major eras in church history. IV

Church history usually begins with an indication of those departments into which the facts fall apart by themselves. But in the indication of the departments themselves, there are disagreements among historians. Strictly speaking, any division into periods is forced in the course of historical events and has only a didactic value.

Social life is such a complex phenomenon that a division that is successful in relation to one order of phenomena turns out to be inconvenient in relation to another: an event that constitutes an epoch in one order of phenomena has very little significance in another. In addition, the division is further complicated by the fact that for many sides of the church

Noah's life, it is impossible to indicate the events that determine them. Therefore, one has not to look for knots that capture all aspects of church life, but to take some average values. Such magnitudes can be found: 1) in the inner side of the life of the church, and 2) in the outer, in the history of the relationship between church and state. If it is possible to show satisfactory knots in relation to these sides, then the division can be carried out successfully.

If we accept that the basis of the division into periods should be an event that introduces new beginnings into life, then the whole history can be divided only into two department: before the reformation and after the reformation, on the history of ancient-middle and new. The only event that can be said to have introduced a new principle into church history must be considered the emergence of Protestantism. In place of the ancient ecclesiastical system, which assumed the subordination of believers to the church as the basis and saved through church institutions (sacraments), the Reformation puts believers in a direct relationship with Christ, and faith takes the first place here; the concept of "church" recedes into the background, there is an opportunity to talk about the invisible church; the concept of the church is simplified, the hierarchy is completely destroyed: it is ridiculous to compare Protestant pastors with Orthodox or Catholic priests, since they are nothing less than theologically educated laity elected by the parish or community ( Gemeinde ) without any church dedications. This meaning of the reformation was used, for example, by Rote ( Rothe ) and according to this he divided church history into a) catholic before 1517 and b) Protestant. But the Reformation, which had such great significance for the West, is not such an event for the East. In addition, this division results in an extremely long first period, and we need some kind of resting point: a division into periods of the history of the Catholic Church itself is required.

To select other departments on which attention could be drawn, they usually use the division of history into three period: ancient, medieval and new. But there is still controversy regarding the boundaries of these periods. Where ancient history ends and middle history begins is indicated by various points.

Gasse (Hasse) distinguishes periods of church life from the point of view of the relationship of church to state and divides history into a) pre-Konstantinovsky the period when the church lived its inner life, b) post-Konstantinovsky, when the church became alienated from itself and became in certain relations with the state, and c) the Protestant the period when the church returns to itself again. But usually the limit for the first period is set further, and the Constantinian era is considered only a boundary dividing this period into two halves. Some (Neander, Schaff, Baur, Müller, Loofs, Kraus) such a limit is the board Gregory V. Roman from 590 to 604; others (Kurtz, Zöckler, Alzog, Hergenröther, Funk) — Trull Cathedral 692; Giseler - the beginning of iconoclastic disputes (726); others take the era of Charles W. as such a milestone, focusing here on either 800 (the coronation of Charles, Hase) or 814 (†, Guericke). Moller ) believes between ancient and middle ages intermediate period between Gregory V. and 800, the year of the coronation of Charlemagne.

A very common division forms of education Christian life ( Bildungstormen ). Thus, the Catholic scholar Mohler ( Mo hl er) proposes the following division: a) first period - the church in the classical Greco-Roman form - before John of Damascus and Boniface, the enlightener of the Germanic tribes; b) second — in the German form from the 8th to the 15th centuries. and c) third - from the end of the 15th century to the present in the form of Greco-Roman and German, in a form that is a synthesis ( Verschmelzung).

Zockler (Zockler ) also divides history into three periods: a) ancient, where life goes in ancient (Greco-Roman) form, b) medium, where life goes part in Byzantine, part of Germano-Romance form, and c) new — church in modern line of life. At the same time, the ancient he divides the period into two periods: 1) ecclesia pressa or the time of persecution, the period of martyrs (100-323), and 2) the state church, the time of triadological and Christological disputes, (323-692). Middle Ages already divides into three periods: 1) medieval preformation ( Vorbildung ) (692-1085), until the death of Gri-

Goria VII, 2) the heyday of the Middle Ages, (1085-1303), from Gregory VII to Boniface VIII ( Ausbildung , education), and 3) the period of decline (1303-1517), from Boniface VIII to the Reformation, the time of the decomposition of medieval forms and the birth of new forms ( Durchbildung ). new period begins with the nailing of theses (1517) and divides into three periods: 1) before the Peace of Westphalia (1517-1648), the foundation (Grundlegung) of the Reformation, 2) 1648-1814, the time of transition, self-deepening and spiritualization of the Reformation, and 3) 1814 - the time of the struggle against internal anti-Christianity and energetic (missionary) action on the outside.

Kurtz distinguishes two phases in the development of Christianity: A) the development of church life in antique-classical form and B) in German form. The first (A) is brought by him to 1453 and is divided into three periods: 1) up to 323 years, 2) from 323 to 692 and 3) from 692 to 1453. Second (B), from the 4th c. up to the present, is divided into two departments with the most private subdivisions: a) the church in the medieval German form, before 1517, and b) the church in the modern German form. The Kurtz scheme can be represented as follows:

Thus, departments 1,2,3 B here run in parallel with departments 2,3 A. Such a division, obviously, does not represent a real correct division.

Thus, the question of the beginning of the middle period is so controversial that Kurtz is inclined to recognize two parallel simultaneous currents: one belonging to the ancient period, the other to the middle ( respective new). This thought is natural and just, but extremely inconvenient for the architectonics of divisions, resounding almost as a renunciation of separation by periods.

In fact, with the indicated distinction between the church in the forms of classical life and non-classical, i.e. life

Greco-Roman and Romano-Germanic, the question arises from what moment to consider the onset of new non-classical forms. The appearance of the Romano-Germanic peoples is very early: the year 378 loudly declares the existence of the Germanic peoples - ready. Meanwhile, some historians also dispute this point, arguing that it is necessary to lead the first period in classical forms before the fall of the Roman Empire, others - before the Council of Chalcedon. But it can hardly be recognized that the German nationality then already created a special form, which was supposed to replace the classical form. The division before the Chalcedon Cathedral is also unsuccessful. The IV Ecumenical Council, like the Council of Nicaea, had its continuation, after which there were disputes about its significance, and the issue itself was finally resolved at the VI Ecumenical Council, which can be put in analogy with II. It is also not easy for the West to draw a line between the two periods on the basis of the change of classical forms to Romano-Germanic ones. There is no need to talk about the east, because the empire imagined that it was the empire of the Romans. From the point of view of Western historians, it is quite understandable to put forward the conversion of the Romano-Germanic peoples to Christianity. But one must indicate an event that would have significance both for the east and for the west and would constitute the boundary between and II period.

An attempt to understand the issue of dividing church history into periods was made in 1887 by a Protestant pastor wolff (Zur Zeittheilung der Kirchengeschichte in Zeitschring für kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben1887). He demands of epochs that if they do not represent new principles, then at least they should be taken from the innermost life, not from the outside, and represented its progressive phenomena, but by no means regressive; they must therefore represent positive quantities, not negative ones.

But this proposition that the principle of division should not be a fact external to the church, but an event in the life of the church itself, and, moreover, one in which the church enters a new stage of its development (a moment of progress), much more negative, like a protest against false headings, than the positive side. From the Protestant point of view, the Reformation is, of course, good and progress;

A very large internal event in church life—there will be a reformation from any other point of view. In the eyes of a Protestant, the positive moment in the Reformation (a new stage) is stronger than the negative one (separation, rupture of the Western Church); it is natural for a Protestant to present the matter in such a way that the Roman Catholic half of the Western Catholic world was unable to progress, fell behind and fell away.

But from this point of view it is not so easy for a Protestant to motivate the beginning of the middle period. Rejecting such milestones as 800 or 813 (a narrowly political moment), as the activity of Boniface (at that moment it is strange to talk about the German form of education; besides, Boniface, enslaving the Germans behind Rome, was precisely against this special form), even in general, as a change in the ancient form of education to the German-Roman (for a) Bildungsform is by its very nature a product culture, not a fact internal church life, and b) in the Middle Ages, intelligent people imagined themselves to be the true successors of precisely the classical form of education, looked at Aristotle as praecursor Christi in naturalibus, and had no intention of creating a new form of education), Wolff takes the year 858 as such a milestone, the accession to the chair of Pope Nicholas I, for “the papacy is undoubtedly the dominant force in the Middle Ages, determining the course of development”, “the focal point of church development”, and Nicholas appears with strongly pronounced inclinations of a medieval pope (his references to false Isidore's decretals). So division is based on division churches . But this is a negative point, and even assuming that the Eastern Church was unable to bear the “new principle” (the emerging medieval papism), lagged behind and fell away, it is still not easy for a Protestant to point out a positive moment, truly progressive side of the fact, since the Reformation itself consists precisely in a negative attitude towards this “new principle” and, consequently, justifies precisely the Eastern church: however, the beginning of further divisions are events from the life of the Western churches and the eastern church is ignored 1). Thus, instead of presenting

1) Departments of the second period: 1) 858-1048, from Nicholas I to Leo IX;

No logical beginning of the division, it turns out a simple triumph of an exclusively Western point of view. And this itself testifies that the attempt to give a truly ecclesiastical-ecumenical division failed.

We have to set the beginning of the division a) more modest (logically), but b) eastern in terms of point of view. a) The division may be based on a fact, both external (political) and negative in its meaning, but a fact of undoubted importance, the consequences of which reverberated on the later life of the church. That's why separation of churches — without any daubing it with positive, progressive tones - can be put as a determinant of the middle period, b) From the Eastern point of view, the choice has to be made between two branches from the church: aa) falling away from the Eastern Church of the Monophysites and bb) falling away of the western churches from the east.

The seriousness of this second fact (bb) cannot be disputed. 1) Having fallen away from catholic unity, the Monophysites prepared for themselves the wretched position in which they are now. 2) This apostasy weakened the Eastern Christendom, which was in such need of concentrating forces to repulse the external enemy (Islam). But 3) after falling away, the Monophysites did not declare themselves to be particularly original in their historical life, and this, of course, weakens the significance of the very fact of their separation from the point of view of historical science. On the contrary, 1) the Western Church, precisely after the apostasy, expressed with all clarity the peculiarities of its historical life. 2) The fall away was very important in its consequences for the Western Church: it was precisely now that the Latin Patriarchate, not tempered in its aspirations by the authority of the Eastern Patriarchs, developed into an ecclesiastical monarchy - the papacy, and the best representatives of the Western Church lost that moral support that

2) 1048-1378, from Leo IX, under which the division of the churches finally took place, until the beginning of the great papal schism, the papacy, and 3) 1378-1517, the decline of the papacy. Departments of the third period: 1) 1517-1648, installation ( Ausbildung ) evangelical church; 2) 1648-1817, from the Peace of Westphalia to the Prussian Union, weakening ( Nachlassen ) religious consciousness; 3. 1818 - x, excitement ( Wiedererwachung ) church faith. And the general characteristics of the periods: I - "the period of a single church", II - "the period of the papacy", III - "the period of the evangelical church".

They used to find Kuya in church communion with like-minded members of the Eastern Church (cf. the communion of Dominic, patriarch of the city, with Peter, patriarch of Antioch in 1054). 3) The fall of the Western Church was very important in its consequences for the Eastern Church. This division is all the more sad the weaker it was motivated. Heresy separates the Monophysite Church from us, while the Western one is only separated by a special (papal, before the Vatican Council) system (since the judgment about filioque fluctuates). And yet, the unionist attempts of the Comnenos and Palaiologos remained fruitless, and such facts as the Latin empire in Constantinople from 1204 and the Turkish from 1453, this fruit and indicator of the indifference or enmity of Western Christendom towards the Orthodox East, must be attributed to consequences of 1054, and speak clearly of the severity of this event for the Eastern Church.

So, rupture of the western church with the east (bb) there is an event of greater historical significance than the rejection of the Monophysites (aa). The first should set the boundary between the ancient and the middle period, and not the second.

But recognizing on this basis the decisive importance of the separation of the Eastern and Western churches, we cannot dispute the fact that, from a scientific and Eastern point of view, the fact departments of monophysites from Catholicism, it is precisely the epoch of the VI Ecumenical Council that can be successfully placed as an epoch between two periods. If the first milestone is important in relation to the future, then the second has value from the point of view of the past, since it closes the cycle of events.

And above all, this boundary constitutes the boundary of a special stage in history of dogmas. There is a certain historical parallelism between the triadological and Christological stages. The first ecumenical council (325) resolves the triadological question, the second (381) completes it after a long series of historical fluctuations during the intermediate time (between 325 and 381) and, having established the irrevocably all-embracing significance of the Nicene faith, eliminates the very interest in the Arian question . Historically, Arianism emerged as a faction, which in the future was to disappear into the bosom of Catholicism, and the triadological dispute was replaced by the already overdue Christological one.

(Apollinarianism). In the Christological stage IV, the ecumenical council (451) is historically the same as the first in the triadological stage, and VI (680-681) is the same as the second. The Council of Chalcedon resolved the Christological question, the Council of Constantinople III completed it, after a long series of hesitation, compromises, union experiments with the Monophysites, and, having established the irrevocable authority of the Chalcedon ὅρος "a ("definitions") and explaining its meaning against the Monophysite tricks, established the ground for subsequent attitudes towards the Monophysites. The dogma about the God-man was clarified; the reaction under Philippicus (711-715) was a completely ephemeral phenomenon. On the basis of the VI Ecumenical Council, the experiments theological thought in "'Εκδοσις ἀκριβής τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως ("Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith") St. John of Damascus. The subsequent ecumenical council (787) no longer dealt with the Christological question. The Monophysite churches have not ceased to exist even to this day, but by the year 681 they have become historically clear—in their hardened, established estrangement from catholism; they have already lived through the time of greatest dogmatic energy.

But this milestone character of the Sixth Ecumenical Council lies not in the dogmatic only area: in other respects, the Church in 681 appeared with certain features of the future in her face. - start with external her dissemination. If by the year 451, under the pressure of the German Aryanized force, both the Greco-Roman Empire and the Catholic Church were limited in their scope (under the yoke of the Vandals the power of the glorious African Church of Cyprian and Augustine was broken), then this 451 year, the year of the Council of Chalcedon, was also the year the Catalaunian battle, when the hordes of barbarians were driven back by the troops of the empire; and the cathedral took place after this political success, when even the expansion of the boundaries of the church could be drawn in perspective. On the contrary, the beginning of Monothelitism falls on the reign of Heraclius, this serious last experience of a union with the Monophysite edge that has come off, and the year 662, the era of the Hijra, the first glow of Islam, is a harbinger that in place of the Persian state broken by Heraclius, a fresh Arab people appears. . By 681, the fact of the Arab conquests was sufficiently clear: the Muhammadans had become a firm foot in Egypt and Syria; under the yoke of these conquerors, normal church life was suppressed in these ancient churches.

Stian territories; at the VI Ecumenical Council, the Patriarchate of Alexandria and Jerusalem are both sedes vacantes (“empty pulpits”), i.e., as churches that have temporarily ceased their normal historical existence; while the patriarchate of Antioch is replaced artificially (the patriarch of Antioch is both elected and ordained and lives in Constantinople), and, in fact, not a single bishop came from Syria (with the exception of Cilicia and Isauria), as well as from the patriarchates of Alexandria and Jerusalem. Thus, the Eastern Church at the VI Ecumenical Council is limited by the boundaries of one Patriarchate of Constantinople - a fact of great importance for internal order eastern church. On the other hand, western the church is here - to a large extent - outside the Greco-Roman empire, like the church among the Germanic nations, it gravitates towards its center - the Pope and shares the pretentious views of this latter, at the council for the first time ecumenically heard (the Roman Church "nunquam a via veritatis in quarlibet erroris parte defluxa est”) and received an ecumenical answer (in the form of an anathema to Pope Honorius as a champion of heresy). These are also shadows of the future. However, the 6th Ecumenical Council also had (indirect) assistance to the Roman influence: on the basis of this council, the reunion with Rome of the churches of northern Italy took place (700), which broke communion during the dispute “about three chapters”.

Consequently, the year 681 could serve as an epoch for the beginning of the medieval period. However, the accession to the see of Constantinople by Photius (857) and the subsequent separation of the churches of the east and west confronts us even more directly with the force that set the tone in the Middle Ages, a loss even more grievous than the deposition of the Monophysites.

Here you have to choose between the division of churches under Photius and Kerullaria . The last date, as you know, is kept by Smirnov's textbook. But it cannot be said that it was true. Church divisions in the 11th century the Byzantine emperor and the then Christians did not want to, and if it happened, it was only because it was ripe in advance. Not only in the East, but also in the West did not want to recognize this division: Western theologians, explaining the presence of the words:κύριε

έλεησον , Χριστέ ἐλέησον ” in their ranks, proved that the Greeks and Latins adhere to the same Orthodox faith. Meanwhile, if we look at the previous period, it turns out that the communion between the Western and Eastern churches was not strong. Under Cerularius, the name of the pope was not mentioned during the divine service, and if communication took place, then it was caused by the selfishness of Emperor Constantine IX Monomakh. Having failed in his intervention in church affairs, he threatened to appeal to the pope. But no one in the East wanted to recognize the authority of this latter; and Rome itself, which was at that time under the dominion of the so-called pornocracy, could not interfere in the affairs of the East; he was not up to it. If it is said that the Western Church, not restrained by an alliance with the East, has gone quickly along the path of deviations, then there is a significant amount of reinterpretation. While the domination of pornocracy continued in Rome, the popes had no time for reform, and only from the time of Leo IX did a series of popes begin so energetic that, having secured the consent of the German rulers, and then, when this became inconvenient, having entered into a struggle with them, they undertake a series of reforms. in church life. Finally, it is enough to say that many wines were found behind the Latin Church under Cerularius, but the main accusation - the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, was omitted, and this side is inconvenient for recognizing the significance of the era behind the time of Michael Cerularius.

It is a different matter if we raise the question of the division of churches under Patriarch Photius . Here we are dealing with an epoch in the proper sense. Here a new, firm beginning is introduced, which determines the nature of relations between East and West.

In all the clashes before Photius, the Western Church showed enthusiasm, while the Eastern Church did not always respond to “the madman because of his folly,” or even did not respond at all. True, even Basil the Great thought to give the proper answer to the West in the person of Pope Damasus to his ridiculous claims, but out of Christian peacefulness he did not fulfill his intention. From the Latin side there were demands and an authoritative tone, and from the Greek side there were bows. They thought out of falsely understood brotherly love to keep both the truth and the world. Truth was observed, but the world was false. It always turned out that the truth

Was on the Roman side. If you look not at the facts, but at the words, then the matter seems to be as if the popes were unlimited rulers in the church and their power over the east was overwhelming. This spirit of evasiveness characterizes in general the attitude of the East towards Pope Damasus. Celestine took an inappropriate tone at the III Ecumenical Council, but received a polite rebuff.

The Cathedral of Chalcedon is a more characteristic phenomenon. The question of granting certain rights to the Patriarch of Constantinople is already ripe. Although these rights were granted by the second ecumenical council, the popes had previously ignored this. When this question was raised, the legates played a whole parade with slamming doors, going out, and so on. Should have read the papa's instructions. This instruction was firm, but ridiculous. If the fathers of the cathedral were not a cane shaken by the wind, but were like the African fathers, the matter would have ended in the triumph of truth. They would give a rebuff that would remain in the memory of the popes for a long time. In the end, the East stood its ground, but in the messages to the West it was not exposed that the matter of the rights of Constantinople was, in fact, an Eastern matter, and the pope did not in the least concern. On the contrary, it was written that the legates made a mistake protesting at the council against the 28th canon, since the apostolic see, of course, would be happy with the elevation of the Constantinople see, and the matter, in general, was left to the discretion of the pope, and the pope’s discretion consisted in the fact that the patriarch of Constantinople was not elevated.

The subsequent history of relations between Rome and Constantinople is of the same character. Here the Akakian schism comes into play. The history of this schism ended, as is known, with the fact that the Eastern Church condemned the heresy without the intervention of the Roman Church, and the latter restored communion with the East. The triumph of Orthodoxy had already taken place when the Roman legates arrived to celebrate this Orthodoxy (519). What have they achieved? - Humiliation of Constantinople. They demanded that the Orthodox wrestlers, Euthymius and others, be struck out of the diptychs, on the grounds that they had succeeded Akakios, and the Greeks agreed, but again in their own way. The fathers were crossed out from the diptychs, but were included in the martyrology, in the holy calendar, and are now honored as saints. And it always has been. When

Any demands were made from the West, the Greeks did not think about repulse, but made a compromise. Adrian also distinguished himself at the 7th Ecumenical Council. He raised a cry for the return of the patrimonies taken from Rome by the emperor, and also brought up the old question regarding the title οἰκουμενικός , but the Greeks made no objections here either, but omitted places in the Greek translation of Hadrian's epistles with requirements that were inconvenient for reading at the council.

Photius proved that he was created from another metal. He would have been more correct before history if he had taken the right tone at once, but at first he also kept to traditional politics. But when Pope Nicholas took a firm position and, moreover, from his point of view, correct, when he named Photiusλαϊκός and νεόφυτος , Fotiy realized that now was not the time to think about compromises, but it was time to think about the struggle. True, Photius came to the throne during the life of Ignatius. But this circumstance could not serve as an obstacle. Ignatius could retroactively declare a voluntary refusal. But another question is when Photius was called a layman and a convert. Even at the seventh ecumenical council against Tarasius, the Roman legates had the courage to object that he was immediately elevated from the laity to the patriarch. The history of the Eastern Church has developed in such a way that such facts have occurred more often than in the West, and it had to defend this practice, but the Eastern ones yielded, and, at the insistence of the West, a rule was set not to appoint lay patriarchs. But this rule worked. So, for example, Nicephorus was from the laity. Under Photius, this question was put squarely. From a canonical point of view, Photius could not answer the pope; then he himself went on the offensive and raised the question of the incorrectness of the Roman teaching about the Holy Spirit. The bold manner of Photius, and in general his reign and attempt to divide the churches, are characterized by a principled formulation of the question - namely, the Greek Church goes on the offensive, responds not with bows, but with blows, and this made a strong impression in the West.

Thus, the era of Photius must be considered a turning point in the nature of relations between east and west. The right to see precisely here the beginning of the medieval period lies in the fact that the change in the position of the Eastern Church in relation to the Western, formerly defensive

Noah, from now on offensive , took place under Photius (867), and dogmatic difference ( filioque ), as a motive for separation, is indicated precisely by Photius. True, the division itself with the West did not take place at that time, but the sides were already determined, according to which it can be concluded that church life will now flow within new boundaries. That soon after that the polemical tone changed, the matter did not change at all: after Pope John VIII, various nonentities came to the papal throne, and when a worthy person, Leo IX, entered, there was a final rupture between the churches.

If the question is about outer borders of churches, the issue has already been clarified. The volume of the eastern church by the time of Photius was finally determined by the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But at the same time, a characteristic circumstance is that this time was a time of development missionary activity Saints Cyril and Methodius, which represents, as it were, the exit of the Eastern Church from the cramped position of the Greek Patriarchate.

On dogmatic ground, As has already been said, the long Christological controversy ends with the Sixth Ecumenical Council—the dogma of two wills was defined. Then comes the iconoclastic era, which, apparently, has no connection with the previous era, and the question arises: should not the sixth ecumenical council be considered the end of the ancient era? However, the seventh ecumenical council must belong to an ancient era. But by the time of Photius, the question of icon veneration must be considered complete, and from this side, church life by the time of Photius had received a completely definite physiognomy. Then, the fifth or sixth Council of Trullo in the rules on discipline and rituals was of great importance in the history of the Greek Church; in them there is a noticeable tendency to separate themselves from other churches and according to the rite, and to look at other people's rites as something reprehensible. Here, at the Trull Cathedral, several blows were dealt to the rites of the Armenian church and the Roman church was hurt; there was an attempt to raise the question of celibacy. Thus, by the time of the 7th Ecumenical Council, the relationship between the Greek Church and the West had been sufficiently defined in this respect as well.

The case of Photius in itself, however, is not so radical as to be considered revolutionary. If we take into account how the ancient church lived in communion with the West, we will see that this communion was rather fictitious: there were frequent breaks in peace and there was little communion. Thus, the division of the churches did not bring anything new, radical; the Greek church continued to live, as it lived before, a completely peculiar life; only now she has received the moral right to completely ignore all the claims of the popes.

In addition to disagreement about the beginning of the second (medieval) period, scientists do not agree with each other and in the year from which second section of the first period. In essence, the division of the first period into half-periods is clear. In order not to notice that the reign of Constantine V. constitutes an epoch in church history, one must be born blind. The question can only concern a more accurate indication of the year within the time of Constantine the Great. The choice has to be made between 311, 313, 323 and 325. They usually stop at 313, the time of the Edict of Milan. 323, the year of Constantine's victory over Licinius and the establishment of Constantine's autocracy, is indicated ( Kurtz, Zockler ) because only now the church has actually ceased to be ecclesia pressa , as it remained in the east under the regime of Licinius. But under Julian she was again ecclesia pressa ; therefore, the year 323 is not the end from this point of view. 311, when the edict of Galerius on religious tolerance was issued, this, of course, was the beginning of the end, but religious tolerance was given rather slyly, de invita voluntate , and could be taken back without repeal of the edict of 311. 313, the time of the publication of the Edict of Milan, is the true fundamental end for the ecclesia pressa , and therefore a proper start for the second half of the first period.

Against such a division, however, voices are raised that are not devoid of theoretical grounds. In any case, the Edict of Milan lies on the periphery of church life, relating only to the relationship of church to state and having only a transitory meaning. In the last years of his reign, Constantine V. in his relations with the church did not stand on the basis of the Edict of Milan. The latter provided only freedom of religion, but did not declare Christianity the state

Gift religion. But one can hardly doubt that Constantine V. left his children an empire with Christianity as the dominant religion. Therefore, some consider the year 325, the year of the first ecumenical council, to be the boundary of the first half-period ( wolff ). The year 325 is a strictly ecclesiastical date, but according to the content of the dogmatic dispute, it falls in the middle of the triadological stage, and viewed from the outside (first ecumenical council) it depends on one of the previous dates (political). The first ecumenical council has not only ecclesiastical, but also state significance; the church knows about itself only asἐκκλησία καθολική, not as οἰκουμένη (orbis terrarum ). He, the first of the ecumenical councils, begins an era, but if we keep in mind his decisions, then he only continues what was given by the previous time. The dogmatic doctrine of the Holy Trinity was considered even in the period before Constantine V., and the council of 325 said its word on this dogmatic question in such a way that the Nicene answer cannot be considered final. The fact that our church does not have the Nicene, but the so-called Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol, shows that a new edition of the same exposition was required in order for this very question to receive its final dogmatic outline. Thus, the proposed date is not at all more convenient than the date of 313.

Apostolic period I do not consider it to be related to church history. One can talk about him either very much, in order to adequately elucidate every side and every question in this period of Christian history, or very little. In the first case, uniformity and proportionality in the presentation of history will be violated; in the second, a generally unsatisfactory and vague presentation of the most important events of our history will be obtained. Moreover, it must be admitted that Holy Scripture sometimes illuminates the historical situation very little: in order, for example, to find out the position of such small units as the Colossians, there is no sufficient data in Holy Scripture; to be content with mere general conclusions would be to give a too concise and colorless exposition.

Metropolitan Filaret refers this period to biblical history, and this is true for many reasons. Church history already has a lot of material of its own. In addition, the biblical story has its source

Inspired books in the content of which we believe; as a result, we are deprived of the right to make a critical examination of the sources of biblical history with the same freedom as an examination of the sources of later history. The subject of biblical history is very special and has a special meaning. The apostolic period differs in particular from those dealt with in church history in that the questions dealt with during this period were of fundamental importance, and their solution was irrevocable. We are so accustomed to taking the outcome of these decisions for granted that the fundamental importance of the issues themselves escapes our attention. For example, the decision of the Apostolic Council on the question of whether or not Jewish rites are obligatory in application to Gentile Christians answers the question posed by history as to whether Christianity should be an independent world religion or join Jewish sects. On the other hand, those points by which the apostolic period adjoins other ecclesiastical ages can only be understood by elucidating church history. For example, no matter how hard we try, on the basis of Holy Scripture alone, to restore the image of the hierarchical structure of the apostolic church, we must certainly take into account the results that the subsequent church history presents, and contemplate it in the light of it. Thus, we take the canvas for this work from church history, and not vice versa. Protestant scholars who are unwilling to make this borrowing represent the administrative hierarchical structure of the apostolic time—of their own free will. This explains why New Testament history takes up a third of the course in Protestant church history textbooks.

Thus, the apostolic period seems to be very important, so that if you deal with it, you would have to study for a very long time. Then, the apostolic period is closely connected with biblical history, because it uses one source that excludes any correction, since here we are faced with such issues that the apostles themselves have done away with forever. That is why, when presenting church history, we consider it our task to present only such events that do not have a place in the Bible.

Christianity developed mainly within the Greco-Roman world, where there was a long and very significant historical tradition. Christian writers joined this tradition, and Christian church history began to be processed quite early. Already in the first centuries there were historical writings, and then in the first half of the 4th century, the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea appeared, who is revered as the father of Church history. Almost all centuries of Church history have found their contemporary writers and are fairly well documented.

The history of the Church begins on the day of Pentecost, i.e. The Church begins its existence in the fullness of the gifts of the Holy Spirit on the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles. In that wonderful gift of tongues that the apostles and other followers of Christ received, one can see the prediction of Holy Scripture about the spread of the faith of Christ throughout the universe.

For the successful spread of Christianity, there were the following prerequisites: the creation of a huge Roman Empire, which included several dozen contemporary states; dominance in this empire of the Hellenistic culture.

Great with its state and military achievements, Rome was aware of its cultural inferiority. Roman culture was imitative. In the Hellenistic era, all educated Romans were bilingual - they knew both Latin and Greek, like the Russian aristocrats of the early 19th century, who knew French in addition to their native Russian.

The Christian sermon was also prepared by the fact that in the III century BC a translation of the Holy Scripture (Old Testament) into Greek, the so-called Septuagint, was made. This translation became a means of preaching the Old Testament religion in a pagan environment.

By the time Christ came into the world and founded His Church, almost all the peoples of the then political world were united into one state under one political rule of the Roman people. Rome was called the capital of the universe (during Byzantine times, Constantinople would be called that). Shortly before the birth of Christ, Rome passed from a republic to an empire.

In the year 64 BC, discord began in the Jewish family of Maccabees (the brothers Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II complained about each other to the Roman emperor). The Roman general Pompey conquers Judea. Power belongs to Hyrcanus II, then to his dignitary, devoted to the Romans and converted to Judaism, Antipater. The son of the latter, Herod ruled Jerusalem, and later became the king of Judea (in the 37th year BC with the assistance of one of the triumvirates).

Judea was completely conquered by the Romans, and the Jews in most cases lived outside of Palestine. Jews settled in different cities of the Roman Empire and created their prayer houses (synagogues).

Synagogues became the center of attraction for all those who, one way or another, were interested in the Old Testament religion. The environment of the Jews of the diaspora became the environment in which the sermon about the Messiah - the Risen Christ began to spread extremely quickly. As soon as the apostle arrived in any city, he immediately went to the synagogue and preached there. This sermon, usually soon, led to a conflict with the synagogue authorities, and the apostle was expelled. But during the time that he preached, he managed to acquire some followers of Christianity, who formed the core of the Christian Church in this city. In the initial period of Church history, in its first decades, right up to the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 by the troops of Emperor Vespasian and the military leader Titus, the Christian Church was aware of itself. She could quite easily realize herself in relation to paganism, but it was much more difficult to do this in relation to the Old Testament religion. After all, Christ preached almost exclusively among the Jews, all the apostles, all the members of the Jerusalem Church were also from the Jews. Moreover, when the sermon began outside Jerusalem and Palestine, this sermon went on among the Jews or among the Gentiles who sympathized with Judaism - the so-called proselytes. Proselytism had different degrees. There were such proselytes who fully accepted the Jewish religion, there were those who did not dare to do this, but nevertheless, one way or another, adjoined the synagogues. The problems began when the number of pagans (Greeks) became noticeable among the first Christians, because then the question immediately arose of what relation these Christians had to the Old Testament ritual law. Neither the apostles nor other early Christians opposed themselves to the worship of the Old Testament.

The book "The Acts of the Holy Apostles" tells that the apostles visited the Jerusalem Temple during the prescribed hours of prayer, that is, they attended temple worship. And although at the same time they celebrated Christian worship in their homes, which the author of the book of Acts calls “the breaking of bread” (the Eucharist), nevertheless, the existence of this Christian worship did not lead them to deny the need to attend the Temple in Jerusalem. But here come the pagans to the Church. Should they fulfill all the prescriptions of the Old Testament ceremonial law? Does their path to the Church of Christ lie through the adoption of the law of Moses or not? Here, different understandings of this problem in the Christian environment collided. In A.D. 49 in Jerusalem there was a council, called the apostolic. This is the first Council that church history knows. This Council is described in the book "Acts of the Holy Apostles". The Council was attended by St. Apostle Peter, St. Apostle James, brother of the Lord. The Apostle James was the head of the Jerusalem Church after the apostles left Jerusalem, dispersing to preach in different directions. In addition, the Council was attended by St. apostle Paul.

The Apostle Paul came from the Jews of the diaspora, was born in the city of Tarsus, Asia Minor, and, as he says about himself, was a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee. Being a zealot of fatherly traditions, he arrived in Jerusalem in order to receive a theological education from the best Jerusalem rabbis and to become a rabbi himself, a teacher of the Law. At first, he was an implacable enemy of the Church of Christ and participated in the bloody persecution of Christians. In the book of Acts it is said that during the stoning of St. Archdeacon Stephen, the First Martyr, Paul (at that time he was still called by the Jewish name Saul) guarded the clothes of those who dealt with him. After Christ appeared to Saul, he believed with all the ardor of his great soul, and became the most active and bright preacher of the faith of Christ. The Apostle Paul argued that Christ came to save everyone (this is the main content of his sermon), and that He does not save through the fulfillment of the rites of the Old Testament law. The Holy Apostle Paul realized that he was called to preach among the pagans, and he also proved to be the defender of the Christians from the pagans in the face of the zealots of the Old Testament Law, of whom there were many in the Christian milieu. The Apostle Paul taught that Gentile Christians were not required to comply with all the precepts of the law, and the Jerusalem Council of 49 AD agreed with his arguments. The council wrote a letter to all Christians, which said that they must abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from being strangled, from fornication, and not to do to others what they do not want to themselves. Some of these prescriptions are purely moral in nature.

After the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD, the Jewish problem in the early Christian communities completely lost its acuteness by itself. Christian preaching was very successful, at least within the Roman Empire, where there was a lively communication between its various parts, contributing to the process of spreading Christianity.

The entire first period of church history (33-313) can be characterized by the word persecution. In the period from the beginning of Christianity to the reign of Emperor Trajan, as Tertullian aptly put it, the Church appeared under the cover of a permitted religion, namely the Jewish one. Since the Christians recruited proselytes mainly among the Jews or on the ground that had been prepared by the latter, it was natural that the Roman state authorities confused them with the Jews and mistook them for a Jewish sect.

History has not preserved any trace of the mutual relationship between Christianity and the Roman emperors during the reign of the first two emperors, Tiberius (14-37) and Caius Caligula (37-41). The news that Tiberius, having received a report from Pilate about Jesus Christ, wanted to rank Him among the Roman gods, does not have the character of a historical fact.

Christians were subjected to the first persecution in the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54), but together with the Jews and as a result of mixing with them. Friendly to the Jewish king Herod Agrippa, Claudius in the first year of his reign, taking measures against the restless Jewish population, limited himself to forbidding religious meetings in Rome. The most devout Jews recognized their position in Rome as impossible and evicted from the capital. After the death of Herod Agrippa (after the year 44), Claudius took another measure, which only the Roman pagan historian Suetonius speaks of, namely, that Caesar then "expelled the Jews, causing unrest and unrest on the initiative of Chrest, from Rome." In this historical evidence, the first trace of a direct clash between the emperor and Christianity is felt, although, however, such an interpretation is disputed by many scholars. But the vast majority of scholars believe that Christ is meant by Chrestus, that is, it was a question of disputes around the teachings of Christ.

Thus, in the 50-60s. representatives of the Roman authorities did not imagine that they were facing the fact of a new religion not permitted by Roman law, and these "Nazarenes" (that is, Christians) seemed to them one of the many sects into which the permitted Jewish religion fell apart. Therefore, having appeared in Rome in the spring of 61, the Apostle Paul enjoyed the freedom to preach his teaching. Thus, even the Romans, who served in Palestine itself (and therefore had more opportunity to get acquainted with the true character of Christianity), did not understand the essence of the teachings of Christ and did not distinguish it from Judaism. All the less plausible, it must be admitted, that after some four years in the capital of the Roman Empire itself, the government would be able to conduct a process against Christians precisely for religion, and to conduct it in such a way as not to affect a single Jew.

The surviving news of Tacitus (Annal. XV, 44) about the persecution of Christians under the emperor Nero contains quite a lot of obscure things. This persecution was instituted for a particular circumstance. On the night of July 18-19, 64, a colossal fire broke out in Rome. First, the shops that surrounded the Circus Maximus caught fire. The flames raged uncontrollably for 6 days and 7 nights, and the last outbreaks subsided only after 10 days. Of the 14 parts of the city, only four survived, three parts burned to the ground, and in seven there were few traces of half-burnt houses. Nero was not in the city at that time, and when he arrived, his golden palace was on fire. He tried to alleviate the plight of the victims. But popular rumor stubbornly accused him of setting fire to Rome; there were rumors that Nero, from a nearby hill, enjoyed the spectacle of a grandiose fire and, while playing the lute, sang the fire of Troy among those close to him. To dismiss this rumor, Nero pointed out other arsonists and began a well-known trial against Christians. The Judicial Commission opened its sessions a few weeks after the terrible fire.

According to Tacitus, “in order to drown out this rumor, Nero put as the culprits people whom the people already hated for their vices and called Christians. The founder of this party, Christ, in the reign of Tiberius, was executed by the procurator Pontius Pilate. Suppressed for the first time, this malicious sect has now reappeared, and not only in Judea, but also in the capital, where it flocks and where everything that is unnatural and shameful loudly declares itself. Thus, at first those who recognized themselves as Christians were captured, and then, at their direction, many people were captured, who were convicted not so much of arson, but of hatred for the human race. It was them that Nero subjected to exquisite executions. And “although these people were guilty, they aroused pity and compassion for themselves, because they died not for the common good, but to satisfy the cruel whim of one (tyrant).”

Slander and circumstantial evidence were presented against Christians that they were misanthropes who could well have committed arson. The investigation, obviously, provided much more material for accusing Christians not of the fire, but of hatred for the human race. Thus, the process that began with the arson investigation gradually took on a religious coloration, although the question of the permissibility or impermissibility of the Christian religion was not raised in all its principledness.

It must be admitted that religion served, if not as a reason, then at least as a legal basis for starting this process. Searched for arsonists; but the Roman police themselves of that time needed a sign by which to look for these arsonists, and they hoped to discover them among the followers of some suspicious religion, who themselves confessed to belonging to this society. Therefore, under Nero, Christians suffered for the name of Christ. But they could also be held accountable as foreigners. Their testimony may not have been a direct confession of Christianity. And if they did not hide the fact that they were Christians, then this served only as an intermediate link in their accusation; for, at any rate, they were accused of arson. The fierce people who are accused of arson themselves try to throw them into the fire; therefore, in fulfillment of this will of the people, they were sewn into tarred clothes and lit in the form of torches to illuminate the imperial gardens during the festivities.

Thus, Professor V.V. Bolotov (XIX century), and at the beginning and at the end we have prosecution for arson. This persecution was the persecution of people who are accused by the laws of all states, but it did not come to direct persecution for the name of Christ. We are dealing here with a miscarriage of justice that was deliberate. The expression of Tacitus: "Nero subdidit reos (set up the guilty)", may mean that Nero gave a general instruction.

The persecution of Christians, or, to be more precise, the process of the Roman fire under Nero, did not begin before August 64, and can only be in September of this year. More cautious historians think that the persecution under Nero was of no particular duration. Some now believe that the whole affair was limited to the persecution in Rome in 64 and did not continue even until 65. It is clear from the very fact of the arson that the persecution could only extend to Christians living in Rome and its environs, but could not be universal.

The so-called second persecution of Christians was in the last years of the reign of Domitian (81-96). Titus Flavius ​​Domitian was one of the most suspicious sovereigns known to the Roman Empire. He was constantly inclined to fear conspiracies, and, perhaps, under none of the Roman emperors, philosophers and people in general who for some reason seemed suspicious did not live in Rome as badly as under this Caesar.

With the persecution of Domitian, church tradition connects the exile to the island of Patmos of the Apostle John the Theologian. This is mentioned in Eusebius (III, 18), who refers in this case to Irenaeus (Adv. haer. V, 30, 3). The tradition that the apostle John, under Nero, was previously summoned to Rome and, thrown here into a cauldron of boiling oil, remained unharmed, is available from Tertullian (De praescr. 36).

Then the persecution takes on a religious character and becomes more and more bloody and cruel.

What were the pagan persecutors accusing Christians of? Little was known about Christians, and what they did know they did not understand correctly. The misunderstanding of the Eucharistic worship gave rise to ridiculous and terrible accusations of the ritual murder of babies in order to supposedly drink their blood. The rejection of the worship of pagan gods and the rendering of divine honors to the emperor and the religious worship of Caesar caused political accusations of unreliability.

Christians were persecuted on the basis of purely random acts. The Romans did not encourage magic, sorcery, equating them with such harmful deeds as poisoning with poison. Many aspects of the Christian life were such as to give rise to suspicion. The extraordinary facts of martyr's patience during the tortures were incomprehensible to the pagans, who did not believe in the moral strength of the martyrs and thought that they were dealing with skillful magicians. The sacred books of Christians could also be summed up under the concept of "books of magicians." Roman law threatened to confiscate houses where such books would be found; the books themselves were burned, and the magicians were crucified on the cross or given to be eaten by wild beasts or burned. Such accusations could lead to persecution of Christians.

Christians were also accused of not honoring the gods according to Roman law. Not only the XII tables, but also customary law said that a good sovereign, as himself, should honor the gods according to the laws, and equally force his subjects to do so. And since Christians refused to worship the gods, they could always be accused of what the Greeks called a crime against religion. This was the first and most important crime that Christians were accused of.

The accusation of a crime against religion could also turn into an accusation of a state crime. Those who refused to offer sacrifice to the gods showed contempt for state power. Thus, a crime against religion turned into a crime against power, which consisted in the fact that a person denied the supremacy of power in these matters. Persons guilty of such a crime were subjected to deprivation of water and fire, that is, they were subjected to exile, because in this case the stay of the accused in his city became impossible; and in Rome, Christians accused of it were given to be eaten by wild beasts or burned alive.

Many Roman emperors tried not so much to unleash repressions against Christians as, on the contrary, to introduce the persecution begun on the initiative of the pagans, on the initiative of local, provincial rulers, into some narrower framework. From the middle of the 3rd century until the very end of the persecution, that is, until the beginning of the 4th century, the imperial power takes the initiative of persecution and becomes the head of the anti-Christian campaign. What explains such hostility to Christianity? It is psychologically explained by the completely natural hatred of the crowd for everything spiritually significant, for everything out of the ordinary. Christianity in spiritual terms was incomparably higher than paganism. And it's not just that Christianity set much higher ideals. By the time the Christian Church appeared, the pagan world was in a state of deep crisis and decay, it was a spiritually fading world, while the Church was full of spiritual burning and the strongest vital energy. Naturally, the first Christians stood out sharply against the background of pagan society, and they themselves were forced to break the ties that connected them with this society.

Christianity was a kingdom not of this world - to such an extent it differed from the then dominant spirit of the cultural Greco-Roman world. If an educated civilized person has lost faith in everything, if he had no religion, only fragments of it remained, he nevertheless firmly believed in Roman culture, the power of Rome, in its high significance for the world, for civilization. Even many converts to Christianity were so imbued with this idea that a well-known eschatological passage from 2 Thessalonians 2:6 was explained in such a way that the Antichrist cannot come as long as Rome exists. This idea was reflected in the famous verse of Horace: "Bright sun, so that you never see anything higher than Rome."

Christians summarily denied Roman culture. But the deniers of Roman culture did not go into the desert, they lived in society, raised their children in hatred of Roman culture. The Christians countered this verse of Horace with their own: “Thy kingdom come,” that is, let Rome cease with all its culture. And only a few could understand that Christianity in this respect is hostile not only to Rome, but to the whole pagan world and its pagan culture. It should be noted that the then Christians were not careful. Often rumors arose among Christians that the end of the world would soon come, and some Christians gloatingly said that the whole of Rome with its culture would soon collapse and terrible horrors would befall its inhabitants. Therefore, Christians were looked upon as enemies of culture and political life.

The entire educated world of that time was drawn into the political life of their fatherland. Christians, on the other hand, were indifferent to politics and eschewed it on principle. Even Tertullian said that Christianity is so beautiful that emperors would become Christians if the world could be without emperors or if emperors could be Christians. Thus, Christianity and the state, in the eyes of Christians, were incompatible concepts. The pagans were also surprised by the fact that Christians shied away from holding public positions, showed complete indifference to public interests. The same indifference was expressed by Christians in the election of emperors. They preferred not to speak out in favor of one or another of the pretenders to the Roman throne and not to put forward their own.

Professor V.V. Bolotov noted that in vain the Christians pointed out their political reliability, that they did not take part in any revolution. Even this was imputed to them as a fault, since, in the opinion of a Roman person, they turned out to be shamefully indifferent to political good and evil. In judgments about the emperors who reigned at that time, and their predecessors, the pagan intelligentsia and Christians sharply diverged. The best emperors were persecutors of Christians; personally vicious found sympathy for themselves in a Christian society that they did not persecute. Commodus was hated by the pagan Romans and fell at the hands of a murderer, while Christians lived easily under him. Heliogabalus, about whom, as a ruler, nothing good can be said, did not persecute Christians. Alexander Severus, about whom opinions vacillated, in the eyes of Christians was an ideal sovereign. Philip the Arabian, known only for the fact that in his reign the millennium of Rome was celebrated, was regarded by the Christians as belonging to their society. Gallian, standing on the path to tyranny, was the best sovereign for Christians.

Testimonies of Christian martyrs are very precious historical evidence. First of all, you need to understand the meaning of the word "martyr" in its entirety. The Russian word "martyr" conveys the Greek word "martis", but the Greek word is more ambiguous. A martyr is one who endures torment, a “martis” is first of all a witness. A witness to the truth of Christ in the face of the pagan world, a witness even to death and death of suffering. Martyrs are fighters for the faith; their torment is a feat with a touch of solemnity, therefore, the Christian martyr is not a passive sufferer, but a hero-doer. Those who perceived the word "martis" in the fullness of its meaning, saw in it, first of all, an expression of the fact that the preaching of faith is carried out not with words, but with the whole life, without stopping even before death. If preachers in the modern sense can only be especially gifted or, say, more educated people, everyone could be preacher-martyrs. Tertullian wrote: "The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." And indeed, it was on the blood of the martyrs that the Church of Christ was built, and sometimes the example of the martyrs was much more convincing and vivid than the word of many preachers.

Lecture #4

History of the CHRISTIAN Church, II period:

Introduction.

One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church (hereinafter the Orthodox Church) is that original and authentic New Testament Church, which was founded by Jesus Christ himself and His apostles.

This is described in the "Acts of the Holy Apostles" (in the Holy Scripture - the Bible). The Orthodox Church consists of national Local Churches (currently about 12) which are headed by local patriarchs. All of them are administratively independent of each other and equal to each other. At the head of the Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ Himself, and in the Orthodox Church itself there is no government or any common administrative body. The Universal Orthodox Church has existed without interruption, from its inception to the present day. In 1054 the Roman Church separated from the Orthodox. Beginning in 1517 (the beginning of the Reformation) many Protestant Churches were founded. After 1054, the Roman Church introduced many changes in the teachings of the Church, and the Protestant Churches even more. For many centuries, non-Orthodox (Christian but not Orthodox) churches changed the original teaching of the Church. The history of the Church was also forgotten or changed on purpose. All this time, the teaching of the Orthodox Church has not changed and has been preserved in its original form until now. One of the recently converted to Orthodoxy (converts) very aptly said that the existence of the Orthodox Church is one of the biggest secrets of our time - this is of course in the West. The teaching of the Orthodox Church can be characterized by completeness, since it contains everything that is needed for the life and salvation of a person. It is integrally coordinated with nature and with all sciences: psychology, physiology, medicine, etc. In many cases it was ahead of all sciences.

1. Beginning of the Church. The history of the Christian Church begins with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles (Acts 2:1-4) (this day is considered a great holiday in the Orthodox Church). The Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and they became braver, bolder, more courageous and began to speak in different languages, which had not previously been spoken to preach the Gospel. Apostles - mostly fishermen, without any education, began to correctly preach the teachings of Jesus Christ in different places and cities.

2. Five ancient churches. The consequence of the apostolic preaching was the emergence of Christian societies in different cities. Later these societies became Churches. Five ancient churches were founded in this way: (1) Jerusalem, (2) Antioch, (3) Alexandria, (4) Roman, and (5) Constantinople. The first ancient Church was the Church of Jerusalem, and the last was the Church of Constantinople. [The Antioch Church is now also called the Syrian Church. And the city of Constantinople (now Istanbul) is in Turkey].

At the head of the Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ Himself. Each ancient Orthodox Church was led by its own patriarch (the patriarch of the Roman Church was called the pope). Individual Churches are also called patriarchates. All churches were equal. (The Church of Rome believes that it was the governing church and the Pope was at the head of all five churches). But the first of the ancient Churches that was founded was Jerusalem, and the last was Constantinople.

3. Persecution of Christians. The first Christians were ancient Jews and experienced great persecution from Jewish leaders who did not follow Jesus Christ and did not recognize His teachings. The first Christian martyr, the holy apostle and first martyr Stephen, was stoned to death by the Jews for preaching a Christian.

After the fall of Jerusalem began, many times worse, the persecution of Christians by the pagan Romans. The Romans were against Christians, since the Christian teaching was the complete opposite of the customs, mores and views of the pagans. Instead of selfishness, Christian teaching preached love, replaced pride with humility, instead of luxury, taught abstinence and fasting, eradicated polygamy, promoted the emancipation of slaves, and instead of cruelty called for mercy and charity. Christianity morally elevates and purifies man and directs all his activities towards good. Christianity was forbidden, severely punished, Christians were tortured and then killed. So it was until 313, when Emperor Constantine not only freed Christians, but also made Christianity the state religion, instead of paganism.

4. Saints in the Church. Saints are those God-loving people who distinguished themselves by piety and faith, were marked for this by various spiritual gifts from God, and believers deeply revere them. Martyrs are saints who suffered a lot for their faith or were tortured to death. The holy martyrs are depicted on icons with a cross in their hands.

The names of the holy martyrs, as well as other saints, are recorded in Orthodox calendars for veneration. Orthodox Christians remember their saints, study their lives, take their names as an example for themselves and their children, celebrate the days of their remembrance, are inspired by their examples and do their best to imitate them, and also pray to them to pray for them to the Lord God. Orthodox Russian people celebrate "Angel Day" or "name day", and this is the day of the saint whose name they bear. One's birthday is not supposed to be celebrated or is celebrated modestly in the circle of one's family.

5. Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. From apostolic times to the present time, there is an uninterrupted series of holy fathers and teachers of the Church. The Fathers of the Church are church writers who became famous for the holiness of life. Church writers who are not saints are called teachers of the Church. All of them preserved the apostolic tradition in their creations and explained faith and piety. In difficult times, they defended Christianity from heretics and false teachers. Here are some of the most famous of them: St. Athanasius the Great (297-373), St. Basil the Great (329-379), St. Gregory the Theologian (326-389) and St. John Chrysostom (347-407).

6. Ecumenical Councils. When it was necessary to resolve some controversial issue or develop some kind of common approach, councils were convened in the Church. The first church council was convened by the apostles in the year 51 and is called the Apostolic Council. Later, following the example of the Apostolic Council, Ecumenical Councils began to be convened. These councils were attended by many bishops and other representatives of all churches. At the councils, all churches were equal among themselves, and after debates and prayers, various issues were resolved. The resolutions of these councils are recorded in the Book of Rules (Canons) and have become part of the teachings of the Church. In addition to the Ecumenical Councils, local councils were also held, the decisions of which were then approved by the Ecumenical Councils.

The 1st Ecumenical Council took place in 325 in the city of Nicaea. 318 bishops were present, among them was St. Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra of Lycia. In addition to them, there were many other participants in the cathedral - a total of about 2000 persons. The 2nd Ecumenical Council took place in 381 in Constantinople. It was attended by 150 bishops. The Creed, the shortest definition of the Christian faith, was approved at the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils. It consists of 12 members that precisely define the Christian faith and which could not be changed. Since that time, the Orthodox Church has used the unchanged Creed. The Western Church (Roman and Protestant societies) subsequently changed the 8th member of the original Creed. The 7th Ecumenical Council took place in 787, also in the city of Nicaea. It was attended by 150 bishops. The veneration of icons was approved at this council. The 7th Ecumenical Council was the last at which all the Churches were present until today and has not been convened again.

7. Holy Scripture (Bible). The sacred books that make up the Holy Scriptures have been used by Christians from the very beginning of the Church. They were finally approved by the Church in the year 51 (canon 85 of the Apostolic Council), in the year 360 (canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea), in the year 419 (canon 33 of the local council of Carthage), and also in the year 680 (2nd Canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople).

8. Apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is a very important feature of the True Church. This means that Jesus Christ chose and blessed His apostles to continue His preaching, and the apostles blessed their disciples, who blessed the bishops and who blessed the priests, and so on to this day. Thus the initial blessing of Jesus Christ, and hence the Holy Spirit and approval, upon every priest in the Church.

Apostolic succession exists in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church (which includes a number of Local Orthodox Churches, including the Russian one, which is the largest) and in the Roman Church. The Protestant Churches have lost it. This is one of the many reasons why, in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, Protestant Churches are not Churches, but Christian societies.

9. The Roman Church is separated, 1054. From the very beginning of Christianity, in the Roman Church there appeared a striving for primacy in the Church. The reason for this was the glory of Rome and the Roman Empire, and with it the spread of the Roman Church. In 1054, the Roman Church separated from other churches and became known as the Roman Catholic Church. (The Roman Church considers that the Orthodox Churches have separated from it and calls this incident the Eastern Schism). Although the name "Orthodox Church" was used before, the remaining churches, in order to emphasize their insistence on the original teaching, began to call themselves Orthodox Churches. Other abbreviated names are used as well: Orthodox Christian, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, etc. Usually the word "Catholic" is omitted, which means "Universal". The correct full name is: The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church.

10. Orthodox Church after 1054. After 1054, the Orthodox Church did not introduce any new teachings or changes. New national Orthodox Churches were created by mother churches. Mother church, founded a new daughter church. Then, at first it trained local priests, then bishops, and after that it gradually gave more and more independence, until complete independence and equality was given. An example of this is the creation of the Russian Church, the Church of Constantinople. In the Orthodox Churches, the local language is always used.

11. The Roman Church after 1054. After 1054, the Roman Church introduced many new doctrines and changes, distorting the decrees of the first ecumenical councils. Some of them are given below:

1. 14 so-called "Ecumenical Councils" were held. They were not attended by other churches and therefore they do not recognize these cathedrals. Each council introduced some new teachings. The last council was the 21st and is known as Vatican II.
2. The doctrine of celibacy (celibacy) for the clergy.
3. Payment for sins, past and future.
4. The Julian (old) calendar was replaced by the Gregorian (new) calendar. Because of this, there have been changes in the calculation of the date of Easter, which is at odds with the decision of the 1st Ecumenical Council.
5. The 8th member of the Creed has been changed.
6. Posts have been changed, shortened or eliminated.
7. The doctrine of the infallibility of the Roman popes.
8. The doctrine of the innocence of the Mother of God in the original sin of Adam.

Not a single Church dared to do this, preserving the unity and purity of faith. In the Orthodox Church, where the Holy Spirit resides, all the Local Churches are equal - this was taught by the Lord our God Jesus Christ, and the Roman Local Church, having not achieved supremacy over others, withdrew from the Ecumenical Church. Hence the distortions went without the Spirit of God…

12. Protestant Churches. Due to the many and obvious deviations of the Roman Church from Christian teaching, and also because the monk Martin Luther did not know about the existence of the Orthodox Church, he demanded changes in 1517. This fact was the beginning of the Reformation, when many people began to leave the Roman Church for the new, so-called Protestant Churches. It was a movement to improve the Church, but the result was even worse.

Since the Protestants were dissatisfied with the leadership of the Roman Church, they almost crossed out 1500 years of the Christian experience of the Church and left only the Holy Scripture (Bible). Protestants do not recognize confession, icons, saints, fasting - everything that is necessary for life, correction and salvation of a person. It turned out that they detained the Holy Scriptures, and the Orthodox Church, which developed and approved the Holy Scriptures, was not recognized. Due to the fact that they did not recognize the Holy Fathers, who largely explained the Christian faith, but use only the Bible, they created uncertainty in their teaching and gradually many different sects (churches) arose. Now, in the whole world, there are about 25,000 different sects that call themselves Christian! As mentioned above, there is no apostolic succession in the Protestant Churches. This is one of the many reasons why the Orthodox Church does not recognize them as churches, but only as Christian societies.

A Brief Review of the History of the Christian Church. It gives an idea of ​​the main moments in the history of Christianity. After reading this review, you can understand the main events of Christianity. Why did the division of churches happen?

Introduction

Orthodox Church(Orthodoxy eklesia Greek, Orthodoxae Ecclesiae Latin) is that original and authentic New Testament Church which was founded by Jesus Christ and His apostles. This is described in the "Acts of the Holy Apostles" (in Holy Scripture - the Bible). The Orthodox Church consists of national Churches (currently about 12) which are headed by local patriarchs. All of them are administratively independent of each other and equal to each other. At the head of the Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ Himself, and in the Orthodox Church itself there is no government or any common administrative body.

Orthodox Church exists without interruption, from its beginning until now. Since 787, that is, after the 7th Ecumenical Council, there have been no changes in her teaching. In 1054 the Roman Church separated from the Orthodox. Beginning in 1517 (the beginning of the Reformation) many Protestant Churches were founded. After 1054, the Roman Church introduced many changes in the teachings of the Church, and the Protestant Churches even more.

For many centuries, non-Orthodox (Christian but not Orthodox) churches changed the original teaching of the Church. The history of the Church was also forgotten or changed on purpose. All this time, The teaching of the Orthodox Church has not changed and has been preserved in its original form to the present day. Someone recently converted to Orthodoxy (converts) very aptly said that the existence of the Orthodox Church is one of the biggest secrets of our time - of course in the West. The teaching of the Orthodox Church can be characterized as complete, since it contains everything that is necessary for the life and salvation of man. It is fully consistent with nature and with all sciences: psychology, physiology, medicine, etc. In many cases it was ahead of all sciences.

1. Beginning of the Church.

The history of the Christian Church begins with the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles (Acts 2:1-4) (this day is considered a great holiday in the Orthodox Church). The Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and they became braver, bolder, more courageous and began to speak in languages ​​that they had not spoken before. Apostles - mostly fishermen, without any education, began to very successfully preach the doctrine of Jesus Christ in different places and cities.

2. Five ancient churches.

The consequence of the apostolic preaching was the emergence of Christian societies in different cities. Later these societies became Churches. Thus was founded five ancient churches:

(1) Jerusalem Church,

(2) Antioch Church,

(3) Alexandria Church,

(4) Roman Church,

(5) Church of Constantinople.

The first ancient Church was the Church of Jerusalem and the last was the Church of Constantinople. [The Church of Antioch is now also called the Syrian Church. The city of Constantinople, (now Stanbul) in Turkey].

At the head of the Orthodox Church is Jesus Christ Himself. Each ancient Orthodox Church was led by its own patriarch ( the patriarch of the Roman Church was called the POPE). Individual Churches are also called patriarchates. All churches were equal. ( The Roman Church believes that the Roman Church was the governing church and the Pope was at the head of all five churches). The first of the ancient Churches that was founded was Jerusalem, and the last was Constantinople.

3. Persecution of Christians.

The first Christians were ancient Jews and experienced great persecution from Jewish leaders who did not follow Jesus Christ and did not recognize His teachings. First Christian martyr St. Stephen the First Martyr, was stoned to death by the Jews for preaching a Christian.

After the fall of Jerusalem began, many times worse, the persecution of Christians by the pagan Romans. The Romans were against Christians, since the Christian teaching was the exact opposite of the customs, mores and views of the pagans. Instead of selfishness, it preached love, put humility in place of pride, instead of luxury, taught abstinence and fasting, eradicated polygamy, contributed to the liberation of slaves, and instead of cruelty called for mercy and charity. Christianity morally elevates and purifies man and directs all his activities towards good. Christianity was forbidden, severely punished, Christians were tortured and then killed. So it was until 313 when Emperor Constantine not only freed the Christians, but also made Christianity the state faith.

Holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine

4. Saints in the Church.

The Saints these are God-loving people who have somehow distinguished themselves and Christians deeply revere them. Martyrs, these are saints who were tortured to death for their faith. Holy martyrs depicted on icons with a cross in hand.

The names of the holy martyrs, as well as other saints, are recorded in Orthodox calendars. Orthodox Christians remember their saints, study their lives, take their names for themselves and their children, celebrate the days dedicated to them, are inspired by their examples and do their best to imitate them, and also pray to them to pray for them to the Lord God. Orthodox Russian people celebrate "Angel Day" or "name day", and this is the day of the saint whose name they bear. One's birthday is not supposed to be celebrated or is celebrated modestly in the circle of one's family.

5. Holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

From apostolic times to the present time, there is an uninterrupted series of holy fathers and teachers of the Church. The Fathers of the Church are church writers who became famous for the holiness of life. Church writers who are not saints are called teachers of the Church. All of them preserved the apostolic tradition in their creations and explained faith and piety. In difficult times, they defended Christianity from heretics and false teachers. Here are some of the most famous of them: St. Athanasius the Great(297-373), St. Basil the Great(329-379), St. Gregory the Theologian(326-389) and St. John Chrysostom(347-407).

6. Ecumenical Councils.

When it was necessary to resolve some controversial issue or develop some kind of general approach, councils were convened in the Church. First church council was called by the apostles in the year 51 and is called Apostolic Council. Later, following the example of the Apostolic Council, Ecumenical Councils began to be convened. These councils were attended by many bishops and other representatives of all churches. At the councils, all churches were equal among themselves, and after debates and prayers, various issues were resolved. The resolutions of these councils are recorded in the Book of Rules (Canons) and have become part of the teachings of the Church. In addition to the Ecumenical Councils, local councils were also held, the decisions of which were then approved by the Ecumenical Councils.

The 1st Ecumenical Council was held in 325 in the city of Nicaea. 318 bishops were present, among them was St. Nicholas, Archbishop of Myra of Lycia. In addition to them, there were many other participants in the cathedral - about 2000 people in total. The 2nd Ecumenical Council took place in 381 in Constantinople. It was attended by 150 bishops. The Creed, the shortest definition of the Christian faith, was approved at the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils. It consists of 12 members that precisely define the Christian faith and which could not be changed. Since that time, the Orthodox Church has used the unchanged Creed. The Western Church (Roman and Protestant) did change the 8th article of the original Creed.

The 7th Ecumenical Council took place in 787 also in the city of Nicaea. It was attended by 150 fathers. The use of icons was approved at this council. The 7th Ecumenical Council was the last which was attended by all the Churches.

7. Holy Scripture (Bible).

The sacred books that make up the Holy Scriptures have been used by Christians from the very beginning of the Church. They were finally approved by the Church in the year 51 (canon 85 of the Apostolic Council), in the year 360 (canon 60 of the local Council of Laodicea), in the year 419 (canon 33 of the local council of Carthage), and also in the year 680 (2nd Canon of the 6th Ecumenical Council in Constantinople).

8. Apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession is a very important feature of the True Church. This means that Jesus Christ chose and blessed His apostles to continue His preaching, and the apostles blessed their disciples, who blessed the bishops and who blessed the priests, and so on to this day. Thus the original blessing of Jesus Christ, and hence the Holy Spirit and affirmation, on every priest in the Church.

Apostolic succession exists in the Orthodox Church and in the Roman Church. The Protestant Churches have lost it. This is one of the many reasons why, in the eyes of the Orthodox Church, Protestant Churches are not Churches, but Christian societies.

9. The Roman Church is separated, 1054.

From the very beginning of Christianity, in the Roman Church there appeared a striving for primacy in the Church. The reason for this was the glory of Rome and the Roman Empire, and with it the spread of the Roman Church. In 1054, the Roman Church separated from other churches and became known under the name Roman Catholic Church . (The Roman Church considers that the Orthodox Churches have separated from it and calls this incident the Eastern Schism). Although the name "Orthodox Church" was used before, the remaining churches, in order to emphasize their insistence on the original teaching, began to call themselves Orthodox Churches. Other names are also used, such as: Orthodox Christian, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, etc. Usually the word "Catholic" is omitted.

10. Orthodox Church after 1054.

After 1054, the Orthodox Church did not introduce any new teachings or changes. New national Orthodox Churches were created by mother churches. Mother church, founded a new daughter church. Then, at first it trained local priests, then bishops, and after that it gradually gave more and more independence, until complete independence and equality was given. An example of this creation of the Russian Church, the Church of Constantinople. In the Orthodox Churches, the local language is always used.

11. The Roman Church after 1054.

After 1054, the Roman Church introduced many new teachings and changes. Some of them are given below:

1). 14 so-called "Ecumenical Councils" were held. They were not attended by other churches and therefore they do not recognize these cathedrals. Each council introduced some new teachings. The last council was the 21st and is known as Vatican II.

2). The doctrine of celibacy (celibacy) for the clergy.

3). Payment for sins, past and future (indulgences).

4). The Julian (old) calendar was replaced by the Gregorian (new) calendar. Because of this, there have been changes in the calculation of the date of Easter, which is at odds with the decision of the 1st Ecumenical Council.

5). The 8th member of the Creed has been changed. (Starting from the 11th century, the Roman Catholic Church confesses that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son”: in the Niceno-Tsaregrad Creed, without even discussing the issue at the Ecumenical Council, unilaterally, the Bishop of Rome added “and from the Son”, thus calling Jesus Christ only God, denying the human nature and suffering of Jesus Christ as a man).

6.) Posts have been changed, shortened or eliminated.

7). The doctrine of the infallibility of the Roman popes. (According to this dogma, when the pope defines a doctrine concerning faith or morality, then he has infallibility (infallibility) and is not able to err, which means he speaks the truth).

8). The doctrine of the innocence of the Mother of God in the original sin of Adam.

12. Protestant Churches.

Because of the many and obvious deviations of the Roman Church from Christian teaching, and also because the monk Martin Lutherdid not know about the existence of the Orthodox Church, he demanded changes in 1517. This fact was the beginning reformation when many people began to leave the Roman Church for the new so-called Protestant Churches. It was a movement to improve the Church, but the result was even worse.

Since the Protestants were dissatisfied with the leadership of the Roman Church, then they almost crossed out 1500 years of the Christian experience of the Church and left only the Holy Scripture (Bible). Protestants do not recognize confession, icons, saints, fasting - everything that is needed for life, correction and salvation of a person. It turned out that they detained the Holy Scripture, and the Orthodox Church, which developed and approved the Holy Scripture did not recognize.

Due to the fact that they did not recognize the Holy Fathers, who explained the Christian faith in many ways, but use only the Bible, they created an uncertainty in the doctrine and gradually arose many different sects (churches). Now, in the whole world, about 25,000 different sects who call themselves Christian! As mentioned above, in the Protestant Churches no apostolic succession. This is one of the many reasons why The Orthodox Church does not recognize them as churches, but only by Christian societies.

___________________________________________________________________________

Modern Orthodox Churches:

1. Jerusalem Church,

2. Antioch Church,

3. Alexandria Church,

4. Constantinople Church,

5. Russian Church,

6. Serbian Church,

7. Romanian Church,

8. Bulgarian Church,

9. Albanian Church,

10. * Sinai Church,

11.*Greek Church,

12. * Church on the island of Cyprus * No patriarch since 2005

_____________________________________________________________________________

Ecumenical Councils and other dates:

Year 0 - Christmas

51 - Apostolic Council

313 - End of persecution of Christians

325 - 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (on the Creed and Easter)

381 - 2nd Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (on the Creed)

431 - 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus

451 - 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon

553 - 5th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople

680 - 6th Ecumenical Council of Constantinople

787 - 7th Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (about Icons)

988 - Baptism of Rus'

1054 - separation of the Roman Church

1517 - Reformation, Luther separated from the Roman Church.

Baptism of Rus' by Prince Vladimir in 988 in the city of Kyiv.

P.S. I hope this article has helped to understand the main differences between the Orthodox Church of true Christianity and other churches.

Orthodoxy and Modernity. Digital library.

Mikhail Emmanuilovich Posnov

History of the Christian Church

© Holy Trinity Orthodox School, 2002.

Foreword

Preliminary Information Sources of Church History Editions of Sources

Requirements from the historian of objectivity and non-confessionalism Relationship of church history to other sciences - secular and theological Boundaries of the history of the Christian Church and its division into periods Church historiography

introductory chapter

1. Preparing the Human Race for the Coming of Jesus Christ

2. State of the Gentile and Jewish World at the Time of the Coming of Jesus Christ Political Review Political State of Judea

The worldview of the ancient world in the age of the Nativity of Christ Stoicism Epicureanism Skepticism Eclecticism

Neo-Pythagoreanism and Platonism

Religious syncretism Neoplatonism

Religious beliefs of the Jewish people in the age of the Nativity of Christ

Part I. First period (30–313)

Foundation, spread and internal development of the Church in the struggle against the Jewish and Greco-Roman world

Chapter I. The Mission of the Church in the First Three Centuries

Founder of the Christian Church, Jesus Christ Biblical Sources About the Person of Jesus Christ According to the Canonical Gospels The Case of Jesus Christ

The birth of the Christian Church in Jerusalem The organization of life in the first Christian community

The first persecution of the Jerusalem Church. The beginning of the Christian mission among the pagans Apostle Paul Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (49)

App activity. Paul after the Apostolic Council. His arrival in Rome Apostle Peter Founding of the Roman Church

The fate of the first Christian community and the death of Jerusalem Activity of St. John the Theologian and other Apostles

Countries, cities and places of the spread of Christianity by the beginning of the 4th century The spread of Christianity among various strata of society

Chapter II. Christian Church and the outside world

Relationship between church and state Persecution of Christians by pagans

A. Public reasons B. Religious-state reasons

C. Political Causes of Persecution History of the persecution of Christians in the Roman kingdom 1st century

Acts of Martyrs and Acts of Saints

Chapter III. The inner life of the Christian Church in the I-III centuries

Organization of the Church Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers

Permanent hierarchical and non-hierarchical ministries in the Church The state of the hierarchy in post-apostolic times. Parikia. Non-hierarchical ministries The so-called monarchical episcopate Metropolitans in the first three centuries of Christianity

Bishop of Rome Bishop of Alexandria Bishop of Antioch Bishop of Jerusalem On the Councils of the II and III centuries.

The relationship between individual Christian Churches in the first three centuries The question of the fallen. Church schisms of Felicissimus in Carthage, Novatian in Rome

Chapter IV. Church Doctrine in the First Three Centuries

Judeo-Christian Delusions Gnosticism Montanism Monarchism Manichaeism

The struggle of the Church against heresies of the II and III centuries. A positive revelation of Christian doctrine

1. Teaching of the 12 Apostles

2. Message from Barnabas

3. Creations known as Clement of Rome

4. St. Ignatius the God-bearer

5. St. Polycarp of Smyrna

6. Erm and his "Shepherd"

7. Apologists

Anti-Gnostics, Hereseologists Controversy with Monarchians. The doctrine of the Logos-Christ

Theological views of Tertullian. His system Development in the Church of speculative theology (predominantly in the east)

Origen (182-215)

Origen's system After Origen's death

Sacred days and times of the 1st-3rd centuries. Annual movable holidays and fasts Places of liturgical meetings

Christian painting

Chapter VI. Religious and Moral Life of Christians

Church discipline Religious morale of believers The beginning of monasticism

Part II. Period of ecumenical councils

Chapter I. The Spread of Christianity

Great Migration of Peoples The beginning of Christianity among the Germans. Goths Huns Lombards

Christianity in Britain Armenia and Iberia (Georgia) Arabia and Abyssinia

Christian mission among the Slavic peoples Christianity among the Czechs Christianity in Poland Christianity in Rus'

Chapter II. The attitude of the Christian Church to the outside world. Church and State

Emperor Constantine the Great and the Edict of Milan. Relations between Church and State in East and West

The sons of Constantine the Great - Constantine II, Constans and Constantius. Emperors Julian, Grapian, Theodosius the Great and the Younger The relationship between church and state power in the West. Rise of the Pope over Emperors

The Troubles of the Church. Pagan reaction. Emperor Julian the Apostate Persecution of Christians in Persia

Pagan controversy and Christian apologetics since the 4th century Islam

Chapter III. Church organization

Pope of Alexandria Patriarchate of Antioch Patriarchate of Jerusalem

The Rise of the Bishop of Constantinople "New Rome" Patriarchs of Constantinople until the 9th century

Justinlana Prima

The canonical point of view of the Eastern on the management of the Christian Church by five patriarchs Bishops. Chorebishops Episcopal Administration

Special Church Offices Lower Clergy Church Legislation

About the Local and Ecumenical Councils The canonical (legal) side in the activities of the Local and Ecumenical Councils About the collections of canons Apostolic canons Apostolic didascalia

The so-called Apostolic Constitutions The Donatist schism The Meletian schism

Chapter IV. Disclosure of Christian doctrine during the activity of the Ecumenical Councils

(IV-VIII centuries)

First Ecumenical Council Teachings of Athanasius of Alexandria Speeches of Aria

First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325 Struggle for the Nicene Creed "Neo-Nicenes", Cappadocians

Theodosius I (379-395). The Council of Constantinople of 381 (II Ecumenical) The Christological Question The beginning of the Christological controversy. Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

Teachings of Cyril of Alexandria Rivalry between Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople Nestorius as Archbishop of Constantinople Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, 431

"Cathedral" (Conciliabulum) of John of Antioch Order of Emperor Theodosius Continuation of council sessions

The refusal of Nestorius from the pulpit and his subsequent fate The attempts of Emperor Theodosius II to reconcile the disputing parties The fate of the Council of Ephesus The Union of Antioch

The fate of Nestorianism. Nestorians Origins of Monophysitism

The so-called "robber" Council of Ephesus 449 Council of Chalcedon 451 IV Ecumenical Council

Opening of the cathedral The first meetings of the cathedral

The results of the activity of the cathedral Significance of the Council of Chalcedon

The history of the Monophysites after the Council of Chalcedon The doctrine of the Monophysites and their division

Emperor Justinian I (527-565) Edict concerning Origen Three chapter dispute

Fifth Ecumenical Council 553 in Constantinople VI Ecumenical Council 680-681 Iconoclastic controversy

The question of icon veneration after the 7th Ecumenical Council Iconoclasm in the West Pavlikian

Results. General development of dogmatics in the East up to St. John of Damascus (inclusive)

Chapter V. Christian Worship

Daily, weekly and weekly worship Annual circle of holidays Circle of Christmas holidays

Veneration of martyrs, saints, the Blessed Virgin Mary and angels Veneration of relics. Journey to holy places. Icons Church hymns from the 4th-11th centuries

Western hymnographers Church Sacraments Liturgical Rule

Places of Christian worship

Christian art

Chapter VI. moral life

The state of religious and moral life in general from the 4th to the 11th centuries. Monasticism History of Monasticism Monasticism in the West

The historical significance of monasticism and the regulation of its life by the Church The Great Church Schism. "Separation of Churches"

The last clash of Byzantium with Rome in the middle of the XI century. The so-called division of the Churches

Reasons for the division of churches Opposition of the Patriarch of Constantinople Conclusion

Foreword

Professor Mikhail Emmanuilovich Posnov (1874-1931) graduated from the Kyiv Theological Academy and subsequently maintained constant contacts with Western universities. He was a professor in Kyiv, later - in Sofia, where he lectured on dogmatics and, in particular, on church history. The book offered here is a generalizing work, which he himself intended to once again revise and publish. His death, which befell him in Sofia in 1931, prevented him from completing the final finishing of this work, which appeared in an abridged edition in Sofia in 1937.

Deeply devoted to his Church and its traditions, Prof. Posnov, at the same time, was distinguished by a great directness of mind, constantly searching for truth. This work - published this time in full, through the efforts of the author's daughter, I.M. Posnova, - reveals the essence of his views on the past and on the relationship between Eastern and Western Christianity during the first eleven centuries.

Over the past three and a half decades, many of the historical facts touched upon in these pages have been re-examined, and some of them are now presented in a new light. But the advances which the latest knowledge may have made do not detract from the value of this book. It lies mainly in the scientific orientation of this work, in the truthfulness and impartiality of the author, and in the method by which he was constantly inspired. According to prof. Basically, isn't the task of the historian to establish the facts in their primary truth and make it possible to understand their historical development? In applying this method to the facts of church history, he saw a living source of genuine irenism, one by which modern man himself reconciles himself with the past, which is revealed to him in the light of truth.

This book is being published by the Russian religious publishing house "Life with God" in Brussels, which has already published a number of works that can promote mutual understanding between Catholics and Orthodox, under the auspices of the Committee for Cultural Cooperation under the Secretariat for Unity. Its publication is conceived as a matter of fraternal friendship. The history of the Church of the first eleven centuries puts into the hands of the Orthodox a valuable work written by one of their best historians; It will allow other Christians to get acquainted with such a view of history, of the past of the Church in an era when it was still undivided, a view that strives to be objective and unbiased.

We consider it a pleasant duty to express our gratitude to all those who have contributed in any way to the preparation of this book for publication. In particular, we have in mind here some professors of the University of Auven and monks of the Benedictine monastery in Shevton.

The bibliography was reviewed and supplemented according to the latest sources.

Canon Edward Baudouin

Preliminary information

Science concept

The history of the Christian Church, as a discipline, is the study of the past in the life of the Church and its exposition in a systematic manner, i.e. in chronological order and pragmatic connection.

The subject and nature of science more precisely defined and more clearly emerges from the name given to it by the historian of the 4th century, ep. Eusebius of Caesarea εκκλησιαστική ιστορία, i.e. from the words ιστορία and εκκλησία. The word ιστορία, like ιστωρ, comes from οιδα, which, in contrast to γιγνώσκο, means factual knowledge obtained by observation. ‘Ιστορία is questioning, finding out by people about something that has happened, when for some reason it was not possible to be a personal witness of this. In this case, at first glance, the meaning of the Greek word ιστορία seems to be correctly conveyed by the German Geschichte, but in fact there is a significant difference between them: Geschichte, from geschehen, is capable of designating everything that happened; however, the first Greek historian, the father of history, Herodotus, in his narrative, for example, reports on the Scythians only, in his opinion, remarkable, characteristic, deserving the attention of contemporaries and posterity. This meaning has become firmly established in the general human consciousness: "historical" is something important, serious, great - so as to remember the "ancient days" and "learn from them." Consequently, history now means a story about remarkable events of the past, about which it is interesting to get a story from the mouth of an eyewitness, in any case, from a well-informed person, in a word, from a completely reliable source. Εκκλησία comes from καλέω, καλειν - to call, call, invite. According to the law of the Athenian legislator Solon, εκκλησία is an emergency meeting of all the people to resolve the most important state affairs that exceeded the powers of permanent administration or βουλή. The idea is very clear and rich in content. But it is preserved only among those peoples who have kept this word. For example, the Romans accurately conveyed this word by rewriting it in Latin letters - ecclesia, and nations that became Christian thanks to the Roman Church borrowed from them, for example, the French - eglise, the Italians - chiesa, the Spaniards - iglesia. The Slavic word "church" is already devoid of this idea. The Old Slavic word "tsrky", church, German Kirche comes from the Greek τό κυριακόν, which means a gathering of believers who take a lively, active part in the life and events of the Church. In the gospels, the word "εκκλησία" occurs only three times, and this is precisely in the gospel of Matthew (16:18): " I will build my Church" and in ch. (18:17): "Tell the church:

and if the church does not listen ... " In the same apostolic letters, especially in the Apostle Paul - the word εκκλησία and related to it - κλησις, κλητος - are used very often. Of course, Jesus Christ preached to his contemporaries in Aramaic and probably used the Aramaic edma for the name of the church. However, the apostles and followers of Christ, who knew, of course, along with the Greek and the Aramaic or Syro-Chaldean language, are undoubted witnesses in favor of the fact that the Greek word "εκκλησία" used by them as a translated Greek word corresponds most exactly to the Aramaic word in the mouth of Jesus Christ.

The Church (η εκκλησία του Χριστου - Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 10:32; Gal. 1:13) is a society founded and led by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, a community of believers in Him, sanctified by the Holy Spirit in the sacraments in the hope of cleansing from sins and salvation in the Hereafter. The Church is not only an earthly institution; it pursues unearthly goals: the realization of the Kingdom of God among people, their preparation for the Kingdom of Heaven The relationship between the Church, the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven is incomprehensible1. There are two elements or factors in the Church, the divine and

1 The remark of the famous historian Karl Gieseler: “The Church has the same relation to the Kingdom as the Israelite community (Kegal Yahve הוהי להק Num. 20:4) to the ideal theocracy” cannot be considered satisfactory. According to the well-known gospel parable, where the Kingdom of Heaven is likened to a net thrown into the sea, fish and good and

human. The foundation of the Church, its leadership and all sanctifying actions are from God. The object of saving influences, the environment, the material is represented by people. However, man is not a mechanical element in the Church, people are not a passive environment. Against a mechanical view of people, the very name of the Church is εκκλησία, as shown above. In the Christian Church, man participates by his free will in his own salvation and the building of the Kingdom of God on earth. Without the free active participation of man, God cannot save him. - Actually, the study of church history is subject to the human element, its development, its changes, under the influence or influence of the divine factor. The divine factor itself, as eternal, immutable, is not subject to history, goes beyond its boundaries.

The history of the Christian Church is, on the one hand, a historical science; this determines the subject in general and indicates the method of research: as a science of history, church history sets out changes in the past life of the Church, using the historical or inductive method.

On the other hand, church history is a theological science, it belongs to the family of theological sciences, and here it occupies its definite place.

Task and method

The depiction of church history is subject to everything in which the life of the Lord's society, called the Church, has been expressed and is being expressed, organizing the eternal salvation of people. The task of history is not simply, so to speak, to describe reality and to cognize it without pursuing any secondary goals, while maintaining complete objectivity, but to make the whole historical development, all changes, understandable and, as far as possible, to explain the course of history. Church history is one of the departments, parts or aspects of the general human development; for this reason alone it cannot be isolated from general history. On the other hand, there is a big difference between them. If secular, civil history refers to the earthly, political, cultural and educational development of peoples (mankind), then church history depicts the desire of people for an eternal, heavenly goal - the salvation of their souls.

In particular, the task of church history is that in the subject area:

1. collect facts, extract data from all relevant areas that characterize the life of the Church, in a word, attach to the case all available historical material,

2. to study it critically, establishing the genuine, authentic, rejecting the false, falsified and pointing out the dubious and

3. finally, to state all the material obtained and critically examined in compliance with due rules.

Obviously, the presentation of historical facts cannot be a simple annalistic narrative of events, but must be compiled according to historical method. Facts must be arranged in strict chronological order. Only such an order will make it possible to understand the facts in their natural, regular, genetic development and will help to establish a pragmatic connection between them, as between grounds and consequences, causes and actions. Of course, the historical method is not applicable to the full extent of church history, since it contains a divine element that is not subject to human research. With the help of a purely historical method, for example, we cannot find out either the origin of Christianity - since it is a gift from heaven - or the main epochs in its development, why, for example, paganism failed - neither its external political state power, nor internal - philosophical, intelligent - to destroy Christianity during the II and III centuries. and prevent his victory in the 4th c.

bad (13:47-48), according to the concepts of an ideal theocracy, the presence of sinful members in it is excluded.

Church History Sources

The source for church history is everything that in one way or another helps to establish historical facts from the past life of the Church. Among the sources, the most ancient monumental monuments and written documents occupy the first place in history. The ancient historians of the Church can also be attributed to the sources

- immediate, because they describe directly from experience the life they observe, and mediocre, because they depict the course of church events, using other people's written data or oral stories.

monumental springs. These include a) works of Christian painting, architecture and sculpture. They do not tell the history of the life of the Christian Church in human language, but serve as an expression of the spirit and life of Christians, a reflection of their beliefs and moods. These are especially the Roman catacombs with their symbolic paintings, Christian altars and tombs. They are described in detail by Prof. De Rossi, Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae septimo saeculoantiquiores. bd. I. Romae 1857. Bd. li. Tl. I. Romae 1887. Christian inscriptions in Gaul described by Le Blant, Spanish and British inscriptions by Hübner. - b) Various inscriptions on seals, coins and other objects also belong to monumental monuments. Sources of this kind must be placed very highly. It is not so easy to write on stones, marble monuments, walls. If anyone made such inscriptions, then he had serious motives for this. Of the monuments of this kind are known, for example, discovered in the XVI century. statues of Hippolytus of Rome and the Sabine deity Sema (Semo).

Written monuments:

1. These include the Roman-Byzantine legal prescriptions regarding Christians - edicts, decrees, novels, collected in the Codex Theodosianus (ed. Th. Mommsen et R.M. Meyer, Berol. 1905), Corpus juris civilis Justiniani (ed. Mommen, Berol. 1892-1895), in the later legislative monuments of the kings of Basil,

Leo and Constantine (in Leuenclavius. Jus graeco-romanum. 2 Bd., Frankof 1596).

Spiritual and temporal concerning the Christian Church collected in Σύνταγµα Rhalli and Potti and published in Athens in 1852-1859, in six volumes in 8-vo, and then by Cardinal Pitra, Juris ecclesiasticae graecorum historia et monumenta,

2. various Christian acts of an official, legal nature - resolutions of local and ecumenical councils, messages of bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs to various churches, societies and individuals,

3. the most ancient liturgies and religious precepts, symbols and heterogeneous confessions, or statements of faith, acts of martyrdom, -

4. creations of St. fathers and teachers of the Church and church writers.

Editions of sources

Already in the last centuries of the Middle Ages, the need to ascend from traditional, church and school theology to the pure sources of Christian knowledge in the Holy Scriptures and the holy fathers was awakened. The study and publication of ancient patristic monuments begins from the time of humanism and significantly intensifies in the age of the Reformation. Protestants responded to publications and polemical writings Catholic Church. At the beginning of the XVII century. (1618) founded Benedictine Congregation of Saint Maurus

through her publishing works she gained immortal fame. These are, for example, "Acta santorum" by the Belgian John Bolland (1665), "Acta martyrum" by Ryumnar (1709); from the 18th century Mention should be made of: "Bibliotheca veterum patrium" by Andrei Hollandi and "Bibliotheca orientalis" by Assemani. - In the XIX century. Cardinal and director of the Vatican Library Angelo May Pitra became famous for publications. - An enormous practical role has been played and still continues to be played by a publication that does not differ in special merit in a scientific sense

Abbot Mingae (1875): Patrologiae cursus completus, - series latina - 221 Tom. (Paris 1844-1864), series graeca, 162 Vol. (1857-1866). Due to textual shortcomings 8

Minya, Vienna Academy of Sciences from the second half of the 19th century. (from 1866) began publishing the Latin Fathers "corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum", and the Prussian Academy of Sciences from 1891

set itself the task of publishing Greek writers: "Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Juhrhunderte". In France, continuing the work of Assemani, Grafin and F. Nau began to publish: "Patrologia orientalis". Among the Slavic peoples among Russian theologians, many translations and editions of patristic literature appeared. So, apostolic men, writings of the apologists and the writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyon were translated by Archpriest Preobrazhensky. Western fathers and writers - Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Arnobiy were transferred to the Kyiv Theological Academy; eastern fathers - in the St. Petersburg and Moscow Academies.

Edition acts of ecumenical councils available in Mansi (1798) sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio in 31 volumes (ending with the Council of Florence in 1439). Mansi's work was continued at the end of the 19th century. and the beginning of the 20th century. Abbé Martin and Archbishop Louis Petit.

The publisher of the continued Mansi was a certain G. Welte (N. Welte). The full title of the new edition is "Sacrorum conciliorum nova amplissima collectio" (Mansi, Martin et L. Petit). Hubert Welte, Editeur (de 1879 a 1914: Paris), depius 1914 a Arnhem (Hollande); it is assumed in LIII T. (and practically, in view of the doubling of volumes - a, in, or and c in LVI); the last 5 volumes (49-53) contain the acts of the Vatican Council; of these, the first two volumes (49-50) were printed. There is also a Russian edition of the acts of the Ecumenical Councils and a translation of the Kazan Theological Academy in seven volumes.

The publication of the canons of the Eastern and Western Churches was carried out by N. Bruns, Lauchert. In Russia, there existed, in addition to the "Book of Rules of the Holy Apostles", a major edition of the "Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment" in Moscow: "The Rules of the Holy Apostles, Holy Councils - ecumenical and local and Holy Fathers" with interpretations, vol. I-III. Moscow. Last edition 1884

Hagiographic monuments- acts of the martyrs and biographies of the Saints - began to be published by the Flemish Jesuits, the Bollandists, under the title "Acta sanctorum, quot quot toto in orbe coluntur", i.e. "The Acts of the Saints, such as are revered in the universe." Their work, interrupted by the French Revolution, was continued in the 19th century. Belgian Jesuits. Currently, the publication is brought to "November" month. - An abridged edition of some critically examined acts made by Ruinard, Knopf, Gebgart.

The Russians have the Honored Menaion of Metr. Macarius from the 16th century, Met. Dmitry Rostovsky, research by Sergius, Archbishop of Vladimir "Months of the East", Professor Klyuchevsky "Lives of the Saints as a historical source" and Professor Golubinsky "On the canonization of the Saints in the Russian Church".

Requirements from the historian of objectivity and non-confessionalism

When collecting sources, researching material and processing it, the historian must be objective, free from false patriotism (chauvinism), and the church historian from confessional tendencies. - Ancient orator Cicero (Ogaiop. II, 9-15)

says: "Ne quid falsi dicere audeat, ne quid veri non audeat" i.e. "The historian must not say anything false and not hide anything true." Christian writer of the late 3rd and early 4th centuries. Hieromartyr Bishop Lucian said: "Truth alone must be sacrificed by those who intend to write history."

The relation of church history to other sciences - secular and theological

A. Church history has a connection with civil history , being an inextricable part of it. The church historian needs a lot of attention, diligence, skill and experience in order to highlightchurch-historicalsecular material and, when elucidating acts and events of both religious and political significance, so enter

a civil element, insofar as this is essential for a correct understanding and elucidation of ecclesiastical data. Political history is often the background, the canvas on which church events are weaved; it can have a beneficial effect on the development of church affairs, but it can delay, hamper, or directly stop their course. All this, of course, should be noted when describing the life of the Church for certain periods.

Church history has a deep connection with ancient Greek philosophy, especially with Platonism, Stoicism and Neoplatonism. An ecclesiastical historian, without knowledge of Greek philosophy, will not only fail to understand the origin of heresies, but also the positive ecclesiastical theological development. Apologists, hereseologists, Alexandrian teachers - Clement and Origen, fathers and teachers of the Church of the 4th and 5th centuries. all were trained in the Hellenic sciences, first of all, they knew philosophy. And this clearly had a beneficial effect not only on the general cultural level, but also on their study of theological truths. This was well noticed by the emperor Julian, who had changed Christianity, and forbade Christians to attend pagan schools. - Church history is closely connected with history of religions, of which some were serious "rivals of Christianity", like the religion of Mithra, the sun god. Without knowledge of the history of religions, it is not always clear the spread of Christianity and the obstacles to it in its propaganda. Without the history of religions one cannot understand Gnosticism and other heresies of Christianity, for example, Manichaeism.

In addition to those listed, there are other secular sciences, auxiliary for history. Extracting material from historical sources is not as easy as it might seem at first glance. Here you need knowledge and the ability to determine the origin of the source, its authenticity, read it correctly and understand it correctly. - There are a number of sciences that help the historian to thoroughly use the historical material offered.

1. Diplomatics (δίπλωµα - a document folded in half) is a science that helps to determine the type of document by its appearance. In the east, in the form of diplomas, there were chrysovules, royal letters with a gold seal; usually the basileus (kings) signed in purple ink µηνολόγηµα, i.e. index and month.

2. Sphragistics or sigillography- the science of seals - stood out from diplomacy. The seals stood out in wax; sealing wax - a Spanish invention of the 16th century.

3. Epigraphy - a science that deals with inscriptions on solid material, as a form of it - numismatics.

4. Palaeography deals with manuscripts on papyrus, parchment and paper.

5. Philology. Paleography helps to correctly read the manuscript, and philology provides the means to correctly understand what is written and read. In this regard, knowledge of ancient and classical languages ​​is especially important for the historian of the ancient Church.

Greek and Latin.

6. Geography and chronology- make it possible to determine the source by the place and time of its origin.

B. Theology (Θεολογία) - the scientific study and explanation of the data of the Christian religion - began in the 2nd century, when the means of Greek education were called to the service of the new religion. In the field of theology itself, specialization was expressed in the division into departments of theological sciences and the requirement for methodological development of them in accordance with special tasks.

Theology is usually divided into 4 sections:

1. exegetical theology,

2. historical,

3. systematic and

4. practical theology.

They come down to three and even two - historical and systematic theology. The task of historical theology is the depiction of the history of the message to mankind