By Fr. Alexander Schmemann
On the event of Father Polsky’s ebook The Canonical Place of the Supreme Church Authority within the USSR and Overseas
The proposed article was initially printed within the Church Gazette (points 15, 17 and 19) – an version of our diocese, as a assessment of the ebook of Fr. M. Polsky[1] The canonical place of the supreme church authority within the USSR and overseas (from “Typography of Rev. Iov Pochaevsky in St. Troitskom monastry”, 1948, 196 p.), and it’s reprinted right here with none vital modifications. In it I contact, so far as it’s doable for me, solely considered one of all involved within the ebook of Fr. M. Polish questions, particularly concerning the church group overseas.
Based mostly on an in depth evaluation of information and paperwork, in his ebook prot. Polsky involves the next particular conclusion: “At the moment, the one canonical authority within the Russian Orthodox Church as an entire, each for its abroad half and – after 1927 – for Russia itself, is the Overseas Synod of Bishops” (p. 193). It’s hardly doable to say extra clearly. Subsequently, if solely out of respect for the creator’s persona and work, we should deal with his proof fastidiously and attempt to put and perceive the query on its deserves. There isn’t a room for controversy right here. Or Fr. M. Polski is correct – after which, satisfied by him, all those that till that second have thought in any other case are obliged to simply accept his conclusions and harmonize their church life in line with them – or he isn’t proper, however in such a case it’s not sufficient to easily say this, however to disclose the place the justice lies. There might be no relativism within the church. And the truth that so many individuals nowadays “don’t listen” to the query of church group and take into account it unimportant, some “enterprise of the bishops”, is simply an indication of a deep sickness and lack of church consciousness. There can’t be a number of equally legitimate methods of understanding the Church, its nature, process and group.
The ebook of Fr. M. Polski calls for from us a transparent and particular reply to the query: what’s our particular disagreement with the Abroad Synod and the place will we see the norm of the canonical construction of our church life? I’m satisfied that the time has come when these questions should be posed and regarded in substance, that’s, within the mild of the Custom of the Church, as a substitute of within the fruitless type of “jurisdictional polemics”. In fact, only one article just isn’t sufficient for this function. The concerted effort of all the church consciousness is important. The duty of this text is simply to ask the query and attempt to consider the ebook of Fr. M. Polski in some complete relationship. It goes with out saying that the article has no official character and is simply a non-public try – in line with one’s personal power – to ecclesiastically method a few of the painful difficulties of our church life.
1. Canons and canonicity
All disputes over ecclesiastical group often boil right down to the query of canonicity and non-canonicality, wherein the methods of defining each are infinitely various. Thus, on the foundation of his judgments, Fr. M. Polski takes Apostolic Rule 34: “The bishops of every nation should know which ones is first and acknowledge him as the pinnacle.” And allow them to not do with out his opinion something that exceeds their energy: let every do solely that which pertains to his diocese and to the lands belonging to it. However the first shouldn’t do something with out the opinion of all. As a result of on this means there might be consensus and God might be glorified by way of the Lord within the Holy Spirit – Father and Son and Holy Spirit”.[2] Nevertheless, we will ask: why, as the principle criterion, Fr. M. Polsky proclaims simply this and never another rule? Take, for instance, Rule 15 of the First Ecumenical Council. It prohibits bishops and clerics from transferring from one diocese to a different. On the similar time, each in Russia and overseas, the relocated bishops had been and proceed to be not an exception to the rule, however a standard apply, and the Overseas Synod itself was composed in its majority of bishops who deserted their chairs. Subsequently, if we take this rule as the principle criterion, then underneath the idea of “non-canonicality” we will embody all the episcopate of the synodal interval of the historical past of the Russian Church, to not point out emigration. We cite this instance to not simplify the controversy, however solely to indicate the arbitrary nature of the one utilized by Fr. M. Polish methodology, the appliance of which might make all fashionable disputes about canonicity meaningless. As a result of on the idea of particular person canonical texts, arbitrarily chosen and interpreted advert hoc, completely every part that pleases us might be proved, and within the émigré church-polemical literature, curious examples might be discovered of how with the assistance of the identical canons one can show and justify two diametrically opposed factors of view. Thus, it turns into clear that earlier than we use the canons, we should set up the norm of their use itself, i.e. attempt to make clear what a canon is and what its motion is within the lifetime of the Church.
It’s identified that the Church compiled the canons at completely different occasions and on completely different events, within the common case with the intention of correcting the distortions of church life or in reference to a change that occurred within the situations of church life. Thus, of their origin, the canons had been decided by the historic setting in view of which they had been composed. From this, some “liberal” Orthodox folks make the hasty and faulty conclusion that, as a rule, the canons are “inapplicable” as a result of the situations of life for which they had been created have modified, and subsequently all disputes about canonicity are a fruitless and dangerous casuistry. Opposing the “liberals” are those that might be referred to as zealots of canonical formalism. Normally ill-informed in theology and within the historical past of the Church, they see within the canons solely the letter and take into account as heresy any try to see that means behind that letter. Certainly, at first look, the implementation of the canons faces nice difficulties. So what relation to our lives may have a few of the canons, for instance, of the Council of Carthage, figuring out tips on how to divide the dioceses with bishops who switched to the heresy of the Donatists (Council of Carthage, Rule 132)? And on the similar time, the Church has repeatedly and solemnly confirmed the “indestructibility” and “unwaveringness” of the canons (Seventh Ecumenical Council, Rule 1; Council of Trulli), and the promise of constancy to the canons is a part of our bishop’s oath. In actuality, nevertheless, this contradiction is obvious and based mostly on a theological misunderstanding. The deepest error of each “liberals” and “zealots” is that they see within the canon a statute of a juridical nature – a sort of administrative rule that’s mechanically relevant if solely an appropriate textual content might be discovered. On this method, some who discover such a textual content attempt to use it to justify their place (which, in reality, is often decided for utterly completely different causes), and others merely reject any reference to the canons as clearly “outdated” laws.
The factor is, nevertheless, that the canon just isn’t a authorized doc, that it’s not a easy administrative rule that may be utilized purely formally. The canon comprises a sign of how, underneath the given situations, the everlasting and unchanging essence of the Church might be embodied and manifested, and exactly this everlasting fact expressed within the canon – though on a very completely different event, radically completely different from our historic state of affairs – represents the everlasting and unshakable content material of the canon and it’s she who makes the canons an invariable a part of the Custom of the Church. “The types of historic existence of the Church – writes an Orthodox canonist – are extraordinarily various. To anybody with even slightly data of Church historical past, that is so self-evident that it requires no proof. One historic kind is changed on this course of by one other. And but, for all the range of the historic types of church life, we discover in them a continuing core. This core is the dogmatic educating of the Church, or in different phrases, the Church itself. Church life can’t take arbitrary kinds, however solely those who correspond to the essence of the Church and are in a position to categorical this essence underneath the particular historic situations”.[3] Subsequently, it’s the canon that’s the norm for a way the Church embodies its immutable essence in altering historic situations. And subsequently to make use of the canons means, to begin with, to have the ability to discover within the textual content of the canon that everlasting core, that facet of the dogmatic educating of the Church, that are exactly contained in it, then to replace this eternally – repeatedly – in life. Nevertheless, for such use of the canons, as for every part else within the Church, the lifeless data of the Guide of Guidelines just isn’t sufficient,[4] however a non secular effort is required, because the canons can’t be separated from all the Custom of the Church, as this folks utilizing them as absolute authorized guidelines typically do. Constancy to the canons is constancy to all the Custom of the Church, and this constancy, within the phrases of Prof. Prot. Georgi Florovski, “doesn’t imply constancy to the exterior authority of the previous, however is a residing reference to the fullness of the Church’s expertise. The reference to the Custom just isn’t solely a historic argument, and the Custom just isn’t lowered to ecclesiastical archaeology”.[5]
And so, the yardstick for the ecclesiastical construction seems to be not the naked canonical textual content, however the testimony contained in it concerning the Custom of the Church. That is the one understanding of the canons that offers us an goal and ecclesiastical criterion for figuring out the applicability or non-applicability of 1 or one other canon to a given state of affairs, and thus additionally tells us the best way of its use. Subsequently, in our effort to find out the canonical norm of our ecclesiastical group in these new situations wherein God has condemned us to reside, we’re obliged to begin with to recall what the Church has all the time and in all places embodied however with its exterior association and what’s that essential factor to which the canons level.
2. The essence of the Church
The essence of the Church might be expressed with a single phrase – unity. The Greek time period itself ἐκκλησία (church) means, in line with the definition of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “a gathering of all collectively in unity.” “And the truth that, from the very starting, this time period intently associated to Outdated Testomony terminology was taken to indicate the Christian Church, speaks clearly of the consciousness of unity that was current within the primal church” – so he writes in his Essays on the Historical past of Dogma for the Church V. Troitsky (subsequently Solovetsky confessor archbishop Hilarion).[6] Nevertheless, what’s the essence of this unity, what’s expressed or ought to or not it’s expressed?
With disappointment we have now to confess that if we proceed to profess the unity of the Church, in addition to different dogmas with our mouths, then in our consciousness this unity has grow to be an nearly hijacked idea, or nearly subconsciously we have now changed its unique that means with our personal ideas. Whereas on the similar time the unity of the Church isn’t just a “unfavorable” signal, which signifies that the Church is united when there aren’t any apparent disagreements in it, however represents the very content material of church life. Unity in Christ of individuals with God and unity – in Christ – of the folks themselves amongst themselves, in line with the phrases of the Lord: “I’m in them, and You in Me, in order that they could be in full unity” (John 17:23). “The church – writes Fr. G. Florovsky – is a unity not solely within the sense that it’s one and solely, however above all as a result of its very essence consists within the rejoining into one of many divided and fragmented human race”.[7] Within the fallen and sinful world, every part divides folks, and subsequently the unity of the Church is supernatural. It requires a re-gathering and renewal of human nature itself – issues that had been completed by Christ in His Incarnation, in His demise on the cross and Resurrection – and that are graciously given to us within the Church by way of the sacrament of Baptism. Within the fallen world, Christ has begun a brand new being. “This very new being of humanity St. Ap. Paul calls the Church and characterizes it because the Physique of Christ”,[8] that’s, such an “natural unity of all believers that even the lifetime of the regenerated particular person turns into unthinkable outdoors of this natural unity”.[9]
Nevertheless, simply as within the sacrament of Baptism we obtain all of the fullness of grace, however we ourselves should develop in it by being full of it, so within the Church – all of the fullness of unity is given in Christ, however every of us is required to satisfy or notice this unity, manifestation of this unity in life. On this means, the lifetime of the Church represents a “creation of the physique of Christ, till all of us attain the unity of religion and the data of the Son of God, to the state of an ideal man, to the complete age of Christ’s perfection” (Eph. 4:12-13). “Solely then will the pinnacle, that’s, Christ, be fulfilled, after we are all united and fixed in essentially the most everlasting means”.[10] The best way to comprehend this unity in Christ with a view to the creation of His Physique is love. “Paul calls for from us such a love – says St. John Chrysostom – that may bind us collectively, making us inseparable from each other, and such an ideal union as if we had been members of the identical physique”.[11] And eventually, within the Liturgy – the very best and last embodiment of the Church’s unity in Christ – solely after we have now “beloved each other” can we pray: “All of us – partakers of the one Bread and the one Cup – unite one to a different within the one Spirit of Holy Communion…” (From the Liturgy of St. Basil the Nice).
Thus unity seems to be an actual content material of church life. Given to the Church from the very starting, it’s also the objective of every of us and of all collectively – that fullness to which we’re obliged to attempt at each second of our ecclesial existence.
3. The Catholicity of the Church: native and common
Right here is that this unity, which is the dogmatic essence of the Church, represents in actuality the norm of its group, i.e. it’s exactly what’s embodied in each the exterior and inside group of the Church all through its earthly historical past – it’s also pointed to it’s invariably protected by church canons. “This unity, i.e. the church itself, doesn’t seem to be one thing desired and solely anticipated. The church just isn’t solely a conceivable magnitude, it’s a actual traditionally tangible phenomenon… Within the pure world, Christ has laid the start of a particular, supernatural society, which can live on alongside pure phenomena”.[12] And due to this, the historic types of the church group, though they alter relying on the exterior historic situations, change solely as a result of in these new situations the identical everlasting essence of the Church and, above all, its unity is invariably embodied. That’s the reason, underneath the range and distinction of all these kinds, we all the time discover a fundamental core, some everlasting precept, the betrayal of which or the violation of which might imply to vary the very nature of the church. We take into account the precept of the locality of the ecclesiastical construction.
The locality of the Church signifies that in a single place, that’s, in a single territory, just one Church can exist, or in different phrases, one church group, expressed within the unity of the priesthood. The bishop is the pinnacle of the Church – within the phrases of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who stated: “The Church is within the bishop and the bishop is within the Church.” That’s the reason in a Church there might be just one head – a bishop – and this bishop, in flip, heads the entire Church within the given place. “The Church of God in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2) – right here the historical past of the Church begins with such church models scattered everywhere in the world. And if subsequently this unit and its territory endure growth – from a small municipality in a given metropolis to a diocese, from a diocese to a district and from a district to an enormous patriarchate, the precept itself stays unchanged, and at its basis all the time stays the identical indestructible cell: the one bishop heading the one Church within the explicit place. If we delve into the essence of the canons that confer with the authority of the bishop and to the excellence of this authority between the person bishops, it is not going to be topic to any doubt that they shield exactly this primordial norm, demanding its embodiment whatever the particular situations.
Why is that this so? That is so exactly due to this unity of the Church in every particular place, which can be the primary concrete embodiment of that unity wherein the very essence of the Church and its life consists – the unity of the folks whom Christ has regenerated for brand new life and for who “is one Lord, one religion, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5). And subsequently there might be no different precept of group of the Church than the native and the territorial, as a result of some other precept would imply that another pure characteristic – nationwide, racial or ideological – has changed the supernatural, supernatural, grace unity in Christ. The Church opposes the pure divisions on this planet to the supernatural unity in God and embodies this unity in its construction.
The identical that means can be contained within the different identify of the Church – in naming it New Israel. Outdated Testomony Israel was the folks of God and its faith was primarily nationwide, so accepting it meant turning into a Jew “within the flesh”, becoming a member of the Jewish folks. As for the Church, its designation because the “new Israel” meant that the Christians constituted a brand new and united folks of God, of which the Outdated Testomony Israel was a sort, and on this new unity “circumcision or uncircumcision” now not means something – there isn’t a Jew there, we’re Greek, however all are already one in Christ.
This very precept of locality lies on the foundation of the catholicity (i.e. collegiality) of the Church.[13] The Greek phrase catholicity means to begin with wholeness and utilized to the Church, it signifies not solely its universality, i.e. that the Common Church is solely a sum of all its elements, but in addition that within the Church every part is Catholic, i.e. that in every of its elements the entire fullness of the expertise of the Church, its complete essence, is totally embodied. “The Catholic Church residing in Smyrna” – that is how the Smyrna Christians outlined themselves in the midst of the second century (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16, 2). Each Christian can be referred to as to this catholicity, i.e. to conformity with the entire. “The order for Catholicism – says Fr. G. Florovsky – is given to everybody… The Church is Catholic in every of its members, because the Catholic complete can’t be inbuilt some other means than by way of the Catholicity of all members”.[14] And so each church, each ecclesiastical neighborhood, in anywhere, is all the time a residing embodiment of the entire essence of the Church: not only a half, however a member residing the lifetime of the entire organism, or quite, the Catholic Church itself , residing at this location.
(to be continued)
* “Church and church construction. About books prot. Polish Canonical place of the very best church authorities within the USSR and overseas” – In: Shmeman, A. Assortment of articles (1947-1983), M.: “Русский пут” 2009, pp. 314-336; the textual content was initially revealed in: Church Gazette of the Western-European Orthodox Russian Exarchate, Paris, 1949.
Notes:
[1] Protopresbyter Mikhail Polsky (1891-1960) was a graduate of the Stavropol Theological Seminary, a priest from 1920, and in 1921 he entered the Moscow Theological Academy, which was closed quickly after. In 1923 he was arrested and exiled to the Solovetsky Islands, however in 1930 he managed to flee and cross the Russian-Persian border. At first he ended up in Palestine, then (from 1938 to 1948) he was the chairman of the London parish of the Russian Orthodox Church Overseas (OROC), and in 1948 he moved to the USA, the place he served within the church of the ROCOR “Pleasure of All Who Sorrow” within the metropolis of San Francisco. He’s the creator of plenty of works on the state of affairs of the church in Soviet Russia.
[2] Cited by: The principles of the Holy Orthodox Church with their interpretations, 1, S. 1912, p. 98.
[3] Afanasyev, N. “Unchanging and non permanent in church canons” – In: Residing custom. Assortment, Paris 1937.
[4] Actually the Guide of Guidelines – Slavic bilingual canonical assortment (with Church Slavonic and Greek textual content), revealed for the primary time within the first half of the nineteenth century and together with the creeds of the ecumenical councils, the so-called Apostolic Guidelines, the principles of the ecumenical and of the native councils and the principles of the holy fathers (be aware trans.).
[5] Florovsky, G. “Sobornost” – In: The Church of God, London 1934, p. 63.
[6] Troitskii, V. Essays on the historical past of dogma concerning the Church, Sergiev Posad 1912, p. 15. See additionally: Aquilonov, E. Church (scientific definitions of the Church and apostolic educating from it as concerning the Physique of Christ), St. Petersburg. 1894; Mansvetov, N. New Testomony educating from Tserkva, M. 1879.
[7] Florovsky, G. Cit. op. p. 55. See additionally: Antonius, Mitr. Assortment Sochinenii, 2, pp. 17-18: “The being of the Church can’t be in contrast with anything on earth, since there isn’t a unity there, solely division… The Church is a very new, extraordinary and distinctive being on earth , a “distinctive” that can’t be outlined by any ideas taken from the lifetime of the world… The Church is a similitude of the lifetime of the Holy Trinity – a similitude wherein the numerous grow to be one.”
[8] Troitsky, V. Cit. ibid., p. 24.
[9] Ibid., p. 7.
[10] St. John Chrysostom, “Interpretation of the Epistle to the Ephesians”, Sermon 2 – In: The Creation of St. Joanna Chrysostom in Russian translation, 2, pp. 26-27.
[11] Ibid., p. 96.
[12] Troitskyi, V. Cit. ibid., p. 24.
[13] The precise identify of the Orthodox Church is the Japanese Orthodox Catholic Church (for this see in: Prostrannyi khristianskii catechesis by Mitr. Philaret).
[14] Florovsky, G. Cit. similar, p. 59.
