Search

This paper is devoted to the problem of the development of the church organization of the super-provincial level in the Balkan region and to the influence of the Roman and Constantinople Sees on this process. According to the author, the law of emperor Theodosius II, concerning church affairs in Illyricum (421), did not imply the liquidation of the vicariate of Thessalonica created by the Roman see and the transfer of this region to the jurisdiction of Constantinople. It was about endowing the Constantinopolitan see with the function of an alternative judicial instance (along with the see of Thessalonica), which was justified by the status of Constantinople as the New Rome. The protest of Pope Boniface I and the western emperor Honorius against this decision, apparently, led to the fact that the status quo remained in Illyricum. Nevertheless, this law was included in the Code of Theodosius. It is also possible that, along with the diocese of the Orient, Illyricum was meant as the sphere of implementation of the 9th and 17th canons of the Council of Chalcedon (451), which prescribe, in the case of litigation with the participation of the metropolitan, to apply for a trial to the exarch of the diocese or to the Constantinopolitan see. This rule, apparently, was associated with the existence in Constantinople of a "permanent synod", the organization of which did not require significant costs and efforts, in contrast to the synods of dioceses.

By the Author are considered questions of history of Stavropol Territory in the middle of 20 thе years of the XX thе century. Article is devoted the analysis of activity of the Soviet authorities during the considered period.

The article analyses three epistles of Popes Innocent I (402–417) and Zosimus (417–418), which endow the primates of Antioch, Thessalonica and Arles with special prerogatives. These epistles are of interest from the point of view of the church-administrative model, which for various reasons was promoted by these popes in the aforementioned churches. The use of this model is seen as a concrete practical expression of a certain stage in the development of the concept of papal primacy of power, which was based on the idea of the exclusive “apostolic” status of the Roman see. In fact, it was about the creation of special ecclesiastical and administrative districts, vertically integrated with the Roman see, in which the popes assumed a modification of the system of administration, providing for the emergence of the figure of the bishop-primate at the “superprovincial” level, and for the special jurisdiction of this bishop. In relation to each of the regions, this model had some peculiarities, expressed in the way of functioning of the synodal institutions, the role and place of the metropolitans, and the relationship of the primate with the Roman see.

The article examines the historical and theological context of the Council of Constantinople (381). In it, the theological and ecclesiastical/practical agenda of the Council and the events of the same are reconstructed based on surviving sources, and the reception of its resolutions at subsequent councils in 381–382 is examined. In the contextual part of the article, the events of the Antiochene Schism, the Council of Antioch (379), and the church political activities of Emperor Theodosius are considered. It is demonstrated that communication amongst diff erent factions in the church and the Emperor’s activities were intended to establish a catholic consensus while preserving the independence of the East. In reconstructing the events of the Council of Constantinople (381), the polemic concerning the succession in the Church of Antioch is considered, as are the confl ict surrounding the election of the bishop of Constantinople, the discussion of four canons of the Council, and various accounts of the provenance of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Special attention is paid to the reception of the Council by Saint Gregory the Theologian, since his poem De vita sua is the most detailed source that describes the Council. It is shown that the Council’s decisions were received negatively at the Council of Aquileia (381) and the two sides were reconciled to each other in 382. The conclusion is that the concept of the “Second Ecumenical Council” in the Tradition of the Church brings together the acts of three councils of the Eastern Church from 379–382: while the main goal of the Council of Antioch (379) can be considered to be the re-esteblishment of communion between the Meletians and the Church of Rome, that of the Council of Constantinople (381) was to demonstrate the independence of the Eastern bishops from those of the West, and the next Council of Constantinople (382) was intended to set in stone both the East’s theological agreement with the West and its practical ecclesiastical independence, that is to say, it confi rmed the theology of the Council of 379 and the resolutions of that of 381. Aside from this, it is asserted that it is necessary to conduct a separate analysis of the theology of this period, since the documents from these councils cannot be considered as a fi nal result of the development of Trinitarian doctrine.

In article features of formation of Councils, as local authorities are considered. On the example of the Leningrad city council of deputies of workers activity of Council for the solution of complex challenges of a municipal government is analyzed.

In the article the condition of executive power in the USSR at the regional level at a boundary of the 1920-1930th on the example of Central Black Earth Region is analyzed. Experience of administrative-territorial reforms on creation of mega-areas is investigated in application to the present.

The article analyzes the legal status of the young Communist League in the USSR in the 1920-1930s. There are two of the historical period when the Komsomol during the Civil war is directly involved in the system of state management in the conditions of absence of normative legal base and the second period, when to 1930s, the Komsomol representation in government is declining, its activities were increasingly defined as law the traditional plan and the direct orders of the governing bodies of the ruling Communist party.

The article is devoted to the problems of typologization of the church parties of the 4th century. This historical phenomenon arises within the framework of a long church conflict, called the Arian crisis. The designations of the church parties used by contemporaries are polemical concepts and do not correspond to the self-consciousness of their supporters. In the early Christian heresiological tradition and in the modern historiography, the basis of church parties’ classification is their theological position. However, it is necessary to take into account other consolidating factors, such as Eucharistic communion and church-political activity. The formation of church parties, as a rule, was directly related to the development of the synodal institution. Analysis of sources in the 4th century allows us to distinguish, in addition to the extensive currents - macro-parties - claiming a universal or regional consensus based on the heritage of one of the representative and authoritative councils, some small consolidated groups - micro-parties, which gather for little councils and constantly coordinate their actions within the ecclesiastical confrontation. Micro-parties could exist both within the limits of macro-party, in many respects determining the trends of it’s development, and beyond it’s boundaries. In the latter case, it is actually a marginal church group rallied around one or more extraordinary theologian, sometimes even without the episcopal rank.

In the IInd century the Christian concept of heresy (denoting Christians opponents and / or doctrinal deviance) was meant to emphasize the claim of Christian philosophy to be unique and unitary and therefore superior to pagan philosophies. The concept of `heresy´ denounced Christian diversity as illegitimate. In the IIIrd centuries synods established procedures how to judge the doctrinal deviance or otherwise of individual clergy. We know one case (Paul of Samosata as bishop of Antioch) where it was the emperor who decided the question as to who was the legitimate bishop. In the IVth to VIth centuries a succession of councils decided about the doctrinal views of individual theologians and in the process developed a Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy. As in the IIIrd century, the church needed the support of the state in order to impose its orthodoxy: An elaborate anti-heretical legislation was developed and codified in the Codex Theodosianus and the Codex Justinianus. However, the anti-heretical legislation was anything but systematic, it was the product of circumstances, often reacted to very specific situations and local initiatives and its scope was often geographically limited. Its effectiveness is difficult to assess; with its vituperative and sometimes violent language it aimed at intimidation and conversion. The Christian concept of `heresy´ was a novelty as a legal term. However, the assumption that the religious policy of the Christian emperors was more efficiently repressive than that of their pagan predecessors should not be accepted without discussion. In this respect I see more continuity than discontinuity between the pagan emperors of the IInd and IIIrd centuries and their Christian successors and also between the Constantinian dynasty and the Theodosian dynasty.