What do you think?
Rate this book
Orthodox Christianity Volume I: The History and Canonical Structure of the Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev
Foreword by His Holiness Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and All RussiaTranslated from the Russian by Basil BushThis is the first volume of a detailed and systematic expositionof the history, canonical structure, doctrine, moral andsocial teaching, liturgical services, and spiritual life of theOrthodox Church. The purpose of this series is to presentOrthodox Christianity as an integrated theological and liturgicalsystem, in which all elements are interconnected. Theology isbased on liturgical experience, and church art including icons,singing, and architecture is shaped by theology and the liturgy.Theology and the services, in their turn, influence the asceticpractice and the personal piety of each Christian; they shape themoral and social teaching of the Church as well as its relationto other Christian confessions, non-Christian religions, and thesecular world.This volume begins with an account of the historical arc ofthe Orthodox Church during the first ten centuries afterChrist s nativity, when the Christians of the east and west shareda common history. In examining the second millennium, theauthor, a hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, delvesdeeply into the life of Christianity in Russia, providing a casestudy, as it were, of how Orthodoxy can infuse the literature, art,and philosophy of an entire culture. He then goes on to discussthe canonical structure of the Orthodox Church, describing theemergence and development of diocesan structures, metropolias,and patriarchates, as well as the contemporary structure ofworld Orthodoxy and the principle of canonical territory, which forms the basis of inter-Orthodox relations.
Unknown Binding
First published February 4, 2011
42 people are currently reading
173 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
Read
May 15, 2021In the 15TH and 16TH centuries, Byzantium weakened and fell, its native Orthodox Christians becoming second-class citizens among the Muslim Turks. To the north, Russian nobility and churchmen began to see Russia as the rightful successor to the Christian empire. In 1510, the
Russian elder Philoteus wrote to Grand Duke Basil III, proclaiming, “Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will not be a fourth. No one will replace your Christian Tsardom!” Heirs of the Empire, heirs of Constantine and Justinian, Moscow as the New Rome—these ideas appear as undercurrents in Metropolitan Hilarion’s book and in many of the public pronouncements of the
resurgent Russian Church. It’s important to understand how the Russian Church sees itself, as they will have a tremendous impact on the outcomes and effects of the 2016 Synod.
This book is a broad overview of the history, theology and great saints of Orthodoxy as it flowed into Russia through the conversion of the Rus by Saints. Cyril and Methodius to the rebuilding of Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the original having been destroyed by Stalin to become Moscow’s municipal swimming pool. One of the book’s more enjoyable features are minibiographies of important figures in Russian church history. Their literary writings are sampled frequently, reminding us of the riches to be found through their words.
The Metropolitan also lays out the canonical structure of the Orthodox Patriarchates and churches over time down to the present. In doing so, he makes frequent mention of the perceived slights, indignities, and downright interference the Russian church has frequently received from both
the Popes in old Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchates of Constantinople.
"Beginning in the middle of the twelfth century, the metropolitans bore the title “of Kiev and all Rus’.” At the same time, most of the Kiev metropolitans of this period were Greeks, and they could not always orient themselves in the complex vicissitudes of Russian political and ecclesiastical
life. In those cases where a Russian did become metropolitan on the initiative of the prince, Constantinople, as a rule, protested vehemently. The troubles caused by the difficult relations with Constantinople, however, did not hinder the subsequent consolidation of Orthodoxy in Rus’ " (2891
His brief remarks on ecclesiology seem to promote the preeminence and ultimate infallibility of a local church against Councils or the unifying role of a Pope or Ecumenical Patriarch.
Russian elder Philoteus wrote to Grand Duke Basil III, proclaiming, “Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will not be a fourth. No one will replace your Christian Tsardom!” Heirs of the Empire, heirs of Constantine and Justinian, Moscow as the New Rome—these ideas appear as undercurrents in Metropolitan Hilarion’s book and in many of the public pronouncements of the
resurgent Russian Church. It’s important to understand how the Russian Church sees itself, as they will have a tremendous impact on the outcomes and effects of the 2016 Synod.
This book is a broad overview of the history, theology and great saints of Orthodoxy as it flowed into Russia through the conversion of the Rus by Saints. Cyril and Methodius to the rebuilding of Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the original having been destroyed by Stalin to become Moscow’s municipal swimming pool. One of the book’s more enjoyable features are minibiographies of important figures in Russian church history. Their literary writings are sampled frequently, reminding us of the riches to be found through their words.
The Metropolitan also lays out the canonical structure of the Orthodox Patriarchates and churches over time down to the present. In doing so, he makes frequent mention of the perceived slights, indignities, and downright interference the Russian church has frequently received from both
the Popes in old Rome and the Ecumenical Patriarchates of Constantinople.
"Beginning in the middle of the twelfth century, the metropolitans bore the title “of Kiev and all Rus’.” At the same time, most of the Kiev metropolitans of this period were Greeks, and they could not always orient themselves in the complex vicissitudes of Russian political and ecclesiastical
life. In those cases where a Russian did become metropolitan on the initiative of the prince, Constantinople, as a rule, protested vehemently. The troubles caused by the difficult relations with Constantinople, however, did not hinder the subsequent consolidation of Orthodoxy in Rus’ " (2891
His brief remarks on ecclesiology seem to promote the preeminence and ultimate infallibility of a local church against Councils or the unifying role of a Pope or Ecumenical Patriarch.
July 3, 2019
It's nice to have a linear book that lays out 2000 years of Christendom. Obviously, he has to paint with a rather wide proverbial brush to cover so much territory, but it's detailed enough for themes and patterns to emerge that help to clarify issues today. Two major shortcomings:
1. It's very biased toward Russia. It's not that what he's saying is untrue, it's that I felt I was often only getting half the story.
2. The glaring omission of any women in the history of the church is frustrating. Granted, the church is patriarchal, but even when he's mentioning martyrs and writers, he doesn't give a second glance at what women have contributed. It's as though, for 2000 years, they're inconsequential.
Regardless of its shortcomings, I'm glad I read it.
1. It's very biased toward Russia. It's not that what he's saying is untrue, it's that I felt I was often only getting half the story.
2. The glaring omission of any women in the history of the church is frustrating. Granted, the church is patriarchal, but even when he's mentioning martyrs and writers, he doesn't give a second glance at what women have contributed. It's as though, for 2000 years, they're inconsequential.
Regardless of its shortcomings, I'm glad I read it.
February 2, 2025
It does exactly what the title says. It's an overview of the history and canonical structure of the Orthodox Church. It's pretty interesting, but more because the references contained within can lead you to the church fathers and theologians referenced so you can read them for more information. Alfeyev does a good job of citing the people he quotes, and he quotes them often.
I can't imagine this book would have much use for devout Orthodox Christians though, it feels like it's targeted to non-Orthodox readers.
I can't imagine this book would have much use for devout Orthodox Christians though, it feels like it's targeted to non-Orthodox readers.
February 3, 2021
Very good book, informative. Has a lot of interesting information on the early church.
October 6, 2022
Overall very informative and tries to remain unbiased in presentation of the facts.
May 15, 2023
An excellent introduction to the history of the Orthodox Church through the Russian lens.
May 20, 2015
The book is a good introduction to the history of Orthodox Christianity with some flaws. The first noticeable flaw to me was that in his introduction to the Great Schism he produces a quotation from St. Maximus the Confessor that seems to be very pro-papist. He does not mention that this text's authenticity is questioned, neither does he provide any sort of potential Orthodox understanding of what he might mean. Instead he leaves it hanging in the air and continues onward.
In the section on Orthodoxy in the modern era he ignores some very important people like various saints who have shone forth in the Orthodox diaspora in the West, and focuses upon people like Berdaev, Bulgakov (condemned both by Moscow and the Church abroad), Soloviev, and others who very clearly wander outside the mainstream Orthodox tradition on a number of points. He seems eager to rehabilitate persons like Met. Nikodim of Leningrad, who died at the feet of Pope John Paul I. In the words of my Georgian Orthodox friend, on its return to Russia, Met. Nikodim's coffin had two stamps: Vatican and KGB. Nuff said.
Holy personages like the recent hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev have taken this author to task for irresponsible scholarship (as when he claimed that St. Isaac the Syrian was Nestorian) and for leanings toward universalism. This, along with the availability of other introductory works on Orthodoxy in English have made me avoid the subsequent volumes to this initial one. The author is no doubt brilliant, but sympathizes too often with liberal western scholarship for my tastes.
In the section on Orthodoxy in the modern era he ignores some very important people like various saints who have shone forth in the Orthodox diaspora in the West, and focuses upon people like Berdaev, Bulgakov (condemned both by Moscow and the Church abroad), Soloviev, and others who very clearly wander outside the mainstream Orthodox tradition on a number of points. He seems eager to rehabilitate persons like Met. Nikodim of Leningrad, who died at the feet of Pope John Paul I. In the words of my Georgian Orthodox friend, on its return to Russia, Met. Nikodim's coffin had two stamps: Vatican and KGB. Nuff said.
Holy personages like the recent hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev have taken this author to task for irresponsible scholarship (as when he claimed that St. Isaac the Syrian was Nestorian) and for leanings toward universalism. This, along with the availability of other introductory works on Orthodoxy in English have made me avoid the subsequent volumes to this initial one. The author is no doubt brilliant, but sympathizes too often with liberal western scholarship for my tastes.
January 9, 2016
A very good introduction to Church history from an Orthodox perspective with some Russian flavor.
April 2, 2019
An introduction to the Orthodox Church
This book gives a good introduction to the Orthodox Church. It deals with the history of the church from the early Middle Ages up to today.
This book gives a good introduction to the Orthodox Church. It deals with the history of the church from the early Middle Ages up to today.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews