Main features of Byzantine culture.

Byzantium is the heir to the Roman Empire. The state received the name “Byzantium” (after the city of Byzantium, near which Constantine founded Constantinople) in the works of Western European historians after its fall. The Byzantines themselves called themselves Romans - in Greek “Rameans”, and their power - “Ramean” (they sent them there royal regalia from Rome, awareness of oneself as the 2nd Rome). Western sources also call the Byzantine Empire "Romania". For much of its history, many of its Western contemporaries referred to it as the "Empire of the Greeks" due to the dominance of its Greek population and culture. In ancient Rus' it was also usually called the “Greek Kingdom”, and its capital “Constantinople”.

The entire thousand-year history of Byzantium can be divided into four periods

1) from the 4th to the 7th century - (before the collision with Islam) - the formation of the Byzantine Empire, the 6th century - the heyday of the early Byzantine society, Byzantium became an Orthodox state (Emperor Justinian, construction St. Sophia Cathedral)

2) 7th – 9th century. – era of Arab conquests, loss of a significant part of the territory

3) 867 – 1204 (capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders). – Macedonian Renaissance, associated with the name of Emperor Leo VI, mathematician and philosopher. The flourishing of sciences and arts (= “Byzantine humanism”). A state machine, a bureaucratic apparatus, is being formed. Until the 11th-12th centuries, the West was in a rather deplorable state in comparison with Byzantium and the Arabs.

4) 1261-1453 – the period of the Paleologian Renaissance, i.e. revival of Hellenistic traditions. The connection of the Palaiologan dynasty with Russia (royal regalia, coat of arms. The double-headed eagle goes back directly to Rome)

1453 d – fall of Constantinople. Byzantium existed for more than 1000 years, remaining a very conservative state.

The Byzantine Empire has always been an inseparable part of the Roman Empire.

May 11 330 (founding of Constantinople), the city was given the title “New Rome”, the Eastern Roman Empire continued to exist. Another name for Constantinople is Tsargrad, which meant the city of kings or the king of cities. However, the city existed before this time (Megara).

The ruler of Constantinople was Christ, and the emperor only replaced him.

Theocratic and religious culture. We can talk about a “night” type of consciousness (the typology belongs to Florensky, “daytime cultures” are focused on technical progress and rational ways exploration of the world, “night” - with a predominance of spiritual values ​​and irrational forms). All areas are religious.

As the state is not associated with a specific ethnic group, the main criterion of belonging is Christianity.

Among the features one can also note the special schematism of life (the accuracy and precision of the life of the classes); a special, symbolic culture (ex: eunuchs at the court in white robes - a la angels. The emperor writes in purple ink - blood on the body)

Formulation of Christian dogmatics, “symphony of powers.”

Emperor Constantine changed his attitude towards Christianity, for which he was canonized.

in 325 the first Ecumenical Council was convened in Nike (Nicaea)

the next one - in 381 - already in Constantinople, at these two councils the basic Christian dogma (“Creed”) was approved, some heresies were condemned (Arianism and Nestorianism)

Constantine became the first Christian emperor of Rome, imperial power is a kind of union of Christian power and state power. Christianity is a kind of state. education, which is accepted by citizens.

Symphony of powers, man cannot rule over people → viceroy of God. The emperor is the image of Christ, an actor representing two (first God, and then the emperor). Byzantine emperors were elected, the figure of the emperor itself was illuminated, and the man himself or his family. The emperor was not supposed to show human features, because... he is an icon (a tradition of some canonization), just the deputy of God, his figure is impersonal (in general, they often changed), only Christ is the true ruler. The throne was also double. Management was carried out from the center. The Commonwealth of the Church and Secular Power (in the West and in Russia - another concept of coexistence). Deviation from the symphony is Caesar-papism (the head of the state freely interferes in the affairs of the church or its head in general) or papo-Caesarism (vice versa).

Icon.

By the 8th century, I. Damaskin developed the theory of the icon. Greek eikon – image, division between here and beyond.

At first, living rulers were depicted on the icons (one of the arguments for icons is that since the rulers have them and worship them, then God is even more so). There was also a legend about the first icon - supposedly it was a “photographic” image of God (matter from His face, a kind of “cast” from His image).

The icon was a symbol and expression of spirituality - as the ability to live in two worlds at the same time.

Long-term creation of the image of Christ. The result is a rather menacing image; the golden color is important.

In the church teaching about icons, four closely intertwined aspects can be distinguished:

• didactic, corresponding “literally” to the text and plot side of Scripture and Tradition;
• symbolic (corresponding to the “allegorical” level of the Bible);
• mystical (the persons “depicted” on the icon are themselves present in their image,” actually appearing to the world in it;
• and, finally, closely connected with the mystical, the actual liturgical aspect of the icon (in the structure of the divine service, the icon has Divine energy, the power of the liturgical image).

Iconoclasts, rejecting icons, nevertheless allowed religious painting; they thus denied the mystical and liturgical aspects of sacred images. The argumentation of the iconoclasts was built on the basis of the ancient Eastern idea that knowledge of the name is identical to knowledge of the essence.

Therefore, they believed that the image must be consubstantial with the prototype, and due to the fact that the prototype is transcendental, it cannot be depicted in a concrete sensory image, and even with the help of anthropomorphic images. In their opinion, the only image of Christ is the Eucharist.

They simultaneously accused the icon-worshippers of two opposing heresies: that they merge the two natures of Christ, depicting Him on the icon (monophysitism), and that they separate them, depicting only human nature (Nestorianism). The iconoclasts, thus, interpreted the image as an ideal copy, in everything and, most importantly, essentially identical to the prototype - as a kind of double.

Icon worshipers relied on something more consonant (at least since the time of Aristotle) European way thinking understanding of the image. Already in the 4th-5th centuries, the Holy Fathers came to understand that an image (image) is not a copy of an archetype, but only its reflection, not similar to it in everything. This understanding of the image allowed the icon venerators to simultaneously overcome both opposing heresies of which they were accused, and with their teaching to defend the most important dogma in Christian culture (the so-called Christological) about the “unfused union” of two natures in Christ.

According to John of Damascus, “icons are the visible of the invisible and without a figure, but physically depicted due to the weakness of our understanding”. Due to this weakness, we also strive to think about the invisible by analogy with the visible, “For we see in created things dimly showing us divine revelations» . Consequently, the image presented by the cognizing subject cannot be identical to its transcendental Prototype “in essence,” but it is equal to It “in hypostasis” and “in name.” And what is depicted on the icon, based on the general theory of the image, is not “nature” (human or divine), but the Hypostasis, which preserves the incomprehensibility and indepicability of the Prototype in icon images.

Just as the Eucharist is not “an image, but the Truth itself, and communion represents a real communion with the Body and Blood of Christ”(i.e. direct realization at the level of existence of the sphere of super-existence, and not its figurative (mediated) reflection), and just as in the very act of incarnation of the Word there was a “union of the incompatible” - “the describable with the indescribable”, so “Christ, being depicted on an icon remains indescribable" ), and should not try to refute“that which cannot be comprehended by reason, that which cannot be proven by evidence, that which is not subject to the law of syllogism by syllogisms”

"Macedonian Renaissance" (867-1057)

The founder of the dynasty, the Macedonian peasant Vasily, was hardly an art connoisseur. For his ability to tame horses and great physical strength, he fell into the favor of Emperor Michael III, who (it happens) made him his co-ruler. Thus, Mikhail signed his own death warrant - he was soon found stabbed to death in his own bedroom. Vasily strengthened his position on the throne and founded the Macedonian dynasty, which ruled the country for almost two centuries. Among Vasily’s descendants there were very educated people who had a favorable attitude towards ancient culture(Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, a passionate lover of books, Leo VI, theologian and poet). Some patriarchs of this time (Photius) were also experts and connoisseurs of antiquity.

During the reign of the Macedonian dynasty, mathematics, natural sciences flourished (encyclopedias on medicine and agricultural technology were compiled), and military affairs. Scientists, theologians, philosophers, poets, historians and orators created masterpieces of literature and art.

Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, who occupied the Byzantine throne from 913 to 959, himself took up titanic work, putting in order the entire amount of knowledge of his era. Possessing remarkable literary talent, he wrote a number of medical, historical and agricultural treatises. He also collected and processed many biographies of saints. He had his own workshop for creating copies of ancient manuscripts. Amazing miniatures of the so-called Parisian Psalter have reached us, apparently copied from an Alexandrian manuscript of the 4th century, imbued with the charm of antiquity. The outstanding historian Leo the Deacon worked in the same era.

The capital of the empire during this period amazed with its almost fabulous luxury and splendor. Full of ceremonial splendor, luxurious temples, precious jewelry, sparkling palaces, it made an irresistible impression on the guests. The desire for luxury and elegance has increased in society. Jewelry and applied arts flourished. When decorating works applied arts Ancient subjects were almost always used.

The number of monasteries increased sharply. Each emperor, prominent dignitary, and commander built his own monasteries, endowing them with rich possessions. The largest monasteries interfered in politics, while secularists, in the struggle for power, sought the support of monasticism. Athos became the center of the spiritual, mystical life of Byzantium, and then of the entire East during this period.

Fine art associated with the church continued to develop within the strictest iconographic canons, however, there were also striking exceptions to the rules - the mosaic of the Mother of God in the apse of St. Sophia Cathedral. Created unknown author, this mosaic has nothing to do with iconographic canons. The Mother of God here is much more reminiscent of the Madonnas of the Renaissance than of her contemporary Madonnas of Byzantine writing. However, the woman and her son sitting in the golden radiance are so charming that Patriarch Photius was forced to remark: “Apparently, the painter’s art was inspired from above: he imitates nature so faithfully.” Yes, the canons existed, but true talent simply swept them out of his way, and the church fathers bowed before his creation.

In that era, the leading role in painting in general (in icon painting, miniature painting, and fresco in particular) was acquired by metropolitan schools, marked by the stamp of special perfection of taste and technique.

At this time, one of the most exquisite examples of a cross-domed church was created, which was called the temple “on four columns.” Unlike the huge, spacious temples of early Byzantium, these were small-sized buildings that gave the impression of extraordinary lightness. The domed arches were not supported by pillars, but by graceful, thin columns. Thanks to wide openings The building was permeated with light in the walls and windows in the dome. Perhaps in no other architecture have architects been able to achieve such complete reflection of the spiritual principle in matter. An example is the northern church of the Lipsa Monastery.

Related information.

2.3 "Symphony of Powers"

To fully understand such a form of interaction as the “Symphony of Powers,” you need to turn to the history of Byzantium, because it was she, as the bearer of all European culture, who created such a principle that was and continues to be one of the main “beacons” of the development of the relations under study. This principle presupposes full consistency in the settlement government issues with the help of the church and vice versa. Such a “symphony” is a very controversial point in terms of the positive impact it has on the development of the state and the church, since it means the infringement of other faiths.

So, turning to history, it is worth saying that it is in the Byzantine Epanagogue that the principle discussed above is enshrined, and it sounds as follows: “Secular power and the priesthood relate to each other like body and soul, they are necessary for the state structure in the same way as the body and soul in a living person. The prosperity of the state lies in their connection and agreement.” Of course, the “Symphony of Powers” ​​was only a guideline for the development of the state, an ideal, a theory, difficult to implement in practice. This is proven by historical examples of the same Byzantium, when emperors interfered in the affairs of the church without any reason and had the final say in resolving any issues related to its structure.

I would like to note that this principle is reflected in the “Two Swords” doctrine already mentioned by Suvorov. Speaking about this doctrine, we cannot forget about two approaches to it. These are the approaches of Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. From the point of view of the first, both swords are in the hands of the Pope, who concentrates in his hands the fullness of ecclesiastical and secular power, i.e. his unlimited power was proclaimed. Accordingly, only those government bodies that receive approval from the Pope are recognized as legitimate.

The second concept of this doctrine, the Orthodox one, is that both swords belong to Jesus, but, while keeping the sword of spiritual power for himself, he transfers temporal power to the sovereign, but retains the right to morally condemn his actions.

It is also worth noting some points regarding the validity of the Russian monarchy of the 16th-20th centuries. The Orthodox Church is distinguished by the fact that it fully recognizes the imperative of the state and believes that the state is an absolutely sovereign organization that should regulate the life of society, but not interfere with the affairs of the church, except on a matter of joint jurisdiction. And to say that the monarch is God’s vicegerent on earth is fundamentally wrong, because... the form of government is only a “vain” matter, which is entirely the work of human hands (except for direct theocracy, which can only be acceptable in the church itself). The Church absolutely should not be concerned with the question of the form of government in this or that country, and even more so, none of them can be recognized as “God-given” and, on the contrary, vicious.

<*>Isaev I.A. "Symphony of powers": interaction of power and authority.

Isaev Igor Andreevich, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Head of the Department of History of State and Law of the Moscow State University legal academy named after O.E. Kutafina, Doctor of Law, Professor.

Contents of the article: the article is devoted to the problem of the relationship between church and secular authorities in the so-called state of “symphonic” unity in the Middle Ages in Europe and Russia. The power of the patriarch and the emperor turned out to be balanced and included in the scope of canon and imperial (Roman) law. A special case was the “symphony” in Russia from the 10th to the 17th centuries.

Key words: "symphony", power, patriarch, emperor, Roman law, canon law, Byzantium, councils.

The contents of the article: the article is devoted to the problem of interrelation of church and secular powers in the so-called state of "symphonic" unity during the Middle Ages in Europe and in Russia. The power of patriarch and emperor turned out to be balanced and included into the sphere of action of canonic and emperor"s (Roman) law. The special occasion was the "symphony" in Russia of the X - XVII centuries.

Key words: "symphony", power, patriarch, emperor, Roman law, canonic law, Byzantium, convocations.

1. The idea of ​​a “symphony” was rooted in the a priori principle of solidarity, spiritual and organizational, on which the monism of the ancient Christian community was built. Unity and, at the same time, autonomy laid the methodological basis for the “symphonic” construction of the later Byzantine period. Church autonomy manifested itself in the division of functions: while remaining outside the imperial jurisdiction, the Church carried out the spiritual intercession of the empire before God.

Justinian's authoritarian attempt to restore the lost Roman Empire did not change the situation. In the VI novella, the principle of “symphony” received ideological and legal justification. The Church, as an organization born even before the formation of Justinian's empire, could become an ally of the state in solving problems not inherent in the empire. In the VI short story, the “symphony” of the priesthood and the kingdom was likened to the interaction of the soul and body of a person, transferring the anthropological analogy to church-state relations.

Christian metaphysical anthropology was translated into the language of norms, taking into account the traditional authority of the ecclesia, which the empire could successfully use for its own purposes. Two centuries of layers of ethical ideas and constructs that formed the source and normative basis of the new community were included in the state-legal sphere.

According to Justinian, the church and the state differ in no other way than two social and moral orders, each operating in its own sphere and personified in the priesthood and imperial power<1>. Such moral unanimity was achieved by the ethical unanimity of the law and the canon, coordinated by the authority of decrees, state and church. The Nomocanon stated that laws that contradict the canons are invalid. The logical consequence was the formal convergence of the law and the canon, the right of the emperor to see that the canonical rules were observed by the church administration itself, and the right to cancel the relevant church orders if the emperor found them to be inconsistent with the laws and canons<2>.

<1>See: Zaozersky N. About church authority. Sergiev Posad, 1894. P. 156.
<2>Tikhomirov L.A. Monarchical statehood. St. Petersburg, 1992. P. 153.

Such controlling functions indicated the secondary role of imperial power in the resulting “symphony.” The authority of secular power was nourished by the authority of spiritual power, which he sought to strengthen through organizational and legal measures. It was from this side external to the Church that the process of its institutionalization and structuring began.

1. Through the churching of all aspects of the life of the Empire, after giving Christianity the status of a state religion, it was intended to recreate the Roman world, but on the basis of Orthodoxy. Political theology, which presupposed the divine establishment of the priesthood and kingdom within a single Christian empire, also formulated the idea of ​​a universal emperor, the vicar of Christ on earth. The Empire became a reflection of the Heavenly City and its instrument. The figure of the emperor was included in the system of canon law, and Constantine already tried to give his state the character of a monarchical community, headed by the emperor himself.

The superimposition of Roman and Christian ideas on each other gave an unexpected result. The emperor was expected to revive Roman power, and Christianity was expected to bring the heavenly city to earth. Two authoritative ideas, complementing each other, gave rise to a “symphony” of authorities. Both ideas were based on tradition and imagination. Canonical and... Roman law could become normalizing factors in this situation. However, such a normative synthesis could only arise through conventional forms. A legal “symphony” could be established through a conciliar agreement, but not in a unilateral and imperative manner.

Conciliarity became one of the conditions for “symphonic” unity. The integration of Church and empire was reinforced by the authority of institutions and traditions representing the authority of Christ and the apostles. Ecumenical councils of the 5th century. had to give their dogmatic decrees the status of state laws. The process of churching took away from the Caesars the sole right to establish religious laws, subordinating them to the conciliar decisions of the Church. The reception of Roman law carried out by Justinian was based on the recognition of the clear priorities of church law and faith over all other sections of law: Catholica lex began to mean “symphonic” church-state law.

In the preamble to the Epanagogue (9th century), man was still presented as a spiritual-physical being consisting of opposing elements. It is protected by the Law, which affirms the whole and transforms all duality into unity. This law is an autocrat identical to the emperor: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are mixed here under the guidance of law. The canonical teaching that public administration itself, as an “art,” is primarily the service of God, expanded the space of state power, including the functions and tasks of a protector and shepherd. Ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction were largely combined.

Two powers, two institutions, two types of service were not opposed to each other. The emphasis was on agreement and harmonization of what should also be distinguished: not the interpenetration of the Church into the Empire, but the Interpenetration of the Empire into the Church. The “symphony” system semantically corresponded to the gospel ideal, demonstrating the indistinguishability of the border between the Church and the state, their antinomian “non-fusion and inseparability.”

1. The ecclesiastical reception of Roman law significantly influenced the formation of conciliar procedures proper. Roman law as church law was subject to reception at the time of the appearance of the first canonical collections that proposed the systematization of church law, and the crisis of imperial statehood in the West stimulated the development of jurisdictional centralism in Rome<3>.

<3>See: Mitrofanov A.Yu. Church law and its codification during the period early Middle Ages(IV - XI centuries). M., 2010. pp. 35 - 36.

The Roman Catholic Church (again using the authority of the Roman imperial idea) was able to become the organizational center of Christian Europe. This was facilitated by both its religious authority, the only spiritual factor connecting those mired in internecine struggle secular rulers, as well as a consistent struggle against internal church schisms and heresies. During this struggle, the Church used both the norms of its own canon law and state legal institutions, increasingly taking on the image of a special “church state” and thereby moving away from the primary gospel ideal.

Rudolf Som noted in this regard that church law is in clear contradiction with the essence of the Church. The Church wants to be led, governed by the dominion of the Divine spirit; law produces only human domination and adheres mainly to form. Catholicism argued that a legal order is necessary for the Church, without the Pope, bishops and priests there is no Church, so it assumed the existence of some kind of “Divine law” that affirms such an order. However, the history of law shows that the entire development of church law is determined by the fact that the Church, by virtue of its essence, does not want any church law<4>. Church institutionalization from this point of view was assessed as a self-sufficient phenomenon that did not need external design and influence. The Church's authority is enough to maintain power, and no additional legal registration is required. (On the contrary, Carl Schmit repeatedly emphasized the juridical character of the Catholic Church, adopted together with Roman law.) The question was posed as follows: is the existence of a “symphony” of authorities ensured by a formal and legal order, or does it rest solely on the authority of each of these authorities?

<4>Zom R. Church system in the first centuries of Christianity. St. Petersburg, 2005. pp. 11 - 12.

It seemed that the solution to the problem was achieved through the active intervention of state power in church affairs themselves. Already during the Monophysite disputes, religious decrees were issued, which formulated the criteria of “Catholic Christianity” and condemned the “heretical writings” of the Nestorians. Emperors, starting with Constantine, not only presided over church councils, but also abolished the canons of ecumenical councils (as Alexei Komnenos did), making decisions on his own own name. The place of the Roman pragmatic jus sacrum began to be occupied by canon law catholica lex, which became part of imperial law.

1. Performing the important function of political unification, the Western Church was able to build a stable hierarchy of power, placing at its head the only figure of the high priest who was most authoritative in its infallibility. "Papocaesarism" could not allow a balanced and balanced "symphony".

At the end of the 5th century. Pope Gelasius formulated the idea that the primate of the Roman Church has primacy not by virtue of the action of conciliar decrees, but by virtue of the fact that he is the successor of the Apostle Peter, the first Roman bishop. Tradition and continuity gave rise to the authority of power. The legal justification for the supremacy of the Roman Church was based on the reception of Roman law of the previous time.

But the cathedral form will be used in the West for a long time, in particular in the fight against Arianism. At the same time, the independence and supremacy of the Roman Church was established here in the course of the struggle with the clearly monophysitist imperial church in Constantinople, which additionally stimulated the creation of a body of canon law. Councils, by virtue of tradition and authority, will acquire the significance of “state” bodies, remaining an influential force that centralizes political processes and giving the empire, albeit chimerical, features of unity and integrity.

Power, by producing, organizes, and by organizing, it speaks and expresses itself as authority<5>. The Empire does not suppress, but includes. The imperial idea therefore always remained the antagonist of the “symphony”: “...its driving force is not stabilization, but expansion.” “Symphony” in the public legal sense was somewhat similar to a confederation as a public legal state; it always remained quite short-term and unstable. Symbiosis "church - state" in pure form historically formed only once, in a situation when the decisions of the first church councils began to have the force of law and when the Church showed itself as state institute.

<5>Filippov A.F. New about the empire // Sociological theory: history, modernity, prospects. St. Petersburg, 2008. P. 742.

Subsequently, both institutions remain in the dual position of interacting structures, never being united together. “The Symphony” will forever become an unattainable ideal and memory, a sacred utopia of the theocratic type, and Arnold Toynbee will note that the church successfully used the achievements and experience of the declining universal state to create new, its own ecumenical institutions, attracting outstanding people to serve in them, which the state “could not properly use”<6>.

<6>Toynbee A. Comprehension of history. M., 1999. P. 520.

1. In the characteristic of the East political organization the Emperor of Constantinople occupied almost the same place as the Pope. Finding himself in the role of high priest, the emperor also used the "symphony" model to strengthen political unity, but the Christian empire with its principle of universality was intended to solve a more important task - the economy of human salvation. The Emperor acted as a son of the Church, subject to the power to “bind and solve” human sins, which only the episcopate possessed<7>.

<7>Dagron J. Emperor and Priest. St. Petersburg, 2010. P. 373.

The Orthodox Church itself endowed the monarch with the rights of a senior bishop. In this role, his activities were limited by the principles and norms of canon law, which was especially clearly manifested in the construction of the judicial-administrative system, and elements of conciliarity permeated the entire organization of power structures.

If the local councils of the West made decisions binding on secular rulers, and the problem of investiture there remained politically relevant for a long time, then the councils of the Eastern Church became more and more similar to the estate-representative institutions of the empire.

The death of the empire in the 15th century. did not lead to the political strengthening of the church, which was quite natural. The church-spiritual center moved in space, maintaining traditional relations with the supreme secular authority. The previously prepared legal framework in the form of helm books and early princely charters for the church established clear boundaries between both spheres, preventing them from merging with each other. The state of the “symphony” was not even presumed and was perceived as a bad confusion of authorities (which the “Old Believers” later opposed).

At the same time, the idea of ​​continuity with Byzantium, its empire and the church was skillfully used for political purposes by the state itself. The Russian state's acceptance of Orthodox religiosity and churchliness under its protection fueled its authority. The grateful church now gave the national state the features of sacredness and the sacred kingdom. The idea of ​​creating the Kingdom of God on earth was also associated with this. Such a merger of powers did not create, however, a “symphony”. The Church did not claim universal coverage even in the spiritual sphere, limiting itself to concern for the autonomy of its own organizational and legal sphere.

1. The ecclesiastical and spiritual dependence of the Russian princes on the Byzantine emperor and patriarch created a certain legal obstacle to the invasion of secular power into the sphere of church jurisdiction. At the same time, the Christian ideological legitimation of power (“all power is from God”) strengthened its authority, and at the same time gave rise to the idea of ​​the divine-human nature of the ruler’s supreme power. In the future, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire, the Moscow princes used this ideology to proclaim themselves “universal kings.” Moscow was becoming the “third Rome”. The canonical independence of the Russian Church was accompanied by an increase in its political dependence on the national government, which became the successor to the power traditions of the Byzantine emperors.

The consequence of these processes was the intensification of the participation of state secular authorities in the implementation of church-judicial actions. The legal basis was formed by the Council of the Hundred Heads in 1551, the decisions of which were aimed at reforming all aspects of church life according to the models of Byzantine theocratic ideology. “This was the moment of crystallization of the Moscow theocracy, when the psychological focus of Russian religious self-determination converged in the heart of the Moscow autocracy. It was... conciliarity, curled up, gathered at one point, but precisely conciliarity, and not personal arbitrariness.”<8>.

<8>Kartashev A.V. Ecumenical Councils and Conciliarity // Church.

And the fight against the split was largely of a state-political nature. The state took upon itself the care of purity, spirituality and worship. By putting forward these tasks, the state recognized the special priorities of the Church, the antiquity and inviolability of its authority. But by taking it under official and legal protection (in the Council Code of 1649), the state will open the way for all subsequent legal regulations and restrictions that it will undertake already at the beginning of the 18th century.

The Church's resistance to state expansion and its desire to preserve the independence of spiritual authority and return to the ideal symbol of the “symphony” took place against the backdrop of a church schism. The argument in this struggle was not formal legal status the patriarch, but it was precisely his authority that prompted the supreme power to put up with his autonomy. A temporary victory then went to the Church, the tsar obeyed the Council’s verdict, the court, administration and finances of the Church still remained in the hands of the clergy, and this continued until the beginning of the 18th century.

1. As Ivan Kireevsky wrote, the church “penetrating all the mental and moral convictions of people... invisibly led the state to the implementation of the highest Christian principles, never interfering with its natural development.” According to the Slavophiles, in Rus' there was neither strict class disunity, nor “ecclesiastical worldly structures” such as spiritual knightly orders, the inquisitorial trial and other secular-spiritual institutions of the West. Legal development was based primarily on fundamental unanimity, on convictions, but not on opinions<9>. The roots of “symphonic” unity lay in the organic structure of society itself, in the faith and authority of Orthodoxy, but not in legal regulations and external, aggressive violence. The rational theology of the West was contrasted with the inner value of the spirit and the “living totality” of the East. The Byzantine “symphony” in its pure form was perceived here.

<9>Kireevsky I.N. On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the education of Russia // Selected articles. M., 1984. P. 235.

The idea of ​​"Moscow - the Third Rome" only emphasized the Orthodox sacred character of the Russian reign, formalized the very concept of the "symphony", while highlighting its spatial coordinates. Without changing over time, as a kind of semantic unity, the “symphony” moved across the surface of the earth, thereby actualizing and strengthening its materialized aspect: the idea of ​​​​gathering lands was already fraught with statist, “imperial” ambitions.

The Russian monarch did not assume the function of a high priest, as was the case in Byzantium, which adopted the tradition of the Roman pontificate. But the autonomous position of the Church already in the 10th century. was outlined by the legal framework of the Charter. The desire to separate spheres of power and jurisdiction seemed more tangible than the desire to connect, merge two spheres - sacred and secular.

The Russian national church was subject to the orders of the Patriarch of Constantinople, but it had to prefer “private laws” based on independent civil sources of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the legal regulations of the emperors (included in the Code of Laws of John Scholasticus and the Nomocanon).<10>. This situation also strengthened the role of the state factor within the “symphony” of authorities and supported the tendency towards the further separation of canon law from state law. But at the same time as this trend, the interference of government authorities in different areas ecclesiastical jurisdiction. State legislation expands the scope of its influence within the church world, regulating by its decrees the procedure for electing hierarchs, issues of church discipline and church court. The judicial procedural and criminal legal competence of church courts was constantly narrowing... By the 18th century. “symphony” as a system of balance of powers and as an idea is finally destroyed.

<10>Kartashev A.V. Essays on the history of the Russian Church. M., 1991. T. 1. P. 192 - 193.

Read also: Aldehydes, homologous series, structure, functional group. Chemical properties of aldehydes. Preparation of aldehydes in medicine. The pharmacy submitted an application to the licensing commission to obtain a license for activities related to the circulation of narcotic drugs and mental health preparations….. Aromatic hydrocarbons. Structural formula of benzene (according to Kekule). Chemical properties of benzene. Preparation and use of benzene and its homologues. Acetylene is a representative of hydrocarbons with a triple bond in the molecule. Properties, production and use of acetylene. Ticket 12. 1. AFV: purpose, objectives, means, methodological features, training and organization of classes Ticket 17 Question 2 – Preparation of nanostructured heterogeneous media, granular nanocomposites, multilayer nanostructures. Ticket number 27 Vernadsky's doctrine of the biosphere. Boundaries of the biosphere

From the variety of options for coexistence of the state and church organization As a rule, three models of their interaction are distinguished: caesarepapism (subordination of the Church to state power), papocaesarism (the predominance of spiritual power over secular power) and symphony (sumjwnia; consensus), which presupposes a union of church and state power. This union is based on the idea of ​​harmony and agreement between authorities, coexisting, but not merging with each other, interacting, but not seeking to subjugate each other. The term “symphony” was first used by Justinian I in the preface to his VI novella: “The greatest gifts of God to people from the love of mankind are given from above - the priesthood (ιερωσύνη) and the kingdom (βασιλεία), one serving the divine, the other caring for the human and ruling - from one and from the same beginning they came out and put human life in order. Therefore, nothing would be so desirable to the kingdom as the majesty of the priests, if only they always prayed to God for him. For if the first were immaculately and comprehensively involved in God with sincerity, the second would faithfully and properly put the state entrusted to him in order, there would be some kind of good agreement, so that all the good of the human race would be donated.” The concept of a symphony of powers became decisive in church-state relations of the Byzantine Empire. It received its revelation in the messages of basileus and patriarchs, the works of theologians, legislative acts. In the ordinary consciousness of the Byzantines, the divine and the human, the soul and the body, were clearly distinguished. The state was also considered as a single organism, in which there is both body and soul. “Since a state, like a person, consists of parts and members, the most important and necessary members are the king and the patriarch; therefore, the peace and prosperity of the subjects depend on the unanimity and consent of the royal and patriarchal authorities,” said the Isagoge, a code of laws of the 9th century. It is equality of rights, equal significance, “unmerged” and “inseparable” existence of church and secular power that distinguishes the concept of a symphony of powers from the doctrines of papocaesarism and caesarapapism. The essence of the symphony is mutual cooperation, mutual support and mutual responsibility, without one side intruding into the exclusive competence of the other. According to the Russian state expert L.A. Tikhomirov, “Byzantium can boast that nowhere has the issue of the union of church and state been resolved more successfully.” That is why the symphony of authorities has become an ideal for other Orthodox countries, including Russia.

The symphony of the state and the Church implied interaction in all spheres of power - executive, judicial, legislative. In Byzantium it could not have been otherwise: all government officials and the emperor himself were members of the Church, and vice versa, all believers, including the patriarch, were citizens of the state. Yes, in the area executive power the development of church institutions and church administration took place in parallel and in accordance with the development of political institutions and government administration. The administrative structure of the state influenced church government: the main unit of both state and church government was the city; the division of the empire into provinces was echoed by the establishment of metropolises; with the introduction of dioceses in government administration, patriarchates appeared in church administration. The Byzantine emperor had constant relations with church authorities. Under the Patriarch of Constantinople there was the position of referendar, who conveyed to the emperor what the patriarch entrusted to him. Other patriarchs had permanent proxies in the capital - apocrisiaries, to present to the emperor various requests for the needs of their Churches. State power took part in church issues, affecting the sphere of church economy and often arrogating to itself the right to appoint to church positions and remove from these positions; in turn, clergy took part in civil cases, not only indirectly, through moral influence on the masses, but also directly, as leaders of foreign and domestic policy, as well as direct participants in the most important political enterprises and social movements. The church was an organ of charity. Its funds supported hospitals, shelters for helpless old people and orphans, and this was under the jurisdiction of the bishop. Head Eastern Church was the Patriarch of Constantinople. His influence increased gradually, but on the whole he was the same focal point in the church sphere as the emperor was in the state sphere. The selection of the patriarch was a rather complex process and consisted of several stages. The emperor also took part in the election procedure, but only as the “bishop of external affairs”, responsible for the external well-being of the Church. He pointed to one of three candidates proposed by a council of bishops specially assembled for the election of the high priest, who had previously discussed persons with qualities corresponding to the patriarch’s τυπος. Even if the emperor was not satisfied with any of the candidates, and he proposed someone else, the person he proposed also went through the procedure of discussion by the council of bishops. Of course, there were cases when the basileus tried to put the election process completely under their control, which gave rise to talk about Caesaropapism in Byzantium, but this was the exception rather than the rule, and such facts were recognized as abnormal and condemned by contemporaries. It should be noted that the emperor did not take part in the appointment of other church hierarchs. On the other hand, the patriarch performed the ceremony of crowning the kingdom, which, having appeared under Leo I (457 - 474) as a supplement to the main act of coronation performed by representatives of the army, subsequently became not only the most important, but also the only coronation act, and the rite of coronation itself and the ceremonial actions associated with it acquired a cult character. In addition, persons of different levels of the church hierarchy, both white and monastic clergy, enjoyed influence in the state, occupied the places of first ministers, and various secular positions in central and local government.

Just as under the emperor the synclite was the highest government institution, so under the patriarch there was a synod, consisting of both actual members - bishops, and members present - patriarchal dignitaries and government representatives; the latter were present only when resolving issues related to the public sphere. The Synod was the highest administrative and judicial authority, overseeing the purity of faith and maintaining church order, the appointment and transfer of bishops, and considered complaints against clergy. His decrees were approved by the patriarch and announced on his behalf, and the more important ones went to the approval of the emperor. The latter, as a rule, happened when the church authorities wanted to give the synodal decrees wider dissemination and ensure their implementation not only in the church sphere, but also in the civil sphere, or when they concerned not only church, but also public relations and therefore could not avoid without sanction from the state authorities, and finally, if the resolution concerned the patriarch. Just as under the emperor there were orders (secrets) for managing various branches of government, so under the patriarch there were secrets for managing various branches of church government. In other words, the very structure of church government, similar to the structure of state government, testifies to the union of the state and the Church in the administrative sphere. This is also evidenced by the fact that government officials were obliged to help bishops in maintaining church discipline by taking appropriate measures both to comply with church rules and to punish their violators. The bishops exercised a kind of prosecutorial supervision over government officials. They could accept a complaint against the provincial prefect and ask the prefect to consider the case again. In case of refusal, the bishop, on his own behalf, could give the petitioner a letter to the emperor with his certificate of justice not provided. In addition, upon dismissal from office, the provincial prefect had to remain in place for 50 days and, through the bishop, receive complaints from the population and consider them. The bishop insisted on the legal redress of these complaints.

In the judicial branch, the interaction between the state and the Church was even closer. Byzantine sources call the courts spiritual and secular, secular were divided into civil and military, and civil - into capital and regional. The highest was the imperial court. There were also special courts, in which various categories of persons (clergy, senators, members of guilds, warriors) could file a claim, regardless of place of residence or place of crime. Courts of special jurisdiction often conflicted with ordinary courts and sought to expand their influence, because These categories of the population preferred that the case be heard in a court sympathetic to them. Thus, the clergy had the right to be judged only by ecclesiastical courts, and not by civil authorities; secular archons had no jurisdiction over bishops. Whether it was a criminal or a civil case, if both parties were clergy, they had to appear before the bishop. If any party wishes to sue in a secular court and leaves the church court, even if he wins the case, he will lose ecclesiastical rank and will be displaced. According to the canons: “A bishop accused of anything... must himself be called by the bishops, and if he appears and confesses or is convicted by them: let his penance be determined” (Canon 74 of the Holy Apostles). However, in civil disputes between a clergyman and a layman, the rule was that the case should be heard in the court of the party to which the defendant belongs. Only when the lay defendant agreed to have the case examined by the bishop did the latter make a decision. The bishop could also act as an arbitrator, even if both parties were laymen. According to the law of 333, the decisions of bishops were to be recognized as final in cases of persons of all classes and of all ages, any civil case could be transferred to the episcopal court at any stage of the process, and even if the opposing party was unwilling, the sentences of episcopal courts were to be approved by secular judges, and evidence recognized by the bishop, any judge must accept without doubt, all cases decided by the episcopal court became a judicial precedent, mandatory for use in secular courts.

In connection with this expansion of the competence of church courts, all religious and moral relations, closely related primarily to marriage and family law, began to be included in the area of ​​​​cases not subject to secular court. Thus, in 1086, Emperor Alexei Komnenos decreed that all matters related to marriage and spiritual salvation should be judged by spiritual judges. Matters were decided in the bishop's dicastery, in the metropolitan and patriarchal synod, with the personal participation of the bishop, metropolitan and patriarch or through authorized representatives. An appeal against the bishop went to the metropolitan, against the metropolitan to the patriarch, but no appeal was allowed against the decision of the patriarch, just as against the decision of the emperor.

The maximum interaction between church and secular authorities in the judicial sphere was manifested in the creation in Byzantium, first in the 6th century, and subsequently in the 14th century. Institute of “ecumenical judges of the Romans” (οι καθολικοι κριται των Ρωμαιων). Twelve judges were appointed by the emperor from among the clergy and took an oath regarding the conscientious performance of their duties. Their power had universal (“universal”) significance and extended to all categories of the population, including the emperor, persons serving at the imperial court, regional rulers and other archons. Judges considered only civil cases, and they could be addressed without going through all the instances of the ordinary court, although in fact the universal court became the highest court of appeal. When passing sentences, the ecumenical court was guided by both ecclesiastical and secular legislation. From the end of the 14th century. ecumenical judges appeared in all cities of the empire and existed until the fall of Byzantium. Some researchers emphasize that the institution of “ecumenical judges” was established with the joint participation of the Church and the imperial government, which was due to the traditional relationship between the Church and the state in Byzantium, based on the principle of the symphony.

Finally, in the legislative sphere, the symphony of authorities manifested itself in the coordination of the law and the canon - church rule. The problem of coordination arose, in our opinion, firstly, in connection with the Christianization of most of the population of the empire, and secondly, with the streamlining of the canons themselves and their registration in collections or codes. Christians, in the event of a conflict between the law and the canon, were in confusion - what to prefer, what to follow, in order, on the one hand, to remain law-abiding citizens of the empire, on the other, not to violate the Divine commandment. Of course, in most cases, believers put the canons first. The emperors, noticing the emerging contradiction, first tried to counteract the power of the canons. Thus, Constantius II declared at the Council of Milan in 355: “What I please is the canon.” But a century later, in 451, under pressure from the participants of the IV Ecumenical Council, the emperors Valentinian and Marcian issued a constitution, according to which all laws issued in violation of church canons are declared invalid (C.1.2.12). Emperor Justinian in October 530 declared that “divine canons have no less force than laws” (C.1.3.44.1). He developed this position in his famous 131 Novella of 545, which reads: “We prescribe that the sacred church canons, issued or confirmed by the four holy councils, namely Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon..., had the rank of laws; for we recognize the dogmas of the four above-mentioned councils as holy scriptures, and we preserve their canons as laws” (Nov. Just. 131.1). "Vasiliki" in the beginning. X century expanded the effect of this novella until the Second Council of Nicaea in 787. Justinian, in the preface to Novella 137, indicated clear differences between law and canon: the purpose of civil laws is public safety, church canons were established for the salvation of the soul. The authority over the laws is entrusted from God to the emperor, monitoring the observance of the canons and their very establishment is entrusted to the bishops. Some researchers believe that, by equalizing canons and laws, emperors included the norms of canon law in the general legislative system of the state, in which the emperor acted as a universal legislator. Indeed, after the imperial authorities approved the Church’s definitions of faith, they were followed by believers not only as a rule of faith established by the Church, but also as a state law, the implementation of which was protected by state power.

The indicated equation confirms the close union of the two powers in the sphere of legislative power. Thus, the interaction of church and secular authorities in Byzantium in all areas confirms the dominance of the ideas of the symphony not only in theory, but also in practice, and its violations (usually by secular authorities) led to discontent and indignation among the inhabitants of the empire

Relations between the Orthodox Church and the state have never been simple. Already in Byzantium, Orthodoxy was turned into an ideological instrument and for a long time served as an apology for state power.

Of course, the ideologization of the Catholic Church also took place in the West. However, there the church was much more independent of the state, which made possible the gradual liberation of faith from all kinds of ideological constructs alien to its nature. As for the Orthodox faith, it has always constituted an essential unity with the state. Of course, there were tensions between spiritual and temporal authorities in the Orthodox world, and sometimes they became dramatic. However, these conflicts are not comparable to similar conflicts in the West. In the Orthodox world there was no long-term struggle, not even a war, between the heads of church and state. In no Orthodox country has the church been separated from the state. Perhaps this is why Orthodoxy remains a “state matter” in our century. The ever-increasing separation of state and church, which is taking place in the West (although, of course, quite slowly and inconsistently there too), did not begin in Orthodox states.

The paradox is that the liberation and rehabilitation of the Orthodox faith in post-communist Russia did not put an end to its use as a political tool. The current situation in Russia is characterized by a combination of two approaches: first, a certain return to the pre-October era, which is expressed in attempts to give Orthodoxy the function of a right-wing conservative and nationalist-imperial state ideology; and, secondly, the ideological union between Orthodoxy and... atheistic communism. These trends, especially the second, constitute the uniqueness of today's ideological controversy regarding Orthodoxy, an originality bordering on the grotesque.

The official teaching of the Orthodox Church on the relationship between church and state crystallized very early, as early as the 6th century AD. Its founder was the Byzantine emperor Justinian. The verdict he adopted (the so-called 6th novella) formulated the principle underlying the “symphony” of church and state:

“The greatest benefits bestowed on people by the supreme grace of God are the priesthood and the kingdom, of which the first (priesthood, church authority) takes care of divine affairs, and the second (kingdom, state power) guides and takes care of human affairs, and both, based on one and the same source, constitute the adornment of human life. Therefore, nothing lies more on the hearts of kings than the honor of the clergy, who, for their part, serve them, constantly praying to God for them. And if the priesthood is well-ordered in everything and pleasing to God, and the state power will truthfully govern the state entrusted to it, then there will be complete agreement between them in everything that serves the benefit and good of the human race. Therefore, we make the greatest efforts to preserve the true dogmas of God and the honor of the priesthood, hoping through this to receive great benefits from God and to firmly hold on to those that we have.”

Guided by this norm, Justinian in his short stories recognized the canons as the force of state laws.

The classic Byzantine formula for the relationship between state and church power is contained in the “Epanagogue” (second half of the 2nd century): “secular power and the priesthood relate to each other as body and soul, they are necessary for the state structure in the same way as body and soul in a living person . The prosperity of the state lies in their connection and agreement.” It is important to emphasize that in the Byzantine interpretation, both spiritual and temporal power comes from God: while the church serves God and the divine, the kingdom rules over the earthly. This is where the principle of the “symphony of powers” ​​finds its embodiment.

Such a “symphony” in Byzantium, of course, did not exist in an absolutely pure form. In practice, it was subject to violations and distortions. The Church repeatedly found itself the object of Caesar-Papist claims on the part of the state authorities, the essence of which was that the head of state, the emperor, claimed the decisive word in the organization of church affairs. Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) comments on this practice as follows: the emperors believed their main task was to preserve dogmas and honor the priesthood, in which they and for which they expected the greatest benefits from God. At the same time, they acted “as divine guardians and guardians of the Orthodox faith in its struggle against heretics.” Seraphim refers primarily to the church council convened by the emperor, at which the “heretics” were damned. But other activities were also practiced: “Byzantine emperors suppressed this further spread of heresies among believers by their orders.” And the persecution of heresies by the state took place only with the use of such tools as exile, imprisonment, torture and even execution...

According to Seraphim, the church did a lot for this “symphony”:

“By her Orthodox faith, by bringing down to believers the divine grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments, through prayers and services, through her church education and upbringing, she awakened her sons from the old to a new, pure and holy Christian life.”

This activity of the church included “forcing” believers to venerate the emperor as God’s anointed, to fulfill all his laws and to be devoted to him even to the point of self-sacrifice.

Thus, the symbiosis of church and state in practice implied the following division of functions. Secular power establishes for the church a monopoly of truth in matters of religion and serves to protect its privileges; the church gives religious sanction to the state. The state supports the church with physical means. For its part, the church supports the state with spiritual means. Thus, we have before us the union of the altar and the throne. In any case, all this has a very distant relation to the spiritual mission of the church.

From the doctrine of “symphony,” A. Ignatov believes, at least in its Russian version, follows a very special status of the church in society. The model of relations between church and state, based on the doctrine of "symphony", is a model of relations between the state church and the denominational state. The Orthodox Church is privileged because it is the state church. But at the same time it is dependent on the state. Such a church is a privileged servant of the state.

The Orthodox Church enjoys the attention of the state that is not given to any other religion or any other worldview. Religion is not a private matter, but a public matter. But as a result of this, she becomes dependent on the state and is doomed to accept “help” from it. For its part, the state is by no means neutral: it treats churches differently - it recognizes only one and promotes it. The “Orthodox state” is not a theocratic state, since although the church has the support of worldly power, it does not use power. On the other hand, this is not a secular state.

The doctrine of “symphony” warns against the confusion of two powers, which can occur in two forms: Caesar-Papism and Papo-Caesarism. Caesar-papism is the spiritual power of the emperor, papo-Caesarism is the temporal power of the church, theocracy. However, both are false and distort the true teaching and mission of the church.

Of course, Orthodox fundamentalists reproach primarily Catholic papocaesarism - the claims of papism to worldly power. As for “Orthodox papocaesarism” itself, a certain type of higher supervision of the church over the situation in the state (following the example of some early Byzantine patriarchs who denounced the corrupt morals at the court of the emperor), she has nothing against it, although she does not express it quite openly. However, the Orthodox Church recognized the futility of such dreams and came to terms with their unrealizability. But even in our time, echoes of old claims can still be heard - Archbishop Seraphim turns to the teachings of the church fathers, “who not only spoke about the difference between church and state, but also about the superiority of the former over the latter, of course, in a spiritual sense, since the heavenly blessings bestowed through the church, is more important than earthly goods received from the state.” Seraphim quotes St. John Chrysostom, according to which the church predominates in the state, just as the spirit predominates in the body. But all these are just nostalgic relics.

If the danger of papo-Caesarism in the Orthodox world is practically absent, then there is quite a real danger, if not of Caesar-Papism in its pure form, then of a rather significant subordination of the church to the state. This is the price the clergy must pay for his privileged position. If he expects privileges from rulers, then he must take into account their demands, and especially where the autocratic ruler is not accustomed to allowing any restrictions on his willfulness. Orthodox teaching considers only the autocrat to be a legitimate ruler.

The subordination of the church to the state began quite early. At the latest from the 8th century, Byzantium became a completely Caesar-papist state, in which, according to official church doctrine, it is not the patriarch, but the emperor, since he is considered the vicar of Christ on Earth, who is the head of the church, and even in matters of doctrine. The situation in the Orthodox states in the Balkans was a copy of Byzantine relations. Caesar-papist tendencies also manifested themselves in Russia in the 15th and 16th centuries. The theological expression was given to them by the abbot of the Volokolamsk Monastery, Joseph Volotsky. He put forward the thesis that “full power” not only in the state, but also in the church belongs to the worldly ruler. True, Joseph Volotsky emphasizes that the king must bow to the Law of God, but, on the other hand, he postulates that the judgment carried out by the king is final. There is a certain tension between these postulates, which gives the church space for activity, but in any case, the words about the “king's court” give the king the opportunity to determine for himself whether he adheres to the Law of God.

Joseph's views served autocracy. The famous Patriarch Nikon, on the contrary, showed the greatest resistance to the claims of worldly power in the entire history of the church. However, he was defeated. After Peter the Great abolished the title of patriarch, the Russian Orthodox Church was in complete and unequivocal dependence on the autocracy until the February Revolution. This was far from consistent with the “symphonic” relationship.

Nevertheless, even today attempts are being made to revive the anachronistic and unrealizable idea of ​​a “symphony of powers.” The dream of raising Orthodoxy to the rank of state religion, going hand in hand with the rejection of the secular state, has not yet lost its attractiveness.

Hence, difficulties with freedom of conscience inevitably arise. Of course, no one denies freedom of conscience directly and unequivocally. Everyone recognizes that a “natural” human right is the right to choose one religion or another. But at the same time, this verbal recognition is accompanied by such reservations and restrictions that the concept itself is completely emasculated.

The relationship between predestination and freedom, between the omnipotence of God and the freedom of human decision has always been the axis of the greatest controversy in theology. However, accepting freedom of choice is at the core of the Christian faith. The vast majority of church fathers, theologians and Christian philosophers accept it. And this is understandable - without the possibility of free choice, the Fall is inexplicable.

An example of how a “symphony of powers” ​​is formed in modern Russian Federation, is a film by the abbot of the Moscow Sretensky Monastery, Fr. Tikhon (Shevkunova) “The Death of an Empire. Lessons of Byzantium", which premiered on January 30, 2008 on the state TV channel "Russia". The subsequent discussion around the film in the talk show “National Interest” with the participation of court historians and political scientists, laudatory panegyrics addressed to it by the “Orthodox sovereigns” (for example, N. Mikhalkov, I. Glazunov, A. Dugin, etc.) did not leave the viewer has doubts that this work was created by the creative tandem of the church and the Kremlin and is of a “programmatic” nature.

The history of Byzantium (Roman Empire), between which and the history of Russia Fr. Tikhon draws a persistent analogy, which he considers precisely as the story of the fall of the Romans as a result of their free choice in favor of the golden calf and rejection of the true Orthodox faith and the true church. They were allegedly seduced by the vicious spirit of “capitalism” of the insidious West, chased after the standards of the consumer society it created and became mired in individualism. This, they say, ultimately led to the betrayal of Orthodoxy, the Union of Florence, the subsequent fall of Constantinople and the enslavement of Byzantium by Muslims. In other words, the Turks were sent by God to Byzantium as punishment for the fall of the Romans into “Latinism”, punishment for sins. The viewer, familiar with the history of Byzantium, was also bewildered by the idealization of the Roman Tsar Vasily, who received the popular name “Bulgar-Slayers” because he gouged out the eyes of 100,000 (!) captive Bulgarians. The anti-historicism of this version, although it partially coincides with the church interpretation of the history of Byzantium, is obvious. Nevertheless, as follows from the film, which was created with the patronage and assistance of government authorities, this is precisely the version that claims to be the official one. Thus, the “symphony of powers” ​​in the modern Russian political context is developing on an anti-Western and anti-Catholic basis.

Orthodox fundamentalists see the unclean everywhere: in the Western liberal world, in the materialist-capitalist civilization, among Protestant preachers and among the “papists.” However - in a rather strange way - they do not notice it among the most radical opponents of Christianity and any religion in general - the communists. Meanwhile, under the communist regime, the church was mercilessly suppressed, metropolitans, priests and monks were shot, imprisoned, exiled, and sent to labor camps. During the Civil War, persecution took brutal forms: it happened that a priest was watered ice water until he turned into a block of ice. Monasteries and churches were closed on a massive scale and turned into barracks, public baths and stables. Religious education was banned, and many icons and other treasures of religious art were simply destroyed. For a long time, even the basic freedom of rituals was limited: the ringing of bells was prohibited, so as not to “disturb the peace of the working people,” and the clergy did not have the right to wear vestments outside the church. In the early 1930s, the entire free Christian world, led by the Pope, protested against this barbarity. The pace and intensity of persecution has decreased; they generally became weaker in the post-war years. But even then, especially during the time of the “reformer” Khrushchev, thousands of churches were closed.

The increasingly clear alliance between black and red reaction, between clericalism and militant atheism looks like a phantom, something unreal, and yet it is a fact. The communists seized the initiative in this union. They made their “offer” to the church. Even during perestroika, this grotesque rapprochement began. People who until then had only insulting and hateful words addressed to religion, who called faith nothing more than “clergy,” people for whom religion was “the opium of the people,” “a capitalist relic in the minds of the working people,” suddenly began to look piously show up at services, cross yourself and light candles. “Bourgeois” critics of communist atheism have long pointed out the obvious Christian origins of socialist and communist ideals of social justice and the brotherhood of man. The communists vehemently denied this and insisted on the incompatibility of the two social teachings, which can only be challenged by falsifiers and insidious ideological enemies. Now - as if none of this had happened - they began to proudly emphasize this kinship, moreover, to claim some merits to the faith.

The Caesar-Papist tradition, combined with intolerance towards other Christian denominations, creates fertile ground for abuse when Orthodoxy is taken as a justification for the Great Russian messianically “funded” chauvinistic and expansionist policies. This means, of course, an expansion of the sphere of influence of Orthodox countries. On the other hand, according to the doctrine of "symphony", the church is obliged to support this expansionist or hegemonic policy with its prayers. This was the case in pre-communist times. Today's fundamentalist movement is trying to revive this situation.

Archpriest A. Schmemann was absolutely right when he asserted that “Christianity has never denied either the good of the state or the possibility of enlightening it with the Light of Christ. But this was precisely the meaning of the appearance in the world of the church as a society, as a visible organization, that in it the limitations of the state were revealed, its absolutism, any “sacralization” of its nature was forever debunked... The Church reveals to the world that there is only two absolute values: God and man. Everything else, including the state, firstly, is limited by its very nature, by belonging to the end only to “this world.” And secondly, it is good only to the extent that it serves God's plan about man... Hence, the postulate of the Christian world is not the merger of the church with the state, but quite the opposite, their difference: for the Christian state is only Christian to the extent that it does not pretend to be everything for a person, to determine his whole life, but gives him the opportunity to be a member of another society, another reality, different in relation to the state, although not hostile to it.”

The state, as a form of free organization of free individuals, occupies its level both in the hierarchy of cultural-historical values ​​and in the hierarchy of ethical values. However, this level is not the highest, metaphysically not unconditional, not established from above once and for all, but mediated by other higher levels. In the hierarchy of spiritual and ethical values, they are occupied by such values ​​as love, holiness, faith, righteousness, compassion, goodwill; in the hierarchy of cultural and historical values ​​- genius, beauty, intelligence, creativity. These are precisely the values ​​that, according to the remark of B. Vyshe Slavtsev, in no way “can be clothed in the form of “duties”, an imperative of the law.” In other words, they cannot be made a duty to citizens. This is the prerogative of God, not Caesar.