| Un représent de l’Eglise russe formule son point de vue sur la théologie de la libération (Interview), in: Episkepsis 1985,345,3–4. Global’naja ugroza eloveestvu – global’naja strategija mira, in: MP 1985,10,38–49. O rešenijach Tret’ego Predsobornogo Vsepravoslavnogo Sovešanija, in: MP 1987,3,54–56; 5,56–58. Sources de la tradition spirituelle d’Eglise Orthodox Russe, in: Vest. Ekzarchata 1988,116,11–22. 0b istonikach duchovnoj tradicii Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, ebda 83–96. Rede beim Pomestnyj Sobor RPC 170, 262. Gesandte des ökumenischen Patriarchen in Moskau, in: StdO 1966, 7,17–24. Stellungnahme zu den Ereignissen in Griechenland, in: StdO 1967, 7,5. Erklärung (Zum Arrest des M Panteleimon von Saloniki), in: StdO 1968,3,7. Ansprache auf einem Empfang in Tokio, in: StdO 1971,1,16–19. Rede vor dem Landeskonzil 1971, in: StdO 1972,1,17–27. Die Patriarchenreise in die Tschechoslowakische Orthodoxe Kirche, in: StdO 1973,6,11–22. Eröffnungsansprache zu Zagorsk III, in: StdO 1979,1,45–49. Nacharbeit zur V. Allchristlichen Friedensversammlung, in: StdO 1979,5,31–40. Die Katholizität der Universal- und Lokalkirche, in: StdO 1980, 10,52–64. Gottes Verheißungen und unsere Verantwortung, in: StdO 1981,3, 27–34; 4,26–33. Referat auf der Internationalen Religionskonferenz in Moskau, in: StdO 1982,2,22–34. Vergeltet nicht Böses mit Bösem, in: StdO 1982,3,19–22. Erbe aus einer jahrhundertealten Erfahrung der Kirche. Zweite präkonziliare Beratung zu Kalenderfragen, in: StdO 1984,5, 4–8; 6,5–11. Die Theologie der Befreiung im Blickfeld. Die Forderung nach sozialer Gerechtigkeit darf die zentrale Bedeutung des Heilsverständnisses nicht verdrängen (Interview), in: StdO 1985, 6,20–22. Fundament altrussischen Schrifttums und der Kultur. Gastvorlesung anläßlich der Ehrenpromotion durch die Prager Jan-Hus- Fakultät, in: StdO 1985,10–20. Globale Menschheitsbedrohung gebietet weltweite Friedensstrategie, in: StdO 1985,12,24–35. Globale Menschheitsbedrohung – globale Friedensstrategie, in: Standpunkt 13(1985)208–210. |
| 19) Euseb von Cremona, in: BBKL 15 (1999) 540f. 20) Euseb von Heraclea, in: BBKL 15 (1999) 542f. 21) Joest, Wilfried (1915-1995), in: BBKL 15 (1999) 755-761. 22) Heloisa (1099-1164), in: BBKL 16 (1999) 670-676. 23) Jesse von Amiens (†836), in: BBKL 16 (1999) 810-812. 24) Kötting, Bernhard (1910-1996), in: BBKL 16 (1999) 863-870. 25) Leidradus von Lyon (†816 oder 817), in: BBKL 16 (1999) 951-953. 26) Newton, Isaac (1643-1727), in: BBKL 16 (1999) 1130-1138. 27) Euseb von Caesarea, in: RGG4 2 (1999) 1676f. 28) Christian IV. von Dänemark (1577-1648), in: BBKL 17 (2000) 236-239. 29) Klara von Montefalco (1268-1308), in: BBKL 17 (2000) 788-791. 30) Newman, John Henry (1801-1890), in. BBKL 17 (2000) 1007-1037. 31) Regiomontanus (Johannes Müller, 1436-1476), in: BBKL 17 (2000) 1113-1116. 32) Abaelard, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 1f. 33) Gertrud von Helfta, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 275. 34) Hilarius von Poitiers, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 333. 35) Hildegard von Bingen, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 333-336. 36) Joest, Wilfried, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 375. 37) Juliana von Norwich in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 388. 38) Margarete von Porete, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 458f. 39) Mary Ward, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 721f. 40) Rupert von Deutz, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 596f. 41) Suger von St. Denis, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 658. 42) Wilhelm von Champeaux, in: Metzler-Lexikon der christlichen Denker, Stuttgart 2000, 736f. 43) Strafgericht Gottes. Zum Gebrauch der Wörter " krisis " und " dike " bei Eusebius von Caesarea, in: StPatr 34 (2001) 250-255. 44) Vision bei Hildegard von Bingen. Beobachtungen zur Vita Gottfrieds und Theoderichs und zu den Visionsschriften Hildegards, in: KuD 47 (2001) 14-29. |
| 12 . De muliere cum spiritu infirmitatis, 303–22. 13 . De parabola cense, 321–32. 14 . De genealogia Christi, apud Matt., 331–44. 15 . De Zacchæo, 343–56. 16 . De publicano et pharisæo, 355–72. 17 . De filio prodigo, 371–96. 18 . In Matth., XXV, 31 [de 2 adventu Domini], 395–412. 19 . In Matth., VI, 14 [de remissione fraternal peccatorum], 411–24. 20 . De sanctis imaginibus, 425–42. 21 . De paralytico sanato in Capharnaum, 443–58. 22 . In Matth., XVI, 24 [de abnegatione sui], 457–70. 23 . In Matth., XIV, 7 [de lunatico], 471–80. 24 . In Marc, X, 32 [de Christo prædicente passionem), 481–512. 25 . De Lazari resurrectione, 511–542. 26 . In solemnitatem Palmarum, 541–50. 27 . In pretiosam Christi passionem, 549–606. 28–37. In undecim Evangelia matutina (omisso sexto), 606–720. 38 . De Samaritana, 719–44. 39 . In Ascensionem (in sextum matutinum), 743–64. 40 . In adventum S. Spiritus, 763–84. 41 . In Dominica omnium Sanctorum, 783–804. 42–3. In Matlh., VI, 22 (Lucerna corporis), 803–26. 44 . De centurione (Matlh., VIII, 5), 825–36. 45 . De divite interrogate Dominum. 835–50. Homiliæ recitatæ festis sanctorum diebus: 46 . De objurgatione aquarum (Matth., VIII, 23), 849–58 [S. Demetrii]. 47–8. De missione discipulorum (Matth., X), 857–84 [SS. Cosmæ et Damiani et Michaelis]. 49 . In Joan., I,43 (Voluit ire in Galilæam), 883–93 [S. Philippi]. 50 . In Joan., I, 36 (Stabat Joannes et ex discipulis duo), 895–906 [S. Andreæ]. 51 . In beatitudines, 905–18 [S. Nicolai]. 52 . In Sanctos Innocentes, 917–28. 53 . In Annuntiationem Deiparæ, 927–42. 54 . In Matth., XI, 27, 941–52 [S. Onuphrii]. 55 . In Matth., XVI, 13 (Confessio Petri), 951–70 [SS. Petri et Pauli]. 56 . In Joan., XV, 12 (Hæc mando vobis), 969–90 [S. Procopii]. 57 . In Joan., X (Ego sum ostium), 989–1004 [S. Pancratii]. 58 . In Matth., X, 16 (Sicut oves in media luporum), 1003–18. [S. Panteleemonis]. 59 . In Transfigurationem, 1019–48. |
| The numbers, which actual historians working with archives, and not propagandists, refer to, indicate that the 1932–33 famine caused by the Bolshevists was not the genocide directed against Ukraine in particular. Prof. N.A. Ivnitsky, Doctor of History, an outstanding expert in the history of collectivization and dekulakization of the Soviet village, who is widely acknowledged in Russia and abroad, presents the following data: “The famine of 1932–33 struck a vast territory of the Soviet Union with the population of over 50 million people, including Ukraine, the North Caucasus, Kazakhstan, the Volga Region, southern districts of the Central Black Earth Region and the Ural, Western Siberia and partly other USSR regions… At an approximate estimate, in 1932–33 some 7 million people died from starvation and related diseases, including from 3 to 3,5 million people in Ukraine, at least 1 million people in the North Caucasus, 1,3 million people in Kazakhstan, and over 1 million people in the Volga Region, the Central Black Earth Region in the Ural and Western Siberia; some 7 million people in As for the percentage of the victims among the peasantry population, the tragedy was even more terrible for Kazakhstan and the Volga Region. “The comparative analysis of the materials of the censuses conducted in 1926 and 1937 demonstrates the following rural population decrease in the USSR regions which the famine struck in 1932–33: by 30,9% in Kazakhstan, by 23% in the Volga Region, by 20,5% in Ukraine, and by 20,4% in the North Caucasus,” Prof. V.V. Kondrashin In his article “The Famine of 1932–33 in Villages of the Volga Prof. Kondrashin points to the horrifying scope of the famine in the Volga Region, in particular. He mentions names of the villages and entire collective farms in the Volga Region where almost all residents perished and presents a shocking list of numerous settlements, in which cases of cannibalism were officially reported (and in how many villages such cases went unreported?!). In the memory of peasants in the Saratov and Penza regions for a long time there lived the following chastushka (ditty): “In the year thirty-three all the goosefoot plants were eaten. Swollen arms and swollen legs, people died, with hunger beaten.” |
| Patriarch Dimitrios warmly responded to the welcome. In the course of his response, the Patriarch made reference to the situation of the Orthodox Church in the United States: It is truly a scandal for the unity of the Church to maintain more than one bishop in any given city; it clearly contravenes the sacred canons and Orthodox ecclesiology. It is a scandal that is exacerbated whenever phyletistic motives play a part, a practice soundly condemned by the Orthodox Church in the last century. The Ecumenical Patriarchate, as a supra-national Church serving the unity of the Church, is not indifferent to the condition that has evolved, and will exert every effort in cooperation with the other Holy Orthodox Churches, and in accordance with canonical order, to resolve this thorny problem. 323 The visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the meetings that he and his associates had with church leaders in America were seen by many as a sign that new attention was being given to the issues related to greater unity and common witness. DIOCESAN LIFE The major political developments in Central and Eastern Europe, especially in the period between 1989 and 1993, enabled the Orthodox churches in those regions to reaffirm their mission and witness. As in earlier periods of this century, these European changes were reflected in developments in church life in this country. This time, however, the developments were generally very positive. In conjunction with efforts to provide assistance to the churches in the Old World as they emerged from a period of oppression, many of the dioceses in this country, which had experienced divisions in the 1950s and 1960s, were reconciled or at least brought closer together. The Serbian Orthodox dioceses, divided since 1963, were reconciled through the personal interventions of Patriarch Paul of Serbia, who visited this country in 1992. Bishop Kyril (Yonchev), who, together with a number of clergy and laity, separated from the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria in 1963, was recognized by Patriarch Maxim and the synod of that church during a visit there in 1992. The dramatic restoration of the Orthodox Church in Albania in 1992–1993 also led to greater contact between members of the two Albanian Orthodox dioceses in this country that were divided in 1950. Finally, the two Romanian Orthodox dioceses divided since 1951 agreed to the restoration of relations in 1993. 324 |
| 716. “‘To drink of the one Spirit’ (1 Cor 12:12): The Theology of Ecclesial Communion in the Byzantine Divine Liturgy,” paper read 12 May 2004 at the Orientale Lumen EuroEast I Conference “Liturgy as a Foundation for Dialogue,” Istanbul, Turkey, 10-13 May 2004, in press in the Acta. 717. “Questions on the Eastern Churches” 10: “Byzantine-rite Concelebration of the Eucharist,” in press in ECJ. 718. Through Byzantine Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw It, The Paul G. Manolis Distinguished Lecture Series, 18-20 January 2005, the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute, Berkeley, CA, in press. 719. “Christ in the Byzantine Divine Office,” paper given at the Conference The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Christology, Trinity, and Liturgical Theology, Yale University Institute of Sacred Music, 24-27 February 2005, in press in the Acta. 720. “Questions on the Eastern Churches” 11: “The Unmixed Chalice in the Armenian Eucharist,” in press in ECJ. 721. “Questions on the Eastern Churches” 12: “Gestures of Blessing in Byzantine Iconography” in press in ECJ. 722. “At the Sunset of the Empire: The Formation of the Final ‘Byzantine Liturgical Synthesis’ in the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” lecture at the International Conference Le Patriarcat de Constantinople aux XIVe au XVIe siècles: Rupture et continuité, held at the Accademia della Romania and the Forum Austriaco di Cultura, Rome, 5-7 December, in press in the Acta to appear in the collection «Dossiers byzantins» published by the Centre d’Etudes Byzantines Néo-Helléniques et Sud-Est Européenes, Paris. 723. “Avoiding Closure: The Multiple Conclusions of the Byzantine Eucharistic Liturgies.” Major Paper at the First International SOL Congress, Collegium Orientale, Eichstätt, Germany, 23-28 July 2006, to be published in the Congress Acta in BBGG. 724. “Il patrimonio liturgico dell’Oriente cristiano,” to appear in Oriente cattolico (Rome: Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali) in preparation. 725. “L’opera liturgica della Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali,” to appear in Oriente cattolico (Rome: Congregazione per le Chiese Orientali) in preparation. |
| Collatio editionis Morellianæ cum editione nova, 117–26. Collatio editionis Savilianæ cum editione nova, 127–42. Index alphabeticus ex primis verbis tractatuum, homiliarum, epistolarum, 64, 1327–1426. Index analyticus generalis, 64, 145–416 (etiam de spuriis). Dubia. 50 (II 2 ). De S. Basso, martyre, 719–26. In SS. Petrum et Heliam, 725–36. De beato Abraham, 737–46. De S. Thecla, martyre, 745–8. De Fato et Providentia, 1–6, 749–74. De precatione, 1–2, 773–86 (genuinæ). 55 (V). Homilia in Ps. 50, 527–32 . Proo_emia in Psalmos, 531–34; adde, 63,543–56, infra. PS. CHRYSOSTOMUS, Spuria. 48 (I, 2). Ascetam facetiis uti non debere, 1055–60. De jejunio et eleemosyna, 1059–62. Epistola Theodori lapsi ad Chrysostomum, 1063–6. Dialogi de sacerdotio lib. 1067–70. Christi discipulum benignum esse debere, 1069–72. De fugienda simulata specie, 1073–6. Contra Judsæos gentiles et hæreticos; 1075–80. De fide et lege naturæ et S. Spiritu, 1081–8. De S. Trinitate, 1087–96. 50 (II2). De oraculo Zachariæ reddito, 785–8. In laudem conceptionis S. Joan. Baptistæ, 787–92. In Annuntiationem В. М. V., 791–96. In Exiit edictum (Luc, II, 1), 795–800. In S. Joannem Præcursorem, 801–6. In S. Theophania seu de Baptismo Christi, 805–8. De occursu Domini, 807–12. In magna Parasceve, 811–6=Io. Damasceni, 96, 589–600. In venerabilem Crucem, 815–20. In triduanam resurrectionem Domini, 821–4. 52 (III 3 ). In Assumptionem Domini, 1–5, 791–802. In Pentecosten, 1–3, 803–12. De S. Spiritu, 813–26. De Christo pastore et ove, 827–36. De adoratione Crucis, 835–40. De confessione crucis, 841–44. 55 (V), Argumentum Psalmorum, 533–8. In Psalmum, 4, 539–44. In Ps. 6, 543–50 . In Ps. 13, 549–58 . – In Ps. 38, 7 (Verumtamen frustra), 559–64. In Ps. 50, 1–2, 565–75–88 . In Ps. 51 (Eusebii Cæsariensis), 589–94. In Ps. 75, 12 , (Precamini), 593–8 In Ps. 77–99: 1–16, 711–84 . In Ps. 83 . De Turture seu de Ecclesia, 599–602. In Ps. 92, 3 (Elevaverunt), 611–16. In Ps. 94, 1 (Venite exsultemus), 615–20. In Ps. 95, 619–30 . |
| In 1949, the South Korean authorities banished the head of the Mission, Archimandrite Polycarp (Prijmak). Due to certain political reasons, the Mission’s work was suspended and its property was confiscated. Today, when there are no factors preventing missionary and pastoral work in Korea, we can speak of continuation of the work that began long ago. The circumstances of the modern time when a considerable number of the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church – not only Russians but also citizens of other states under the canonical responsibility of the Russian Orthodox Church – are coming to Asian countries for permanent residence and for temporary business trips, oblige our Church’s authorities to take pastoral care of these people, who do not want to break their spiritual ties with their Church. Thus, in the Republic of Korea alone, the number of registered Russians is about 20 thousand people, and in 2018, some 300 thousand Russian tourists visited South Korea. Evidently, a considerable part of these people wishes to take an active part in church life and to attend divine services celebrated in accordance with the traditions and church calendar adopted in Russia. As for the establishment of a Patriarchal Exarchate in South-East Asia, it is not an innovation either in the history of our Church but rather the rebirth of once existing church structures. In December 1945, the parishes in China and Korea were united into a Metropolis of East Asia, which, by the decree issued by Patriarch Alexis I in 1946, was transformed into an Exarchate of East Asia based in Harbin. The exarchate was abolished by a decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod in 1954 due to the circumstances of the time. Today, it has been restored with taking in account the changed conditions. I would say that we had better revive the Russian church structures in Korea earlier. However, when diplomatic relations were established between Russia and South Korea in 1990, the Russian Church in its homeland experienced a difficult period of revival after decades of atheistic captivity. The Russian parishioners who visited the Republic of Korea used to find spiritual support in the existing parishes of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Nowadays, the Church in Russia is actively developing its missionary service seeking to accompany her faithful in all the life circumstances. The flow of Russian-speaking people to Korea has grown by dozens and perhaps hundreds of times, and the need for the Moscow Patriarchate to open parishes in Korea has clearly ripen. In addition, because the Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been discontinued, our faithful have found themselves in a situation where they have nowhere to go to, the opening of parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in Korea and other countries of South-East Asia meet their vital need. |
| In 2013the diocese had 72regular parishes and 13mission parishes, along with Christ the Savior Seminary in Johnstown. The Albanian Orthodox in America In 1908, Theophan (Fan) (Noli) (1882–1965) , an Albanian, was ordained to the priesthood by Archbishop Platon, Archbishop Tikhon’s successor as head of the Russian Missionary Diocese, to be the leader of the Albanian Orthodox community in Boston – which was the earliest Albanian immigrant community in North America. He translated the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom into modern Albanian, and conducted the services in that language for the first time anywhere in the world. In the 1918 list of parishes of the Russian Diocese in America, we find four Albanian churches listed, with “Rev. F. S. Noli” given as the pastor of Saint George Church in Boston. In that year, Bishop Alexander, Metropolitan Evdokim’s successor, raised Father Theophan to the rank of mitred archimandrite and appointed him as Administrator of the Albanian Orthodox Mission in America. At the Second All-American Sobor of the Russian Diocese in America, held in Cleveland in 1919, Archimandrite Theophan was elected to be bishop over the Albanian parishes. However, approval for this consecration never came from the Church in Moscow, as we have noted. In 1932, after about a dozen years spent in Albania (where he served for a short time as Prime Minister) and then in exile in Germany, Noli returned to the U.S. as a bishop, but without official authorization to oversee the Albanian parishes in America. As a result, several of the 15 parishes at that time stayed aloof from him. In 1949 these few parishes were accepted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople under the leadership of Bishop Mark (Lipa). This new jurisdiction was called the Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America. Archbishop Theophan was soon generally accepted as the legitimate leader of the Albanian Orthodox parishes which stayed loyal to him. During his long tenure, until his death in 1965, Metropolitan Theophan translated eight service books from Greek into English for his flock, and he was one of the most outspoken of the Orthodox hierarchs in America for Orthodox unity here. He even called for the establishment of a patriarchate for the American Church. |
| In view of this, in writing the article on ‘Chronology’ I devoted a considerable portion of the material to efforts at showing the uncertainties existent in ancient historical sources, including not only Babylonian sources but also Egyptian, Assyrian and MedoPersian. Though I still believe that a number of the points presented as to such uncertainties are valid, I know that the argumentation was born of a desire to uphold a date for which there was simply no historical evidence. If the historical evidence did, in fact, contradict some clear statement in Scripture I would not hesitate to hold to the Scriptural account as the more reliable. But I realize that the issue is not some contradiction of clear Scriptural statement but contradiction of an interpretation placed upon portions of Scripture, giving to them a meaning that is not stated in the Bible itself. The uncertainties that are to be found in such human interpretations are certainly equal to the uncertainties to be found in chronological accounts of ancient history. 22 Acknowledgements Before this introduction is concluded, I would like to thank the many knowledgeable persons all over the world, some of whom were still active Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time the treatise was written, who, by their encouragement, suggestions, criticism and questions have greatly contributed to this treatise. First among these I should mention Rud Persson in Ljungbyhed, Sweden, who participated in the work from an early stage and who more than anyone else assisted in these respects. Other friends of the same background, especially James Penton and Raymond Franz, have been of great help in preparing the book for publication by polishing my English and grammar. With respect to the ideohistorical section (chapter one), my contacts with Swedish scholar Dr. Ingemar Linden stimulated my interest and initiated my research in this area. Alan Feuerbacher, Beaverton, Oregon (now in Fort Collins, Colorado) provided important documents for this section. For the chapters on NeoBabylonian chronology (chapters three and four) the contacts with authorities on the Babylonian cuneiform texts have been of invaluable help. This applies particularly to Professor D. J. Wiseman in England, who is a leading expert on the NeoBabylonian period; Mr. C. B. F. Walker, Deputy Keeper in the Department of the Ancient Near East in the British Museum, London; Professor Abraham J. Sachs in the U.S.A; Professor Hermann Hunger in Austria, who since the death of Abraham Sachs in 1983 is the leading expert on Babylonian astronomical observational texts; Dr. John M. Steele in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Beatrice Andre at the Louvre Museum in Paris. On the exegetical sections (chapters 57), finally, a number of capable linguists and Hebraists willingly shared their expertise, especially Dr. Seth Erlandsson in Vasteras, Sweden; Dr. Tor Magnus Amble and Dr. Hans M. Barstad, both in Oslo, Norway, and Professor Ernst Jenni in Basel, Switzerland. |
|
|
