Councils as a Manifestation of the Church

Paul Valliere - Butler University in Indianapolis (Indiana, USA). pvallier@butler.edu

In this essay the author develops the theme of councils as living ecclesiology, as a manifestation of the reality of the Church. The meaning of councils is not limited to their agenda. The primary source of their charisma is the fact of assembly as such. The conciliar assembly manifests the essential relationships on which the Church is founded. One of the author's chief concerns is to describe how councils help to shape the dynamics of leadership in the Christian Church. The orientation of conciliar leadership is horizontal and inclusive, not vertical and elitist. Councils are nodes of a network, not components of a pyramid. The history of councils is long and complex. A summary of that history is not the aim of this essay. Certain crucial moments in conciliar history are mentioned because they remain enduring reference points for the Church's conciliar practice even today. Among the historical moments considered here are the origin of councils, the relation of councils to "catholicism," the legacy of the Ecumenical Councils, the Great Eastern Schism, the significance of medieval Western conciliar practice for the wider Church, and the renewal of conciliar practice in modern times.

Keywords: Church, counсils, catholicism, sobornost, ecclesiology, conciliarism, representation, patristics, canons.

page 10
Cathedrals as a living Ecclesiology

Archbishop Rowan Williams, in a soon-to-be-published article, observes that " the business of theology is not to describe God, but to reveal God."1. The same can be said about ecclesiology: its business is not to describe the Church, but to identify the Church. This is all the more true for church councils, which are manifestations of a living ecclesiology, its implementation not only in speech, but also in action - through the common cause of the assembly, prayerful discernment and decision-making. Father Alexander Schmeman says just that when he writes: "The Council is not a 'power' in the legal sense of the word, because there can be no power over the Church - the Body of Christ. The Council is a testimony to the identity of all Churches as the Church of God: in faith, in life, in love." The same distinction applies to primacy, since the council is a collective primacy: "the essence and purpose of [primacy] is not 'power', but the revelation of the existing unity of the Churches in faith and life. " 2
The upcoming Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church in 2016 provides a unique opportunity for world Orthodoxy to reveal the Church, to show what it is. An uninformed view from outside the Church, or even from within, but from the point of view of Christians who cannot grasp the essence, sees the Church as either a religious organization, a charitable society, a cultural association, or even worse - the vehicle of some ideology. From this point of view, the Church is expected to have the same behavioral dynamics as any other organization, association, or ideological force. Accordingly, church councils are regarded as political-or, more precisely, ecclesiastical - political events. The problematic nature of the concept of "church politics" is completely ignored. In this situation, the Holy and Great Council is called upon to challenge all analogies that reduce the Church to "this world" and place it among the authorities of this world, even if it is given the first place, as was the case in various theocratic ideologies known to the world.

1. Williams, R. (2016) "Changing the Subject", Foreword to Correlating Sobornost: Conversations between Karl Barth and the Russian Orthodox Tradition, ed. Ashley John Moyse, Scott A. Kirkland and John C. McDowell. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

2. Schmemann, A. (1963) "The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology", in Meyendorff, J., Schmemann, A., Afanassieff, N., Koulomzine, N. The Primacy of Peter. London: The Faith Press, pp. 44, 48.

page 11
from the history of Christianity. A Holy and Great council can become "holy and great" only if it pursues a completely different goal: to reveal a community of faith in the living God, a community of life in the Risen One and in radical love-agape. The vocation of the coming council, like that of every council, is to meet this goal.

Is it possible to achieve it? Is not our idea of the vocation of councils so exalted that most (or even all) of the church councils that have taken place should be recognized as having failed in their task? The possible failure of the 2016 council is indicated by its stated agenda , which is very modest in its thematic scope. Many of the issues stem from decades-long inter-Orthodox consultations, the active phase of which occurred at a time when most of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches were living in a hostile political environment and in very cramped conditions. The era of freedom that began in the late 1980s and the new challenges it brought to the service and mission of the Orthodox Church are poorly reflected in the council's agenda. That is why the expectations associated with the cathedral are so modest. Weak expectations are the antidote to frustration. Should the theory of cathedrals follow in this direction? Would it be right to advise the Church to abandon the transcendent vocation of councils in favor of a more limited, more worldly understanding of their tasks? Would such an understanding of the councils be more appropriate and acceptable?

Everything seems to be talking about it. However, this approach misses something very important about the question of cathedrals, namely the charismatic reality that is associated with the very fact of the assembly as such. The meaning of councils is not limited to their agenda. The council itself, as an assembly, precedes any agenda and transcends all its decisions. It is the assembly itself that reveals the relationships that make up the essence of the Church: the relationship to God in Christ with the help of the Spirit, the unity of many churches scattered throughout the world, the solidarity of bishops, priests and the people (with a correct understanding of the principle of hierarchical governance), the relationship of the Church to the world through mission and ministry. All these relationships can be expressed with particular force through a council as an assembly.

If all recognized councils acquire their meaning primarily due to the fact that they are held, then in the case of the upcoming council, this is more than fair simply because it is still very long.-

page 12
For many centuries, there was no Pan-Orthodox council in the Research Institute. The most significant thing is the fact that it is supposed to convene a council of world Orthodoxy-and now. Therefore, the high expectations associated with this council, despite its modest agenda, are fully justified.

This does not mean that the importance of the council's agenda or the decisions taken by the council should be underestimated. There have been cases in church history when it was precisely the thematic breadth of conciliar discussions and acts that determined the significance of the council. Thus, two major events in the recent history of cathedrals - the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 and the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) - revealed the transcendent reality of the Church through the vastness of their agenda. The variety of issues that became the subject of consideration at the All-Russian Council was unprecedented in the history of Orthodoxy. In this respect, Vatican II also surpassed all previous councils, including the Second Lateran (1215) and the Tridentine (1545-1563).

The significance of cathedrals can also be linked to the transcendental issues they address. Thus, the agenda of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea included only one item, but it is so important that this council is perceived by many Christians as the first in importance. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that at that time the issue considered in Nicaea was not considered by everyone to be the key one. Constantine the Great expected the Council of Nicaea to bring peace to the Church, including to his new eastern provinces. As for the theological problem posed by Arius ' Christology, he considered it "very stupid"3. But this is hardly the reason why the Church called Constantine "the Great"! And much smaller luminaries than Constantine did not realize the significance of the issues that were discussed by church councils. However, even in the case of councils that dealt with such important issues, one should pay attention to the charismatic dimension of these events. It is no coincidence that in the standard Orthodox canonical collections, the rules of councils precede the rules of the holy Fathers. Separate-

3. These words are found in the letter of Constantine to Bishop Alexander and Arius of Alexandria, with which the emperor tried to mediate the dispute. See: "Victor Constantinus Maximus Augustus to Alexander and Arius", in Eusebius, Life of Constantine, intro., trans. and commentary by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999, p. 118. This letter is preserved in The Life of Constantine 2.64-72 (PG, vol. 20: 1037-1048).

page 13
religious fathers may speak for the Church, but when their opinions become conciliar decisions, they become more than fathers. This is especially true in relation to the church's doctrine of faith. A dogma of faith is not just a collective opinion. Dogma is charismatic in the sense that it is connected with the charisma of the Church as such, with the internal relations that determine its existence. A single Church father or several fathers cannot establish dogmas, even if their teaching is fully consistent with the faith of the Church. Only councils establish dogmas. Or, more precisely, only councils can truly recognize dogma - and this is a good example of the fact that councils are a living ecclesiology, a revelation of the Church in its transcendent being and in its essential internal relations.

Origin of cathedrals

The origin of cathedrals is obscure. The so-called Council of Jerusalem, which is mentioned in the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts of the Apostles, became a biblical example of conciliar decision-making for the Church, but it is not possible to document the historical connection of this meeting with the emergence of church councils. Cathedrals first appear at the end of the second century in connection with the Montanist crisis that engulfed churches in Asia Minor. There are attempts to find a certain cathedral "gene" that was transmitted from Jerusalem to Antioch and then to Asia Minor, but such a genealogy cannot be confirmed. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, who wrote in the first half of the second century, do not mention cathedrals. However, Tertullian, at the end of the second century, already knows about the cathedrals in Asia Minor.4 His testimony is particularly interesting because he lived in North Africa, a region that soon became the second" laboratory " of the ancient Church's conciliar practice. At the same time, for Tertullian, cathedrals were a novelty,

4. Aguntur praeterea per Graecias illa certis in locis concilia ex uniuersis ecclesiis, per quae et altiora quaeque in commune tractantur, et ipsa repraesentatio totius nominis Christiani magna ueneratione celebratur ("In some places of the Greek provinces, councils of all churches are held, where the most important and pressing issues are considered together and the representation of the entire Christian community is celebrated with the greatest reverence") - Tertullian, De ieiunio [Tertullian, On fasting] 13 (PL, vol. 2: 1024).

page 14
and not a phenomenon that is already characteristic of the context in which it was located.

One thing is clear: the councils were connected with the episcopal ministry. The churches in Antioch and Asia Minor were the first places where the idea of a monarchical episcopate first appeared, 5 and where cathedrals appeared a little later. Most likely, councils arise from those meetings, the purpose of which was to appoint new bishops. The ordination of a bishop was not a local event in the Church, as it required the participation of other bishops, especially those closest to it. Therefore, it is logical to assume that as problems arose in the church life of a certain region, well-known episcopal assemblies were already engaged in solving them. At the same time, conciliar practice was not a direct consequence of the spread of the Episcopal structure. Everywhere it was necessary to appoint new bishops, but the practice of calling councils did not develop everywhere.

Not surprisingly, conciliar decision-making was not a common practice of the ancient Church. The forms of church leadership and decision-making varied. The authority of cathedrals rivaled that of apostolic sees such as Rome and Alexandria. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the practice of conciliar decision-making first emerged in provincial contexts far removed from the main ecclesiastical departments, or, as in the case of North Africa, in a church whose main department was not of apostolic origin. The logic of conciliarism is more horizontal than vertical. Cathedrals presuppose the existence of multiple centers of power. From the point of view of their ideal type, cathedrals are a gathering of equals. A member of the council who has more power or significance than other participants, or who claims to have it, is a member of the Council.

5. The term "monarchical episcopate" refers to a way of organizing church administration in the early Christian church, built around the figure of a bishop, whose authority is compared to that of an absolute monarch and contrasted with the collegial method of church administration. The term appeared in Protestant theology in the 19th century. Initially, it had a negative character and was used in criticism of the episcopate as an institution of governance in the church. Over time, the term began to be used in a more neutral sense, denoting a certain stage in the formation of the Christian system of church administration - between the first Christian communities and the organization of conciliar administration within the metropolia. The term is associated with the vision of church governance, which is reflected in the epistles of the ssmch. St. Ignatius of Antioch: "Without a bishop, no one should do anything pertaining to the church" (Smyrn. 8). - Editor's note.
page 15
for the cathedral, a potentially destructive element. Of course, even in a provincial context, there is a difference in the degree of power and influence of council members, and this only shows that there have never been and most likely will never be ideal conditions for council practice. But this circumstance only means that such differences can give rise to different configurations. The smaller the differences between individual local churches and departments in a particular church area, the better it is for the implementation of conciliar practice. Another factor is the number of participants in the conciliar process. In this case, the most striking example is North Africa. As noted by fr. John Meyendorff, North Africa has long maintained a tradition, perhaps the original one, according to which the primate of each local ecclesiastical (Eucharistic) assembly was a bishop. 6 Therefore, there were a large number of bishops in North Africa. The co-existence of many bishops leading small ecclesiastical communities is the best condition for the flourishing of conciliarism.

The horizontal nature of conciliar practice can be a challenge for all participants in the council, not just the most prominent or influential. Each bishop in his church is the primate and occupies the first place in the community. However, when bishops gather together for a council, they cease to be such primates and become colleagues, co-workers, or, as the apostles Peter and James say, simply "brothers" (Acts 15:7, 13). Of course, bishops in their own communities are also called to be brothers in relation to other members, but the hierarchical status of the bishop makes it difficult to implement the principle of fraternal communion in fact, and not just rhetorically. Councils are a form of shared leadership and decision-making.

At the same time, it would be wrong to understand the council as an instance that generates the general spirit of the Church. Just the opposite: in the ancient Church, conciliar practice became possible and feasible precisely because of the communal nature of the Church itself. This fact cannot be underestimated, especially in connection with the question of the role of the episcopate in conciliar practice. The centralist tendencies and vertical structures of a developed patristic hierarchy should not be transferred in any way.-

6. Meyendorff, J. (1989) Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D., p. 146, n. 29. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

page 16
ma on the early Church. This is not the place to discuss when church history took a turn that gave the episcopate special privileges that separated it from the rest of the Church. It is clear that this gap began to grow long before the sixth century, when the concept of "hierarchy"was introduced by Dionysius the Areopagite7. In this case, it is important for us to emphasize that the leadership role of bishops, which is described in the sources of the second century, is not connected with a highly differentiated or stratified community structure, according to which primates and people exist in separate spheres and lead different lifestyles. In this respect, the epistles of Bishop Ignatius of Antioch, written at the beginning of the second century, are indicative. They reflect a radically communal spirit and a strong sense of the organic integrity of the Church. Sometimes the author uses musical metaphors, describing the local church gathered around the bishop as a chorus that unanimously sings a song to God the Father "through Jesus Christ, so that he may hear you and recognize you as members of His Son according to your good works." 8 It is in this atmosphere that the first councils are convened, and the process of making conciliar decisions fully reflects it. This can explain not only the emergence, but also the development of conciliar practice, which was so important in the history of the Church. The communal spirit of the early Church should also warn us against exaggerating the challenges of conciliar "horizontalism" that the ancient episcopate faced. At the council, bishops were indeed called to interact in a spirit of community, but they already had the appropriate skills. Conciliar communion was not alien to them, as they had experienced such communion in their own churches.

Cathedrals and catholicity

Cathedrals originated in the context of an early concept of catholicity. As you know, the name of the Christian Church is "kafo-

7. An excellent analysis of the concept of hierarchy in Byzantine theology was recently conducted by an American Orthodox scholar: Ashley Marie Purpura, " Flexible Fixity: Theorizing, Realizing and Negotiating Byzantine Ideas of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy "(Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Theology, Fordham University, New York, 2014). By focusing on the liturgical and practical aspects of the Dionysian tradition, rather than on contemplative mysticism, the author has initiated a very important discussion for modern Orthodox ecclesiology.

8. Ignatius of Antioch. Ephesians 4.

page 17
lyrical" is first found in Ignatius of Antioch9. Ignatius was also the first prominent representative of the monarchical episcopate in the early Church, and the conciliar practice appears in Asia Minor. By the end of the second century (if not earlier), the episcopal ministry, the concept of a "catholic" Church, and the practice of calling councils formed a continuum. These three elements belonged to the same ecclesiastical reality.

At the same time, it is not so clear what the term "catholic" really meant when it was first applied to the Church. The word denotes a certain "wholeness", because this is its literal meaning (from καθολοκ - as a whole or καϑ' oλον-referring to the whole). But what whole is meant when we speak of the Christian Church? In ecclesiastical history, for the most part, catholic integrity was understood primarily in the sense of the spatial and temporal distribution of the Church. The Church is made up of many local communities spread across space and time, but these communities recognize each other as part of the same community. In this understanding of the term, the rejection of sectarian and separatist versions of Christianity was concluded. The Catholic Church is a universal Church that transcends its local and historical manifestations. In modern theology, including Orthodox theology, the understanding of the term "Catholic" in the sense of distribution has been called into question from the point of view of its, so to speak, noetic interpretation. According to this second approach, catholic integrity indicates integritytruths-that is, the content of the Christian faith itself, and not the structure of the Christian community. This point of view is taken by Fr. George Florovsky in his famous article on catholicity 10. Leaving

9. In the Epistle to the Smyrnians, 8, which contains the phrase: "Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

10. Florovsky, G. (1972) "The Catholicity of the Church", in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 1: Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, pp. 37-55. Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company. The first publication of the article was published under the title: "Sobornost: The Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium by Members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, ed. E. L. Mascall (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1934). By later removing the word "conciliarity" from the title, Florovsky clearly showed that his interpretation of catholicity should not be put on a par with the discourse of conciliarity that was established in Russian theology in the 19th and early 20th centuries. For more information about conciliarity, see this article below.

page 18
apart from the interpretation of catholicity in the sense of the spatial and temporal distribution of the Church, Florovsky offers a radically vertical and mystical interpretation of this concept, that is, an interpretation that significantly weakens the connection between catholicity and conciliarity:

Strictly speaking, in order to learn and express catholic truth, we do not need an ecumenical assembly and vote, we do not even need an "Ecumenical Council"... The opinions of the Fathers and ecumenical Teachers of the Church sometimes had a greater spiritual value and finality than the decisions of other councils. And these opinions did not need to be justified and accepted by "universal consent". On the contrary, they themselves serve as criteria and certifications. This is what the Church bears witness to by its tacit receptio. The decisive value resides in inner catholicity, not in empirical universality. The opinions of the Fathers are accepted not out of obedience to external authority, but because of the inner evidence of their catholic truth.11
Sharing Florovsky's approach, John Meyendorff comments on the meaning of the expression "Catholic church" in Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Smyrnians:

[Ignatius] refers to the fullness and universality of salvation revealed in Christ and in the Church... According to St. According to St. Ignatius, the "Catholic" Church is a Christian congregation that has accepted the fullness of the divine presence in Christ, the whole truth, the fullness of life, and has taken on a mission aimed at the salvation of God's entire creation. Although later the adjective "catholic "was used as a synonym for" universal", it is clear that the original meaning is not related to geography. "Catholicity" is a sign of the presence of Christ, and Christ, through his Word and through the sacrament of the Eucharist, is present "where two or three" are gathered together in His name (Mt 18:20), in every local Christian community.12
11. Florovsky G. Kafolichnost ' Tserkvi [Catholicity of the Church] / / Florovsky G. Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat'i [Selected Theological Articles], Moscow: Prokhor Publ., 2000, pp. 154-155.

12. Meyendorff, J. (1983) Catholicity and the Church, p. 7. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

page 19
If, as Florovsky and Meyendorff believe, "catholicity" means first and foremost the integrity of truth, then the conciliar reality of the Church should be considered at best a derivative one. This is so because the idea of the catholic Church is necessarily connected with its spatial and temporal distribution, whereas, according to the noetic, vertical or mystical ("inner") understanding of catholicity, each individual church community can be completely catholic. The existence of other communities is not necessary for this. But it is obvious that the idea of the cathedral presupposes the existence of other communities. The cathedral of one is absurd. Cathedrals originated as regional assemblies of neighboring churches. Over time, the scale of these types of gatherings has increased to include more churches. Without the spatial distribution of the Church, there can be no cathedrals.

We cannot go into a more detailed discussion of the term "catholic". However, it should be emphasized that there are quite convincing arguments in favor of understanding catholicity in terms of space and time. Meyendorff considers it "obvious" that Ignatius did not have the spatial distribution of the Church in mind when he wrote: "Where Jesus Christ is , there is the Catholic Church." But in fact, this is not obvious. Ignatius ' statement is so brief and so out of context that it is unlikely to be adequately interpreted solely within the context of the relevant text in the corpus of his writings. 13 However, for the purposes of discussion, let's-

13. The only thing that can be said with certainty about this passage in Ignatius is that the concept of "catholic" is connected with the authority of the bishop: "Where the bishop is, there must be the people, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." But this connection may serve to support both interpretations of catholicity, depending on how Ignatius ' understanding of episcopacy is interpreted. As for the analogy between the bishop and Jesus Christ, another of the first researchers of Ignatius 'works, Lightfoot, offered the most obvious interpretation:" Jesus Christ represents the universal Church here, just as a bishop represents a specific church. Similarly, in another passage (Magnus, 3), the Father is called "Bishop of all" (o παντων επισκοπος), compared with Damasus, bishop of the Magnesians. Here, therefore, the "catholic" or "universal" Church is contrasted with the Church of Smyrna, a separate community dominated by Polycarp "(The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, ed. and trans. J. B. Lightfoot, 2d ed. (Reprint of 1889-1890 Macmillan edition: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981), Part Two, vol. 1, p. 414). Lightfoot's interpretation supports understanding the word "catholic" in a spatial sense: the bishop is the primate of places-

page 20
Let us read this statement as Meyendorff understands it, and assume that the word "catholic" was originally a noetic term meaning the integrity of truth. Accordingly, we must take into account the fact that the term "catholic" came to denote spatiotemporal propagation only "later", as Meyendorff claims. Then the question arises: how do I get from point A to point B? How did the term, which originally referred to the transcendent, "inner" fullness of truth, come to denote the spread of Christian communities in space and time? This change of perspective requires an explanation. Logic for switching from the first (intended)one meaning to the second (attested) the meaning is in no way self-evident. If, on the other hand, "catholic" refers primarily to the Church as an extended community, then it is not difficult to see how the idea of extension could have been extended - ultimately to the very limits of space and time, that is, to the limits of the universe.

The classical patristic interpretation of the term "Catholic Church" is found in St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

The Church is called Catholic because it is found throughout the whole universe from the ends of the earth to the ends of it, because it teaches everywhere and in full all the teaching that people should know, the teaching about things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and that the whole human race leads to the true faith, superiors and subordinates, scientists and that which everywhere heals and heals all kinds of sins committed in body and soul, has in itself every kind of perfection, which is manifest in deeds, words, and all spiritual gifts.14
In his article" Catholicity of the Church, " Florovsky cites this passage as evidence that the ancient Church of Poni-

Jesus Christ preside over the entire Church-everywhere, to the very ends of the universe. At the same time, regarding the discussion around this famous passage in Ignatius, it should be borne in mind that there is still an "Ignatian problem", that is, a dispute continues regarding the authenticity, dating and textual integrity of the corpus of Ignatian epistles. See: Joly, R. (1979) Le Dossier d'ignace d'Antioche. Brussels: Editions de l'Universite de Bruxelles; Hubner, R. M. (1997) "Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien", Zeitschrift fur antikes Christentum 1: 44-72.

14. Cyril of Jerusalem, Holy Hierarch. Catechetical lectures 18, 23.

page 21
small catholicity "as an internal quality"15. But this is a dubious interpretation. It is quite significant that in Cyril's explanation of the term "catholic", the first meaning of the word is spatial distribution. It should also be emphasized that the application of the term "Catholic" to the Christian faith ("Catholic faith") in patristic theology is a later and derived use of the term. First of all, the word "catholic" was used to refer to the Church as a visible community.

But there is another argument in favor of a spatial understanding of this term: the historical connection between catholicism and conciliar practice. The significance of this connection is often underestimated because the emphasis is placed on the doctrinal legacy of the councils, rather than on the councils themselves as events of discernment of truth and decision-making. Since ecclesiastical history records many councils that adopted doctrinal positions that were later recognized as heretical, the idea that the council is a neutral instrument that can be used by any church group has become established. However, cathedrals have not been and are not a neutral tool in the history of the Church. They originated as an expression of early catholicism, and the practice of the Council itself developed as catholic consciousness deepened. Even if non-Catholic groups sometimes used conciliar structures to promote their agenda, their conciliarism was a derivative, that is, an imitation of Catholic practice. In imitation, the sectarian and Gnostic rivals of Catholic Christianity never achieved the spirit of genuine conciliarity. The logic and dynamics of these groups essentially contradicted the Council's practice. On the other hand, cathedrals and catholicity form a natural pair, and this should not be surprising, since the cathedrals themselves were born out of the spirit of catholicity.16
The affinity between conciliarism and catholicism allows us to take a fresh look at the long-running discussion about the Slavic-Russian terms soborny and sobornost. Since the word "cathedral" was introduced into the medieval Slavic liturgy

15. Florovsky G. Catholicity of the Church. P. 144.

16. See my argument for the essential link between cathedrals and catholicism in: Valliere, P. (2012) Conciliarism: A History of Decision-Making in the Church, pp. 55-69. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

page 22
as a translation of the term" catholic " in the Symbol of Faith, there was a temptation to limit the meaning of this word to this particular context, rejecting the semantic associations of the word soborny in Slavic languages - with cathedrals and with sobornost in the sense of church communion or communion. In Greek, καθολικος has no such associations. Neo-Patristic theologians usually distance themselves from the broad and inclusive interpretation of conciliarity that dominated Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and became the leitmotif of the All - Russian Council of 1917-1918. In the end, the discourse of conciliarity in late imperial Russia can be considered as a consequence of a random semantic possibility that has nothing to do with" internal " catholicity. On the other hand, if our thesis about the historical connection between catholicity and conciliar practice is convincing, it speaks precisely in favor of the discourse of conciliarity. This semantic accident turned out to be a happy accident, since the Slavic-Russian usus found a connection between catholicity and the practice of cathedrals. Whatever the motivations of the medieval Slavic translators of the Creed, sobornost / catholicity and sobornost/conciliarity are intrinsically linked, and their connection goes back to Christian antiquity.

"Ecumenical" conciliar process

The internal connection between catholicity and conciliar practice was a prerequisite for the emergence of Ecumenical councils in the period of high patristics. When Constantine the Great converted to Christianity at the beginning of the fourth century, he started something that had not been there before: a Church that was supported by the empire and which soon became the Church of the Empire. Ecumenical councils have become an integral part of a new civil-religious synthesis. For this reason, it is quite possible to interpret the term oικοκμενικος-universal, universal-simply as a synonym for"imperial". The councils were ecumenical because their decisions had power within the borders of the Roman Empire, which was considered "universal". While this interpretation is somewhat justified, the complexity of the phenomenon of cathedrals in the imperial era should not be ignored. First, it is obvious that the practice of church councils was not an innovation introduced or imposed by Constantine and his successors. When in Arles (314) and in Nicaea

page 23
(325) Constantine initiated imperial intervention in the affairs of the Church, using the already established institution of the council in the Christian Church. This is one of the reasons why the Church accepted patronage from the emperor. Secondly, for Constantine and his successors, the councils proved to be a much less convenient and docile instrument than they had expected. The cathedrals of the IV-V centuries were, to put it mildly, turbulent, and for the emperors, starting with Constantine, they created additional difficulties. The councils were more a cause of discord than a tool for achieving peace. The Church had its own life and its own concerns, and this didn't always go well with the empire's politics.

Ecumenical councils eventually acquired such a significant canonical status in the Church that it is difficult to imagine how they were perceived at the time when they took place, that is, before they became Ecumenical councils. If we take into account the historical context of these cathedrals, we will see that they did not descend from the sky, but were the result of some complex and unpredictable process. The phenomenon of Ecumenical Councils itself came as a surprise to many. In any case, it wasn't mentioned in Nicaea. On the part of the Empire, the Council of Nicaea was to bring peace to the Church and to the State. On the part of the Church, this council was to finally establish an essential Christian creed. Neither the ecclesiastical nor imperial organizers of the Council of Nicaea intended that it would be the first in a series of councils. In other words, the Council of Nicaea was not the first Ecumenical Council until the second. Strictly speaking, it did not become the first Ecumenical Council until the definition of "ecumenical" was included in the designation of some councils in the fifth century. In the fourth century, the most passionate defenders of the Council of Nicaea insisted on its uniqueness and sufficiency. They didn't expect another cathedral.

Despite this, the "ecumenical" conciliar process began. Here it is appropriate to speak specifically about the process, because the doctrinal definitions consistently adopted by the councils expanded the dogmatic content of the Christian faith. And this process has not been completed. No Ecumenical Council has ever declared that another Ecumenical Council is impossible or illegal in the future. The fact that no one in the Church today seems to have the prophetic gift of foreseeing the form or mission of the next Ecumenical Council does not mean that there will not be one. And this is also

page 24
indicates that it is impossible to equate "universal" and "imperial". The imperial period of church history is in the past. But the ecumenical mission of the Church continues, and it is linked, as always, with the future. The Second Ecumenical Council clearly testified to this truth, not only because it was the second Ecumenical Council, but because it confirmed the Church's faith in the divinity of the Holy Spirit, who guides the Church into the future.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) is the keystone of the arch that forms the Ecumenical Cathedrals. Its significance is associated with both positive and negative factors. On the one hand, the Council of Chalcedon was the most representative and well-organized of all the Ecumenical Councils. On the other hand, it was followed by the most serious ecclesiastical divisions, if we take into account all seven councils, namely the Great Eastern Schism, which has not yet been overcome. Thus, Chalcedon embodies the very" irony " of conciliar practice: the council, as a solemn church assembly whose goal is to establish the rule of faith and life, simultaneously becomes a catalyst for internal church divisions. This paradoxical feature of cathedrals often gave rise to doubts about their usefulness and even disgust on the part of many thinking Christians. A classic example of this attitude towards councils is found in Gregory the Theologian, who presided over the Second Ecumenical Council until he left it out of disgust at the pettiness of its members and their tendency to quarrel.17 Cathedrals are like all other human gatherings. They can be disorderly and lead to harmful consequences. Today, many Orthodox Christians perceive the news of the Pan-Orthodox Council's convocation with alarm and even horror, because they fear that such a meeting will lead to division rather than unity of the faithful.

17. In his poetic memoirs, Gregory speaks of the bishops who participated in the council in the most unflattering way: "They began to caw, / Crows like a flock that suddenly descended. / A pack of young troublemakers, a wild gang, / A raging storm, carrying dust. / No one who was used to living in the fear of God would have spoken to such people at all. / They are like a swarm of wasps disturbed, / Which suddenly rushes into your face" (St. Gregory the Theologian, St. John the Baptist). De vita sua [About his life] / Trans. from ancient Greek. Priest of Andrey Zuevsky, Moscow: Greko-latinsky kabin Yu. A. Shichalin, 2010. Lines 1680-1687; PG, vol. 37: 1146-1147). On Gregory's participation in the Council of Constantinople, see: McGuckin, J. (2001) Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography, pp. 350-360. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

page 25
After the Council of Chalcedon, when the internal church conflict destroyed the political peace in the empire, the emperors began to try to overcome the schism on their own. They issued imperial edicts aimed at reaching a compromise on doctrinal issues. The first and most famous of these is the Oenoticon of the Emperor Zeno (482). Similar attempts were made by his successors in the fifth and sixth centuries. The convocation of councils was no longer resorted to, and after Chalcedon the conciliar process was suspended for decades. At that time, it seemed that the dangers that cathedrals bring with them outweigh their benefits. But in the longer term, this cessation of conciliar practice proved disastrous. When the imperial efforts to restore peace to the Church failed - and indeed they did-it was found that the Church had no other means than councils to solve the problems that arose. The dispute over Chalcedon was theological, and its resolution "required not only the achievement of a formal peace, through the imposition of it from outside, but also a theological solution." 18 In other words, it required a decision that would be adopted by the council.

Since the Great Eastern Schism was so long-lasting, it is inclined to be regarded as inevitable. However, if we look at it in a historical context, and not through the prism of the centuries-old estrangement between the Orthodox and Oriental (so-called pre-Chalcedonian) churches, we can see that this schism was by no means inevitable: nothing suggests that the fifth-century schism should have persisted for fifteen hundred years. After Chalcedon, for decades, perhaps a century or more, the identity of the divided churches was fluid.19 It would be quite possible to find a theological solution if appropriate means were used for this, namely, cathedrals. After all, in the fourth century, the disagreements after the Council of Nicaea were no less serious, but the Arian problem was finally solved. It took several decades of hard, often contradictory conciliar efforts, but they bore fruit in the future. Suspension

18. Meyendorff, J. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions, p. 205.

19. This is the subject of an excellent study of the Armenian Church in the relevant period: Garsoian, N. (1999) L'Eglise armenienne et le grand schisme d'Orient, Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 574, Subsidy 100. Louvain: Peeters.

page 26
the conciliar process after Chalcedon led to the opposite result. The theological dispute was frozen and turned into an ongoing schism - the biggest catastrophe of the patristic era of Eastern Christianity.

The appeal to the Great Eastern Schism on the eve of the Pan-Orthodox Council is quite appropriate, if we talk about its agenda. One of the fruits of the 20th-century ecumenical movement was the forty-year-long productive theological dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Churches. There is already a consensus among theologically knowledgeable representatives of both sides that the essential doctrinal issues that separated these two church traditions are resolved; that is, that the doctrines of these traditions, if properly understood, are two ways of expressing the same Orthodox faith. The Joint Commission for Dialogue in 1993 stated: "In the light of our four informal consultations (1964, 1967, 1970, 1971) and the subsequent three official meetings (1985, 1989, 1990), we realized that both families [of churches] faithfully preserved the true Orthodox Christological teaching and the unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition, although they used Christological terms differently." 20. In other words, the differences between the two traditions concerned theological idioms and features of historical experience. So it doesn't existfundamental reasons preventing the restoration of communion between Orthodox and Oriental Churches 21.

20. Communique: Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Geneva, Switzerland, 1-6 November 1993, Growth in Agreement III: International Dialogue, Texts and Agreed Statements, 1998-2005, ed. Jeffrey Gros, Thomas F. Best and Lorelei F. Fuchs, Faith and Order Paper No. 204 (Geneva: WCC Publications, and Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), p. 5.

21. It should be noted that the author, relying on the texts of the statements of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Churches adopted at the meetings of 23-28 September 1990 and 1-6 November 1993, does not take into account the reaction of the local autocephalous churches to them. For example, the Jerusalem, Georgian, Serbian, and Bulgarian Patriarchates did not participate at all in the meeting itself on November 1-6, 1993. A negative reaction to the results of the Joint Commission's work was demonstrated by the Holy Kinot of the monasteries of Mount Athos, issuing a "Memorandum on the dialogue between Orthodox and anti-Chalcedonites". The Russian Orthodox Church, whose representatives participated in the work of the Joint Commission for Dialogue, instructed the Synodal Theological Commission to study the issue. The subject of study, in particular, was the document of the Joint Commission "Second General Statement and proposals to the Churches", adopted at the meeting on September 23-28, 1990. Results of the work of the Theologian-

page 27
A Pan-Orthodox council could contribute to the restoration of such communion if it formally recognized the theological consensus reached and called on the Oriental Churches to hold a unification council at which the restoration of communion would be proclaimed. The Great Eastern Schism began at the council. It has taken root because of the lack of conciliar action aimed at healing it. A unification council in our time could put an end to this schism.

The example of the Great Eastern Schism points to an important feature of the very nature of cathedrals. Cathedrals are not scientific conferences. They are not concerned with theory. Councils make decisions. They are called to act. The purpose of the council is to reveal the faith and life of the Church in current conditions. The contemporary theological dialogue between Orthodox and Oriental Churches is a remarkable undertaking, and the resulting theological consensus is impressive. But until the churches have confirmed this consensus through action, they cannot be said to have taken it seriously. One can speculate on why the Orthodox and Oriental Churches have not yet taken a decisive step towards ending the schism. Fear of a negative reaction from traditionalists? A long-standing local rivalry? Institutional inertia? One thing is clear: decisive conciliar action can sweep away all these obstacles and reveal the universality of the Church. Modern Orthodox theologians often refer to the fullness of the Gospel - totus Christus - as one of the criteria of Orthodoxy. But they are not always fully aware that the fullness of the gospel presupposes action.

They were considered by the Councils of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1994 and 1997. Both times, the Council decided that the "Second General Statement and Proposals to the Churches" cannot be considered as a final document (Definition of the Council of Bishops of 1994 "On the" Second General Statement and Proposals to the Churches" of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches (Chambesy, Geneva, 23-28 September 1990", paragraph 2 4). In particular, the 1997 Definition stated: "The ' Declaration' should not be considered as a final document sufficient to restore full communion between the Orthodox Church and the Ancient Eastern Churches, as it contains ambiguities in certain Christological formulations. In this regard, we hope that the Christological formulations will continue to be clarified in the course of studying issues of a liturgical, pastoral and canonical nature, as well as issues related to the restoration of ecclesiastical communion between the two families of Churches of the Eastern Orthodox tradition " (para. 4). - Editor's note.

page 28
Cathedrals are a prophetic reminder of this imperative, moreover, its prophetic implementation.

Cathedrals in the East and West

In the late Patristic period, the history of church councils becomes a separate topic. Councils have been the traditional practice of the Church for centuries, but the notion that a collection of councils forms a kind of canon-the standard by which all others are judged - is a later idea. When Pope Gregory I compared the first four Ecumenical Councils to the four Gospels, he found an example of a new mindset.22 This new view was also promoted by the idea of the irrevocability of cathedrals. Following the example of the Second Ecumenical Council, which declared that Nicaea was irrevocable, the Council of Chalcedon extended this principle to all Orthodox councils.23 Thus, the councils that were originally called to bear witness to the Sacred tradition of the Church themselves became part of this tradition.

The conciliar tradition was an effective tool by which the Church formed the official Christian faith. But in addition, the conciliar tradition was also of practical significance-outside the actual doctrinal sphere - and proved to be a very effective tool for developing the mission and ministry of the Church, especially on the borders of the Christian world. This is evidenced by the ecclesiastical activity in the German kingdoms of the West during the Late Patristic and early Medieval periods. From region to region - Merovingian Gaul, the Suevian and Visigothic kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula, the Frankish Empire, and Anglo - Saxon Britain-conciliarism served as the hallmark of Catholic Christianity, the instrument by which the Church testified to Catholic teaching and to the Catholic Church.-

22. In one of his letters (Ep. 1.25; PL, vol. 77:478), Gregory writes: "I confess what I received with reverence-both the four books of the Gospel and the four councils... This I faithfully accept, and this I hold with entire approval; for upon them, as upon a four-cornered stone, rests the edifice of the holy faith.": The Book of Pastoral Rule and Selected Letters of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, ed. and trans. James Barmby, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, ed. Schaff and Wace, vol. 12, pp. 81-82).

23. Rule 1 of the Council of Chalcedon reads: "From the holy Fathers, at every Council, until now, we have recognized the rules set forth above as just."

page 29
appropriate social and moral standards. The missionary effectiveness of the conciliar tradition explains the rapid development of conciliar practice in German Europe. Dozens of councils held between the fifth and ninth centuries in the German West expanded and enriched the conciliar history of the Church, while at the same time establishing conciliarism as a canonical tradition on which they themselves relied.

Cathedrals in the German kingdoms belong to the history of the undivided Church. They should not be considered as special Western cathedrals. These were Catholic councils called for the need to manifest the Church in contexts where the Catholic tradition was either not well known or met with resistance. These councils were a link with the universal Church; moreover, it was one of their main tasks to discover this connection. These councils mentioned times and places that were very far from the world in which their participants and the local church congregation lived. Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon - all these names were not natural landmarks for German kings and nobles in early medieval Europe. But they became such precisely because of local church councils.

It is not surprising that the organizers of councils on the German borders of Christendom were figures who had connections with the vast ecclesiastical world, including Byzantium. Bishop Martin of Braga, who organized the two councils that established Christianity in the Suevi Kingdom of Galicia (northern Portugal), was originally from Pannonia, in central Europe, but apparently received his theological education and monastic upbringing in the Byzantine Empire. Bishop Theodore of Canterbury, who called two councils - Hertford and Hetfield-to regulate church life in England, was a Greek monk who maintained a lively relationship with the universal Church. The main task of the Council of Hetfield (679 or 680) was to provide support to the opponents of the Monothelite heresy on the eve of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681), which condemned it. Geographically and culturally, Hetfield was far removed from Byzantium, but conciliarism overcame this distance. Indeed, overcoming such distances is an essential aspect of the mission of the cathedrals. Conciliarism is opposed to provincialism, separatism, and isolationism in the Church.

page 30
Conciliarism is also a means of overcoming the limitations of regional church structures. Just as a local church does not cease to be provincial simply because it is under the care of a metropolitan see, so a church in a metropolitan area is not immune from separatism and isolationism just because it is a regional center. The Archdiocese and local churches become catholic together through communion with each other, as well as through their participation in a common network of Catholic churches. To be Catholic, Hetfield needs Byzantium, and Byzantium needs Hetfield. The conciliar tradition, in opposition to provincialism and "metropolitanism," serves catholic Christian cosmopolitanism.

The Catholic network weakened after the Christian East and Christian West drifted apart during the Middle Ages. The mutual alienation of the two ecclesiastical communities was also evident in the sphere of conciliar practice. In the West, cathedrals were developed for the reason that in the XI and XII centuries the popes used them to implement their reforms. In addition to the four Lateran Councils that took place in Rome between 1123 and 1215, which were an example of Papal conciliarism, other councils were held in the Western Church during this period, including those north of the Alps, which were sometimes presided over by Roman pontiffs.

This conciliar activity contrasts with the decline of conciliarism in the Byzantine East after the ninth century. The reason for this attenuation is not entirely clear. This can be explained by the relative stability of social, political and religious life in the Eastern Roman Empire and, consequently, the absence of the need for cathedrals to carry out the mission and ministry of the Church, as was the case in the West. Another reason may be related to the growing centralization of conciliar administration in the Byzantine Empire, which was expressed in the activities of the so-called "home council" (nn σκνοδος ενδημοκσα). Originating in the late Antique era, this "home council" was a synod of the Patriarch of Constantinople, which occasionally involved provincial bishops when they visited the imperial capital. Due to its central position and proximity to the imperial government, the "house council" in the early Medieval period gradually acquired more and more power, which included control over the election of metropolitans throughout the empire. In the end, he became a posto-

page 31
a single episcopal conciliar body that governed the entire imperial Church24.

The most significant conciliar events in medieval Byzantium were the Council of Blachernae (Constantinople, 1285), which adopted the Tomos of Filioque, and the councils that established the theology of Gregory Palamas (Constantinople, 1341 and 1351). These cathedrals were not large-scale. The decision of the Council of 1341 was signed by only seven bishops. At the same time, as Meyendorff notes, "this was a real council, and not an ordinary synodal session: the debates were public, and Andronikos III presided in person, surrounded by senators and 'ecumenical judges', not counting the bishops, archimandrites and hegumens who were present there. " 25 The significance of these councils is also related to the fact that Later, their doctrinal definitions were positively received by Orthodox elites, especially the monastic elite.

The inclusion of conciliar decisions in the annual liturgical rite of the Synodic announcement (on the Week of Orthodoxy) should also be seen as evidence of how cathedrals were treated in medieval Byzantium. In the Synodic, first announced in 843, the doctrinal decisions of Orthodox councils are indicated in the form of a list, some items of which are either their confirmation or rejection (in the form of anathema). For a long time, this liturgical ritual remained dynamic, as from time to time new decisions of the synods of Constantinople were included in the announced list. However, after the 15th century, no additions were made. By becoming a complete canon, the Synodic perpetuated the memory of the conciliar history of the Church, ceasing to be an incentive for the continuation of conciliar practice.

The growing contrast between Eastern and Western cathedral practices in the Middle Ages is ironic. In the West, where Roman bishops successfully asserted their right to be authorized legislators of the Church, conciliar practice flourished. In the East, where Orthodox Christians strongly asserted the primacy of conciliar authority, conciliar practice declined. Thus, in both cers-

24. Papadakis, A., Meyendorff, J. (1994) "The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church AD 1071-1453", in The Church in History, vol. 4, pp. 185-187. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

25. Meyendorff I. Zhizn i trudy sv. Grigori Palama: Vvedenie v izuchenie [Life and Works of St. Gregory Palamas: Introduction to the study]. SPb.: Byzantinorossika, 1997.p. 67.

page 32
There has been some tension in church communities regarding church governance. In practice, the Western Church was more conciliar than the papacy as a form of ecclesiastical government might suggest. On the other hand, the Eastern Church, which insisted on the principle of conciliar government, was in reality less conciliar than one might expect from this principle.

Eastern Orthodoxy is faced with the question of whether to view Western medieval conciliarism as significant for the Universal Church or as an exclusively regional Western response to Western problems. This question should be divided into two parts. The first concerns the legalistic character of Western conciliarism, the second concerns the significance of the so-called consiliarist movement26, that is, the idea formulated by Western church leaders in the 14th and 15th centuries and associated with attempts at church reform.

Medieval Western cathedrals were strongly influenced by the systematic study of canon law that began in the West in the twelfth century. Of course, the adoption of canonical decisions in the form of ecclesiastical rules has been the function of councils since Nicaea, but the predominant attention to dogmatic issues at the great councils of the patristic era gave rise to the pan-Orthodox opinion that a council is considered Ecumenical only when it deals with fundamental doctrinal issues. It is noteworthy that the largest council of the patristic era, which dealt with canonical issues, namely the so-called Fifth-Sixth (or Trullsky, 691-692), was considered not an Ecumenical Council, but a kind of appendage to two earlier councils that dealt with dogmatic issues. Thus, the Fifth and Sixth Cathedrals shone as if with reflected light, although in fact they served as a beacon for the later canonical tradition both in the East and in the West. Medieval Western conciliarism, for practical reasons, rejected this subordinate position to the function of canonical creativity. Canon law at that time was one of the most dynamically developing intellectual areas. It was also the main instrument of the Papal administration.

26. Further, for convenience of understanding, the word "conciliarism" will refer to conciliar practice as such, and the word "conciliarism" will refer to a specific historical phenomenon, that is, a movement of the same name in the Western Church. - Approx. trans.

page 33
monarchy, in relation to which the cathedrals were in a subordinate position. In this context, it was only natural to put the mantle of legal rationality on the cathedrals. However, the spirit of legalism, which at the time seemed creative, later led many to say that its deplorable consequence was the distortion of the spirit of the Gospel. Of course, medieval Christian legalism is still worth studying today, since the question of how to preserve the tradition of canon law without falling into legalism remains relevant for all churches, and not just for the Roman Catholic one. There is also Orthodox legalism, as well as Protestant legalism. The question of how to make church law express the charisma and spiritual freedom of the gospel is a challenge for any church tradition that seeks to define the norms of Christian life.27
However, the development of conciliar practice in the medieval Western Church was associated not only with legalism, but also with the use of cathedrals to expand the church's mission and ministry. Of course, with this usage, conciliar activity becomes more extensive than when councils deal primarily with dogmatic issues. In the area of religious teaching, the Church shows wise minimalism. But when it comes to mission and service, minimalism can hardly be considered a church virtue. If cathedrals have proved to be effective tools for developing the church's mission and ministry, especially at the borders of church life - and in our secular era, this border lies right next to us! - zna-

27. In a recent study, John McGuckin suggests that in the Byzantine canonical tradition, this problem was solved by finding a balance between conciliar norms and their pastoral application. He believes that" at every stage of the development of Christian law, starting with the councils of the IV century and beyond, "the church's legal provisions were higher than" pastoral care. Of course, from time to time these ancient rules are perceived by the modern reader as completely anti-human in their severity and unacceptability. However, how we perceive them depends on the context. Some of these rules were adopted in the aftermath of the civil war or in cases of apostasy by members of the community who continue to belong to it, such as the canonical prohibitions concerning the so-called fallen during the persecution. However, many other rules were intended to mitigate the effect of older legal provisions by giving charity the force of law. The canons also consistently promoted the idea of pastoral leniency (inherent in the priestly office of a bishop as a judge, but not a civil judge) to the core of Roman law" (McGuckin, J. (2012) The Ascent of Christian Law: Patristic and Byzantine Formulations of a New Civilization, p. 270. Yonkers, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press).

page 34
cheat, one can only wish for the activation of conciliar practice. This is one of the lessons to be learned from the medieval Western cathedral experience. Of course, councils dedicated to the mission and ministry of the Church also took place in the East. So, for example, the St. Vladimir Cathedral of 1274 is typologically similar to the cathedrals in German Europe. In the difficult circumstances of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, this council sought to strengthen the spiritual unity of the Church. Drawing on the patristic canonical tradition, the council adopted rules aimed at combating simony, episcopal greed and drunkenness of the clergy; it demanded a thorough selection of candidates for the priesthood and condemned the continuing pagan practices. The materials of the St. Vladimir Cathedral - the first extant written record of a Russian cathedral-indicate that the medieval Russian Church was characterized by conscious conciliarism. However, such cathedrals were much rarer in the East than in the West.28
The second aspect of the question of the significance of Western conciliarism for Orthodoxy concerns the conciliarist movement itself. Throughout the Middle Ages, the tensions and contradictions generated by the papal monarchy led to conflicts within the Church, as well as between the Church and the secular governments of Europe. Gradually, there was a growing awareness that papal authority was excessive and needed to be reformed. One approach to this reformation was inspired by the cathedral tradition. Referring to patristic sources, some critics of the papal authority argued that the highest governing authority in the Church is not the pope, but the general church council. They, of course, believed that the pope was the head of the Church, as well as the chairman of the general church council, but they insisted that the Church is not only its head, but also all its members. It is the general church council, not the Pope, that represents the Church as a whole. This "conciliar theory", as it is called in modern scholarship, gave rise to the church reform movement known as conciliarism29.

28. For definitions of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274, see: Monuments of Ancient Russian Canon Law, Part 1, St. Petersburg, 1880, pp. 84-102. See also: "Das Landeskonzil in Vladimir", Die Orthodoxe Kirche in Russland: Dokumente ihrer Geschichte (860-1980), ed. Peter Hauptmann and Gerd Stricker (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), pp. 163-167.

29. A breakthrough study in this case is: Tierney, B. (1998) Foundations of the Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from

page 35
Consiliarism reached its peak during the papal schism of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, when two and then three popes competed with each other for the right to be the head of the Church. The Council of Constance (1414-1418), which was dominated by the conciliarists, abolished the papal schism and proclaimed the supremacy of a general ecclesiastical council in church administration. In Constance, it was decided that general councils should be convened periodically, with the aim of controlling the Pope and promoting the reform of the Church.

The dominance of the consiliarists did not last long. At their second great congress, the Council of Basel (1431-1449), Pope Eugene IV succeeded in creating discord among the conciliarists. Part of the Basel convention moved to the papal council in Ferrara (which later continued in Florence and Rome), and the remaining supporters of more radical views in Basel were isolated. Among the Orthodox, the Council of Ferraro-Florence (1438-1445) is infamous because in 1439 it proclaimed the reunification of the Eastern and Western Churches - a decision that was not implemented due to its rejection in the East. In the Western Church, this council is associated with the end of the conciliarist movement, which continued to exist in the West as a significant school of thought, but never reached such an impact as in the period between the Councils of Constance and Basel.

The consiliarist movement can be regarded as alien to Orthodox ecclesiology for the reason that the papist form of church administration, which was the main subject of consiliarist criticism, is not typical of Orthodoxy at all. Of course, the Orthodox will agree with the rejection of the absolutist claims of the papacy, but other aspects of the" conciliar theory " are less close to them - such as the tendency to view the hierarchical head of the Church as the bearer of the highest executive power, responsible to the members of the Church, or the definition of a general church council as a kind of ecclesiastical parliament that performs a legislative function in the Church. In these ideas, Orthodox ecclesiologists see a secular or at least secularizing spirit, that is, rather a reflection of the late Medieval times.

Gratian to the Great Schism, enlarged new edition. Leiden, New York and Cologne: Brill (first edition: Cambridge University Press, 1955).

page 36
rather than the ecclesiastical spirit of the patristic era. Although the Patristic Church often glorified cathedrals, it did not give rise to any conciliar theory. Why does the Orthodox need a conciliar theory in the absence of patristic precedents?

This is a complex question, the answer to which is fraught with serious consequences. Here we would just like to point out that the medieval conciliar theory can be much more useful for the universal Church than it seems in the East and, in truth, even in the West. Of course, in the Middle Ages, the conciliar theory represented some innovation, but it was also closely connected with medieval political thought. The idea of a church-wide council as a representative assembly designed to limit the power of the monarch (in this case, the pope) contributed to the formation of the idea of constitutional government in early Modern political thought. However, it is precisely for this reason that ecclesiologists, who do not like the parallels between church councils and secular political assemblies, consider the conciliar theory dangerous: it threatens to introduce secular procedures in church councils.

The nerve of this disagreement concerns the very idea of "representation." Ordained hierarchs do not like to be spoken of as representing anyone, unless it is Peter or one of the apostles with whom they retain the apostolic succession. Talking about representation is perceived in the Church as an alien influence, as an attempt to smuggle into the Church something worldly, peculiar to secular political bodies with their parties, factions, competitive elections and a majority of votes. What is missing, however, is the ecclesiastical dimension of conciliar theory. This theory was primarily and primarily focused on bearing witness to the Church as an indivisible whole, as a community that unites members of all ranks and states, including hierarchs, into a single community. The conciliar theory was a demand to make the unity of the Body of Christ explicit in church governance and decision-making.

What about the representative office? Isn't it obvious that this is a secular idea, not a church idea? The critics of conciliarism thought so. However, you need to be careful not to fall into an anachronism. In the 15th century, the idea of representation did not have such a long, politically loaded history as later, and also did not imply a democratic form

page 37
of course, because such an idea has not yet emerged in Europe. Where did the idea of representation really come from? This question is important for us because one of the answers is that the idea of representation arose precisely in the ecclesiastical context, that is, it was inherent in the very logic of the Council of bishops.30 Early church councils were episcopal meetings in which each participant - a bishop - represented their local church community. Councils could speak on behalf of the Church as a whole precisely because mystically the Church as a whole was present at councils in the person of bishops. The cathedrals were the embodiment and continuation of the early Christian understanding of the Church as a communion, as a mystical whole. In other words, bishops in councils are the origin of the idea of representation, because bishops seemed to carry their churches with them wherever they went: the Church was in them just as they were in the Church. Thus, we can say that the medieval conciliarists revealed the real, though hidden, potential of Christian ecclesiasticism-in the idea of a general church council as a representative assembly of the Church, which they defended. And they have used this idea as a critical tool in a context in which the church hierarchy - in their case, the pope as first Hierarch - has found itself dangerously alienated from the rest of the church community. The critical acuteness of their conciliar theory might be perceived as an innovation, but the key idea was not new. This key idea was that the Church is an organic whole, the Body of Christ.

The assumption of such an origin of representation is all the more convincing because in the ancient world the idea of representation is absent. Ancient Greek democracies were governed by a general assembly, not a meeting of representatives. The Roman Senate was not a representative assembly, but an elite advisory body, while the senators were aristocratic.-

30. " Councils of bishops were often a means of ecclesiastical administration and legislative decision - making - for example, in Visigothic Spain. Perhaps it was in this context that the idea of representation was born, since at that time many people shared the idea, which was also part of the church's teaching, that, in the words of St. Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage in the third century), "the church is in the bishop, and the bishop is in the church." This meant that outside of his diocese, the bishop represents his church, so that everything he does also applies to his flock, but at the same time he is expected to represent his flock in some way, as if he always had it with him "(Black, A. (1992) Political Thought in Europe 1250-1450, p. 165. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press).

page 38
tami, whose status was determined by birth, wealth, and tradition; they represented no one but themselves. In the ancient Church, the episcopal council was sometimes perceived as a church "senate", but this is a false analogy. The Roman senator and the Christian bishop are two very different types of superiors. If, in the course of history, bishops as" princes of the church " began to resemble the senatorial elite, but already within the Church, this should be considered as a distortion, and not as a reproduction of the idea of the bishop that was characteristic of the early Church. There is a certain irony in the fact that critics of consiliarism have turned everything upside down. The idea of representative government is not a secular idea imposed on the Church, but, on the contrary, an idea that arose in the church context and was only later perceived in the secular space.

However, whatever the origin of the idea of representation, one should pay attention to the continuing significance of what the consiliarists tried to do at the time. They were primarily concerned with the problem of alienating the hierarchy from the rest of the Church. This problem occurs from time to time in all hierarchically governed churches. The specific forms of such alienation depend on the historical context, but the conciliar theory remains relevant regardless of what forms the gap between the hierarchy and the people takes. In this case, different solutions can be proposed, and it is not necessary to connect them with the institutional forms that were proposed by the consiliarists in the XV century. But on the other hand, it is reasonable to assume that any decision will involve an appeal to conciliar practice, and if this is the case, then consiliarism retains its significance.

Cathedrals in Modern times

The defeat of the Consiliarist movement in the Western Church worsened its internal problems, which led to the emergence of Protestantism in the XVI century. The Protestant program - or programs, since Protestantism was heterogeneous from the very beginning-demonstrates a much more radical approach to Church reform than conciliarism. The latter, for all its innovations, was rooted in the patristic and medieval traditions of church governance, while Protestantism was not. Luther and other first-generation Protestant leaders

page 39
they were well aware of the ideas of the consiliarists and sometimes used them in their sermons and writings. But Roman uncompromising attitude, coupled with Protestant originality, removed the possibility of a conciliar solution to church problems from the agenda. The Council of Trent (1543-1565), finally organized by Rome, was not a "conciliarist" council, even if it was de facto recognized that it was necessary to hold a council in order to ensure the unity of the Church during the reform period. The very spirit and guiding principles of the Council of Trent were neo-Papist, which excluded the possibility of rapprochement with Protestants.

After the Council of Trent in the West, conciliar practice ceased for a long time. The Pope called the next general church council only three hundred years later. As for the main Protestant churches (Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican), the lack of necessary agreement between them on ecclesiological issues made it impossible to convene a general Protestant council. The largest Protestant council was the Dordrecht Synod (1618), which was held by Calvinists. They also implemented a special kind of conciliarism at the local and national levels, creating a system of ecclesiastical governance based on collective supervisory bodies consisting of clergy and laity. Lutherans were less creative in this regard, perhaps because, unlike Calvinists, they were more dependent on secular rulers. As for the Anglicans, it is difficult to generalize in this case, since for a long time their church structure remained mobile, and the one they finally came to at the end of the XVII century was only partially conciliar. Features of medieval consiliarism can be seen in the ecclesiastical functions of the English Parliament, which included the episcopate, but the practice of church councils proper was marginalized. The fate of cathedrals in the Church of England in the early Modern period is symbolized by the refusal to hold Convocations (traditional meetings of Anglican clergy) after the theological dispute of 1717.

At the same time, the Church of England, without any such intention, contributed to the emergence of a special kind of conciliar practice within the Methodist movement. Methodism emerged as a renewal movement within the Church of England in the 18th century. In its essence, it was a missionary movement, although its goal was not the global spread of Christianity, but an internal mission. The missionaries were four-

page 40
ordinary Anglican priests and lay preachers who held regular meetings in order to support and control each other. They called their network "the Connection". This word indicates an essential aspect of Christian ecclesiology, namely, the desire to maintain communication within the framework of a common life. A church community does not require unanimity, uniformity, or even harmony, but it does require the inner connectedness of its members. But, ironically, the Methodists lost track of this truth and failed to maintain their connection with the Church of England. This schism is one of the greatest tragedies in the history of Anglicanism. At the same time, the conciliar practice within the framework of an already independent Methodism is quite instructive. One of the most impressive cathedrals in today's world Christianity is the General Conference of the United Methodist Church, which is held every four years and has administrative functions. Originally a Council of American Methodists, the Conference now includes autonomous Methodist churches in many countries - a remarkable expression of conciliar idealism. However, like all idealism, Methodist cathedral idealism is constantly in danger of self - denial due to worldly conflicts and divisions-currently the divergence on the issue of human sexuality between liberal Methodists in North America and their more traditionalist co-religionists in Africa and Latin America.

Conciliar practice, which had long been forgotten, became a subject of discussion again at the end of the nineteenth century, when the question of conciliar administration returned to the agenda of all Christian churches - with the exception of those Protestant communities that had no connection with the history of church councils. The Conciliarist revival is explained by the changed social and political conditions in which the churches found themselves in Modern times. After the liberal revolutions in Europe and America at the end of the Enlightenment, the union of throne and altar, on which the state churches had long relied, began to crumble. As thrones fell and the idea of a secular state was established, churches found themselves faced with the need to review their relations with the state and society, and this process forced them to take a critical approach to the existing system of church governance. The Church's global missionary outreach is also in a new way

page 41
This raised the question of church governance, as some church communities now existed and took root far away from their original home context. When Christians began to turn to their tradition to find answers to the questions raised by the changed circumstances, the idea of a council seemed a good solution, since it implied both a traditional and a reformist approach to the new situation. Traditional - because no one can question a practice that dates back to the second, if not the first, century of church history. Reformist-because conciliar governance means church self-government, that is, the practice of governing the Church without state guardianship or interference from secular society.

The evolution of Anglicanism in the nineteenth century provides a good example of this new conciliarism.31 In the middle of the century, Anglican communities spread around the world in territories that either became independent of Great Britain, as in the case of the United States, or gained varying degrees of self-government, as in the case of Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. This fact was a challenge to the system of ecclesiastical administration that existed in the metropolis and was connected with the crown and Parliament. In the United States, the Anglican congregations formed the Protestant Episcopal Church, independent of the Church of England and governed by a council called the General Convention. In territories that recognize the sovereign authority of the British Crown, the creation of conciliar government bodies proved more difficult, since the administration of the Church of England by a separate church council was perceived by many in England as a violation of the laws of the state - in this case, the prerogatives of the crown and Parliament. At the same time, what can be called "diasporal conciliarism"has developed. One of its earliest protagonists, Bishop George Augustus Selwyn, presided over the first council of the Church of New Zealand in 1844. The first council of the Canadian Church was held in 1861. However, the process of spreading conciliar practice within Anglicanism has been slow and uneven due to strong resistance in England itself.

31. I discuss Anglican conciliarism at length in my book: Conciliarism: A History of Decision-Making in the Church, pp. 162-244.

page 42
At the most important Anglican meeting of the nineteenth century , the first Lambeth Conference (1867), the reality and limits of Anglican conciliarism were given special consideration. The Lambeth Conference was a gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world, organized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Charles Longley. The momentum in this case came almost exclusively from the Anglican diaspora. In England, this kind of meeting was perceived by the majority as an illegal synod. However, Longley acted very diplomatically, offering a clever compromise: a meeting of Anglican bishops from all over the world will definitely take place, but it will not be a council; the bishops will participate in it not de jure or even ex officio, but simply in response to Longley's personal invitation, and the assembly will not have canonically legislative authority. That is why the meeting was called a "conference" and not a council or synod. It can be said that worldwide Anglican conciliarism was stifled in its infancy. However, on the other hand, a fully self-aware global Anglican Communion has emerged, based on direct contacts between bishops from all over the world. Thanks to Longley's initiative, the World Anglican Episcopate has been meeting in plenary every ten years (more or less) for a century and a half. This is an example of maintaining intra-church relations and holding regular consultations, which has no analogues among the existing churches in the world that have retained the episcopate.

The most important evidence of the revival of Christian conciliarism in the 19th and early 20th centuries was the Russian Orthodox conciliar movement, which led to the convocation of the All-Russian Church Council of 1917-1918. In Russia, the conciliar movement arose for the same reason as in other parts of the Christian world: it was recognized that the socio-political structures on which the State church had long relied were being destroyed and that the Church must restore its autonomy in order to fulfill its mission and ministry. In Russia, a new interest in ecclesiology emerged when Khomyakov and other lay theologians began to criticize the so-called synodal system of church administration inherited from the time of Peter the Great. This criticism was based on the notion that the synodal system had banished the spirit of Christian communion from the Church in order to adapt it to the modern values of rationalism, utilitarianism, and bureaucracy. Posledova-

page 43
Khomyakov's colleagues introduced the concept of conciliarity, designed to express the spirit of Christian community, which, as they believed, should be revived in the Church. The term conciliarity has become the motto of the Russian conciliar movement.32 The charism of the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 is based not only on the Church's desire for self-government, but also on the experience of Christian communion embodied in the Council itself.

The assessment of the synodal system of the imperial period of Russian history remains a subject of discussion, which is connected with the study of conciliarism not only for the reason that this system is called "synodal". The essential question is: was the synodal system a purely modern invention, or did it correspond to some Orthodox prototype? Tsar Peter and his entourage, of course, were impressed by the situation in Protestant countries, where the church was subordinated to the state, and in their so-called reforms they followed exactly this model. In this sense, the synodal system was unconventional, as Khomyakov and other critics insisted. At the same time, the origin of the Russian synod can hardly be explained solely by this reason. For example, Alexander Schmemann believed that the main source of the Holy Governing Synod of Imperial Russia was the so-called house synod of the Byzantine Church33. If this is the case, then at least two things can be explained. First , the fact that there is nothing like it. The Synod was not in the Protestant models that Tsar Peter was guided by. Secondly, it is possible to explain the persistence of an over-centralized system of governance in the Russian Church today. This centralism is clearly different from the broad and inclusive system of church governance adopted at the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918.

The acts of the All-Russian Council continue to be controversial for several reasons. 34 One of them concerns the idea of the Russian Orthodox Church.

32.For a more detailed discussion of the ecclesiological meaning of the concept of "conciliarity" in Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries, see Shevzov, V. (2004) Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press (Chapter 1. The People of God: Competing Images of Community and Laity, pp. 12-53).

33. Schmemann, A. "The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology", pp. 52-53.

34. In the continuing literature devoted to the All-Russian Cathedral, a very detailed and clear study by Iakin Destivelle should be highlighted: Destivelle, H. (2006) Le Concile de Moscou (1817-1918): La creation des institutions conciliaires de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe, Foreword by Bishop Hilarion, Preface by Herve Legrand. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.

page 44
periodic councils. The All-Russian Council saw itself not as a unique event, but as the beginning of a regular council administration in the Russian Orthodox Church. The civil war, followed by decades of Soviet rule, prevented the Church from implementing this reform. The idea of periodic councils was revived in the Charter of the Russian Church, adopted in 1988 at the council dedicated to the millennium of the Baptism of Rus , the first council held in conditions of relative freedom after 1917. However, in the 1990s, the frequency of Local Councils was actually abolished by the Holy Synod, which was formally fixed by the Charter in the 2009 edition. Local councils of the Russian Church are now called only to elect a new patriarch.

Discussions about the periodicity of councils have been going on for a long time, and it is not easy to come to an agreed decision in this case, since there are convincing arguments for and against it. On the one hand, if the Church is to be governed by councils - in fact, not symbolically - councils must be held periodically. They should be convened with sufficient frequency to address emerging issues in a timely manner, and they should be predictable so that people know when pressing issues will be addressed. A classic example of this approach is the decision of the Council of Constance called Frequens (1417), in which the" frequency " of convocation of councils is designated as a necessary condition for effective conciliar governance. On the other hand, an argument is put forward that reflects the fear that the strict periodicity of councils will lead to the routine and bureaucratization of the conciliar process. If cathedrals belong to the economy of the Holy Spirit, they must be a response to special spiritual challenges, and such situations cannot be predicted. A council that takes place with the assistance of the Holy Spirit is by definition a charismatic event, and not the fulfillment of a standard contained in church legislation. In the patristic era, the Church did not know periodic councils - except for regional ones. The general councils of the ancient Church were not periodic meetings, but were called as needed.

The question of periodicity is not easy to resolve, and in theoretical terms, it seems that it will remain open. However, the real life of the church may make it necessary to make a decision after all. So, we can say that in the condition-

page 45
At a time when the traditional hierarchical governance of the Church is becoming dysfunctional - as, for example, in the 15th - century Western Church-periodic councils are precisely the charismatic response to the current situation. Moreover, if such periodicity is spiritually cultivated over many years, it can acquire charismatic traits, which will allow it to become a means of identifying the Church. For example, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the United States has been meeting every three years since 1789. The materials of these meetings are published in full in a special edition-the Journal of the General Convention. On the library shelves, this journal simply looks like a series of dusty volumes containing long-forgotten names, facts, and figures. However, if you look at this collection of volumes as a testimony to the responsibility and care that has been shown towards the Church, you can feel the presence of a living ecclesiology.

The acts of the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918 also cause conflicting assessments due to the special role played by the laity. As you know, the lay delegates elected to the council had the right to vote and formed the majority. This departure from traditional Orthodox practice has led to criticism - accusations that a "democratic" spirit is being introduced into the activities of the church council. But this criticism misses the mark. The bishops at the council constituted the Council of Bishops, which had the right of veto over any decision taken by the council as a whole. The same procedures are provided for the All-American Council of the Orthodox Church in America, the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, and other councils of churches with a ruling episcopate in which lay people are granted certain rights. These councils are not democratic - they are ecclesiastical. However, their ecclesiasticism meets the unprecedented challenges and opportunities that the Church faces in the modern world, whose life is determined by the emergence of a democratic civil society. In this context, the activity of the laity is essential for the mission and ministry of the Church, and councils encourage such activity. Not responding to a new situation means hindering the identification of the Church. And it would be a logical mistake to confuse the creative reaction of the Church to the fact of its existence in a democratic civil society with the democratization of the Church itself. These are different things. Inclusion in the list

page 46
members of the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918, representatives of all "ecclesiastical classes", including the laity, do not mean democratizing the Church; this is a manifestation of a creative approach to identifying the fullness of the Church in a society suffering from deep divisions.

The Second Vatican Council did the same work as the All-Russian Council, but in a global context and through other institutional procedures. Vatican II was a council of bishops, but it had a broad agenda to awaken new energy for the mission and service of the Church in the modern world. The Council had a huge impact on Lay Catholics, marking a new level of involvement of the Church in the life of a democratic civil society and opening up different ways for lay people to serve in the Church. The Council also created new (or updated) forms of activity for bishops themselves , such as national episcopal conferences (other episcopal churches have also created similar structures).

In addition, Vatican II contributed to the further development of ecclesiology, which emerged (or was revived) in Modern times. This ecclesiology, which dates back to such 19th-century authors as Mehler, Khomyakov, Grundtvig, Newman, and others, bore fruit in the 20th century within the framework of the Russian Conciliar movement, the Protestant and Orthodox ecumenical movement, the Paris School of Orthodox Theology, and other lines of thought that form, directly or indirectly, the prehistory of the Second Vatican Council. In turn, this council deepened and expanded the ecclesiological renaissance not only in the Roman Catholic Church, but also in all churches. Moreover, the impact of Vatican II has gone beyond Christianity, as it has awakened an interest in the Church in the secular world - an interest that requires the most serious attention on the part of Christians who are trying to overcome the sense of hopelessness that they experience when confronted with secular modernity.

One of the most significant consequences of the new ecclesiology was the flourishing of the scientific study of church councils. Mehler's successor in Tübingen, Karl Joseph Gefele, initiated the modern study of cathedrals with his Conciliengeschichte (Conciliengeschichte, 1855-1869). Catholic scholars were in no hurry to develop his initiative, influenced by the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), which approved the anti-conciliar doctrine of papal infallibility. Vatican II, on the other hand, gave an impetus to the emergence of-

page 47
many first-class studies of cathedrals 35. If modern Orthodox scholars have not yet made a significant contribution to such research from their own point of view, then perhaps the Pan-Orthodox Council will be an incentive for them to step up this work.

Of course, it can be argued that much of the good things that were inspired by the Second Vatican Council could have happened without it. The same can be said about any cathedral: they say that the good that it brought could have been obtained in another way. Yes, it would have been possible, but it didn't happen! To belittle the importance of councils by imagining an endless series of alternatives to conciliar practice is to confuse theory and action, speculation and historical existence. Human history moves forward thanks to unique events. The Cathedral, guided by the Spirit, has the charisma of eventfulness. To say that something can happen in any other way is to lose sight of how something meaningful actually happens in this world. That is why the Church is called to praise councils: they are moments of truth, moments of inspiration, insight and action. The long history of church councils shows that the Church cannot do without them. Of course, any council is always a certain risk, but without risk there is no Christian faith. Councils are acts of faith.

Translated from English by Alexander Kyrlezhev

Bibliography / References

St. Gregory the Theologian. De vita sua [About his life] / Translated from Ancient Greek. Priest of Andrey Zuevsky, Moscow: Greko-latinsky kabin Yu. A. Shichalin, 2010.

Meyendorff I. The Life and Works of St. Gregory Palamas: Introduction to the study. St. Petersburg: Byzantinorossika, 1997.

Opredeleniya Vladimirskogo sobor 1274 goda [Definitions of the Vladimir Cathedral of 1274]. Pamyatniki drevne-russkago kanonicheskogo prava, Part 1, St. Petersburg, 1880, pp. 84-102.

Florovskii G. Kafolichnost ' Tserkvi [Catholicity of the Church] / / Florovskii G. Izbrannye bogoslovskie stat'i [Selected Theological Articles], Moscow: Space, 2000, pp. 154-155.

35. The most solid and systematic in this case is the German-language serial publication Konziliengeschichte, founded by Cardinal Walter Brandmuller and published by the Verlag Ferdinand Schoningh publishing house in Paderborn. However, this is only one of many individual and collective projects that have enriched cathedral research in the half-century since the Second Vatican Council.

page 48
Black, A. (1992) Political Thought in Europe 1250-1450. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Communique: Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Geneva, Switzerland, 1-6 November 1993, Growth in Agreement III: International Dialogue, Texts and Agreed Statements, 1998-2005, ed. Jeffrey Gros, Thomas F. Best and Lorelei F. Fuchs, Faith and Order Paper No. 204. Geneva: WCC Publications, and Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007, p. 5.

"Das Landeskonzil in Vladimir", Die Orthodoxe Kirche in Russland: Dokumente ihrer Geschichte (860-1980), ed. Peter Hauptmann and Gerd Stricker (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), pp. 163-167.

Destivelle, H. (2006) Le Concile de Moscou (1817-1918): La creation des institutions conciliaires de l'Eglise orthodoxe russe, Foreword by Bishop Hilarion, Preface by Herve Legrand. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.

Eusebius. Life of Constantine. Intro., trans. and commentary by Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.

Florovsky, G. (1972) "The Catholicity of the Church," in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 1: Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View. Belmont, Massachusetts: Nordland Publishing Company, pp. 37-55.

Garsoian, N. (1999) L'Eglise armenienne et le grand schisme d'Orient, Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 574, Subsidia 100. Louvain: Peeters.

Gregory the Theologian, st. (2010) De vita sua [O svoei zhizni] [De vita sua [About my life]], per. s drevnegrech. iereia Andreia Zuevskogo. M.: Greko-latinskii kabinet Iu. A. Shichalina.

Hanson, R. P. C. (1988) The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-38. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Hubner, R. M. (1997) "Thesen zur Echtheit und Datierung der sieben Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien," Zeitschrift fur antikes Christentum 1: 44-72.

Joly, R. (1979) Le Dossier d'Ignace d'Antioche. Brussels: Editions de l'Universite de Bruxelles.

McGuckin, J. (2001) Saint Gregory of Nazianzus: An Intellectual Biography. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

McGuckin, J. (2012) The Ascent of Christian Law: Patristic and Byzantine Formulations of a New Civilization. Yonkers, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Meiendorf, I. (1997) Zhizn' i trudy sv. Grigoriia Palamy: Vvedenie v izuchenie [Life and works of St. Gregory Palamas: introduction to the study]. SPb.: Vizantinorossika.

Meyendorff, J. (1964) A Study of Gregory Palamas, trans. George Lawrence. London: The Faith Press.

Meyendorff, J. (1983) Catholicity and the Church. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Meyendorff, J. (1989) Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

"Opredeleniia Vladimirskogo sobora 1274 goda" (1880) ["Definitions of Vladimir Cathedral in 1274"], Pamiatniki drevne-russkago kanonicheskago prava. Ch. 1., pp.84-102. SPb, 1880.

Papadakis A., Meyendorff, J. (1994) The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy: The Church AD 1071-1453, The Church in History, vol. 4. Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

page 49
Purpura, A. M. (2014) Flexible Fixity: Theorizing, Realizing and Negotiating Byzantine Ideals of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Theology, Fordham University, New York.

Schmemann, A. (1963) "The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology", in Meyendorff, J., Schmemann, A., Afanassieff, N., Koulomzine, N. The Primacy of Peter. London: The Faith Press.

Shevzov, V. (2004) Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Tertullian. De ieiunio. PL, vol. 2.

The Apostolic Fathers: Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, ed. and trans. J. B. Lightfoot, 2d ed. (Reprint of 1889-1890 Macmillan edition: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981), Part Two, vol. 1).

The Book of Pastoral Rule and Selected Letters of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, ed. and trans. James Barmby, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, ed. Schaff and Wace, vol. 12.

Tierney, B. (1998) Foundations of the Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism, enlarged new edition. Leiden, New York and Cologne: Brill (1st ed. 1955).

Valliere, P. (2012) Conciliarism: A History of Decision-Making in the Church. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, R. (2016) "Changing the Subject", Foreword to Correlating Sobornost: Conversations between Karl Barth and the Russian Orthodox Tradition, ed. Ashley John Moyse, Scott A. Kirkland and John C. McDowell. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.

page 50

Permanent link to this publication: