东方教会的正统性

景道主教著 （Ancient Church of the West）

 

上帝的教会建立于一个正统信仰之上，如圣彼得最早所说的“耶稣同时是’基督’也是’神的儿子‘” (马太福音16:13-20，马可福音8:27-30，路加福音9:18-20)。这个真理也是主教们都要遵守和保护 (提摩太后书2:15)。这个事实就是教会的磐石。这个话耶稣自己说他会用为教会的基础。如果耶稣基督是上帝的话，我们就能够得救， 因为只有上帝可以跳跃我们的罪和困扰而帮我们跟他合好。因为耶稣同时也是人我们就能够通过他而认识上帝，得到福音的真理，通过他的血与肉得到上帝与我们同在的“神化”。“神爱世人甚至将他的独生子赐给他们，叫一切信他的，不至灭亡，反得永生。”

早期教会分散于全球，每一个主教属于当地教会的头，他的长老们也是分享主教的权利，世上的主教都是平等的，为了作一个世上的活活生生的基督圣像，把以后要来临的天国现在显示出来。教会的权利是从被洗礼和点油礼而收圣灵的平民基督徒往上的和被按手祝福的门徒圣统往下的。两边受圣灵感动而互相监督，互相保护，互相鼓励。这就是当地教会的圣灵里生活，也是正统教义的基础。这也是早期教会普天必有的现象。

由于帝国的需要，每一个不同地方的教会组织都城主教和教主的位置，但权利与作用还是相同平等的。罗马帝国自称自己的“国家”是“οἰκουμένη", 举办罗马国家大公会也叫成“Ecumenical Council”，被后来西方教会认为“普天大公会”。按原来的解义并不可能这样认为。这一些会议是开于一个地方，也没有请波斯和印度的主教们。怎么能称为“普天”呢？在学教会法的过程之中,很清楚的能看到当代教父们并不认为公会的教义和法律是因为自称自“普天”而神圣，但是因为各地都能接受所教会法而让它的真理能够说服人。

历史上的波斯帝国和罗马帝国不断有冲突。两个文化完全不一样，文字，礼仪，家庭结构，法律，和国情都不一样。但是基督教和早期教会一样也在波斯。从圣多玛和 赛迪斯一样有门徒传下来的圣统。一样有平等的主教和一个与西方相同的组织形式和礼仪表现。波斯的教会没有排斥罗马的公会和教义，但同时没有轻易对待自己的责任和平等的座位。所以景教接受了它能接受的公会条列，证明了教会法的妙处所在，但那一些跟罗马政治服务的它就必然避开了。

唐代八世纪丝绸之路上的铜牌圣像被发现于中国与吉尔吉斯斯坦的边境。这一幅画描述的是人类被得救的过程 ：耶稣被钉十字架，复活和升天。周边描述了个人信仰上的过程 - 西门彼得信念不坚定，装不认耶稣；两位东方来的文士到草屋崇拜耶稣，和信靠上帝的丹尼尔不动摇的站在饿狮面前。这幅中国的古代圣像完全表达了基督教最重要的教义和深奥的含义！

有以上的思维为基础，很容易了解景教为东方式的正教。礼仪和教义之上是无冲突。很多人以为是聂斯脱利派，但这个完全不对！五到十四世纪景教的波斯教主几次 (最早是公元625-7，最后一次是公元1389) 跟君士坦丁堡和其它地方的教主共融圣餐。五世纪末Mar Awa教主也宣告东方教会的教会法不支持而否定耶稣基督两个个体化的人性或性格的说法。这一篇还保存在东方教会的“Synodicon Orientale”里面。因为伊斯兰帝国和某种政治的问题后来就没有再碰撞和商量教会关系！Metropolitan +Kallistos Ware 和 Metropolitan +Hilarion Alfeev在他们写的两本同名书“The Orthodox Church"都认为景教和正教当中出现的矛盾是政治上的误会，不是教义上的区别。景教认可了"Theotokos"的叫法，也公认查尔斯顿耶稣基督的神性人性合一体的说法，所以不能叫称为聂斯脱利派。最近俄罗斯教会和景教会每六个月开会讨论神学和礼仪的合并。

东方教会一直在说“涅斯托利是君士坦丁堡的教主不是我们的教主！跟我们无关！” 后来天主教为了吃掉东方教会就把异端故事搞大了，也给他们的图书都烧了。伊斯兰帝国再怎么恨就没有这样搞过。收到天伊双方逼迫之后，16世纪末天主的教皇快给波斯，伊拉克和印度教会都灭了差不多。只剩下一些小小的偏僻地区教会。现在东方教会只有50万总人口。

感兴趣的话，请看Samuel Hugh Moffet写的 "The History of Asian Christianity" （两本“亚洲基督教历史”）, 和Philip Jenkins写的“The Lost History of Christianity"（“基督教遗忘的历史”）。

AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF "THE ORTHODOXY OF THE EASTERN CHURCH"

By Bp. Joseph (Ancient Church of the West)

The Church of God is founded upon the confession of a single, saving truth... the same truth first proclaimed by Saint Peter: that Jesus is both “the Christ” and “the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:13–20; Mark 8:27–30; Luke 9:18–20). This truth is the rock upon which Christ Himself promised to build His Church, and it is the sacred deposit that bishops are called to guard (2 Timothy 2:15). If Jesus Christ is truly God, then He is able to save us, for only God can bridge the chasm of sin and reconcile us to Himself. And if Jesus Christ is truly man, then in Him we can behold God, receive the truth of the Gospel, and partake of the divine life through His Body and Blood, which is, the mystery of theosis. As our Lord declared: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

In the earliest centuries, the Church was spread throughout the world. Each local Church was presided over by its bishop, with his presbyters sharing in his ministry. All bishops were equal in dignity, forming together a living icon of Christ the King in the midst of His people, which is a foretaste of the Kingdom of Heaven to come. Authority in the Church flowed upward from the baptized faithful, sealed with the Holy Spirit in chrismation, and downward from the apostolic succession of the ordained. The Spirit moved in both, binding laity and clergy in mutual accountability, protection, and encouragement. This was the Spirit-filled life of the local Church, and the foundation of Orthodox doctrine, which is a reality found across the world in the ancient Church.

In time, for administrative reasons, certain bishops came to be recognized as having primacy in their region, especially in imperial capitals. Yet in their sacramental authority and apostolic dignity, they remained equal. The Roman Empire styled itself the oikoumene (“the inhabited world”) and its great councils were called Ecumenical Councils. Later, in the West, these came to be seen as “Universal Councils,” but this was not their original meaning, for these synods did not include the bishops of Persia or India. The Fathers did not consider a council’s decrees sacred simply because of imperial claim, but because the teaching therein was received and confirmed by the Churches everywhere.

The Persian Empire, often in conflict with Rome, possessed a culture, language, legal system, and social order quite different from the West. Yet the Church in Persia, descended from the apostolic preaching of St. Thomas and Addai of Edessa, and shared the same episcopal equality, sacramental order, and liturgical expression. It did not reject the councils and doctrines of Rome, but neither did it surrender its responsibilities or its equal dignity. The Church of the East received those canons it found faithful to the Gospel, avoiding those entangled in imperial politics. This discernment demonstrated the enduring principle that canons gain authority not by political imposition, but by their consonance with divine truth.

Archaeology bears witness to this shared faith. An eighth-century Tang Dynasty bronze icon, found along the Silk Road between China and Kyrgyzstan, depicts the work of salvation: Christ crucified, risen, and ascended, surrounded by scenes of personal faith... Peter’s denial and restoration, the Magi from the East worshipping the Infant Christ, and the steadfast Daniel before the lions. This ancient Chinese Christian art captures the central doctrines of the faith with profound clarity.

Such evidence confirms that the “Jǐngjiào” (the Luminous Religion of the East) was Orthodox in its teaching and liturgy. Many have falsely labeled it “Nestorian,” but this is incorrect. Between the 5th and 14th centuries, the Catholicoi of the East shared Eucharistic communion multiple times with the Patriarch of Constantinople (first in A.D. 625–627, last in 1389). In the late 5th century, Catholicos Mar Awa I explicitly rejected the notion that Christ’s humanity and divinity were two separate persons, as preserved in the Synodicon Orientale. Political and Islamic constraints later curtailed contact, but modern Orthodox theologians, such as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, agree that the historic division was largely political, not theological. The Church of the East has always confessed the Theotokos and the unity of Christ’s divine and human natures.

Even today, the Assyrian Church of the East meets with the Russian Orthodox Church every six months to discuss theological and liturgical unity. Their bishops continue to protest: “Nestorius was the Patriarch of Constantinople, not ours!” The “Nestorian” label was largely a weapon of medieval Roman Catholic polemic, magnified to justify papal claims over the East. Rome burned their libraries, a destruction even the Islamic caliphates never attempted. After centuries of pressure from both Catholic and Islamic authorities, the Church of the East was reduced by the late 16th century to small, scattered communities. Today, its faithful number only about half a million.

Those who wish to understand more should consult Samuel Hugh Moffett’s "The History of Asian Christianity" and Philip Jenkins’ "The Lost History of Christianity," works that illuminate the once-vast, now-forgotten witness of the Eastern Church.

COLLECT

O Lord Jesus Christ, who art the Word made flesh and the Light of the world; we bless Thee for Thy Church in every place, and for the witness of the saints of the East who have kept the faith once delivered unto the saints, in spite of persecution and loss. Grant that we, being united in one truth and one Spirit, may proclaim Thy Gospel to all nations, and, with them, behold Thy glory in the life everlasting; who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.