Search results

This paper applies the Church's understanding of the dual nature -in one person- of Christ, human and divine, to the issue of the strained between the Church and the State, within the Creation and the History. This question is approached and analysed through two theological, ecclesiological and canonical categories, alterity (otherness) and communion , which are based on the antinomical conciliar formula of a (comm)union "without confusion and without division". With the help of the systematic and canonical theology of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), it has investigated the Christological question , according to the author, of the relationships between the Church and the State on a global level, in the name of the a double and symmetrical divergence: occurs: on the one hand, the autonomisation of otherness leading to the minorisation of communion, in other words, division and separation between Church and State arising from turning otherness into absolute autonomy (without any communion and relationship); and on the other hand, the alienation of communion causing confusion, and leading to the absorption of otherness , in other words, absorption of the weak locally established Church by the powerful State leading to "confusion" (in the Chalcedonian sense) - without any alterity. In the first case, priority is given to being "without confusion" at the detriment of being "without division" (communion), whereas in the second, we observe the predominance of "without division" and the total abolition of "without confusion" (otherness-autonomy). The author enshrines in Church, Body of Christ, its very nature a combination of alterity (otherness) and communion. He argues that these characteristics are undermined by the twin distortions of State infliction and untamed separation, which are marred the relations between these two entities, the Church and the State. For fifteen centuries now, this conception of relationships between the Church and the State has placed a burden at an ecumenical level. More precisely, the ecclesiological vision of the Council of Chalcedon was the simultaneous coexistence of otherness and communion between State and Church as a clearly paradoxical or antinomial feature of the christological mode of coexistence of the two natures of Christ: the human nature and the divine one. It naturally emerges that the coexistence of Church and State in a given state territory is realised through the acceptance of their ontological and institutional otherness and the preservation of communi(cati)on and relationship among them. Special reference is made to the case of the Political Dimension of the Church Eschatology.

The article analyzes milestones in the Ukrainian Christianity history from the viewpoint of the political analysis of the relationship between church and state. The author shows the inextricable connection between the state and church powers and demonstrates how the foreign policy factors influenced formation of the domestic church relations ; В статье проанализированы основные вехи истории украинского христианства с точки зрения политического анализа государственно-церковных отношений. Автор показывает неразрывную связь между государственной и церковной властью, а также демонстрирует влияние внешнеполитических факторов на становление внутригосударственных церковных отношений

This article is devoted to the analysis of interaction between church and state in the context of the current geopolitical situation and worsening of civilizational conflict in Eastern Europe. The five models of church-state relations known to history are describes: the model of the symphony, the doctrine of the two swords, territorialism model, model of radical separation of church and state and the intermediate model. The problems of these relations concerning with the Russian Orthodox Church social concept are discussed in the article. Concludes that the politicization of the Church's role in society at the present stage promotes the escalation of conflicts and contradictions, not prevent them. = Статья посвящена анализу моделей взаимодействия церкви и государства в контексте современной геополитической ситуации и обострения цивилизационных противоречий в Восточной Европе. Описываются пять моделей церковно-государственных отношений, известных истории: модель симфонии, доктрина двух мечей, модель территориализма, модель радикального отделения церкви от государства и модель промежуточного характера. Проблемы взаимоотношения церкви и государства рассматриваются на примере социальной концепции и политической практики российской православной церкви. Делается вывод, что политизация роли церкви в обществе на современном этапе способствует эскалации конфликтов и противоречий, а не их предотвращению.

The problems of relations between church and state are covered. The opinions of historians, religious studies scholars, public figures are given. The attention to the XX century significant events which had essential influence on the religions' position in Central and Eastern Europe countries is paid: the creation of the European Union, the fall of the Berlin wall, the dissolution of the USSR. The general peculiarities of the relations between state and church during this period for the countries of this region (The Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and others) are analyzed. The main tendencies of such relations development are characterized: establishment of the state church model and separation of church from the state. The attention is paid to the fact that there is no full agreement in understanding the term «separation of church from the state» among experts. It is emphasized that such law, public and cultural situation in which the state has nothing in common with church does not take place in any Western Europe country. The separation means that the state does not identify itself with one of religions or churches and both institutes respect an autonomy of each other in spheres belonging to them. The relevance of the research of the questions connected with law regulation for the religious organizations activity in Central and Eastern Europe countries is grounded for optimization of the relations between state and confessions in Ukraine ; Рассматриваются вопросы взаимоотношений Церкви и государства. Приводятся мнения историков, религиоведов, общественных деятелей. Уделяется внимание знаменательным событиям ХХ века, оказавшим существенное влияние на положение религий в странах Центрально-Восточной Европы: созданию Европейского Союза, падению Берлинской стены, распаду СССР. Проанализированы общие для стран этого региона (Чехии, Словакии, Венгрии и других) особенности государственно-церковных отношений в этот период. Характеризуются основные тенденции развития таких отношений: установление модели государственной церкви и отделение церкви от государства. Обращается внимание на то, что среди специалистов нет полного согласия в понимании термина «отделение Церкви от государства». Подчеркивается, что ни в одной из стран Западной Европы не имеет места такая правовая и общественно-культурная ситуация, в которой государство не имеет с Церковью ничего общего. Отделение означает, что государство не отождествляет себя ни с одной из религий или церквей и оба института уважают автономию друг друга в принадлежащих им сферах. Обосновывается актуальность исследования вопросов, связанных с правовым регулированием деятельности религиозных организаций в странах Центрально-Восточной Европы, для оптимизации государственно-конфессиональных отношений в Украине

In the middle of the 18th century in Germany was the unique religious situation when within the limits of the state many different religions coexisted. It gave an impulse for German philosophers to concern the questions of religion politic and the conditions under which the harmonic coexistence of adherents of different religions within the limits of one state might be possible. The article considers two such projects - the project of Kant (presented above all in a later work "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone" and in an earlier article "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?") and the project of Mendelssohn (in the work "Jerusalem or on Religious Power and Judaism"). The positions of both philosophers have very many common features, what allows us to assume a certain influence of Mendelssohn if not on the origin of the ethic-religious views of Kant then at least on the direction Kant's views developed and on the form they were expressed.

England, France and Italy have opted, for political as well as historical and cultural reasons, for a very different type of regulation of their relations with the various Churches present on their territories, by choosing a system of Establishment, strict separation or concordat, today extended to agreements. The result is a matrimonial legislation that is a priori very varied from one country to another, as often illustrated by the example of the antinomy between the principle of the French civil marriage anteriority and the one of the Anglo-Italian matrimonial dualism. This impression must, however, be tempered by the fact that, on the one hand, a common Roman-Christian heritage is much more prevalent than it appears. Moreover, if, in the course of their national affirmation, the three States have sought, each in their own way, to take control of a certain number of matrimonial institutions, they have nevertheless only been able to do so while respecting certain democratic values, such as the freedom of conscience and religion. The solutions elaborated by the state courts on the occasion of litigations related to unrecognized religious marriages or contentious religious divorces are particularly explicit in this respect. The balance, both complex and delicate, thus achieved in the specific field of the law of couples tends, against all expectations, to bring these three States much closer together. ; L'Angleterre, la France et l'Italie ont opté, pour des raisons tant politiques qu'historiques et culturelles, pour une régulation très différente de leurs relations avec les diverses Églises présentes sur leur sol, en choisissant un système d'Establishment, de stricte séparation ou de concordat, aujourd'hui étendu aux ententes. Il en résulte une législation matrimoniale a priori très variée d'un pays à l'autre, souvent illustrée par l'exemple de l'antinomie entre le principe français de l'antériorité du mariage civil et celui du dualisme matrimonial anglo-italien. Cette impression est à cependant tempérer du ...

England, France and Italy have opted, for political as well as historical and cultural reasons, for a very different type of regulation of their relations with the various Churches present on their territories, by choosing a system of Establishment, strict separation or concordat, today extended to agreements. The result is a matrimonial legislation that is a priori very varied from one country to another, as often illustrated by the example of the antinomy between the principle of the French civil marriage anteriority and the one of the Anglo-Italian matrimonial dualism. This impression must, however, be tempered by the fact that, on the one hand, a common Roman-Christian heritage is much more prevalent than it appears. Moreover, if, in the course of their national affirmation, the three States have sought, each in their own way, to take control of a certain number of matrimonial institutions, they have nevertheless only been able to do so while respecting certain democratic values, such as the freedom of conscience and religion. The solutions elaborated by the state courts on the occasion of litigations related to unrecognized religious marriages or contentious religious divorces are particularly explicit in this respect. The balance, both complex and delicate, thus achieved in the specific field of the law of couples tends, against all expectations, to bring these three States much closer together. ; L'Angleterre, la France et l'Italie ont opté, pour des raisons tant politiques qu'historiques et culturelles, pour une régulation très différente de leurs relations avec les diverses Églises présentes sur leur sol, en choisissant un système d'Establishment, de stricte séparation ou de concordat, aujourd'hui étendu aux ententes. Il en résulte une législation matrimoniale a priori très variée d'un pays à l'autre, souvent illustrée par l'exemple de l'antinomie entre le principe français de l'antériorité du mariage civil et celui du dualisme matrimonial anglo-italien. Cette impression est à cependant tempérer du fait, d'une part, d'un héritage romano-chrétien commun beaucoup plus prégnant qu'il n'y paraît. En outre, si, au fil de leur affirmation nationale, les trois États de cette étude ont cherché, chacun à leur manière, à prendre le contrôle d'un certain nombre d'institutions matrimoniales, ils n'ont néanmoins pu le faire qu'en respectant certaines valeurs démocratiques, telles la liberté de conscience et de religion. Les solutions élaborées par les tribunaux étatiques à l'occasion de contentieux en lien avec des mariages religieux non reconnus ou de divorce religieux litigieux sont à ce titre particulièrement explicites. L'équilibre, à la fois complexe et délicat, ainsi atteint dans le domaine spécifique du droit des couples tend, contre toute attente, à finalement rapprocher bien plus ces trois États.