Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article provides an analysis of the ecclesiological principles outlined in the conciliar petition of the Church Council of Polotsk in 1839. The necessity of considering them is justified to understand the essence of the conciliar decision adopted and the use of appropriate terminology. This methodological approach is coupled with an examination of the historical context surrounding the abolition of the union. Attention is focused on the union in terms of subordination to the Pope, which involved the acknowledgment of all the aspects of the Catholic faith and had a negative impact on the preservation of traditional rituals and Eastern spirituality within the union. Conversely, the restoration of Orthodox worship resulted in the revitalization of church self-awareness, aiding the Uniates in rediscovering their identity and emerging from a subordinate and oppressed state. The leadership qualities exhibited by Bishop Joseph (Semashko) and the younger generation of Uniate priests, in particular, were instrumental in facilitating this process. The article also elucidates why the conciliar petition of the Church Council of Polotsk acknowledged the status of the Orthodox church without directly addressing the renunciation of the Roman pope and Catholic dogma. Instead, it focused on external dependence and adverse circumstances that had a detrimental impact on church life within the union. The corresponding acknowledgment of Orthodoxy in the Lithuanian and Belarusian territories was conveyed in the response letter from the Holy Synod. This letter acknowledged Uniate bishops in their rightful positions, obviating the need for any formal act of joining the Church. As a result, the author concluded that the theology of the Church Council of Polotsk in 1839 woud most accurately be defined as the ecclesiology of the reunification of the disparate parts of the Russian Church. Only in this regard can the decision taken at it be recognized as canonically justified and legitimate.
A. S. Khoteev (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: