Примат и саборност Цркве у православном предању

Власије Фидас
Универзитет у Атини

Богословље: 1 (2008) 69-75
Цео текст (.PDF) УДК 27-74; 27-976

 

Abstract. Студија разматра однос примата (првенства) са установом сабора који је најтешње повезан са православном еклисиологијом помесне Цркве и јасно прецизиран канонским предањем и утврђеном кохерентном црквеном праксом током векова. Расправа се дотиче појединих савремених тумачења значаја првог престола на Истоку, то јест питања да ли је општење са престолом Цариграда увек сматрано као неопходна претпоставка саборности Цркве. Аутор у помоћ призива многобројне историјске примере који сведоче о православним еклисиолошким критеријумима општења који су потврђени аутентичним функционисањем саборског система у Православној Цркви. Упркос неким супротним идејама, Цариградски престо, у својству првог престола, сагласно са поретком председавања у части одувек је пребивао у православној црквеној свести као гарант канонске дисциплине и црквеног општења Православне Цркве. Упркос свему, он врши тај изузетан ауторитет црквеним правилом употребљавајући процедуру система саборности, координишући поредак, подразумева се, са пристанком и сарадњом других помесних Православних Цркава.

Summary. This study is dealing with the relationship between primacy and the institution of the synod, which is most closely connected with the Orthodox ecclesiology of the local Church and precisely stated by canonical tradition and by the established coherent Church practice throughout ages. The treatise touches upon certain contemporary interpretations of the significance of the first throne in the East, i.e. upon the question whether intercommunion with the throne of Constantinople was always seen as a necessary precondition for Church conciliarity. Author calls to aid numerous historical examples which testify about Orthodox ecclesiological criteria for intercommunion, which had been confirmed by the authentic functioning of the synodal system in the Orthodox Church. Keeping to the spirit of one of the decisions of the Seventh Oecumenical Council, the synodal system of the Orthodox Church continued to function under the auspices of the Oecumenical Patriarchate so that intercommunion of faith and love might be assured and not only in a pan-Orthodox but also in an Oecumenical perspective before and after the 11th century schism and up until 1960. Contrary to some opposite ideas, the throne of Constantinople, with its standing of the first throne and in accordance with the established order of presidency in honor, was always seen by the Orthodox mind as a guarantor of canonical discipline and ecclesial intercommunion within the Orthodox Church. In spite of everything, the throne of Constantinople performs this extraordinary authority through the practice of ecclesial rule, by utilizing the synodal system procedure and coordinating the ecclesial order, it is presumed, with acquiescence and cooperation of other local Orthodox Churches. In this respect, Oecumenical throne continued to convene, and after the 11th century schism, pan-Orthodox or “general” councils so as to solve crucial problems of each epoch and this canonical right was never denied it by anyone. Thus, the institution of primacy was instituted becoming an unalienable part of the functioning of conciliarity within the Orthodox Church; of course, it is understood that this primacy is different to the one attributed to the Pope within the conciliar institutions of the Roman Catholic Church, but it is also understood that this primacy holds very wide authority and competences which allow it to act as a safeguard of intercommunion among the local Orthodox Churches themselves, and their intercommunion with the Oecumenical Patriarchate.