What do you think?
Rate this book
Историческият път на Православието
„В съвременното църковно съзнание миналото често сковава, вместо да бъде творчески претворявано във вярност към автентичното Предание. Открива се явна неспособност да бъде оценявано миналото, да бъде различавана в него Истината от прахоляка на миналото... Православното съзнание е винаги исторично, винаги включва в себе си миналото, но никога не му робува. „Иисус Христос е същият вчера, и днес, и вовеки“ (Евр. 13:8), така че силата на Църквата не е в миналото, настоящето или бъдещето, а в Христос, Който пребъдва в нея вовеки, за да може всеки от нас – в Него и с Него – да намира смисъла на своя живот“ Прот. Ал. Шмеман
Книгата включва следните части: Началото на Църквата; Гонената Църква; Победата на християнството; Епохата на вселенските събори; Византия; Тъмните векове и Руското православие. Преопръчваме книгата на всички православни християни.
Книгата включва следните части: Началото на Църквата; Гонената Църква; Победата на християнството; Епохата на вселенските събори; Византия; Тъмните векове и Руското православие. Преопръчваме книгата на всички православни християни.
434 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1954
10 people are currently reading
294 people want to read
About the author
Alexander Schmemann
68 books201 followersProtopresbyter Alexander Schmemann was a prominent Eastern Orthodox theologian and priest of the Orthodox Church in America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
February 6, 2024
This is a good book to get a bit of a walkthrough of the ecumenical councils—what the Church was facing, the various ideas influencing her, and the heresies she fought off. A few concepts that stood out to me as I was reading were that the ecumenical councils deal with teaching around the Trinity and the Incarnation. Groups would fall on either side of a debate too hard and end up presenting a whole host of doctrinal problems regarding the Trinity or the Incarnation.
For example, if Jesus was fully man but not God, then He is simply the man of righteousness, which practically means that everyone must work their way to heaven by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps—something like Palagianism. And if Christ was fully God but not man, then that means God never united Divinity with humanity, effectively leaving humanity still in a state of needing to be saved. Christ must be both fully God and fully man because, by joining Himself to humanity, He made it possible for humanity to be joined to divinity. Practically all incartnational heresy falls into the trap of emphasising too much of one side at the expense of the other, in one form or another.
There are many nuances regarding these heresies, and from the perspective of someone who hasn't studied them, it may seem like theological nitpicking. But just as an example, Arianism believes that Jesus was a created being. So do Jahovah's Witnesses. That is the type of stark difference a subtle nuance in incarnational theology can make. At at one time, a great majority of Christendom was Arian!
The ecuminical councils had some great theologians and philosophers involved in the shaping of the creeds and canons. This book doesn't get much into the canons. It mostly just walks you through the centuries from an Eastern perspective to help give the reader a feel of what disagreements were alive in Christendom, what they meant, the trajectory of those ideas, why the councils were convened, and what they determined about some of the main heretical themes through the first millennium. It is important to get an Eastern view of how these things took place, because a great deal of these heresies were dealt with and councils convened there.
The teachings of these councils have been tried, tested, and found to be true through the fire of persecution and history. I have a great deal of respect for the tradition that has been delivered to us by our forefathers in the faith and the struggle they had to persevere through in order to preserve the Apostolic deposit. Something I found interesting is that a lot of these debates and the theology proposed during the ecumenical councils came from the East. There were some debates happening in Christendom that the West was simply indifferent to and, to a certain extent, couldn't see the importance of, at least at first, because the questions weren't being asked and thoughts being challenged in the Roman see of Christendom at the time. For example, the Nicene Creed is a summary of the Trinitarian theology of the Capedocian Fathers. So, if you hold to the Nicene Creed, it might be a good idea to read their writings. I think that is a significant piece of history to understand. During this part of history, Constantinople was the "new Rome." She was the "center" of Christendom, and because of this, a lot of doctrine was hashed out under her jurisdiction.
Something I've come to realize is that there is no new heresy under the sun. Everything we see in our modern day is either a heresy that was already battled in the early Church, such as docetism, monoenergism, etc., through ecumincal councils, or is the offspring of one of those heresies. It is incredible how thorough these councils actually were and how much foresight some of these men had who defended the faith for ages to come. We truly are standing on their shoulders.
A council would convene due to tumult and make statements of faith from that tumult. Then, tumult would arise because of the council's statements, debates would occur, and what was said would be tested by Christendom at large. Another council would convene because of the disruption that came from the last council, and what had been proclaimed would either be proven true or false based on what happened among the people and what concerns bubbled up again, all while being tested against the Apostolic deposite as handed down by both written and oral tradition. When looking at this period from a bird's-eye view, you can see that it was a period of doctrinal refinement, and it happened very naturally.
Great book with insightful exposure to the councils. I recommend!
For example, if Jesus was fully man but not God, then He is simply the man of righteousness, which practically means that everyone must work their way to heaven by pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps—something like Palagianism. And if Christ was fully God but not man, then that means God never united Divinity with humanity, effectively leaving humanity still in a state of needing to be saved. Christ must be both fully God and fully man because, by joining Himself to humanity, He made it possible for humanity to be joined to divinity. Practically all incartnational heresy falls into the trap of emphasising too much of one side at the expense of the other, in one form or another.
There are many nuances regarding these heresies, and from the perspective of someone who hasn't studied them, it may seem like theological nitpicking. But just as an example, Arianism believes that Jesus was a created being. So do Jahovah's Witnesses. That is the type of stark difference a subtle nuance in incarnational theology can make. At at one time, a great majority of Christendom was Arian!
The ecuminical councils had some great theologians and philosophers involved in the shaping of the creeds and canons. This book doesn't get much into the canons. It mostly just walks you through the centuries from an Eastern perspective to help give the reader a feel of what disagreements were alive in Christendom, what they meant, the trajectory of those ideas, why the councils were convened, and what they determined about some of the main heretical themes through the first millennium. It is important to get an Eastern view of how these things took place, because a great deal of these heresies were dealt with and councils convened there.
The teachings of these councils have been tried, tested, and found to be true through the fire of persecution and history. I have a great deal of respect for the tradition that has been delivered to us by our forefathers in the faith and the struggle they had to persevere through in order to preserve the Apostolic deposit. Something I found interesting is that a lot of these debates and the theology proposed during the ecumenical councils came from the East. There were some debates happening in Christendom that the West was simply indifferent to and, to a certain extent, couldn't see the importance of, at least at first, because the questions weren't being asked and thoughts being challenged in the Roman see of Christendom at the time. For example, the Nicene Creed is a summary of the Trinitarian theology of the Capedocian Fathers. So, if you hold to the Nicene Creed, it might be a good idea to read their writings. I think that is a significant piece of history to understand. During this part of history, Constantinople was the "new Rome." She was the "center" of Christendom, and because of this, a lot of doctrine was hashed out under her jurisdiction.
Something I've come to realize is that there is no new heresy under the sun. Everything we see in our modern day is either a heresy that was already battled in the early Church, such as docetism, monoenergism, etc., through ecumincal councils, or is the offspring of one of those heresies. It is incredible how thorough these councils actually were and how much foresight some of these men had who defended the faith for ages to come. We truly are standing on their shoulders.
A council would convene due to tumult and make statements of faith from that tumult. Then, tumult would arise because of the council's statements, debates would occur, and what was said would be tested by Christendom at large. Another council would convene because of the disruption that came from the last council, and what had been proclaimed would either be proven true or false based on what happened among the people and what concerns bubbled up again, all while being tested against the Apostolic deposite as handed down by both written and oral tradition. When looking at this period from a bird's-eye view, you can see that it was a period of doctrinal refinement, and it happened very naturally.
Great book with insightful exposure to the councils. I recommend!
September 23, 2019
History of Eastern Christianity by an Orthodox scholar. It’s not the best in terms of historical method, and shows its age, but is a helpful text for anyone wanting to see the history of Orthodoxy from and insider’s perspective. Most of the book is spent on the church before the Great Schism, and would be especially enlightening for those looking for a discussion of the early church from an Eastern voice.
November 10, 2024
Excellent Church history book, Schmemann does a great job of explaining the meaning of each of the landmarks as he guides you down the path from the Acts of the Apostles to Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia just before the Bolshevik Revolution. His teaching of the period of the Ecumenical councils and the development of Byzantine Orthodoxy was particularly helpful.
August 1, 2025
An interpretation of Orthodox Christian history that critiques Byzantine "symphony" and it's "offspring" in Bulgaria and Russia. When he gets to the Russian experience at the end, he becomes hard to understand. He sees much distortion in imperial and national Orthodoxies, but finds hope here and there as well.
April 18, 2019
Informative but slow reading.
February 19, 2022
Comprehensive and scholarly, an excellent introduction to the subject.
November 2, 2022
You can tell it’s aged a bit now but it is still scholarly and well written. Takes us down some very important history for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Still worth the read.
March 30, 2016
კარგი წიგნია, მარტივად საკითხავი. არაა გადატვირთული ფაქტებითა და სახელებით, როგორც ეკლესიის ისტორიის სხვა ანალოგიური წიგნები. იქედან გამომდინარე, რომ შმემანი ამერიკაში მოღვაწეობდა და მოშორებული იყო რუსულ სივრცეს, ახერხებს იყოს ობიექტური დამკვირვებელი იმ მოვლენებზე, რომლებიც საუკუნეთა განმავლობაში მიმდინარეობდა ეკლესიაში. ესაა აღმოსავლურ ეკლესიაზე დაწერილი წიგნი, თუმცა კარგად ჩანს მთელი ტრაგიზმი რელიგიისა, რომელიც დევნილი ეკლესიიდან თავად გადაიქცა მდევნელ ეკლესიად.
იმის მიუხედავად რომ ავტორი თამამად აფიქსირებს ეკლესიის ყოველ გადაცდომას და ამხილებს მოსკოვის ეკლესიას ისეთივე იმპერიულ ზრახვებში, როგორიც თავის დროზე კონსტანტინოპოლის ეკლესიას გააჩნდა, იმის მიუხედავად, რომ მოსკოვის, როგორც მესამე რომის იდეა შმემანისათვის ნაციონალისტური, სლავიანოფილური გამოხტომა და გადახრაა, მაინც დამაკლდა ( სუბიექტური აზრია ) მკვეთრი აქცენტები რუსეთის ეკლესიასთან მიმართებაში. კერძოდ, შმემანი დანანებით აღნიშნავს, თუ როგორ შოვინისტურად მიუდგა სლავურ ბულგარეთს ბერძნული ეკლესია. როგორ უწოდებდნენ მათ ველურებს, თხის სუნად აყროლებულებს და თავს ახვევდნენ ბერძნულ კანონიკურ წესებსა და ა.შ. თუკი ზოგადი მოცემულობიდან, რომ , როდესაც ეკლესიისა და სახელმწიფოს, გნებავთ იმპერიის, გზები ერთმანეთში იხლართება, ყოველთვის ხდება მსგავსი გადაცდომები, ღირდა ამ კონკრეტული მაგალითის მოყვანა, როგორც ბერძნულის ზეწოლისა ახალგაზრდა სლავურ ეკლესიაზე, მაშინ ურიგო არ იქნებოდა რუსული ეკლესიის ქართულ ( უფრო ძველ ) ეკლესიაზე ზეწოლის, ვანდალური ქმედებების , ქართული ენის შეურაცხყოფის და დაკნინების ფაქტების აღნიშვნაც გვენახა წიგნში.
იმის მიუხედავად რომ ავტორი თამამად აფიქსირებს ეკლესიის ყოველ გადაცდომას და ამხილებს მოსკოვის ეკლესიას ისეთივე იმპერიულ ზრახვებში, როგორიც თავის დროზე კონსტანტინოპოლის ეკლესიას გააჩნდა, იმის მიუხედავად, რომ მოსკოვის, როგორც მესამე რომის იდეა შმემანისათვის ნაციონალისტური, სლავიანოფილური გამოხტომა და გადახრაა, მაინც დამაკლდა ( სუბიექტური აზრია ) მკვეთრი აქცენტები რუსეთის ეკლესიასთან მიმართებაში. კერძოდ, შმემანი დანანებით აღნიშნავს, თუ როგორ შოვინისტურად მიუდგა სლავურ ბულგარეთს ბერძნული ეკლესია. როგორ უწოდებდნენ მათ ველურებს, თხის სუნად აყროლებულებს და თავს ახვევდნენ ბერძნულ კანონიკურ წესებსა და ა.შ. თუკი ზოგადი მოცემულობიდან, რომ , როდესაც ეკლესიისა და სახელმწიფოს, გნებავთ იმპერიის, გზები ერთმანეთში იხლართება, ყოველთვის ხდება მსგავსი გადაცდომები, ღირდა ამ კონკრეტული მაგალითის მოყვანა, როგორც ბერძნულის ზეწოლისა ახალგაზრდა სლავურ ეკლესიაზე, მაშინ ურიგო არ იქნებოდა რუსული ეკლესიის ქართულ ( უფრო ძველ ) ეკლესიაზე ზეწოლის, ვანდალური ქმედებების , ქართული ენის შეურაცხყოფის და დაკნინების ფაქტების აღნიშვნაც გვენახა წიგნში.
November 17, 2011
By far the best book I have read on Eastern Orthodoxy. Gracious, humble, transparent, Schmemann tells the Christian story from the "Eastern" point of view. For those of us trying to get past our Western frame of reference, Schmemann is a reliable guide. He has such a rich heritage to work with even with its flaws and if we are willing, it can be our heritage too.
August 29, 2013
I was impressed by this book because it was originally written in Russian and translated into English, but it still offers clear explanations of some very complicated events. The author is sometimes an apologist for mistakes or problems in the Orthodox church, but I still felt like he did a good job of explaining what actually happened and fitting it into a larger picture of history.
May 11, 2020
Интересно написанный обзор истории церкви.
April 5, 2017
One of the better church history books I've read. I appreciate Fr. Alexander's ability to tell the truth of a situation without falling into a polemical diatribe, but point people back to the truth of the Church and her life in Christ.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews