Church and state at the crossroads of epochs: the Declaration of metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in the context of the relationship between the Earthly City and the Heavenly City
{"title":"Church and state at the crossroads of epochs: the Declaration of metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) in the context of the relationship between the Earthly City and the Heavenly City","authors":"P. Khondzinskii","doi":"10.15382/sturii2023112.80-93","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Apparently, until now, researchers have not paid attention to the fact that the “Declaration” of Met. Sergius Stragorodsky (1927) contains an almost direct quotation from Blessed Augustine's “De civitate Dei”, which speaks of the common joys and sorrows that in this life unite the citizens of the heavenly city and the citizens of the earthly city. As a consequence, the question arises as to what extent this borrowing could be, as well as whether this parallel legitimizes the ecclesiological (church-state) concept of Metropolitan Sergius. Evidently, Blessed Augustine was not among his favorite and even frequently quoted authors. This could result from the critical attitude towards the Bishop of Hippo, which was revealed even before 1917 by representatives of the “new theology”, whom Met. Sergius belonged to. However, since at the beginning of the 20th century “De civitate Dei” was too often the subject of church and public discussions, Met. Sergius, with his well-known erudition, could not be completely unfamiliar with it. At the same time, the conducted research shows that the position of Met. Sergius on the issue of church-state relations was changing throughout his life due to changing historical circumstances. Nevertheless, we can say for certain that his position was constant in the idea of the inviolability of the canonical structure of the local Church. This idea is formed against the background of the struggle for the restoration of the patriarchate. It considers the autocephalous local Church (not the diocese, as it was in ancient times) as a structural unit of the universal Church. Consequently, it implies the need to maintain a single church organization throughout the USSR. This, in turn, required the legal functioning of the Church, and, as a result, had a much greater dependence on the earthly city than blessed Augustine supposed.","PeriodicalId":407912,"journal":{"name":"St. Tikhons' University Review","volume":"103 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"St. Tikhons' University Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15382/sturii2023112.80-93","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract. Apparently, until now, researchers have not paid attention to the fact that the “Declaration” of Met. Sergius Stragorodsky (1927) contains an almost direct quotation from Blessed Augustine's “De civitate Dei”, which speaks of the common joys and sorrows that in this life unite the citizens of the heavenly city and the citizens of the earthly city. As a consequence, the question arises as to what extent this borrowing could be, as well as whether this parallel legitimizes the ecclesiological (church-state) concept of Metropolitan Sergius. Evidently, Blessed Augustine was not among his favorite and even frequently quoted authors. This could result from the critical attitude towards the Bishop of Hippo, which was revealed even before 1917 by representatives of the “new theology”, whom Met. Sergius belonged to. However, since at the beginning of the 20th century “De civitate Dei” was too often the subject of church and public discussions, Met. Sergius, with his well-known erudition, could not be completely unfamiliar with it. At the same time, the conducted research shows that the position of Met. Sergius on the issue of church-state relations was changing throughout his life due to changing historical circumstances. Nevertheless, we can say for certain that his position was constant in the idea of the inviolability of the canonical structure of the local Church. This idea is formed against the background of the struggle for the restoration of the patriarchate. It considers the autocephalous local Church (not the diocese, as it was in ancient times) as a structural unit of the universal Church. Consequently, it implies the need to maintain a single church organization throughout the USSR. This, in turn, required the legal functioning of the Church, and, as a result, had a much greater dependence on the earthly city than blessed Augustine supposed.
摘要显然,直到现在,研究人员都没有注意到《Met宣言》的事实。Sergius Stragorodsky(1927)几乎直接引用了圣奥古斯汀的《上帝之城》(De civitate Dei),其中谈到了生活中共同的快乐和悲伤,这些快乐和悲伤将天堂城市的公民和尘世城市的公民联系在一起。因此,问题出现了,这种借用可以在多大程度上,以及这种平行是否使主教Sergius的教会(教会-国家)概念合法化。显然,圣奥古斯丁并不是他最喜欢甚至经常引用的作家。这可能是由于对希波主教的批评态度,甚至在1917年之前,“新神学”的代表就已经揭示了这一点。Sergius属于。然而,自20世纪初以来,“上帝的文明”经常成为教会和公众讨论的主题。谢尔盖学识渊博,不可能对它完全陌生。同时,所进行的研究表明,Met的地位。随着历史环境的变化,谢尔盖对政教关系的看法在他的一生中不断变化。然而,我们可以肯定地说,他的立场是始终如一的,他认为地方教会的规范结构是不可侵犯的。这种思想是在争取恢复宗主教区的斗争背景下形成的。它认为自治的地方教会(不是古代的教区)是普世教会的一个结构单位。因此,这意味着需要在整个苏联维持一个单一的教会组织。这反过来要求教会在法律上发挥作用,结果,教会对世俗城市的依赖比奥古斯丁想象的要大得多。