admit that this one true Church in its pure form does not exist on earth at all, but is contained in parts in different “branches” of it, would mean not believing the Savior’s promise that the forces of hell will not overcome the Church. This would mean that it was beyond the power of humanity to preserve the purity and, through this, the uniqueness of the one Church and, thus, it was not possible to found it on earth. This is disbelief in the Church and in its Head. Therefore, the unity of the Church must be understood, first of all, in the sense of the uniqueness of the true intact Church on earth, although this does not yet reject the well-known ecclesiastical nature of multiple churches. In understanding the unity of the Church, it is necessary to affirm the absolutism of this idea, and the historical relativity of different forms of churchness (“churches”) is interpreted only in the light of this absolutism. The Church is one, and therefore unique, and this one and only true Church, possessing the truth intact, and therefore in fullness (even if this fullness was not fully revealed in history), is Orthodoxy. The doctrine of the unity of the Church is thus associated with the unity of Orthodoxy and the special image of this unity. The unity of the Church is internal and external. The internal unity of the Church corresponds to the unity of the Body of Christ and life in Christ. Churchliness is, first of all, a mysterious life in Christ and with Christ, in the unity of this life with all creation, in communion with the entire human race, headed by the saints in heaven and on earth, and in unity with the angelic world. “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, to the heavenly Jerusalem and ten thousand thousand angels, to the triumphant council and church of the firstborn who are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant” (Heb. 12:22-23). Such is the unity of the Church and, at the same time, its uniqueness. This is life in the Church, and therefore it has, first of all, not a quantitative, but a qualitative definition. This quality, namely the unity of church life as the Body of Christ, manifests itself, first of all, in a certain solemnity of it (the unity of church experience) among its individual members, regardless of their external unification, and, in a certain sense, before it. In the unity of church life are those whom the world does not know and who do not know about the world, hermits and desert dwellers, as well as those living in organized church societies, and this internal unity is the basis of external unity. This thought is expressed in the Orthodox understanding of the Lord’s words to the Apostle Peter after his confession of faith in Christ as the Son of God, which he made on behalf of the apostles: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church” (Matthew 16:18). In Orthodoxy, the Petrov Stone is understood as the faith confessed by Peter and shared by all the apostles, as the internal unity of right faith and life (while in Catholicism these same words are understood as the establishment of external unity through the unified authority of Peter in the Church). But this unity of church life, as a special internal quality of it, is also revealed externally, in the life of the earthly, historical, militant Church: this unity is manifested in the unity of faith and consciousness, in doctrine, in the unity of prayer and sacramental action, therefore, in the unity of tradition and on the basis of its emerging single church organization. In the life perception of this church unity, therefore, two possibilities for its disclosure are outlined, as the unity of inner life and faith and as the unity of organization, both of which must be in harmonious correspondence. However, the idea of ​​either internal unity or external can receive primacy, and accordingly we have two types of church unity - Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic. For the first, the Church is united by the power of unity of life and doctrine even apart from the external unity of the organization, which may or may not exist. For the Roman Church, which in its own way carried out the reception of Roman law, strictum jus, in Christianity, the church organization is of decisive importance. The Church here is the unity of church power in the hands of its sole representative; in short, it is realized in the Pope and the allegiance to him of the entire Church of the entire universe. The unity of Orthodoxy in the world is realized, on the contrary, not as the unity of power over the entire universal church, but as the unity of faith and the resulting unity of life and tradition, together with the continuity of the apostolic succession of the hierarchy. This internal unity exists as the internal harmony and solidarity of the entire Christian world, in its various communities, existing independently, but not separately from each other. It is expressed in the mutual recognition of the power and effectiveness of the grace-filled life in these communities, the mutual recognition of the hierarchy and their mutual communication in the sacraments (Intercommunion). We have such an image of the unity of the Church in the apostolic age, when churches founded by the apostles in different cities and countries have a spiritual connection with each other, which is expressed, first of all, in mutual greetings (in the letters of the Apostle Paul Rom. 16:16 “all the churches of Christ greet you,” cf. 1 Cor. 16:19), in mutual assistance, mainly the primacy of the Jerusalem church, and in cases of special need, in intercourse and unction. And this type of church unity in plurality was established as the only one corresponding to the nature of the Church. It is defined as a system of autocephaly of local churches that are in unity and harmony among themselves. This unity is, first of all, the unity of doctrine and the unity of secret activities. Autocephalous churches profess the same creed and are strengthened by the same sacraments, and they are in communion of sacraments with each other, if external occasion presents itself. Further, they are in canonical communication with each other. This means that each of these churches mutually recognizes in canonical power and effectiveness the hierarchy of all the others. Although the hierarchy in each of the autocephalous churches is completely independent in the exercise of its ministry, however, being bound by the bonds of mutual recognition, it is in its actions under the silent supervision of the universal Orthodox hierarchy. This does not manifest itself in the normal course of life, but it becomes obvious if it is disturbed in some way. Then the hierarchy of one autocephalous church raises its voice in defense of Orthodoxy, damaged by the action of another, church unction arises, sometimes accompanied by unrest, until one way or another, through a church council or written communication, the broken church unity is restored, or a state of schism sets in, sometimes becoming chronic and inveterate. Church history amply testifies to this (the Easter dispute, disputes about the fallen, Arian strife, Nestorian and Eutychian, pneumatological, etc.), and this history does not at all confirm the Catholic understanding that such intervention, resulting from the observance of universal Orthodoxy, belongs only to the Roman see (which, for example, remained far from the most important Arian disputes). The smallest of the ecclesiastical units that make up the universal Church is, of course, the episcopal diocese. This follows clearly from the place that belongs to the bishop in the Church: nulla ecclesia sine episcopo. Of course, under exceptional circumstances (for example, in persecution), it may turn out that a local church is temporarily deprived or excommunicated of its bishop; this does not make it cease to be part of the church body, but such an exception, only temporary, only confirms the general rule. History and canon law show that local churches, which have their center in their bishop, are part of a new, more complex canonical unity, which has its leadership in the council of bishops and in the person of the first bishop. Thus, in history, with the development of church organization - jure ecclesiastico - archdioceses, metropolises, patriarchies arose and are emerging, which in the first hierarch have their own church leader, vested with special, deliberately defined, but by no means unlimited powers. Thus, in the ancient Church, the original pentarchy of patriarchal churches arose, which were distributed by church canons and in order of honor: Roman, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. These canons retain formal force to this day, although in fact they have already become archaic as a result of the Roman schism, on the one hand, as well as actual changes and loss of their former meaning by the Eastern patriarchies, on the other. The latter is also in connection with the emergence of new patriarchies, among which the first place in terms of historical weight is, of course, occupied by the Russian patriarchate. (Recently, more patriarchates arose in Serbia, Romania, Georgia and a number of new autocephalous churches - after the great war). Thus, church history testifies that the independence of individual churches does not prevent their canonical union. In exceptional cases, it is expressed in general councils of representatives of individual churches (which, of course, testifies to their internal unity), as well as in special hierarchical bodies representing this unity. Such bodies are the patriarchates in general and the first of the patriarchs - the Roman (before its separation, in particular). After this separation, this primacy in turn went to the second patriarch - the Patriarch of Constantinople, although this primacy remains more factual than canonical (not to mention the fact that the relative weight and historical significance of the see of Constantinople completely changed after the fall of Byzantium). The First Patriarch, even the Roman Patriarch, never possessed the primacy of power in the universal Church, but only the primacy of honor (primus inter pares) or authority. Of course, in fact, in certain cases, authority is also power, but spiritual, not canonical. He is characterized by primacy at the council (although at the ecumenical councils the pope was actually represented only in the person of his legates) and the proclamation of its decrees, the presidency of the ecumenical synod, if one arose, and, so to speak, the symbolic representation of the unity of the Church, which, naturally, seeks personal expression. After the Roman schism, the universal Church actually does not have such personal leadership, although hitherto it has not felt any particular need for it. If this latter appears, then she will receive satisfaction for herself - either by applying the old canons or by creating a new one. The latter is quite possible, for the provision of a central church organization arose not jure divino (as Catholics claim regarding the primacy of the pope), but jure ecclesiastico, moreover, modo historico, and it can be changed in relation to historical needs. The canonical clothing of the Church is woven on the loom of church history, although in relation to the divine foundations of the Church given to it by its Head. The autocephalous structure of the Orthodox churches leaves inviolable that specific historical diversity in the life of the Church, which corresponds to its multinationality: “as you go, learn all languages.” This is recognition of the right to exist of a nationality in its historical originality, which is combined with the unity of grace-filled life in the Church. Just as the first sermon of the apostles sounded in all the languages ​​of the world of that time, to each people in its own language, being united in essence, so the autocephaly of local churches preserves all their historical specificity and gives room to their natural self-determination. Of course, this diversity also entails negative consequences - excessive diversity and diversity, but it does not suppress, but transforms it from the inside. The historical difference in the destinies and even the type of individual local churches cannot be suppressed or destroyed - it remains as their special properties. This idea is expressed in Rev. 1–2, in an appeal to the seven Asian churches, which have not only historical, but also typological significance (not to mention other New Testament data in the Acts of the Apostles and epistles). This concrete multi-unity of the Church is opposed by the Roman idea of ​​an abstract, supra-national (or non-national) multi-unity, which in practical implementation, however, seeks to be embodied in a special papal state, and - in idea or limit - this state is not limited to the Vatican area, but extends to the whole world (if this were possible). The unity of the Church in the Roman understanding is the unity of government concentrated in the hands of the pope. This is a spiritual monarchy, moreover, of a centralist type. It is impossible to deny the many practical advantages of such enlightened absolutism, which consist in the fact that here, at the cost of forced uniformity, greater uniformity and even a greater height of the general level of church life are achieved. However, this is bought at a high price - the transformation of the Church of Christ into the domain of earthly power. The autocephalous plurality of churches, however, introduces great unevenness and diversity into church life; it is associated with inevitable provincialism, which, however, is being overcome in our days in connection with the general process of unification of the entire cultural world. Here we have a natural boundary that history posits. And in any case, secondary benefits cannot be, like lentil stew, at the price of Christian primogeniture, the replacement of Christian unity by the centralist world power of Rome, which itself has long ago become an Italian province in the world. Provincialism can be overcome by centralistic despotism, state and spiritual, as it was during the Roman Empire in paganism and the Roman spiritual empire in the papacy, or by the internal natural rapprochement of peoples and national churches, which occurs due to a natural process. At the present time, when the life of historical humanity is uniting uncontrollably, this unification extends to church life, in which the beginning of universal conciliarity is increasingly realized, and to that extent even the relative importance of centralism as a powerful means of unification is lost. This is not a process identical with the general democratization of life, but it is parallel to it. Freedom becomes the necessary air that modern humanity can only breathe. And the autocephaly of Orthodoxy, the mutual independence of local churches in the presence of their spiritual unity and connection, corresponds to the modern spirit much more than Roman centralism, under which it is becoming increasingly utopian to bend all popular churches. It is Orthodoxy, which has preserved the original identity of the people's local churches and, together, the unity of tradition, that is called upon to save the Christian world from Protestant dispersion, as well as from despotic uniformitarianism. This is the unity of the Church in the Orthodox understanding. It is a multi-unity, a symphony in which different themes and voices are combined.