DOCSLIB.ORG

The Mystery of Redemption

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Mystery of Redemption THE MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION Vladimir Moss © Vladimir Moss, 2013. Copyright, all rights reserved. 1 CONTENTS HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION .........................................................................3 1. THE “JURIDICAL THEORY” ...........................................................................8 2. THE MEANING OF “JUSTIFICATION” ......................................................19 3. THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN ..............................................................................26 4. THE PRAYER IN THE GARDEN...................................................................37 5. GETHSEMANE OR GOLGOTHA?................................................................50 6. THE THEORY OF “MORAL MONISM” ......................................................57 7. ORIGINAL SIN .................................................................................................64 CONCLUSION: LOVE AND JUSTICE..............................................................76 2 HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION Of mercy and judgement shall I sing unto Thee, O Lord. Psalm 100.1. He wiped out our debt by paying for us a most admirable and precious ransom. We are all made free through the blood of the Son, which pleads for us to the Father. St. John of Damascus, First Word on the Divine Images, 21. The mystery of our redemption by Christ through the shedding of His Blood on the Cross is the very heart of the Orthodox Christian Gospel. With the dogma of the Holy Trinity it is the most important of all the Christian dogmas. Therefore any attempt to explain or reinterpret it by a senior hierarch of the Orthodox Church is an event of great importance requiring the closest attention. Such an attempt was made in 1917 by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kiev, first first-hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, in a work entitled The Dogma of Redemption1, and also in a later work entitled An Attempt at An Orthodox Christian Catechism. These two works have been a subject of controversy in the Orthodox Church ever since. The controversy consists in the fact that in them Metropolitan Anthony attacked the Orthodox Christian teaching on redemption as expounded by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (+1867) and enshrined in his Longer Catechism, labelling it “scholastic”, and presented his own theory, entitled “Moral Monism”, as a radical alternative. The purpose of this little book is to defend Metropolitan Philaret’s teaching as being indeed the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church by a careful examination and refutation of Metropolitan Anthony’s thesis… Metropolitan Anthony had outlined his ideas already well before the revolution, and he was seen, together with his pupil, Archimandrite Sergius (Stragorodsky), the future Soviet patriarch, as a representative of a new stream of thinking in the Russian Church called “the new theology”. As such, both men were criticised by Bishop Victor (Ostrovidov), the future hieromartyr Archbishop of Vyatka in an article written in 1912.2 After the revolution, further critics appeared both at home and abroad. Thus according to Hieromartyr Paul Borotinsky, the Petrograd Hieromartyrs Bishop Demetrius of Gdov and Fr. Theodore Andreyev were also critical of it.3 In 1925 Archbishop Eleutherius of Lithuania wrote eight long letters to Metropolitan Anthony, subjecting his theory to detailed criticism.4 1 It was originally published in Russian in Bogoslovsky Vestnik 8-9 (1917), pp. 155-167, 285-315, and in book form in the same year in Sergiev-Posad. 2 See appendix. 3 M.B. Danilushkin (ed.), A History of the Russian Church from the Restoration of the Patriarchate to the Present Day, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1997, pp. 989-990. 4 Archbishop (later Metropolitan) Eleutherius, On Redemption, Paris, 1937. 3 In 1926 Metropolitan Anthony put forward his Attempt at an Orthodox Christian Catechism, which expressed the same theology as in the Dogma in a more concise form, as a substitute for Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow’s Catechism in schools. The Synod of the Russian Church Abroad, meeting in Serbia, was at first inclined to accept his proposal. They did not call Metropolitan Philaret’s Catechism heretical, but simply said that Metropolitan Anthony’s was “shorter and more convenient for assimilation”. And Metropolitan Anthony himself did not ask for Metropolitan Philaret’s Catechism to be removed from use in favour of his own, writing only (in a report to the Synod dated April 9/22, 1926): “In my foreword to An Attempt at an Orthodox Christian Catechism I wrote: ‘In publishing my work as material, I in no way wished that it should completely overshadow the Catechism of [Metropolitan] Philaret in schools, but I have nothing against the idea that this or that teacher of the Law of God should sometimes, in his interpretation of the dogmas and commandments, use my thoughts and references to Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, thereby filling in the gaps in the textbook catechism with regard to various religious questions, of which very many have arisen in the time since the death of the author’”.5 However, strong opposition to Metropolitan Anthony’s proposal was voiced from within the Synod by Archbishop Theophan (Bystrov) of Poltava, former rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and Bishop Seraphim (Sobolev) of Lubny, who clearly regarded his views on redemption as a direct attack on Metropolitan Philaret and a departure from strict Orthodoxy. Now it cannot be denied that Metropolitan Anthony considered Metropolitan Philaret’s Catechism to be “scholastic” and heretical, being identical with the Roman Catholic teaching on redemption of Anselm and Aquinas. Thus in his letters to the Russian Athonite theologian, Hieromonk Theophan (later Hieroschemamonk Theodosius of Karoulia, Mount Athos6), a firm opponent of Metropolitan Anthony’s thesis, he expressed fundamental disagreement “with the juridical theory of Anselm and Aquinas, which was completely accepted by P[eter] Moghila and Metropolitan Philaret”.7 And again he wrote: “We must not quickly return to Peter Moghila, Philaret and Macarius: they will remain subjects for historians”.8 And again: “Apparently you together with your namesake [Archbishop Theophan of Poltava] have fallen into spiritual deception”.9 So it is clear that, for Metropolitan Anthony, as for his opponents, this was a fundamental matter of doctrine. Either Metropolitan Philaret’s Catechism was heretical and Metropolitan Anthony’s was Orthodox, or Metropolitan Anthony’s was heretical and Metropolitan Philaret’s was Orthodox. And whoever was wrong was “in spiritual deception”. 5 Protocols of the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, 9/22 April, 1926. 6 See “Elder Theodosius the Athonite of Karoulia”, The Orthodox Word, November-December, 2005, pp. 261-287. 7 The Letters of His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Jordanville, 1998, № 83, p. 235. 8 Letters, № 91, p. 244. A convincing defence of the theology of Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) against the charge of scholasticism can be found in Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, “Mitropolit Makarij (Bulgakov)”, Pravoslavnij Put’, 1996, pp. 52-82. 9 Letters, № 31, p. 169. 4 Criticism of Metropolitan Anthony’s work was not confined to the Russian Church. Thus immediately after the publication of The Dogma of Redemption in Serbia in 192610, Protopriest Milosh Parenta wrote in the Serbian Church’s official organ: “The tragedy of Metropolitan Anthony is amazing! A pillar of the faith in soul, a great Orthodox in his heart, a strict fulfiller and preserver of Church discipline to the smallest details. But when he approaches a scientific-theological examination and explanation of the dogmas, then he either insufficiently comprehends them, or he cannot avoid the temptation of, and enthusiasm for, modernism. The explanation of the dogma of redemption offered by the author in this work openly destroys the teaching on this truth faithfully preserved by the Orthodox Church, and with it the Christian Religion itself, because the truth of the redemption together with the truth of Christ’s incarnation is its base and essence. However, it is necessary to recognize that it is very difficult to analyse this work of the author, because in it there are often no definite and clear concepts, although there are many extended speeches which hide the concepts or say nothing, and because in part there are no logical connections in it, nor any strictly scientific exposition, nor systematic unity.”11 The Serbian tradition of criticism of the Dogma has been continued by the present leader of the True Orthodox Church of Serbia, Bishop Akakije, who has published a biography of Metropolitan Anthony’s chief critic, Archbishop Theophan… In the Russian emigration it was not only Archbishop Theophan, Bishop Seraphim and Elder Theodosius who were opposed to Metropolitan Anthony’s teaching. Other critics abroad included Metropolitan Platon of America and Archbishop Anastasy of Kishinev12. A recent history of the Russian emigration in Yugoslavia concluded that Metropolitan Anthony was “an extreme conservative in politics, a bold innovator in theology”.13 However, an open conflict was recognized by both sides as potentially disastrous for the Russian Church Abroad. The consequences of “victory” in the debate for either side would have been unthinkable; it might have meant condemning as a heretic either the most famous Russian hierarch of the 19th century, Metropolitan Philaret, or, in many people’s opinion, the greatest Russian hierarch of the 20th century,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • One Hundred Years of Thomism Aeterni Patris and Afterwards a Symposium
    One Hundred Years of Thomism Aeterni Patris and Afterwards A Symposium Edited By Victor B. Brezik, C.S.B, CENTER FOR THOMISTIC STUDIES University of St. Thomas Houston, Texas 77006 ~ NIHIL OBSTAT: ReverendJamesK. Contents Farge, C.S.B. Censor Deputatus INTRODUCTION . 1 IMPRIMATUR: LOOKING AT THE PAST . 5 Most Reverend John L. Morkovsky, S.T.D. A Remembrance Of Pope Leo XIII: The Encyclical Aeterni Patris, Leonard E. Boyle,O.P. 7 Bishop of Galveston-Houston Commentary, James A. Weisheipl, O.P. ..23 January 6, 1981 The Legacy Of Etienne Gilson, Armand A. Maurer,C.S.B . .28 The Legacy Of Jacques Maritain, Christian Philosopher, First Printing: April 1981 Donald A. Gallagher. .45 LOOKING AT THE PRESENT. .61 Copyright©1981 by The Center For Thomistic Studies Reflections On Christian Philosophy, All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or Ralph McInerny . .63 reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written Thomism And Today's Crisis In Moral Values, Michael permission, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in Bertram Crowe . .74 critical articles and reviews. For information, write to The Transcendental Thomism, A Critical Assessment, Center For Thomistic Studies, 3812 Montrose Boulevard, Robert J. Henle, S.J. 90 Houston, Texas 77006. LOOKING AT THE FUTURE. .117 Library of Congress catalog card number: 80-70377 Can St. Thomas Speak To The Modem World?, Leo Sweeney, S.J. .119 The Future Of Thomistic Metaphysics, ISBN 0-9605456-0-3 Joseph Owens, C.Ss.R. .142 EPILOGUE. .163 The New Center And The Intellectualism Of St. Thomas, Printed in the United States of America Vernon J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battle for the Russian Orthodox Church
    THE BATTLE FOR THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Vladimir Moss © Copyright: Vladimir Moss, 2010 FOREWORD ................................................................................................................3 1. WHERE IS THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE GOING? .................................4 2. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CATACOMB CHURCH IN CONTEMPORARY RUSSIA ...................................................................................13 3. THE FREE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH................................................24 4. THE SERGIANIST CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM..........................................59 5. THE RIGHT WAY OF RESISTING APOSTASY: A REPLY............................71 6. THE CHURCH THAT STALIN BUILT .............................................................75 7. ORTHODOXY, THE STATE AND RUSSIAN STATEHOOD........................79 8. WHEN DID THE MP APOSTASISE? ..............................................................112 9. EMPIRE OR ANTICHRIST?..............................................................................122 10. THE TRAGEDY OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD 132 11. IN SEARCH OF NEVER-LOST RUSSIA .......................................................141 12. TWO ROBBER COUNCILS: A SHORT ANALYSIS....................................164 13. CAN THE LEOPARD CHANGE HIS SPOTS?.............................................174 14. LAZARUS SATURDAY, THE CHICAGO DIOCESE AND THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE....................................................................................................184 15. THE
    [Show full text]
  • The Eastern Mission of the Pontifical Commission for Russia, Origins to 1933
    University of Wisconsin Milwaukee UWM Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations August 2017 Lux Occidentale: The aE stern Mission of the Pontifical Commission for Russia, Origins to 1933 Michael Anthony Guzik University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.uwm.edu/etd Part of the European History Commons, History of Religion Commons, and the Other History Commons Recommended Citation Guzik, Michael Anthony, "Lux Occidentale: The Eastern Mission of the Pontifical ommiC ssion for Russia, Origins to 1933" (2017). Theses and Dissertations. 1632. https://dc.uwm.edu/etd/1632 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by UWM Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of UWM Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LUX OCCIDENTALE: THE EASTERN MISSION OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR RUSSIA, ORIGINS TO 1933 by Michael A. Guzik A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History at The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee August 2017 ABSTRACT LUX OCCIDENTALE: THE EASTERN MISSION OF THE PONTIFICAL COMMISSION FOR RUSSIA, ORIGINS TO 1933 by Michael A. Guzik The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2017 Under the Supervision of Professor Neal Pease Although it was first a sub-commission within the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (CEO), the Pontifical Commission for Russia (PCpR) emerged as an independent commission under the presidency of the noted Vatican Russian expert, Michel d’Herbigny, S.J. in 1925, and remained so until 1933 when it was re-integrated into CEO.
    [Show full text]
  • Nellist Towards an Animal Theology In
    DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT STATEMENT Declaration: No portion of the work referred to in the Thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. I confirm that this Thesis is entirely my own work. Copyright: Copyright © Christina Amelia Nellist. 2017. Towards an Animal Theology in Eastern Orthodox Christianity, University of Winchester, PhD Thesis, pages 1-345. ORCID NUMBER: 0000-0002-5956-2089. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the author. Details may be obtained from the RKE Centre, University of Winchester. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the author. No profit may be made from selling, copying or licensing the author’s work without further agreement. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my supervisors Dr. Andreas Andreopoulos and Prof. Robin Baker for their support and guidance. 2 UNIVERSITY OF WINCHESTER ABSTRACT Towards an Animal Theology in Eastern Orthodox Christianity Christina Amelia Nellist Doctor of Philosophy February 2017 My thesis advances the overarching hypothesis that the Eastern Orthodox Church has sufficient teachings to develop a theology which tackles the difficult subject of animal suffering. However, during the review of theological academic literature I identified a gap between what might be termed Orthodox theory and its practice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Orthodox Church of Georgia and the Ecumenical Movement (Before and After 1997)1
    Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 71(1-2), 127-159. doi: 10.2143/JECS.71.1.3285911 © 2019 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved. THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF GEORGIA AND THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT (BEFORE AND AFTER 1997)1 David TiniKaShvili (Ilia State University, Institute of Oriental Studies) Introduction Although there are quite a few parallels in development of the Orthodox Church of Georgia (OCG) with other post-Soviet countries after 1991, the OCG is the only one among the Orthodox churches to have completely unexpectedly abandoned the Ecumenical Movement.2 This raises the ques- tion about possible peculiarities of the post-Soviet history of the OCG. It is true that, like the other post-communist countries after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Georgia had to undergo the same national and religious ­processes of self-realization, but only the OCG cut off completely its former ties with the Ecumenical Movement. Who or what fostered this? How did it become possible for such a decision to be made and where did the inspi- ration originate: from higher up (the hierarchy) or from lower down (the people)? To date, there has been no publication devoted to systematically examining this issue. The word ‘ecumenism’ is derived from the Greek word oikoumene, mean- ing ‘populated land’. For Christians this meant the entire Christian world. This is why the Church Councils are remembered as being ecumenical for example. A movement calling itself ecumenical originated in the begin- ning of the 20th century in the Protestant West. On the basis of this move- ment the largest ecumenical organization – The World Council of Churches 1 This article is the extended version of a paper read at the international seminar ‘The Orthodox Church of Georgia: Forging New Identities in a Global Post-Soviet World’ organized by the Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, Radboud University (Nijmegen, The Netherlands), 15 September 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Ad Utriusque Imperii Unitatem? Anastasius Bibliothecarius As a Broker Between Two Cultures and Three Courts in the Ninth Century
    Ad utriusque imperii unitatem? Anastasius Bibliothecarius as a Broker between Two Cultures and Three Courts in the Ninth Century Clemens Gantner* In 870, Anastasius, former (and later once again) librarian of the papal bibliotheca and chan- cellery, well-known erudite and former anti-pope, reached the pinnacle of his career as a diplomat. While exiled from Rome for a crime committed by his cousin, he was an important member of a mission sent to Constantinople by the Carolingian emperor and lord of Italy Louis II. He was sent there to negotiate a marriage alliance between Louis’s daughter and only surviving child Ermengard and a son of the upstart Byzantine emperor Basil I, which was ultimately to serve to bind the two empires together in the fight against the Saracens, southern Italy and Sicily. While there, Anastasius also joined the papal delegation at the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which was there in the pope’s stead to formally depose Patriarch Photius and negotiate the case of Bulgaria. We thus see Anastasius as a diplomat and cultural broker between Latin and Greek ecclesiastic and lay culture and between three courts. He composed a letter about his dealings in the East for Pope Hadrian II in 870, and thus we have an invaluable first-hand eyewitness account. While most negotiations started in 869 and 870 between the East and the West ultimately failed or were rendered pointless by political change, Anastasius shows us that 870 was a great chance for all sides. And while most parties involved lost something by the failure of the exchanges, Anastasius himself regained and kept a powerful position in the papal administration once again.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Department for External Church Relations
    THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Department for External Church Relations Time as Judge. Orthodox Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century The topic of relationships between the Mother Church and the Sister Church – the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Russia was very painful in the last century. An open discourse about it is initiated by the Rev. Dr Alexander Mazyrin, PhD/Church History, and Andrey Kostryukov, PhD/ Historical Sciences, in the collection ‘From the History of Relationships between the Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century’. The publication consists of two essays: ‘Phanar and Renovationism against the Russian Orthodox Church’ by Father Alexander Mazyrin and ‘The Church Diaspora, and the Ecumenical See’ by A. Kostryukov. The below article written by Sergey Firsov, PhD/Historical Sciences, published in the ‘Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii’ (Is. 10, 2018) is devoted to this collection. In fact, the overall title of Father Alexander’s essay already speaks clearly that he regards the actions of the Church of Constantinople as aimed against the Russian Orthodox Church supposing that these actions are conscious and well considered. From the very beginning the author shows that the Phanariots were not embarrassed by the arbitrary actions of the schismatic ‘Supreme Church Administration’ in 1922 and ‘along with the theomachist Bolsheviks and treasonous renovators, became another source of sorrow for the Russian Orthodox Church’. For Phanar, ‘political interests’ proved to be more important than canonical rules and the Orthodox church tradition. The author cites examples of how the Church of Constantinople (in the person of her supreme church authority) while expressing compassion for the Russian Church, sought to use the GRU-inspired church schism for her own political ends.
    [Show full text]
  • Anglican Orthodox
    The Dublin Agreed Statement 1984 Contents Abbreviations Preface by the Co-Chairmen Introduction: Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue 1976-1984 The Agreed Statement Method and Approach I The Mystery of the Church Approaches to the Mystery The Marks of the Church Communion and Intercommunion Wider Leadership within the Church Witness, Evangelism, and Service II Faith in the Trinity, Prayer and Holiness Participation in the Grace of the Holy Trinity Prayer Holiness The Filioque III Worship and Tradition Paradosis - Tradition Worship and the Maintenance of the Faith The Communion of Saints and the Departed Icons Epilogue Appendices 1 The Moscow Agreed Statement 1976 2 The Athens Report 1978 3 List of Participants 4 List of Papers by Members of the Commission Abbreviations ACC Anglican Consultative Council AOJDD Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Discussions ARC1C Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission ECNL Eastern Churches Newsletter PC Migne, J.-P., Patrologia Graeca PL Migne, J.-P., Patrologia Latina Preface It was Archbishop Basil of Brussels, one of the most revered Orthodox members of the Anglican-Orthodox Joint Doctrinal Commission, who remarked that the aim of our Dialogue is that we may eventually be visibly united in one Church. We offer this Report in the conviction that although this goal may presently seem to be far from being achieved, it is nevertheless one towards which God the Holy Spirit is insistently beckoning us. Those who have served on the Commission at every stage since its inception in 1966, and since our own Co-Chairmanship began in 1980, have been aware that this is the case, although we may sometimes have been tempted to think otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • Orthodoxy and Political Theology
    ORTHODOXY AND POLITICAL THEOLOGY selides Orthocoxy.indd 1 6/13/12 1:35:35 PM Doxa & PraxiS Exploring Orthodox Theology Dr Pantelis Kalaitzidis, series editor In light of the current challenges faced by global Christianity, Doxa & Praxis, a collaborative effort of the Volos Academy and WCC Publications, invites creative and original reflection that reappraises, reappropriates and further develops the riches of Orthodox thought for a deep renewal of Orthodox Christianity and for the benefit of the whole oikoumene. Board of Editorial Consultants Metropolitan of Pergamon John Zizioulas, Ecumenical Patri archate Metropolitan of Mount-Lebanon Georges Khodr, Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch Rev Dr Emmanuel Clapsis, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Boston Dr Tamara Grdzelidze, Program Executive, Faith and Order, WCC Dr Alexei Bodrov, Rector, St Andrews Biblical Theological Institute, Moscow Dr Angeliki Ziaka, Assistant Professor at the School of Theology, Thessaloniki University Dr Peter Bouteneff, Associate Professor, St Vladimir’s Theological Seminary, New York Dr Radu Preda, Associate Professor of Cluj-Napoca University, Director of the Romanian Institute for Inter-Orthodox, Inter-Confessional, Inter-Religious Studies (INTER) Julija Vidovic, MTh,Member of the Central Committee of the Conference of European Churches (Orthodox Serbian Church) Aikaterini Pekridou, MTh, Irish School of Ecumenics, Trinity College, Dublin, and The Academy for Theological Studies, Volos selides Orthocoxy.indd 2 6/13/12 1:35:35 PM PANTELIS KALAITZIDIS ORTHODOXY AND POLITICAL THEOLOGY selides Orthocoxy.indd 3 6/13/12 1:35:36 PM ORTHODOXY AND POLITICAL THEOLOGY Doxa & Praxis series Translated from the Greek by FR GRE G ORY EDWARDS Copyright © 2012 WCC Publications.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED NATIONS GENERAL I(K^OK5^\^ (Shgml
    UNITED NATIONS GENERAL i(K^OK5^\^ (SHgmL ASSEMBLY ^^W S1^3» 1950 xns-usE IAW 01 THS SCSVTST OXJTRI1IS AHD HECTICS ¥ITH BSSPK5T TO TSE IAW OF TBSA.03ES "by the Secretariat) A/CS.V37 k/csA/31 Page 2 TABLE OF I. USE OF THE TERM "TREATY" ............... 3 II. CAPACITY TO MftJKE TREATIES. .............. ^ HI. MMFfi G27EK TO A TREATY ................ ^ IV. KSRM OF A TRRAftY .............. ^ .... 5 7. ADTHOKITY TO COICLOXiS A TREATY .*.......... 7 71. TEE HSOKESHTIARY FOE SIG3HA.TDKB. .......... 11 VII* BaTISIG^TIOI „«,„„,«„„„»..»...»..«<, 13 ¥11 ,lu JAT& OF GO.-MIK UBTO KtRCS* .............. IT IX. ACCESSIOI. ...................... 20 X, USSERTATIORS ...................... 22 XI. BIGISIRATION AMD FDBLIGATIOH" 24 HI. IHTIHFRETPxTION OF TREATIES ............... 25 mi. mem soir ssR?AHm. , . 26 rnr. SEFICT OF IATEE TREA.TIK ................ 26 XV. SFFgCT OF GOVERHMEHTAL CmHG-K 28 Xfl. EFF3BCT OF 12WESA.HCE OF DIPIDMTIC HBIATIOHS. 30 XYII. EFBBCT OF TESR1T0EIA.L CHAHG-SS. ...» . 33 ZVHI. YIOIATIOI OF TSMTY 0BLTGATI01S 3^ XEE. -REBUS SIC SEAJSTIKJS. * ... 35 II. DDRBSS *,...................... 36 HI. EIZTIFCTIOW OF A PARTY. • . 37 xni. mmsoTATias ..................... 39 HIII. SFEBCT OF WAR. ^ /SOVIET A/OT. k/37 Page 3 SOYXBT 33OCERIKE MD ERACTICE TQTH EESEEOT TO THE LAW OF TREATIES I. USE OF THE TEEM Two definitions of the term "treaty" have appeared In available post-war Soviet text-'books. Both are the work of the same author, although the latter work can be taken to represent more than his viewa; alone, for it forms a part of a collective study published by the Institute of Law of the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.E. under the general editorship of Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation
    DISSERTATION Titel der Dissertation „Andrei Şaguna and ‘The Organic Statute’“ Verfasserin Mag. Maria Stan angestrebter akademischer Grad Doktorin der Rechtswissenschaften (Dr. jur.) Wien, 2009 Studienkennzahl lt. Studienblatt: A 083 101 Dissertationsgebiet lt. Studienblatt: Rechtswissenschaften Betreuer: Univ. Prof. DDr. Ludger Müller [Betreuung zurückgelegt] TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE………………………………………………………………………………5 0. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………..7 0.1 Overview of the research on the topic………………………………………………7 0.2 The period under research………………………………………………………….12 0.3 The sources………………………………………………………………………...12 0.4 Content and method ……………………………………………………………….14 I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND………………………………………………….17 I.1 A historical outline of Transylvania until the end of the seventeenth century..17 I.1.1 From the Dacian State up to the Reform…………………………………………17 I.1.2 The Reform and its consequences in Transylvania………………………………24 I.2 Transylvania - a province of the Habsburg Empire……………………………28 I.2.1 Centralism and standardization versus historical privileged……………………..29 I.2.2 The church Union and its socio-political and religious consequences..………….34 I.2.3 The Orthodox Church after 1700; Canonical-jurisdictional matters……………..40 I.2.4 The ecclesiastical and social-political frame in the first half of the nineteenth century...............................................................49 II. THE FIRST YEARS OF ANDREI ŞAGUNA’S LIFE AND HIS ACTIVITY AS A VICAR-ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EPARCHY OF SIBIU …...………..57 II.1 Family roots……………………………………………………………………....57
    [Show full text]
  • Letters of Gelasius and Nicholas I on Papal Authority
    Manipulating the Message: Letters of Gelasius and Nicholas I on Papal Authority BRONWEN NEIL Macquarie University Abstract: Gelasius I, bishop of Rome during the problematic period of Odoacer’s re- placement as rex Italiae in 493, was greatly concerned with the power of the bishop of Rome. While Gelasius was one of the most significant bishops of the first five hundred years of the Roman church, he is primarily known for his letter to the Byzantine em- peror Anastasius in 494. His Epistula 12 introduced the controversial theory of “two powers” or “two swords.” The idea was taken up in the mid-ninth century by another champion for papal primacy, when Nicholas I embedded a quote from Gelasius in his denunciation of the Byzantine emperor Michael III. I examine the use of political rhet- oric in ecclesiastical contexts in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, in particular the way that extracts from such letters could go on to have a life of their own in canon law. Finally, I measure the historical impact of each letter as a form of soft diplomacy. hile Gelasius I (492‒96) was one of the most significant bishops of the first five hundred W years of the Roman church, he is primarily known today for one letter. His Epistula 12 introduced the controversial theory of “two powers” or “two swords,” as it came to be known.1 The idea was taken up by another champion for papal primacy, when Nicholas I (858‒67) embedded quotes from it in his excoriation of the Byzantine emperor Michael III.2 In this article I examine the use of political rhetoric in each case, asking three questions.
    [Show full text]