Отдел 5. Отношение церкви к государству и к лицам, к ней не принадлежащим.

Chapter one. Church and State § 181. The beginning of church and state Christian teaching says that the church was founded by God Himself; but it also says that the state also has its beginning in the plans of God’s providence for the world. Consequently, both the one and the other are divine institutions, and their goal is the temporary and eternal good of man. Christian dogma speaks about the divine establishment of the church. It teaches that Christ founded the church, that it is a spiritual kingdom, that it is not limited by time or place, that its goal is the salvation of all people and their union with God, and that, according to this goal, it also has its own special means, which in all respects differ from the means of worldly power 2423. Church law accepts this dogmatic teaching about the church as a ready-made scheme, on the basis of which it considers the legal significance of the church in the world. And as complete as Christian teaching is in this regard, it is also complete in relation to the state and state power. God is the Creator not only of man, but also of society. He put into the very nature of man a love for social life, instilled in man a desire to communicate with other people. In the creation of the wife, given by God to man as a friend, we see the first act in God’s plans for society. The union of husband and wife, marriage, was the basis of the family. But this first family could not remain limited to the close circle of husband and wife and their immediate descendants, but naturally had to expand beyond the family and gradually form a large social unit. Since man was created in the image of God and the main goal of the first man was to glorify his Creator, then the main goal of the society that descended from this man is the same, and this, by natural law, constitutes the main need of society, the necessary desire of all people. This desire of man, instilled in his heart by God, was reborn, as a result of the fall of man, into the desire to glorify himself, instead of God. This had already disrupted the primitive order of society, and man was left to himself and his fate. Society has strayed from the path that God had laid out for it and has followed the path that its limited mind showed it, striving for an uncertain goal and being subject to temporary accidents. But God, in His eternal wisdom and boundless goodness, did not want to leave man and society in such an uncertain situation, and, having mercy on his creation, promised to send him a Redeemer “when the fullness of time comes”; and meanwhile, instead of the primitive structure, He established in the first family the power of the husband over the wife and thus the power of the head of the family over all other members of it. This, immediately after the fall of man and at the very beginning of social life in the world, laid the foundation for the supreme power of one over others, and limited the self-will of individuals by the will of the supreme power of one. From the family, human power passes into dominion over the world and possession of it by virtue of the positive commandment of God, in the name of the power of God. Consequently, the first family laid the foundation for the state, giving it those properties that it itself received and had. Since the structure of the family is based on human law and is governed by human laws, and the eldest in it exercises supreme power in the family according to the commandment of God, then the state, which received its origin from the family, is governed by human laws; and in order for order to prevail in the state structure, for the direction of the human laws on which this structure is based, towards the goal ordained by the providence of God, God gave, like the first head of the family, the power of the state, so that with a hand armed with the sword of truth and justice, it would lead people in His name in a good way. What we have just said is the truth, which is evidenced by Holy Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments. “Let the living see that the Most High owns the kingdom of man, and He will delight and give it,” says the Lord through the mouth of the prophet Daniel 2424. “By me kings reign, and the mighty write the truth; By me the nobles are magnified, and the rulers hold the earth" 2425. “Hear now, O kings, and understand, learn to judge the ends of the earth... for there is power given to you from the Lord, and strength from the Most High”... 2426. So it is similar to this when the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament speak, telling us about God, who gave every nation a leader and whose lot was Israel 2427. And what the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament teaches us was confirmed by Jesus Christ with His teaching and life, His apostles confirmed it, and the Christian Church of all centuries confirmed it. Christ, the ruler of heaven and earth, submits to the authority of Pilate, since he recognizes that the power that Pilate uses is given to him by God: “have no power over me unless it is given from above,” Christ said to Pilate when he pointed out his power to him 2428. This idea of ​​eternal truth was developed in detail in his epistles by the great apostle of the nations, Paul. He writes to the Romans: “Let every soul be subject to the powers that be: for there is no power except from God; The existing powers were created by God. By the same token, one resists the authorities; one resists God’s command; Those who resist themselves accept sin. Princes are not afraid of good deeds, but of evil. Do you want to not be afraid of power? Do good, and you will receive praise from him: for God is a servant, for your good. If you do evil, be afraid: you don’t wear your sword in vain; God's servant is there to take revenge on those who do evil in anger. Moreover, there is a need to obey not only for anger, but also for conscience” 2429. In the same sense, the Apostle Peter writes in his first epistle: “Submit yourselves therefore to every human authority for the Lord’s sake: even to a king, for he is predominant; Or else the prince, as if sent from him, for vengeance by a villain, but praise by a benefactor: for this is the will of God ... " 2430. Consequently, God is the founder of every earthly kingdom, and therefore every person, without distinction, is obliged to submit to the state power placed over him, whatever the form and structure of this power. The purpose of all legislation, in its essence, is that truth should prevail everywhere, and, therefore, the establishment of this truth among people in all their relationships is the first task of those to whom the Lord has entrusted the government of earthly kingdoms. This teaching of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament is all the more significant since the state power about which the apostle speaks. Paul, was not Christian, but pagan, persecuting everyone who did not want to worship pagan gods, and meanwhile St. Scripture nevertheless recognizes that it is from God, and teaches Christians to submit to it, “there is no power except from God, but the existing powers were created by God.” The Fathers of the Church, interpreters of the word of God, unanimously preach the divine establishment of state power 2431, and among them Augustine positively says that all earthly states are established by God’s providence 2432. This thought has taken root in the human consciousness of all centuries and has penetrated all former and modern sovereigns who consider themselves monarchs “by the grace of God.” Recognizing the divine establishment of state power, the church in its daily prayers prays for the sovereign of a given country, as for the anointed one of God, and at each liturgy takes out a special particle about his health and salvation 2433. And in his canonical decrees he subjects both ordinary faithful and members of the clergy to the most severe spiritual punishments for insulting God’s anointed 2434. From what has been said, the teaching of the Christian Church about the state and state power is clearly visible. Its divine establishment is recognized, preached and imposed, as a duty, complete obedience to it and any, even the slightest, disobedience to it is condemned, despite the faith professed by the bearer of this power. This decree of the church regarding obedience to state power has a general meaning, and therefore the refusal of this obedience on the part of Christian subjects on the grounds that the sovereign does not profess their faith can never in any case be justified. “The existing... authorities were created by God,” and a Christian, just because they are from God, must, according to the teachings of his church, without a doubt recognize them and submit to them. § 182. Independence of church and state authorities Despite the fact that both church and state power come from the same source, the source of the divine, they still differ significantly from each other and each is independent in its own area. They differ from each other by their very establishment. The Church was founded 2435 directly by God and gave it a certain structure 2436; individual states were founded by God indirectly, precisely through that desire for social life that He instilled in human nature and in which lies the beginning of states that, under the influence of human laws, received one or another of their own internal structure 2437. Then, the church and the state differ in space, since the church is not limited by either time or place; it is intended for all the peoples of the world, and the state is limited to a certain space, known to the people. At the same time, there is and can only be one church in the strict sense, but there are many states; it is unchangeable and constant, and the latter do not have these properties, for they arise and are destroyed, while the church will exist until eternity. Further, the church and the state differ from each other and in object, since the state deals with a person, to the extent that he is a person in general, and the church - to the extent that he is a Christian, a part of the body of Christ. But the main difference between them lies in the purpose of both: the church aims to prepare a person for the future life, and the state – to provide him with a peaceful, well-ordered life on earth. In accordance with these private goals, they both have their own private means: the church, as a spiritual kingdom, has spiritual means. and the state by earthly means. According to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, under no circumstances can the church use earthly means for its own purposes and use material force to convert someone to Christianity, or forcibly defend its rights in cases where the state disputes them and does not recognize them. Due to this difference between church and state, both of them are in themselves independent and independent in their field. The goal of the church, as we mentioned, is the salvation of all people and their union with God, why this kind of goal obviously cannot be subordinated to any other goal. This goal was set by God himself to the church, therefore, in its implementation it must be unconditionally independent and independent. At its core, the church is catholic, and if it were not like that, it would cease to be what it is; this would happen if it had to depend on the state and was not completely independent and free in preaching its teachings at all times and to all peoples. Christ precisely drew the boundaries between church and state when he said that God should be given what is God’s, and Caesar’s what is Caesar’s, thereby indicating the independence of His Church. The apostles clearly pointed out this same independence and freedom of the church when the Jewish Sanhedrin in Jerusalem wanted to prohibit them from preaching in the name of Christ: “if it is righteous before God to listen to you rather than to God, judge... it is fitting to obey God rather than man” 2438. The church expressed and defended the same independence and freedom after the apostles, and most decisively when there was persecution from the state and when it forcibly wanted to deprive her of freedom. Just as the church is independent and independent in its area, so is the state independent and independent in its area. It pursues its specific goal, which is the earthly welfare of man. No one can prevent the state from realizing this good, and no one has the right to influence what it does in this direction. The state may morally depend on the social and national conditions under which it exists; but legally his power is completely independent from any other power, and, consequently, from the church. In cases where state power acts in disagreement with moral requirements, the church has the duty and right to protest and influence state power so that it abandons the accidentally adopted direction; but the state power, as it can accept, can also reject the influence of the church and act completely independently, and the church must be satisfied that it has fulfilled its duty, and patiently endure the action of the law that violates the eternal truth, while the abnormal state continues in the state. Just as the state does not have the right to interfere in matters concerning the salvation of the soul, so the church does not have the right to interfere in matters that are controlled by state power for its own state reasons. The church should be completely independent in its area, and the state should be completely independent in its area. In order to ensure that matters subject to church or state authority do not get mixed up, and so that the church does not lose its spiritual character and does not come into conflict with state authority, it, by special legislative decrees, forbade its ministers to enter into any kind of worldly affairs. Apostolic Canon 6 says: “a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, must not accept worldly cares; otherwise he will be deposed from the sacred rank.” Apostolic 81 can. repeats the same thing: “we said that it is not appropriate for a bishop or presbyter to interfere in public government, but it is unacceptable to be involved in church affairs. So, either he will be convinced not to do this, or he will be cast out. For “no one can work for two masters” according to the Lord’s commandment.” Ap. 83 speaks in the same sense. canon: “a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon who trains in military affairs and wants to retain both, that is, the Roman service and the priestly office, let him be expelled from the sacred rank, for “Caesar is Caesar’s and God’s God.” The Seventh Ecumenical Council reminds these Apostolic Canons to those persons who, although they belonged to the priesthood, neglected their priestly service and were very willing to engage in worldly affairs, and, confirming the punishments determined for such clergy, ends its 10th canon as follows: “It is better to go teach children and your household, reading to them the divine scripture, for for this he received the priesthood.” § 183. Fundamental relationship between church and state The indicated difference between church and state and their independence not only does not exclude them, but precisely determines their mutual relationship in the world. The Church is not a kingdom of this world, but it is in the world, and its members must at the same time be members of the state, therefore, subject to both ecclesiastical and civil laws. But what, according to the basic teaching of the Orthodox Church, is this relationship between church and state? If we trace the prescriptions in the strict sense of the positive law of the Orthodox Church, then this relationship cannot be other than a close connection between the state and the church, that is, mutual support and mutual complementation in what, one or the other, of these institutions, by its properties, does not have in itself, and what it cannot have in order to achieve one common goal, the temporary and eternal good of man. This connection between church and state is precisely normalized both by law and by ecclesiastical practice of ancient times; and it has always brought benefit to humanity when church and state authorities strictly adhered to the boundaries drawn for them by this law and when they jointly developed their activities in order to achieve a common goal. But it was not always this way, and precisely because the bearers of power, both church and state, were not always imbued with the pure idea of ​​the high calling of the church in the world. But to its vocation, the church has its task in the world to turn all nations to the true God, preach to them the eternal truth, teach them to love God and their neighbors as themselves, not to do to others what they do not want to do to themselves, to forgive their enemies, to shun all evil, to despise earthly pleasures, so that they become saints and unite with God. This task of the church, obviously, has a purely moral character, which is why it cannot use any earthly means to carry out this task, but only spiritual means, in the confidence that the time must come when the world will recognize and be imbued with the sublimity of the spiritual principle of the church. The church has always walked and continues to pursue its task boldly and decisively, not paying attention to any obstacles the world puts in its path. Christ founded it for the sake of man, for the sake of society; but if it encounters opposition to its goal in worldly society, or encounters that in one state or another the main world task is considered to be the achievement of the highest earthly pleasure, that the sublime idea of eternity is abandoned and worldly institutions contradict the religious and moral truths preached by the church, then there can be no connection between the church and the state, there cannot be that unity that is necessary for the common good of humanity, but there can only be such a relationship between them as allow temporary worldly conditions. In general, as an independent institution, having its own strictly defined goal and its own special means; wisely and decisively used to achieve this goal in the world, the church occupied and currently occupies, in relation to one or another state, the position that a known state relative to it will take. For her, it is completely indifferent what kind of government system dominates in this state. In a representative of state power, she sees God’s anointed one, authorized to govern the state, and teaches her children to submit to this power. But at the same time, she boldly fulfills her divine calling, and it is up to the state to use or not to use the works of the church in matters relating to the happiness and prosperity of the people. If the state is imbued with the sublimity of the calling of the church, understands that the church can only have a beneficial influence on the good of the people, and supports it, making it easier for it to fulfill its calling, then the church helps the state power, and in the state that harmony reigns between church and state power, which has always brought only good to society. If the state takes an uncertain position in relation to the church and leaves it to itself, then in this case the harm will occur not for the church, but for the state itself, which does not want to use the moral weapon that is in the hands of the church and which the state can never have at its disposal, no matter how progressive it may be considered and no matter how much it demonstrates its humane principles by which it is guided. Until now, history has not yet shown us that progress and humanity without Christianity have a serious meaning, but imbued with Christianity they mean everything, and only through Christianity do they gain stability. Evil, therefore, will occur only for the state in the mentioned relation to the church. In this case, the Church will suffer, perhaps from the outside, not having the state support it needs to facilitate the fulfillment of its calling and for development and action in human society consistent with the latter, but in itself it will not suffer in the least, and its high significance and inner strength will become even more clear, since even without state help it can hold on and act as an independent force. When the state becomes in a hostile, hostile position relative to the church, then, in this case, the church will take a position determined by circumstances, concentrate in itself and will patiently wait for the time when the victory of the truth of God will come; but she will never cease to preach her doctrine and, if called to fight, will fight with her spiritual weapons decisively and to the end, even if thousands of her sons were lost to her, firmly believing that sooner or later the final victory must be on her side. As a spiritual, independent force, the church can exist outside the state, can use its own spiritual means to achieve its goals, without the need for the help of the state with its earthly means; but the state, as an earthly force, cannot exist for long without spiritual, moral strength, since it will then turn into a society of people who, having no moral support, live by simple physical strength, like animals. Moral power is contained in the Christian church, and if this is so - and no one in the world is able to prove that this is not so - then the church, no matter how persecuted it is by the state, can with full hope peacefully await the time when the state itself, in its own interests, will join it and will use that moral power, which in an unconditional sense only the church has. Even in this situation, being persecuted by the state, the church will never for a moment deviate from its basic teaching about the beginning and significance of state power and will not encourage its members to resist this power, or direct them to achieve by force what they do not enjoy in a certain state on an equal basis with subjects of other faiths. The Kingdom of Christ is not a kingdom of political freedom, but of spiritual freedom, freedom of truth, freedom from error and evil; and no earthly power, no state will ever be able to take away this freedom from the church. This is the main, fundamental point of view of the church on the issue of the relationship between it and the state. From this fundamental point of view, it is impossible for a clash between the church and the state, between state and ecclesiastical power, or more precisely, it is impossible for the church to cause a clash with the state, but if clashes have happened and are happening, this happens because the main point of view on the matter is left aside and human passions are given free rein, when it is one or the other power that transgresses the boundaries of its area and seeks to gain dominance over the other. When considering the history of the church in general, one cannot help but notice that there were very few clashes between church and state in the Eastern Church, compared with the number of clashes in the West; and here they were caused for the most part by church authority, while in the Eastern Church they were always caused by state power. This, however, is explained by the new church structure, which established itself in the West after the division of churches. It is known what was the cause of the clash between Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV, between John XXII and Louis of Bavaria, etc. The same thing caused this system of church structure, which is completely different at the present time in Protestantism from the structure of the church of the apostolic time and subsequent centuries. By proclaiming the principle that state power must submit in everything to the instructions of church authority, and that sovereigns should be dependent on the Roman high priest, who in certain cases has the right to deprive them of the throne and allow their subjects to take the oath - by proclaiming this and similar principles, a different view of the relationship between church and state should have been created in the West, a view completely new in comparison with the fundamental point of view that dominated the church in the first ten years. centuries. There was a sharp reaction against these principles, especially in France, in Roman Catholic Germany and Austria: in the first under Louis XIV, in the second in the half of the 18th century, and in the third under Emperor Joseph II in the last quarter of the same century. How this reaction was expressed, we are told by the four points proclaimed at a large council of the French clergy in 1681, chaired by the famous Bossuet, known as the “Declaratio cleri gallicani”, namely: 1) St. Peter and his heirs are given power in spiritual, not temporal, affairs, 2) the pope depends on the council, 3) the use of papal power is limited by the canons and prescriptions of positive law in force in France, and 4) the religious decrees of the pope cannot be changed only when they are accepted and approved by the entire church. Roman Catholic Germany spoke in the same direction in the person of its learned Bishop Gontheim, who published his work on this issue in 1763 under the pseudonym Febronius; the same thing happened in Austria, when Joseph II subordinated his placet to the decrees of the church authorities. The first protest was called Gallicnism, the second - Febronianism and the third - Josephinism. These views on the relationship between church and state arose on practical grounds; but they also received theoretical development and created several special systems in the West, which some people undertook to prove scientifically. A hierocratic system appeared, which absolutely denied the state any independence, and in contrast to it, a territorial system with the motto “cujus est regio, illius et religion.” The struggle between the followers of one and the other system was waged for life and death; finally, in order to put limits on it, the principle of “a free church in a free state”, adopted by Cavour in relation to Italy, was proclaimed, which was intended to destroy any connection between the state and the church, so that neither the state would have any influence on the affairs of the church, nor the church would have the right to seek help from the state, and even less to influence its affairs. It is unnecessary to analyze these theories and prove that e.g. the latter - “about a free church in a free state” contradicts the laws of nature itself, according to which it is absolutely impossible for one free force to exist in another free force. These theories were inevitable phenomena in the history of the life of the Western Church and were determined by its structure. Such phenomena have not and cannot exist in the Eastern Church. There were, of course, clashes here between church and state authorities, but they, firstly, were very rare, and then they were caused not by church, but always by state power, and only when state power demanded from the church the approval of any action that ran counter to the positive rights of the church, or when state power itself wanted to introduce into the church structure something that disagreed with the basic structure and with the historical life of the church, bypassing church power and establishing what the ecclesiastical authority is primarily competent to do. As an example, we can cite from the history of the Byzantine Empire the clashes under Emperor Leo VI at the beginning of the tenth century, or under Michael Palaiologos in the second half of the 13th century. These and similar clashes in the Eastern Church, although they caused social unrest in their time, never went so far as to create any new theory about the relationship of the church to the state, or to damage the basic principle of the ancient church in this matter - the principle of joint activity and close communication between the church and the state, but without the subordination of one power to another and not by virtue of an agreement or, as they say in the West, a “concordart”, according to which for a certain time there would exist between the church and the state one relationship, replaced by, then, with a change in circumstances and others. The joint activity and connection of the church with the state is a teaching based on Holy Scripture, which has always been preached by the Orthodox Church and has penetrated into its law. “And kings will be your feeders,” predicted about the church back in the Old Testament by the prophet Isaiah 2439, and they will be the keepers of the faith and commandments of God 2440, and this laid the foundation for the connection that should exist between state power and the church. Relevant passages from the epistles of St. Paul on this issue were given above. The church fathers idealize this connection and this agreement, pointing to the independence of both authorities in their area and their similarity with each other, which they believe to be the basis of their mutual relations 2441. Chrysostom, explaining the above passage of the epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, indicates the bishop's duty to obey government authority; and in the interpretation of the letter to the Corinthians he mentions the obedience that state authorities must show in relation to the church, which explains both the mutual connection between the authorities and the nature of this connection 2442. The bishop submits to state power as a subject of the state, and not because his episcopal power comes from a representative of state power; in the same way, a representative of state power obeys the bishop as a member of the church, as a sinful person seeking salvation from the church, and not because his power comes from the power of the bishop. In this subordination of one power to another, the ecclesiastical power of the civil and vice versa, as clearly as their difference and independence are outlined, so is the need for mutual communication between them, according to the recognition of both the highest guiding principle in humanity. In view of this necessary connection between them in order to achieve a common goal, Christ pointed out the difference between what is God and what is Caesar’s: the state requires help from the church in spiritual matters, for the sake of that moral strength with which love and the desire for good can be retained in its subjects, and representatives of the church require the help of the state and state laws for the sake of greater freedom and ease in spreading Christian concepts of goodness and truth among people. The Church calls on God’s blessing on the representative of state power and prays “for power, victory, stay, peace, health and salvation for him... especially to hurry and help him in everything and to subdue every enemy and adversary under his nose” 2443. The state, for its part, protects the interests of the church and promotes the free dissemination of its moral influence on society, so that, thanks to this, the life of peoples will be happy. This relationship between church and state received solemn expression on several occasions on the part of Christian sovereigns themselves. Theodosius II and Valentinian III, during the Nestorian disputes, write to the bishops of Alexandria: “the state of our state depends on piety, since there is much in common and relatedness between them. They support one another and succeed one by the success of the other, so that true faith shines with righteousness, and the state prospers when it combines both. And we, as sovereigns, ordained by God to be the defenders of the piety and happiness of our subjects, always try to maintain the connection between them inseparable, serving the providence of God and people; it is we who serve providence when we care about the success of the state and, having devoted ourselves entirely to the care of our subjects, direct them to a pious faith and life worthy of believers, and make due diligence for both. For it is impossible for someone who cares about one thing (the state) not to think the same about another (the church)” 2444. Emperor Justinian, in his 6th novella, expresses even more clearly the same view of the relationship between church and state: “the greatest benefits bestowed on people by the highest goodness of God are the priesthood and the kingdom, of which the first (priesthood, ecclesiastical power) takes care of divine affairs, and the second (kingdom, state power) governs and takes care of human affairs, and both, from the same source, constitute the adornment of human life. Therefore, nothing lies more on the hearts of kings than the honor of the clergy, who, for their part, serve them, constantly praying to God for them. And if the priesthood is well-ordered in everything and pleasing to God, and the state power will truthfully govern the state entrusted to it, then there will be complete agreement between them in everything that serves the benefit and good of the human race. Therefore, we make the greatest efforts to preserve the true dogmas of God and the honor of the priesthood, hoping to receive through this great benefits from God and to firmly hold on to those that we have” 2445. Justinian also published in 530. a law according to which church canons should have the same force as imperial laws, and what they (the canons) prohibit, the imperial laws should also prohibit 2446. He later confirmed this law with his novellas of 542 and 545. 2447. Between 879 and 886, an epanagogue of imperial laws was published, in which the view of state and church power in Constantinople and their mutual relationship is expressed and explained in detail: “the emperor is the legal authority, the good of all subjects, whom he rewards and punishes without partiality. His job is to do good. He must put into effect all the injunctions of Holy Scripture, the decrees of the seven Ecumenical Councils and civil laws. In Orthodoxy, precisely in the right belief in the Holy Trinity and in zeal for the faith, the emperor must distinguish himself before everyone. In making laws he must pay attention to existing customs, but no custom contrary to the canons should have any significance. The Patriarch is a living image of Christ, obligated to represent the truth in both word and deed. His calling is to take care of the salvation of the souls of those entrusted to him. He has the right to teach and the fearless defense of truth and faith before the emperor. The emperor and the patriarch, the temporal power and the priesthood, relate to each other like body and soul; they are necessary for the state structure in the same way as body and soul in a living person. The prosperity of the state lies in their connection and agreement” 2448. This view of the relationship between the church and state power was so strengthened in the consciousness of the church that it always bitterly complained when it wavered in one case or another. After the iconoclastic emperors, when Constantine took the throne with his mother Irina and Orthodoxy won the victory, the fathers of the VII Ecumenical Council enthusiastically welcomed the restoration of the previous relations between church and state, and in the acts of the council we read the following: “the priest is the sanctification and strengthening of imperial power, and imperial power is the strength and support of the priesthood... The priesthood preserves and cares for heavenly things, and the imperial power, through just laws, governs earthly things. Now the barrier has fallen and the desired connection has been restored" 2449. This put a canonical seal on the doctrine of the relationship between the two powers, which was preached by the church of ancient times and which was imbued with both the church fathers and Christian sovereigns. With such respect and devotion to the church, with such concern for the good of the church and the success of the true faith, Christian sovereigns could - and the church did not find anything reprehensible in this - call themselves "divine", their laws also "divine", their decrees "divine", etc. 2450. And they did this not in the sense of their pagan predecessors, and not because they wanted to usurp power over the church, but because they believed in the establishment of state power by God and wanted to show their subjects both the divine establishment of their power and that they owned the state by “God’s grace.” The Church has always considered and considers them as such, and by consecrating them through its special rite and anointing them to the kingdom, it ranks them among the category of sacred persons on whom the grace of God is poured out. Constantine the Great, in his speech to the fathers of the Council of Nicea, calls bishops bishops in matters relating to the internal life of the church, and himself a bishop in matters of external church life, and the church fathers do not find it necessary to notice anything to him about this. The fathers of the Council of Chalcedon greet the Emperor Marcian as “the king’s priest” 2451; and Pope Leo the Great, this strict Orthodox teacher, does not hesitate to recognize the priestly power of sovereigns, imbued with the interests of the church and caring for its success. About Emperor Theodosius, he says that he has not only a royal, but also a priestly spirit, since he convened the Council of Ephesus and condemned heretics with his laws 2452; Emperor Marcian is called “guardian of the faith” for the condemnation of Eutyches 2453. The church fathers considered it an unconditional affiliation of the imperial power to be the guardian of the faith, which is why they turned to this power every time it was necessary to approve any dogma of faith against heretical teaching; and the emperors responded to such an appeal to them, seeing in this the fulfillment of one of the duties entrusted to them by God Himself. This consideration was not based on the fact that the church fathers believed that the truth of God itself had a need for approval and protection by the imperial power. They, like the emperors themselves, believed in this truth, because it already contained in itself the basis of its existence and because it is eternal in itself; the thought of the need to affirm and protect the purity of faith by imperial power flowed from the desire to strengthen both the temporary and eternal good of man, to protect everything good and noble in people and protect them from everything bad that could disrupt the happiness of society and deviate it from the path to eternal life. Human nature is weak and not everyone is able to understand the moral and religious considerations for which he must protect the truths of faith and morality; for this it is necessary that everyone fear, in addition to heavenly and earthly punishment, for violating these truths; If we leave human nature without this constraint, then the way will open for all sorts of disorder in the church, for disorder in society, and, consequently, in the state itself. The need for state power to preserve the purity of faith has been recognized in all centuries, and the idea of ​​this necessity has penetrated into the legislation of all currently existing states 2454. This explains the participation that emperors or their representatives took in convening, conducting and concluding Ecumenical Councils. The emperors and their delegates were present at these councils not as judges in matters of faith and church leaders, but as guardians of peace and order in the church with the name and rights of defender of the faith. “God has appointed you as shepherds of the church, and therefore you must examine everything that concerns the Church of Christ,” said Constantine the Great to the bishops of the Council of Nicaea in 2455. Emperor Marcian declares at the Council of Chalcedon that he wanted to attend the council in order to confirm the faith and ensure the freedom of action of the council, and not in order to show his power and strength 2456. Being personally present at the first Council of Nicaea, Constantine the Great himself monitored the progress of its proceedings and, as a guardian of order, pacified the parties and directed them to the main subject when they deviated from it. Other emperors, who were not personally present at the councils, entrusted this matter to their representatives; what the task of the latter was can be seen from the following message of Theodosius and Valentinian to the fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council: “we care a lot about everything that has a common benefit, and especially about what relates to piety, for it brings other benefits to people. Therefore, we have already written about everything that is necessary for you to get ready; Since we must take care of order and peace, which is necessary during deliberations at your holy council, we took care that the council in its works was not disturbed from any quarter. And although we are sure that you do not need any external help to ensure peace for others, our diligent concern for piety prompted us to try to do this too. For this reason, we have entrusted our highest dignitary, Candidian, to be present at your holy council, but in such a way that he should not interfere in discussions about dogmas, because whoever is not a bishop is not ordered to interfere in the affairs of the church; in addition, he must remove from the city anyone who has no business in it...; He will also try to ensure that disputes in reasoning do not cross boundaries and that the truth that your council has to explain does not suffer from this, and that no outcry occurs that would hinder the rapid discovery of the truth, but that everyone, having peacefully listened to what the other has to say, either expresses agreement, or brings contrary evidence. so that in this way, through the analysis of the opinions of all, without any obstacle, you can come to a common conclusion, and so that your holiness confirms the irrefutable truth. Our Majesty specifically ordered this highest dignitary of ours, Candidian, to pay attention to the fact that no one left the place designated for reasoning, either to return home, or to go to the emperor or to any other place; and also, so that no one proposes any new ecclesiastical question or puts forward any new proposal that is not related to the question standing in line until this main question is resolved - and what is needed to achieve knowledge of the truth, all this, after a comprehensive test, will receive approval befitting Orthodox worship of God...” 2457. At the Fourth Ecumenical Council, some adherents of Monophysitism, whom the council was to condemn, addressed the emperor with an appeal, and the emperor wrote the following to the council about this: “if I myself wanted to decide this matter, I would not have convened the council... and now I command that we must obey the council and learn what we need to learn, and what the holy council decides is my law, that I follow, that I believe” 2458. There is nothing contrary to church authority, nor anything anti-canonical at all in those handwritten signatures with which the emperors approved the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils. In themselves, these signatures were nothing more than the fulfillment of the wishes of the church authorities themselves, and for their purpose they served as a sign that the decisions of the council were accepted as positive laws in the state. By such confirmation of conciliar definitions, Christian emperors declared their submission to these definitions, as obedient sons of the church; and as representatives of the rights of the people and guardians of their welfare and happiness, they thereby ensured before the church in relation to all their subjects that church decrees and laws would be sacredly respected, would not be subject to any violations and would serve as a guiding principle in the life and activities of all members of the state. State power, in its participation at the Ecumenical Councils, appeared only as an external auxiliary force; and where this external participation ended, the independent power of the church was revealed. Recognizing this participation of state power in church affairs, the church recognizes it in principle, and this principle does not suffer from the fact that in its historical life there were several heretical sovereigns who, with their decrees, condemned Orthodoxy and defended heresy. A new teaching, or, say, any teaching preached in a new way in the church, before it is recognized as heresy, requires a long time for it to be comprehensively examined, and for the universal voice of the church, at an Ecumenical Council or through a written agreement of all its primates, to declare it a heresy. But while it comes to this, what kind of hesitation does not exist in the minds of the most learned shepherds of the church, who, imbued with deep piety and high learning, first of all strive to know the truth? There are many examples in the history of the church when some of the most prominent pastors of the church were inclined towards one or another heretical teaching and even defended it in writing until the voice of the Universal Church condemned this teaching and declared it a heresy. This could happen all the more easily since in heretical teaching not every word was false and that heretics had much that was Orthodox in their teaching; on the other hand, they substantiated their teaching with such evidence and such passages from biblical and patristic history that only a particularly penetrating eye and a particularly deep knowledge of Orthodox teaching could see where the error was in the general teaching of certain heretics. If some Orthodox pastors sometimes leaned towards heresy, they did it out of love for Orthodoxy and in the full conviction that they were defending the truth, and when they wrote about it, they were quite sure that they were contributing to its clearest revelation. And if this happened in relation to the shepherds of the church themselves, theologically learned and deliberately appointed to guard the pledge of Orthodoxy entrusted to them, then could not this more easily have happened to Christian emperors who did not have the same education as the shepherds of the church, and who were called only in second place and outwardly to defend Orthodoxy? The position of the sovereign, as the head of the state and all his subjects, without distinction of faith, who must render justice to every subject, no matter what faith he may be, this position was especially difficult when some heresy appeared in the state, which had a grave significance for society. Great disputes arose between the parties defending one or another religious teaching, disputes that led the parties to severe irritation, and each of them in this case turned to the sovereign, asking him to accept it under his protection and recognize it as Orthodox. Those hesitations that occurred among the pastors of the church when some heresy arose appeared with double force among the emperors, because they had to first defend the true faith, and then restore the disturbed order in society. In such cases, the heretics knew how to use all sorts of means, both directly and through the highest state dignitaries, to convince the emperors of the Orthodoxy of their teachings and, consequently, that the Orthodox shepherds had apostatized from the church - and it happened that the emperors yielded to the convictions of the heretical leaders and, wanting to restore peace with their imperial power, issued decrees in a sense contrary to Orthodoxy. By doing this, they were confident that they were defending the true teachings of the church and that they were not at all breaking ties with the church, which they actually did. This is proven, with a few exceptions, by all the decrees of emperors who defended one or another heresy. And from this it obviously follows that the basic principle about the relationship between the state and the church still remained with these sovereigns, carried away by heresy, the same one that the Orthodox emperors adhered to, only they implemented this principle incorrectly. This question regarding the view of the church and its rights to the decrees of the heretical emperors is touched upon by us here because it is very important and that, judging it in a different way, namely by building everything on the principle of the actual relations of the heretical emperors to the church and, on the basis of this principle, drawing a conclusion about the relationship that should exist between the church and the state, it is easy to fall into false theories; due to the reluctance to explore all the circumstances under which some Christian emperors were carried away by heresies and persecuted the Orthodox pastors of the church, the opinion was already openly expressed that the influence of state power in church affairs was harmful and, therefore, should be finally and fundamentally eliminated. It even came to the theory of “a free church in a free state,” only from the other side. § 184. Area of ​​ecclesiastical and state power Having grasped the principle of the mutual connection between church and state power and having shown the necessity of this connection for the common good, let us now see what, according to positive law, are the limits within which each of these powers can act on its own in its legislation, and what matters are subject to one or the other power and what to both of them jointly. This can be discussed in church law only in relation to those states that recognize the legal existence of the Christian Church and which consider it a rule for themselves not to violate the fundamental truths professed by the Church. For church law, the political structure of one state or another is indifferent; it considers state power in a general sense, without paying attention to whether the bearer of this power belongs to one or another of the currently existing religions. What is important for law is that the church is recognized by law in the state, and since this fact exists, then for all such states, in the main, the same norms of relations between state and church authorities are in force. These norms should be in force in all such states, for if the state is imbued with the consciousness that Christianity is the guarantee of the good of society and the good of the state, then it will never want, and morally cannot, decide anything regarding its subjects that runs counter to Christian truths and could cause a clash between state and church laws. While these norms are preserved, the relationship between church and state cannot be other than always correct. The Church is independent, as is the state, and both of them have their own specific areas in which they act according to their goals; but since for the common good a connection between them is necessary, although they must develop their activities, strictly adhering to the boundaries of their areas, they are imbued with mutual interests, the church is state, and the state is ecclesiastical, and in common affairs where the interests of both of them come into direct contact, they must act together, legitimizing only what can ensure the strength of their union and the common good and peace. In particular, the scope of activity of the church and the state is determined by the nature of the institutions themselves and their purpose: in spiritual matters that have a spiritual goal and relate to the salvation of souls, the church authorities must issue appropriate laws; in matters that have earthly goals and relate to the preservation of peace and order in society, even if these matters are not always of a material nature, the publication of laws belongs to the state power; jointly, both authorities are subject to matters relating at the same time to both the spiritual life of the church and the earthly life of the state. The enumeration of these cases from the point of view of the authority to which they are subject constitutes a matter of codification of law; therefore we present them here in general groups. 1. The Church has independent competence in all matters of a spiritual nature, that is, concerning: a) faith and Christian morality, b) church services, c) sacraments with their ecclesiastical significance, d) internal government of the church, e) acceptance of infidels or people of other faiths into the church, f) acceptance into the clergy, g) acceptance into the monastery and supervision of monastic life, h) spiritual court, i) legislation in everything that concerns the internal life of the church. 2. The state has independent competence in matters relating to: a) the civil and political status of its subjects, secular and ecclesiastical, b) private law, c) violations of state laws, d) the civil and political significance of official papers of church authority, e) the significance that the actions of the church, and especially the sacraments, may have for the state. 3. All those matters that directly concern both the church and the state are subject jointly to both church and state authorities; namely: determination of the boundaries of church areas; the founding of bishoprics, parishes, etc.; establishment of holidays with the obligation for citizens to devote them to rest; arrangement of church buildings, cemeteries, institutions and others, in accordance with the requirements of general hygienic and construction regulations; the opening of monasteries on the same foundations, the establishment of church schools and the determination of the value of the certificates issued by them in the state; replacement of episcopal, parish and similar places; maintaining parish books, etc. There are many such mixed cases, subject to both church and state authority, and it would be very difficult to list them all. As for the execution of these mixed cases, they are usually considered from the point of view of their ecclesiastical and civil consequences: if these consequences can be separated, then each power makes a decision within its competence, and if they are not separated, then it is taken into account whether the subject is primarily subject to the church or the state, and, according to this, one of the authorities makes the first decision, and the other is consistent with it in its decision. With many points of contact between the church and the state, when there is reciprocity between them, there are many church affairs in which state power is more or less competent; in the same way, there are many state and civil affairs that the church is called upon to solve. In view of the great influence that Christian sovereigns allowed on the part of the church and its representatives in state and civil affairs, it was quite natural that the church should also allow state power to have the widest influence in church affairs 2459. The history of church law tells us that the church recognized the right of state power to make laws not only in external church affairs, but also in relation to matters relating to internal church life. The Council of Carthage in Canon 93 provides us with an example of this: “The love of rulers must make every effort so that the Catholic Church, which conceived them in its pious womb and raised them with the strength of faith, is protected by their cares, so that in their pious times, daring people do not acquire dominance over the powerless people through any threats, when they cannot seduce them through persuasion... So, we ask that protection be provided as quickly as possible to the people of the Catholic Church in all cities and in all places of the surrounding dominions.” This example of the Council of Carthage is repeatedly repeated in other canons and, in particular, in the canons of the Council of Chalcedon 2460, which confirms the indicated relationship of the Universal Church to state power and the latter’s right to participate even in religious matters. And the Christian emperors responded with full readiness to such a request from the church, whose history has preserved for us many decrees regarding faith and its protection from error. Christian sovereigns acted in exactly the same way regarding church services, for example, when they issued decrees about churches and their construction, about holidays, about clergy, etc. 2461. However, in these decrees, Christian emperors kept within the boundaries established by church laws, and never independently influenced the affairs of the internal life of the church, but only at its invitation they issued their laws on the protection of faith and church worship undefiled and such as it was legitimized by the church with its independent legislative power. The church recognized this right of the state legislative power in matters relating to its external life. By the way, the church recognized the state's right of supreme supervision over church government, so that it was conducted in accordance with the requirements of the law; confirmation of church ministers in their merits; participation in the establishment of all kinds of church institutions; protection and upholding by worldly force of the decrees of church authority, etc. 2462. In all these and similar matters, the church recognized broad rights for the state, and could recognize them without any fear, since the state power itself understood the high importance of the church, the beneficial significance in civil society, and since it was strictly imbued with the church spirit. In a state where state law establishes the norm that “canons have the same force as state laws” and that “what is prohibited by the canons is prohibited by state laws,” - in such a state the church can recognize broader rights for state power, without at all fearing that its freedom and independence will suffer from this. § 185. Modern church-civil relations The relationship between church and state power, which we have just depicted, is based on the precepts of the positive law of the Orthodox Church and, as such, still has practical significance for the Orthodox Church in all those states that recognize the legal existence of the church. The doctrine of the relationship between church and state is different in the church law of the Roman Catholic Church, and different in Protestant church law. This depends on the special church structure in the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants, which differs from the structure of the Orthodox Church. Both the Roman Catholic Church and Protestants recognize the origin of church and civil power from God, recognize the difference between them, as well as their independence within their own limits, and in this they more or less agree with the teaching of Orthodox church law, but they differ from this law, as well as from each other, only in that some give the superiority of church power over state power and, therefore, consider the latter dependent on the first, while others, on the contrary, consider church power to be dependent in everything on state In the Roman Catholic Church, the pope is the representative of ecclesiastical authority and is considered the sovereign of this church, an absolute sovereign, who has power over sovereigns to such an extent that he can, in certain cases, allow subjects to even swear allegiance to their sovereign 2463. All Roman Catholic subjects of one or another state depend on this universal sovereign, and to determine their religious position in the state, special agreements called concordats were and are being concluded between popes and sovereigns of known states, which normalize the relationship between the state and the pope in the relevant articles. The first such concordat was concluded in 1122 between Pope Callixtus II and Emperor Henry V, after the famous dispute over investiture. All later concordats take the form of international treaties and are established, depending on the circumstances of the time, with greater or lesser concessions of rights that the contracting parties consider to belong to themselves. The pope concludes such treaties not only with states in which there are few Roman Catholics compared to persons of other religions, but also with states in which both the reigning house and the majority of subjects are Roman Catholic. However, these agreements between popes and sovereigns are beginning in modern times to lose their former significance, especially after the Vatican Council of 1870, and some states have already destroyed the agreements that existed with them, for example, Austria, where the concordat of 1855 was completely destroyed by state law on May 7, 1874 2464. Among Protestants, the head of the church is the sovereign of the country, who has power not only in the external, but also in the internal affairs of the church, and therefore of the faith. This is how canon theologians teach them based on the teachings of Luther and other reformers. The English also profess the same thing 2465. Protestants recognize the supreme power in the church not only in sovereigns of their own faith, but also in sovereigns who do not profess their faith. In relation to this, among Protestants, as well as among the British, the relations between church and state are normalized, relations by virtue of which all church affairs, without distinction, are subordinated in the final instance to state power. As for the Orthodox Church, modern church-civil relations in Orthodox states are established depending on the position occupied by the Orthodox faith as a state one, and the degree of understanding of the calling of the church and state on the part of representatives of state and church authorities. In the Ottoman Empire, broad rights and independent church governance under the protection of state power were recognized for the Orthodox faith even under Sultan Mohammed II, when the Turks conquered the Byzantine Empire. And since over the course of time these rights, due to internal and external circumstances, became illusory, the Gattigumayum of February 18, 1856 restored the former independent position of the church and always under the protection of state power. The same thing, only in a different form, was recognized for the Orthodox Church in the Ottoman Empire by the constitution of December 23, 1876. This, at least, is the case officially - but in reality, of course, much is different 2466. The relations of the Orthodox Church to the state in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy are different: in the lands of the Hungarian crown they are one, and in the remaining lands they are different. In the lands of the Hungarian crown, the Orthodox Church enjoyed, on the basis of ancient privileges, a certain autonomy in ecclesiastical and ecclesiastical-political relations under the protection of state power. Twenty-second article of the Hungarian law of 1847–48. legal equality was proclaimed between all confessions recognized by law in the state. This was established by the third paragraph of the said article, and by the eighth paragraph the state guarantees Orthodox subjects the right to control in all religious and educational matters, under the supervision of state power. The ninth article of the law of 1868 the rights granted to the Orthodox Church by the twentieth article of the law of 1847–48 were confirmed, and after the legal existence in the state of an independent Sibin metropolis along with the metropolis of Karlovac was recognized, the third paragraph of this ninth article, it was established that “while preserving for His Majesty the supreme right of supervision, exercised in accordance with the statutes, the believers of Karlovac and Erdel metropolises are given the right to independently organize and manage, within the boundaries of state laws, their church, school and monetary affairs at their congresses, which at a certain time after a preliminary declaration to His Majesty must be assembled by the metropolitans concerned, and to independently manage and direct these affairs, in the sense of the rules established at the said congresses and approved by His Majesty, through their bodies”; and the ninth paragraph of the same article generally establishes that for persons belonging to the Orthodox Church in these two metropolises, “all the rights that they have hitherto, in the independent management of their church-communal and school affairs, have enjoyed in the free use of their church language, as well as in the management of their church-communal property and funds” 2467 are recognized in the future. The fifty-third article of the same law of 1868 established inter-confessional relations between persons belonging to different faiths in the state, and recognized the freedom of transition from one Christian faith to another. – This is how things are in the lands of the Hungarian crown; in the lands that enjoyed the patronage of the Viennese imperial cabinet, the state position of the Orthodox Church changed several times. Until 1781, the Orthodox Church was completely powerless in the state. This year, the decree on religious tolerance of Emperor Joseph II of October 26 called for its legal existence in the state along with the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches; but there was no mention of its equality with the Roman Catholic Church 2468. And this continued until 1849, when by decree of March 4 and again, then by another decree of December 31, 1851. In principle, equality before the law of all religions was proclaimed and all religions recognized in the state by law were granted equal independence in the use of their religious rights, which were contained in the aforementioned decree on religious tolerance 2469. The law of December 21, 1867 proclaimed complete freedom of all legally recognized religions in the state, and therefore of the Orthodox Church. “Everyone is guaranteed complete freedom of faith and conscience; enjoyment of civil and political rights regardless of religion, but the latter does not exempt anyone from performing state and civil duties; no one can be forced to participate in any religious rite or to participate in any church celebration, as far as he is independent of the authority of a third party who, by law, can force him to do so,” says Article 14 of the mentioned law, and Article 15 says: “every church and every religious union recognized by law, all have the right to publicly profess their faith, independently organize and manage their internal affairs, own and use their institutions, funds and property, intended for worship, teaching and charity, but it is subject, like any other society, to general state laws" 2470. Chapter two. Church and persons belonging to other religions §186. A General View of the Relationship Between the Church and Other Religions Christianity is spread throughout the world among many peoples, but even a third of the total population existing in the world is not subject to Christian laws. Besides Christians, there are various other religions, among which are Mohammedanism and Judaism, and in the most varied forms polytheism and idolatry. The followers of these various religions are called infidels in theological terminology. But Christianity at the present time is not one, as it once was, and in it there are faiths that differ from each other, living and governing independently. Each of these faiths considers itself to be the true church, and calls those who do not belong to it infidels (ἑτεροδόξοι). The Divine Founder of the Christian religion commanded its preaching to the whole world and the conversion of all nations; From this follows the duty of the church to take care of the spread of Christian teaching (§ 104) and to protect believers from all false teaching (§ 105). Since she carries out the very work of preaching according to the behest of her Founder, then the manner of her preaching must be consistent with the teachings of her Founder. The main idea of ​​the Christian religion in the teaching about relationships with people is love, and, therefore, the church, when carrying out the work of preaching, should be imbued in relation to every person exclusively with the spirit of love, and only love should be its means in this regard. Just as in the matter of converting infidels, the church and its ministers must be imbued with love in their relations with non-believers. Only through love and mutual forbearance can the differences that currently exist between the various Christian denominations be smoothed over, and the way can be paved for the achievement of “one flock and one shepherd”; whereas otherwise, great disunity will be maintained between them, and meanwhile statistics will still count on one side not a full third of cultured peoples, and on the other - two large thirds of uncultured peoples 2471. § 187. Religious tolerance In Western literature, the expression tolerance (tolerantia, religious tolerance) has come into use to denote the relationship between different Christian faiths and the attitude of the state towards them. This expression has become technical and general. Meanwhile, according to the basic idea about the relationship between the church and other faiths (§ 186), this expression is the most inappropriate in this matter, since it generally excludes the concept of Christian love. When we talk about tolerance in the area of ​​the church, this generally means a certain attitude of one religion to others, in which, due to certain external conditions, leniency towards these faiths is allowed, a calm judgment about them is possible and no attention is paid to the incorrect teaching contained in them. Here, on the one hand, there is a religion that enjoys a predominant position in a certain state and considers itself the only orthodox one, and on the other hand there are other religions that are only tolerated by this privileged religion near itself, because it wants to tolerate, although it might not tolerate. Admitting that the tolerance of one religion in relation to other religions in a given state stems from the most noble motives, nevertheless, if only the concept of tolerance is introduced here, namely the concept that they want to tolerate a certain religion, this tolerant religion is never safe from the fact that tomorrow its position will change and it will turn from tolerant to persecuted. This is a logical consequence of the concept of tolerance in the church, a consequence that clearly shows how much this concept contradicts the basic Christian teaching about love. Currently, all progressive states have understood this, which, by virtue of historical law, have come to the point that they have immersed themselves in the spirit of the church of the apostolic times, which is why there is no longer even a mention of any kind of religious tolerance in them. Consequently, there should be no talk about tolerance in the area of ​​the church, and if we use this expression, it is only because it is commonly used in Western literature and that even today this expression denotes the relationship between Christian faiths and the attitude of state authorities towards them. Religious tolerance is usually divided into a) dogmatic, b) church or Christian and c) state. The issue of dogmatic tolerance is not part of church law. Orthodox theologians judge it differently than Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians. Church tolerance consists of lovingly treating persons belonging to other faiths and providing them with brotherly help, which Christian love teaches. This tolerance is an obligation imposed by reason and the gospel, which commands boundless love for every person, no matter what his faith. But in fulfilling this gospel commandment, in view of the obligation of everyone to sacredly observe the instructions of his church and not subject them to possible damage, church law establishes the boundaries of this attitude towards persons belonging to other religions and, in particular, the boundaries within which there can be communication with them in sacred rites (communicatio in sacris). All communication with infidels is prohibited in their sacred rites. The canons speaking about this are numerous and threaten with spiritual punishment any Christian who enters into such communication with pagans, and in particular with Jews, on the grounds that by this communication the Christian religion is humiliated and is in danger of being damaged by the religious customs of those whom preachers of Christianity should always try to convert 2472. As for non-believers, Orthodox church law makes a distinction in this matter between those Christian denominations that teach differently regarding the basic dogmas of the Christian religion, and those that do not represent significant differences in these matters, but only have a special teaching on some points of church structure and church life. This distinction in Orthodox church law between some Christian denominations and others is expressed in the way the church admits persons belonging to these different denominations, in its judgment on their ordination, in its rulings on mixed marriages and in its prayer for those who belong to these denominations. We have already talked about all this (§§ 69, 145, 166. 178, etc.), so it is unnecessary to repeat the same thing here. Apart from infidels and people of other faiths, Orthodox church law does not know anyone with whom the church outside its own area could stand in religious relations. In relation to the members who make up her area, she does not know any difference from the point of view of fulfilling church regulations. Whoever belongs to the church is obliged to obey its instructions in everything, and there cannot be a case where one or another local church is allowed, much less recognized the right, not to fulfill any basic church instructions and consider itself free from fulfilling them, and instead of them have special institutions that the whole church does not have. This is important both in dogmatic and liturgical matters, and in matters of the structure and life of the church. Therefore, according to Orthodox church law, there cannot be so-called Uniates, which only in some matters are one and the same with the rest of the people belonging to the church, and in other matters are completely different from them 2473. In external religious relations with people of other faiths, according to general Orthodox church law, the following basic regulations are currently in force: a) the church has no external jurisdiction in relation to other Christian denominations, nor in relation to members of these denominations, b) in its area, the church applies only its own law, according to which it decides all inter-confessional cases referred to its court; c) to what extent it is possible or impossible to recognize in the church the significance of any church rite performed by people of other faiths, this depends on the nature of the given religion and on the type of the rite itself, and, moreover, in the sense of the corresponding canonical or church-civil decrees; d) the position of various religions in the state depends on state law. § 118. State tolerance The attitude of state authorities towards various religions is determined by the direction existing in a particular state. The main basis determining this relationship is the fact of the existence or non-existence of a legally established “state” or “dominant religion (religio dominans)”. In those states where this “state religion” exists, other religions and faiths are in the position of tolerant faiths, and it is up to the state authorities to recognize for them greater or lesser rights, greater or lesser freedom and independence. In this case, it is impossible to theoretically establish a measure of state tolerance. What matters here are the political interests of the state in the first place, then the number of people belonging to one or another religion, their historical rights, etc. In states where there is no one “state religion” established by law, the principle of equality (paritatis) of all religions recognized by law in this state prevails. Where this principle is proclaimed by law and approved, the following legal grounds flow from it: 1) Every religion has equal rights before the state, and persons belonging to all faiths enjoy complete equality, both in private and political rights. 2) Every religion has complete freedom in the conduct of its worship and in the management of its religious internal affairs. 3) Everyone is given the freedom, upon reaching adulthood, to choose whatever religion he wishes, and the civil authorities are obliged to protect him in case of need. 4) Those belonging to one religion cannot be forced to do anything that does not concern their religion; therefore, they cannot be forced to sacrifice for the purposes of another religion, not to work on the days of festivals of a religion to which they do not belong, etc. 5) The property of one religion cannot in any way be used for the purposes of another religion. 6) No priest of one religion has the right to conduct any services for persons of another religion. 7) A child cannot be forced to attend a school that is not his religion; and in schools in which there are children of different faiths, teaching time should be so distributed that the minority may freely exercise their religious duties. 8) No religious community can refuse to bury in its cemetery a person belonging to another religion, if by chance those belonging to this religion do not have their own special cemetery. 9) Insofar as any civil law concerns religious relations, these religious relations must be understood in the sense of the precepts of the corresponding religion. 10) Civil legal relations influenced by religion must be judged from the point of view of the precepts of the given religion. 11) Every religion has the right to the same financial assistance from the state as the latter gives to other religions. 12) If by chance there are no specific government regulations regarding any legal relations of a certain religion, then the regulations issued for another religion must have force in relation to it. 13) Every religion has the right to recognition and respect from persons belonging to other faiths, and otherwise the state is obliged to show respect to the offended religion. 14) No religion has the right to influence in any way the affairs of another religion, and the state is obliged to vigorously eliminate any attempt at such influence and respect the freedom and independence of any individual religion 2474. The legal grounds mentioned and others legally deriving from them are relevant for religions recognized by law in a given state. This recognition depends on the state power, which is guided in this by the principle that a given religion, seeking recognition of its equality with others, does not contain anything in its teaching, worship, structure and name that would run counter to general laws and that would harm morality 2475. Therefore, no sect that professes anything immoral or contrary to the fundamental truths of religion on which morality is based can count on state recognition, much less state protection. In § 34 of this book, among the private sources of church law, it is mentioned as the law in force in the Serbian kingdom, “the law on the Church of the Vlastima Orthodox Church on September 30, 1862,” and the provisions of this law are given in the appropriate places throughout the book. Meanwhile, on April 27 of this year (1890) a new “law on the Church of the Eastern Orthodox Church” was published, which, with its 245 articles, repeals the law of 1862 and all its amendments and additions that were published before 1886. We received this new law when the last paragraphs of this book were printed, which is why we could not place it in it. Providing those who wish to replace the sections of the previous law given in the book with the corresponding articles of the new law, we will mention here the main thing from this new law, so that at least its contents are known. – There are, as before, three central ecclesiastical institutions for administration and spiritual court, namely: 1) The Archbishop Sabor, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, composed of all diocesan bishops, presided over by the Archbishop of Belgrade, Metropolitan of Serbia, as the supreme representative of the Serbian Church. Decisions of the bishops' council of a “canonical-ecclesiastical nature” are subject to execution on their own, and decisions of an “external nature” can be executed only with the approval of the Council of Ministers, at the proposal of the Minister of Education and Church Affairs. 2) The Great Spiritual Court (the former appellate consistory), as the last church-judicial power, presided over by “one of the bishops,” who is elected for a year by the council of bishops; a great spiritual court was composed of ten clergy: five full and five honorary members, elected (except for two archimandrites, the only members are monks) by diocesan spiritual assemblies and, at the proposal of the Minister of Education and Church Affairs, approved by royal decree for three years. “The verdicts of this great spiritual court are executed on their own, without the right of appeal to the bishops’ council.” 3) The diocesan “clerical court” (the former diocesan consistory), as the administrative and at the same time judicial church authority in the diocese, chaired by the “protopresbyter,” has from 5 to 10 members, who are all from the white clergy, except for one monk, as an honorary member. Chairmen and members are confirmed by royal decree, on the proposal of the minister, from candidates elected by the diocesan ecclesiastical assembly. Decisions and sentences of diocesan spiritual courts that do not go to the great spiritual court are executed “without the need for approval from the diocesan bishops.” – The Metropolitan is elected by a mixed electoral council; diocesan bishops - bishops' council; for the places of protopresbyters (in the districts and in Belgrade and Niš), the local clergy elects two persons, one of whom, at the proposal of the diocesan bishop, is appointed by the council of bishops; the district governor is also elected by the local clergy, and approved by the diocesan bishop; The abbot of the monastery of the first class is determined by the council of bishops, and the rest by the local diocesan bishop. – Parish places are provided by competition, and the parish priest is appointed by the local diocesan bishop at the proposal of the diocesan spiritual court. – To manage church property, there is a church community, which is represented by a special church council made up of ten members chaired by the local parish priest. – All church authorities are under the supreme supervision of the Minister of Education and Church Affairs, but without the preliminary opinion of the bishops’ council, not a single law or regulation relating to the church and clergy can be issued. Without going into criticism of this law, one cannot help but notice that it went too far with the so-called “independence of church courts” and almost went as far as denying one of the fundamental rights of diocesan bishops. That the ecclesiastical courts should be independent of the civil authorities is entirely just and justified; but for them to be independent in their decisions from the diocesan bishops, which is now even legalized in the new law on church authorities, this cannot in any way be agreed with the canonical prescriptions of the Orthodox Church. What the “diocesan consistory” is in essence, or, as this law says, “the diocesan spiritual court,” and what the relationship of the consistory to the bishop is, we, on the basis of the canons and canonical practice of all times, had the opportunity to say, as much as was necessary, in § 94 of this book. From a comparison of what we said in the above-mentioned section with the regulations of this new law on spiritual diocesan courts in the church of the Serbian kingdom, it is clearly visible how little agreement there is between these regulations and the canons of the Orthodox Church and the practice of all other modern autocephalous churches. According to this law, episcopal power becomes illusory in the basic archpastoral right of the diocesan bishop; and this can lead to extremely bad consequences the very foundation of church structure and church government. About the fact that the metropolitan should be de jure the chairman of the great spiritual court, as the last (according to the teaching of this law) judicial instance, that in this law the rights of the bishops' council in judicial cases are very constrained, that it does not indicate at all what kind of relationship should exist between the diocesan bishops and these “independent” diocesan spiritual courts - criticism should express its judgment about this and other things. Iren. adv. haeres. V, 24. Tertull. apolog., e. 30. Chrysost. hom. 23, 1 in Rom. 13. August. Confess. III, 8, n. 2. Aygustin., De civitate Dei. V, 1. See the liturgy of St. Basil the Great and Chrysostom. See 84 Ap. can. and talk. Zonars on him (Af. Synth., II, 108). P. de Marca, the famous archbishop of Paris in his time, said that the power of the sovereign comes directly from God: “certum et constantissimum esse debet apud pios et devotos regum cultores unicuique regum potestatem regiam immediate a divino numine conferri.” De concordia sacerdotii et imperii. Paris, 1714, pag. 92. Chrysost. hom. 23, I in Rom. 13; hom. 15 in II Cor. Cf de sacerdotio, 3.1. See the great litany at the liturgy. “Maxima quidem in hominibus sunt dooa Dei a superna collata clementiä sacerdotium et imperium, et illud quidem divinis ministrans, hoc autem humanis praesidens ac diligentiam exhibens, ex uno eodemque principo utraque procedentia humanam exornant vitam. Ideoque nihil sic erit studiosum imperatoribus, sicut sacerdotum honestas, cum utique et pro illis ipsis semper Deo supplicent. Nam si hoc quidem inculpabile sit undique, et apud Deum fiducia plenum, imperium autem recte et competenter exornet traditam sibi rempublicam, erit consonantia quaedam bona, omne quicquid utile est, humano conferens generi. Nos igitur maximam habemus sollicitudinem circa vera Dei dogmata et circa sacerdotum honestatem, quam illis obtinentibus credimus, quia per eam maxima nobis dona dabuntur a Deo, et ea, quae sunt firma habebimus.” Nov. 6, praef. (ed. cit. III, 16). See also in Collectio LXXXVII capitulorum, num. 1 (Pitra, no. 320), and also in Kormchay, ch. 42, 1 (cited ed., II, 7). Wed. 5 approx. 15 § of this book. See 3rd note. 15 § of this book. Nov. 115, cap. 3, § 14; Nov. 131, p. 1. Cf. Basilic V, 3, 2; XXXV, 8.3 6. Wed. 5 approx. 15 § of this book. Zacharia, Collectio libror. juris gr.-rom. ineditorum. Lipsiae, 1852, pag. 65 sq. Ἱ ερωσύνη γὰρ βασιλείας ἁ γίαομός ἐστι καὶ ἀναστοιχείωσις , καὶ καὶ κραταίωμα ... κατακοσμοῦσαν καὶ διέπουσαν , τὴν δὲ οἰακίζουσαν θεσμοῖς δικαίοις τὰ ἐπίγεια. Νῦν αλεθῶς τὸ μεσότοιχον τοῦ φραγμοῦ διαλέλυται , καὶ συμφωνία κατάρχει διαφωνίας , καὶ ὑποκύπτει ενώσει διαίρεοις καὶ φροῦδος κατέστη διάστασις. Harduini, IV, 137. Theodosius and Valentinian call themselves divinitas nostra, and their laws nostra divina praecepta (Cod. Justin. I, 1, 3). Justin and Justinian say that they command divino verbo (θεί ῳῥ ήματι), issue divinam jussionem (θείαν κέλευσιν), etc. (Cod. I, 15, 2). Cf. Basilic. II. 6, 21 (ed. cit. I, 89). This is used in the same sense in which the French kings were called “most Christian,” or as at present the Austrian emperor is called “apostolic,” the Portuguese king “most pious,” the Russian emperor “most pious,” etc. See eg. regarding Austria §§ 122 and 123 St. corner. head Rufin., Hist. eccl. X, 2. ... ὅ τι εἴτι δὲ ἂ ν τυπώσ ῃ ἡ ἁ γία καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ σύνοδος καὶ ἐπιδῷ μοι ἐγγράφως. τούτοις στειχῶ, τούτιος στέργω, τούτοις πιστύεω. Harduini, II, 433. On this reciprocity between ecclesiastical and civil law, see Fr. A. Biener, Geschichte der Novellen Justiniane (Berlin, 1824). S. 157 fg. Cp. §§ 151 and 170 of this book. See eg. πρ ᾶ ξις ἕ χτη IV Omni. personal Harduini, II, 488. Wed. canons: IV Omni. personal 4 and 12, Trul. 3 and 38, Antiochus. 5, Karf. 48, 53, 67 and 93, first and second. 9, etc. and interpretations of these canons. See sar. 4. P. 15. qu. 6. Wed. and s. 13, X (V, 37). Ed. Richter. I, 648; II, 848. Cesetz wodurch Bestimmungen zur Regelung der äusseren Rechtsverhältnisse der katholischen Kirche erlassen werdeu. Art. Ï “Das Patent vom 5 November 1855, ist seinem vollen Inhalte nach aufgehoben” - and this patent was announced as a concordat on August 18. 1855 This concordat was printed by Ferd. Walter, Fontes juris ecclesiastici antiqui et hodierni (Bonnae, 1862). S. 280–289, and the patent itself S. 301–303. Wed. Ign. v. Döllinger, Kirche and Kirchen (München, 1861). S. 53 fg. Archiv für Kirchenrecht. Bd. 44, S. 270 fg. The most Toleranzpatent in Latin. orginale, see K. Kuzmany, Urkundenbuch zumo oester.-evangel. Kirchenrecht (Wien, 1856). 8. 139 fg. Kaiser. Patent vom 4 März 1849 § 2: “Jede gesetzlich anerkannte Kirche und Religionsgesellschaft hat das Recht der gemeinsamen öffentlichen Religionsübung, ordnet und verwaltet ihre Angelegenheiten selbständig, bleibt im Besitze und Genusee der für ihre Coltus-Unterhchts-und Wohlthätigkeitszwecke bestimmten Anstalten, Stiftungen und Fonde, ist aber wie jede Gesellachaft den allgemeinen Staatagesetzen unterworfen.” Vgl. kaiserl. Patent vom 31 December 1851. Staatagrundgesetz vom 21 December 1867 (R. G. B. Nr. 142). According to statistics from recent years, there are currently about 1434 million people on earth, namely: 1034 million. unbaptized and only 400 mil. baptized. Wed. Ap. can. 7, 65, 70 and 71, Trul. personal can. 11 and 94, Laod. 29, 37 and 36, Vasil. Vel. 81. Nomokan. IX, 25; XII, 4 and 9; XIII. 15, 19 and 20 (Af Synth., I, 188, 268, 269 and 321). Wed. Trul. personal can. 12, 28, 32 and 55, as well as 3 canon. answer by Demetrius Khomatin (Af. Synth., V, 427). See regarding Austria art. 14 and 15 of the basic state law on December 21, 1867 and the interconfessional law on May 25, 1868. Wed. on the position of recognized religions in the state J. C. Bluntschli. Allgemeines Statarecht. II, 311 fg. and 317 fg. Wed. § 1 of the law of May 2, 1874 on the conditions for the legal recognition of any religion in Austria. You might be interested in: