„Moszkva–harmadik Róma” elmélet az ortodox ekkléziológia és kánonjog tükrében
The theory of „Moscow as third Rome” in the mirror of Orthodox ecclesiology and canon law

Summary/Abstract: [...] To understand the theory of „Moscow – third Rome” one should profoundly understand the 28th canon of the Fourth Universal Synod (its precedent was the third canon of the Second Universal Synod). According to that, old Rome had right to „honorary” privileges on account of its extraordinary importance as ruling city, and the same went for Constantinople, the new capital city of the empire. Thus the debate between East and West has always focussed on whether the primacy exists on the level of „ecclesiastical law” or on that of „divine law.” This is why the Russian Church has officially never claimed the distinguished title for itself, never intensified the theory of „Moscow – third Rome,” although after the fall of the Bizantine empire the Tsar of Russia, with certain theocratic pretences, claimed to be recognized as the protector of all the Orthodox peoples, usually suffering under foreign rules, of the world. The metropolia, later patriarchate, of Moscow, never wanted to question the universal primacy of Constantinople within Orthodoxy. On the other hand, Orthodoxy never had inappropriate hopes concerning the external structure of the Church. The infallibility of the Church has never been understood in a local sense, but has always been associated with universal categories. Another, frequently occurring misunderstanding should also be cleared up. The occasional disputes between Moscow and Constantinople were never conducted on the level of ecclesiology or of canon law, but always around the interpretation of one of its points, namely around the interpretation of another passage of the 28th canon of the Fourth Universal Synod, on the basis of which Constantinople claimed further privileges for itself within universal Orthodoxy.[...] The theory on „Moscow – third Rome” is related to another problem: the issue of catholicity and autocephaly, universal and local church, according to the Orthodox image of the Church. In 1448,the Russian Orthodox Church became de facto autocephalous. „Western” mentality usually sees two easily acceptable models: the centralized and the totally decentralized church images.There is another misunderstanding, namely that the „Eastern” Church continued dividing after the break with Rome. Nor was the movement for autocepaly, when the situation was ready for it, alien to the universal, undivided Christianity of the first millenium. A good example is the „ecclesiastical-national synod” summoned to Preslav first in 893, then in 918-919, which formulated the demand for complete autocephaly in the relation of Byzantium. According to an even subtler formulation, Orthodoxy, in a strict, ecclesiological and dogmatic sense has neither a „first,” nor a „second” nor a „third Rome.” At most an „honorary” order among the local churches can be set up. For its centre, its first bishop and great high priest, according to the testimony of the Epistle to the Hebrews, is Jesus Christ of Nazareth Himself. (4:14-15; 8:1, 8:6).

• Details
• Contents