Suchergebnisse

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.

Summary. Introduction. The article substantiates causal relations between the theory of "symphony" of the Church and the State proposed by Emperor Justinian, and appearance of specific relationships expressed in the primacy of political power over the spiritual institution and known as "Caesaropapism". Examples of Caesaropapist relations between church and state in the Byzantine Empire, in the Kievan Rus, in the Moscow kingdom and Russia are depicted in the historical aspect. Purpose. To explore the formation of Caesaropapism in the Orthodox world, as a result of the transformation "symphony of power" Emperor Justinian I. Methods. Methods of analysis, description and induction were used to study the cause of Caesaropapism appearance, to display the most significant historical stages of its manifestation and to find out its consequences for the countries of the Orthodox world. Results. It was found that the concept of "symphony" proposed by Justinian I was the basis for the formation of Caesaropapist relations and it was aimed not to the harmonious existence of spiritual and secular institutions but to the development of Byzantine absolutism in the base of which the Orthodox Church was supposed to lie. Subsequently, the Byzantine emperors used the legal work of Justinian I to justify their political dominance over the Orthodox Church. The Moscow version of Caesar's repentance manifests itself in a more perverted form and rather resembles the elements of theocracy being close to the Islamic world. Originality. The study notes that the purpose of the Justinian the Great's "symphony" was a desire to fix the unhindered intervention of secular authority in the affairs of the church at the legislative level, and this eventually led to the establishment and consolidation of Caesaropapism as a system of relations between political and spiritual authorities in the Byzantine Empire, and later, with borrowing Christianity, in the Russian Empire and in Russia too. It is noted that the manifestations of Caesaropapism are also evident in modern Ukraine which is a consequence of the influence of the Russian Orthodox tradition. Conclusion. So, the symphony of Emperor Justinian the Great became the source of Caesaropapism, and it legislatively provided the influence of basileus on the Orthodox Church. Cesaropapism became a characteristic phenomenon for both Byzantium and for the Russian Empire. Intervention of political elites in the spiritual sphere takes place also in modern Ukraine, as our country is still experiencing the consequences of political and spiritual Russian hegemony.

The article considers the problems of relations between the Church and the state in the classical sociological theory of M. Drahomanov and modern sociology. In the Western sociology of religion, considerable attention is paid to distinguishing the contexts of state and Сhurch practices, which can be compatible or incompatible with democracy. Compatible with democracy is a form of interaction between Church and state that ensures the protection of religious freedom and religious self-expression of all religious organizations and excludes discrimination based on religion. The negative consequences of the violation of the «principle of separation of Church from the State» described in the works of M. Drahomanov are analyzed. The socio-cultural effects of state intervention in the affairs of the Church at the level of society are investigated: violation of the principle of freedom of conscience, religious repression, forced unification of religions, and migration of believers as a result of repression by the state. It is emphasized that the violation of the principle of freedom of conscience contributes to the formation of an imposed and inauthentic identity of the individual, the growth of religious conformity, and the strengthening of «categorical inequality» in society. The social consequences of religious discrimination are analyzed: the growth of mass tension and frustration in society, the conflict between different Church communities, and the weakening of the effect of cohesion. The negative consequences of the violation of the «principle of separation of Church from the state» for the state Church are demonstrated: weakening of influence in society, rejection of the intellectuals, and latent atheism of the population. It is emphasized that to neutralize these negative effects, it is necessary to observe the constitutional principle of separation of the Church from the state. It was concluded that the separation of Church from state should contribute to the establishment of interreligious tolerance and understanding in society.

Author's resume. An urgent problem for both theoretical-sociological reflection and social practices is the problem of the relationship between the social institutions of the church and the state in contemporary Ukrainian society. The problem is actualized both in connection with the uncertainty of the hidden contradictions between the key religious denominations, and through the falsely neutral position of the state pursuing a policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of the church, and, in fact, indulges in inciting inter-confessional hostility. The main line of conflict passes between the UOC-MP and the UOC-KP and Greek-Catholicism (Uniate). In many respects, the differences between them relate to the «connection of the relevant religious organizations with lobbyist renditions in the special services, which to some extent continue their» curatorial powers «in the Orthodox Church. Relations of other faiths that can be considered secondary, concerning marginal neo-Protestantism, which, however, enters into relations with the state only in connection with Orthodoxy and Greek Catholicism. Institutes of religion in comparison with other social institutions are more conservative and change extremely slowly. Religion consolidates the values, norms, social practices, patterns of relations that have developed in previous epochs. The transformation of religious institutions does not occur synchronously with the change of other legal, political or economic institutions. Religious institutions are more stable, provide stabilization influence, introduce an element of continuity and provide society with its distinctiveness. The authorities are not in a position to give priority support to any of them, politically it depends on the electorate not just one, but the totality of all denominations. As a result, the role of the religious factor in the public life of the country is somewhat blurred, the main thing in the relations between the state and the church is determined though fragile. Splits in Orthodoxy in its social functionality, limited by a single Ecumenical Orthodoxy, have destructive and disintegrating significance, not only in the ecclesiastical, but also in the social sense. ; Насущной проблемой как для теоретико-социологической рефлексии, так и социальных практик является проблема отношений между социальными институтами церкви и государства в современном украинском обществе. Проблема актуализируется как в связи с неопределенностью скрытых противоречий между ключевыми религиозными конфессиями, так и через ложно-нейтральную позицию государства, проводящего политику невмешательства во внутренние дела церкви, и тем самым фактически потакающего разжиганию межконфессиональной вражды. Основная линия конфликта проходит между УПЦ МП, УПЦ КП и греко-католицизмом (униатством). Во многом различия между ними касаются связи соответствующих религиозных организаций с лоббистскими групировками в спецслужбах, которые в той или иной степени продолжают свои «кураторские полномочия» по православной церкви. Отношения других конфессий, которые можно рассматривать в качестве вторичных, касающиеся маргинального неопротестантизма, который, однако, вступает в отношения с государством только в связи с православием и греко-католицизмом. Институты религии по сравнению с другими социальными институтами более консервативны и меняются крайне медленно. Религия закрепляет сложившиеся в предыдущие эпохи ценности, нормы, социальные практики, образцы отношений и др. Трансформация религиозных институтов происходит не синхронно с изменением других правовых, политических или экономических институтов. Религиозные институты более устойчивы, предоставляют стабилизационный влияние, вносят элемент преемственности и обеспечивают обществу его своеобразие. Власть не имеет возможности оказывать приоритетную поддержку какой-либо из них, в политическом плане она зависит от электората не одной, а совокупности всех конфессий. В результате роль религиозного фактора в общественной жизни страны несколько размыта. Расколы в православии в своей социальной функциональности, ограниченной по единому Вселенскому православию, имеют деструктивный и дезинтегрирующие значение не только в церковной, но и в общественной смысле. ; Нагальною проблемою як для теоретико-соціологічної рефлексії, так і соціальних практик є проблема відносин між соціальними інститутами церкви і держави в сучасному українському суспільстві. Проблема актуалізується як у зв'язку із невизначеністю прихованих протиріч між ключовими релігійними конфесіями, так і через хибно-нейтральну позицію держави, яка проводить політику невтручання у внутрішні справи церкви, і тим самим фактично потурає розпалюванню міжконфесійної ворожнечі. Основна лінія конфлікту проходить між УПЦ МП, УПЦ КП та греко-католицизмом (уніатством). Багато в чому відмінності між ними стосуються зв'язку відповідних релігійних організацій із лобістськими огрупованнями в спецслужбах, які в той чи інший спосіб продовжують свої «кураторські повноваження» щодо православної церкви. Відносини інших конфесій, які можна розглядати в якості вторинних, стосуються маргінального неопротестантизму, який, проте, вступає у відносини з державою лише у зв'язку із православ'ям і греко-католицизмом. Інститути релігії в порівнянні з іншими соціальними інститутами більш консервативні та змінюються вкрай повільно. Релігія закріплює сформовані в попередні епохи цінності, норми, соціальні практики, зразки відносин та ін. Трансформація релігійних інститутів відбувається не синхронно зі зміною інших правових, політичних або економічних інститутів. Релігійні інститути більш стійкі, надають стабілізаційний вплив, вносять елемент наступності та забезпечують суспільству його своєрідність. Влада не має можливості надавати пріоритетну підтримку будь-якої з них, в політичному плані вона залежить від електорату не однієї, а сукупності всіх конфесій. Внаслідок цього роль релігійного чинника в суспільному житті країни дещо розмита. Розколи в православ'ї у своїй соціальній функціональності, обмеженої щодо єдиного Вселенського православ'я, мають деструктивне та дезінтегруюче значення не тільки в церковному, але і в суспільному сенсі.

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.

Ed. by Charles Péguy. ; Cover title. ; Mode of access: Internet.