| “Some people are saying that autocephalous status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will be a strong remedy for healing the schism. I would like to be honest before God and my conscience and state: I am confident that the autocephalous status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church will not heal the schism. Some schismatics may return to the canonical Church, but not all of them. Autocephaly does not guarantee the absolute unity. There are schisms within the autocephalous Churches as well.” The meeting in Amman was a clear confirmation of support which the Local Orthodox Churches render to the canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine. Furthermore, the address by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry helped destroy the myth about the Moscow Patriarchate keeping hold of the Ukrainian Church against its will. This myth was being aggressively thrust on the Greek press and Greek society by Constantinople’s propagandists for a long time. – Could you please comment on the position of the Amman gathering concerning the situation in Montenegro? – In Montenegro the governmental authorities adopted a discriminatory law which opens a possibility for tearing away property from the canonical Church and transferring it to schsimatics. Metropolitan Amfilohije of Montenegro and the Littoral, who had arrived in Amman as a member of the Serbian Church’s delegation, highlighted the consequences of this decision which had already caused mass protests and thousands-strong demonstrations all over the country. The participants in the meeting called upon the leadership of Montenegro “to respect and uphold the fundamental right of ownership of property including that of the Church.” – What is the position on the issues raised in Amman of the Local Churches that did not participate in the meeting, for instance, of the Church of Antioch, of the Georgian and Bulgarian Churches? – The Church of Antioch fully supports the Russian Church in major issues of the inter-Orthodox agenda, including the Ukrainian issue. However, the Church of Antioch has a conflict with the Church of Jerusalem, which resulted in the severance of Eucharistic communion between them. Despite the recent weeks’ attempts, the final agreement was not reached. For this reason the Church of Antioch did not take part in the Amman meeting. |
| [Church History] On February 17, having prayed before the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and of the Moscow Patriarchate gathered at Holy Virgin Protection Church in Nyack, NY. [Church History] On February 17, 2006, the sixth working meeting of the Commissions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and of the Moscow Patriarchate opened at Holy Virgin Protection Church in Nyack, NY. Participating in this meeting were all the members of the two Commissions with the exception of His Grace Bishop Ambroise of Vevey, who had recently undergone a serious operation. It was agreed that Priest Serafim Gan, Secretary of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, would participate in the meetings. [Church History] With the blessing of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and of the Synod of Bishops, with the goal of informing the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on the progress of talks with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, an Informational Bulletin has been published which will be distributed to all the parishes of our Church. [Church History] On June 26, 2006, the Commissions on negotiations of the Moscow Patriarchate and of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia met at the offices of the Department of External Church Relations. [Church History] From June 26-28, 2006, the seventh joint meeting of the Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate on dialog with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and of the Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate was held at the offices of the Department of External Church Relations at St Danilov Monastery in Moscow. [Church History] Today, the eighth joint session of the Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on talks with the Moscow Patriarchate and the latter’s Commission on talks with the Russian Church Abroad began at a church meeting hall in Cologne, Germany. |
| Proposals were worked out for establishing contacts to be held in 2020 between special structures responsible for the development of youth ministry including an exchange of delegations and joint participation in issue events, including in the diaspora dioceses. The commission deemed it important to organize theological consultations for defining a range of topical dogmatic, historical-cultural and ethical issues. The coordination of cooperation in giving humanitarian aid to communities in Iraq and Iran and the assistance in carrying out projects for restoring defiled shrines and ruined social infrastructure remain the most important aspects of the bilateral interaction in these countries. Acknowledging the leading role played in this area by the Working Group for Aid to the Syrian Population under the Presidential Council for Cooperation with Religious Associations, the commission underscored the importance of cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Assyrian community in Iraq, including contacts with the Assyrian Church East Relief Organization (ACERO). Among important steps made in this area were the visits made in November 2018 to Russia by Assyrian Bishop Erbil Mar Abris Juhann Tjari as member of the delegation of the Council of Christian Leaders in Iraq and the meeting which took place between Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk and the administrator of the diocese of Northern Iraq and the CIS, Metropolitan Mar Iskhak Joseph in June 20, 2019, in Moscow. The participants in the meeting expressed deep concern for the acts of violence committed in Ethiopia against the clergy and laity of the Ethiopian Church. Timed for the commission meeting was the second Joint Colloquium, which took place on November 15 in Thrassur at the conference center of the Metropolis of India of the Assyrian Church of the East. It was devoted to the past and present life of the Russian Orthodox Church. The event was attended by clergy and staff of the Metropolis of India, seminarians and monastics, as well as parishioners of local churches. Bishop Clement spoke of the history and the present state of the bilateral dialogue. His remarks were followed by issue reports by Hieromonk Stephan (Igumnov) on “External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate” and by S. Alferov on “The Russian Orthodox Church: Millennium-long Feat of Confession to the Glory of the Name of God”. After the reports, members of the Moscow Patriarchate delegation answered numerous questions from the audience. |
| Q. How will you explain the fact that Western Christians, that is, Catholics, did not show desire to defend old Orthodox, that is Christian, churches in Kosovo? These churches were burnt down and destroyed exactly at the time when Western peace-makers came in Kosovo? A. Regrettably, the Western world, during the intervention of the NATO troops in the territory of former Yugoslavia, was subjected to a massive information attack and, to a considerable extent, was mislead. For long months, the Western mass media played up deliberately distorted information about ‘the atrocity of Milosevic’s regime’ committed against Kosovo Serbs, grossly exaggerating the number of victims of ‘ethnic cleansings’ carried out by the Serbian police in the region. However, the hostilities themselves in Kosovo provoked in the Western Christian world a reaction far from unequivocal. Many Christians in the West were outraged by the inscription ‘Happy Easter!’ on bombs made by the American military. Nevertheless, a number of Catholic bishops did come out in support of Kosovo’s automony, motivated by hopes for an improvement in the life of the Catholic community in the region, which were not to become true. Other representatives of Western Christian churches and communities have repeatedly expressed concern for the vandalism of NATO’s military and for Albanian militants with their extremist attitude to the old shrines in Kosovo. Therefore, I believe, the Western Christians as a whole should not be blamed for the actions of the military. These actions were not dictated by religious beliefs. Q. Many newspapers have recently reported on your possible meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. Do you still insist that all the disputed questions should be resolved first, because otherwise this meeting is meaningless? A. Yes, I still believe that for this meeting to be a success it is necessary, if not settle the conflict problems in full, but at least to try to settle them more energetically. The mass media have stressed only the sensational aspect of a possible meeting, but I do not like it at all to be reduced to sensational. To make it really beneficial for the further development of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church it is necessary to radically improve the atmosphere of these relations through joint efforts for settling the problems existing in our relations. |
| On July 17, Hojjat-ul-Islam M. Tashiri met at the RF Public Chamber with the head of the Commission for Harmonizing Inter-ethnic and Interreligious Relations, I. Diskin. Present at the meeting were representatives of both the Russian Orthodox Church and Islamic religious organizations. Mr. Diskin explained the work of the RF Public Chamber and his commission’s principal aim to overcome interethnic and interreligious conflicts and to combat pseudo-religious extremism. Dr. Tashiri explained the structure of the Islamic Culture and Communication Organization and the work its constituent Center for Interreligious Dialogue. The sides stated the desirability of an exchange of experience and of a more active cooperation in various areas including the assertion of traditional moral values as a condition for state and society stability. The meeting also discussed cooperation between the Public Chamber in Russia and public organizations in Iran with the aim to broaden interaction of the civic societies in the two countries and contacts in the social sphere. In the evening of the same day, a meeting was held at the Moscow representation of Tatarstan between the co-chairman of the joint Russian-Iranian commission ‘Orthodoxy-Islam’ Metropolitan Feofan of Kazan and Tatarstan and Dr. Tashiri. Participating in it were also Ravil Ahmetshin, deputy prime minister of the Republic of Tatarstan, and Kahranam Soleimani, head of the Cultural Representation under the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the Russian Federation. From the DECR, there was Rev. Dmitry Safonov. The participants discussed common aims and tasks facing both Orthodox Christians and Muslims today, and problems involved in the preservation of inter-ethnic peace and accord. Metropolitan Feofan pointed to the important role played by religion and unity in building relations in modern society. In his turn, Mohammad Mehdi Tashiri spoke about traditional Islam, noting that unity among nations was an answer to complex challenges of the generation. In conclusion of the meeting, the head of the Metropolis of Tatarstan invited the Iranian delegation to visit the Republic of Tatarstan for a more detailed introduction to the region. |
| Chronicles This is how it all began: “By the initiative and invitation of NF Erne, in the apartment of Prince YaK Tumanov, a General Meeting of Russian Orthodox Christians living in Asuncion and the provinces of the Republic of Paraguay convened on August 1, 1926.” There were 31 people in attendance. “NF Erne opened the meeting, having read the prayer ‘King of Heaven,’ and proposed to elect a President of the Meeting and a Secretary. AA Kashirsky was elected president and G Benoit the secretary.” Nikolai Frantsevich Erne was an eminent military figure. Major General of the Russian Army since 1917, he participated in World War I, and in the Volunteer Army since its inception. Then he was aide at the headquarters of the commander-in-chief, later called the Armed Forces of Southern Russia. After the evacuation from Crimea, he served under the commander-in-chief in Sremsky Karlovci, Yugoslavia. In 1924, he emigrated to Paraguay, where he was invited to teach as a professor in the military academy. He fought in the Chaco War between Paraguay and Bolivia, became Lieutenant-General of the Paraguayan Army and a representative of the Russian Military Union in Paraguay. He was the brother of the Russian religious philosopher Vladimir Frantsevich Erne. The meeting decided to establish an Orthodox church in Asuncion. In order to find funding for construction, a committee of four was chosen: NV Bobrovsky, VN Pestrikov, NM Golubinsky and NF Erne himself. They decided to ask “their own” for help (letters were written to Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky], President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan Evlogy [Georgievsky], who ruled the Russian Orthodox parishes of Western Europe since 1921, and Protopresbyter Konstantin Izrastsov, administrator of the parishes of South America, and also their “neighbors,” local Orthodox Arabs and Serbs). Metropolitan Anthony, for instance, was asked for blessing to manifest their plan, “so that in the distant city of Asuncion, Orthodox Christians would hear the peal of bells calling them to the Holy Church,” and also “to help with church items such as icons, utensils, vestments, books and musical notes.” |
| Addressing the diplomats, Metropolitan Hilarion noted the significance of the meeting, first in history, between the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Pope of Rome. “The meeting revealed a high level of unanimity between Orthodox and Catholic Christians on social and moral issues,” His Eminence said, “His Holiness Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis did not discuss theological or dogmatic issues dividing our Churches, nor did they try to conciliate their viewpoints on these topics. There were neither common prayers nor divine services. The rapprochement only related to social and moral issues.” The main topic discussed at the meeting of the heads of the Russian Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches was the tragic situation in the Middle East where the very existence of Christianity is under threat now due to persecutions, the archpastor noted. Under the circumstances, interfaith dialogue is becoming a top priority, the hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church pointed out. “Terrorist use religious rhetoric and slogans, often presenting conflicts as interfaith confrontations or claiming that they fight for faith,” the DECR chairman said, “We always say that religion cannot contain destructive inhumane ideas. Therefore, if terrorists use religious slogans as a cover and justify their crimes by faith, they do it unlawfully.” As Metropolitan Hilarion pointed out, the Russian Islamic leaders are unanimous in denouncing terrorists’ actions in the Middle East. “Interfaith dialogue carried out in our homeland is a very good example of how it can and should develop in other countries and regions of the world,” His Eminence said. The major institution regulating cooperation between traditional religions in Russia is the Interreligious Council of Russia. The honorary chairman of the Interreligious Council is His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. To conclude the meeting, Metropolitan Hilarion answered questions from the audience. DECR Communication Service |
| Toth responded to his situation by eventually turning to his Eastern Christian tradition, a move not wholly unlike American Protestant restorationism, but though he claimed he had long considered becoming Orthodox, he did not immediately make this turn toward Orthodox Christianity 86 First, he tried to operate from the platform of his Eastern Christian tradition within the larger Catholic Church. Toth wrote to his bishop (Ivan Valyi) three times but claimed a «Reverend Dzubay» asked him to write a fourth letter detailing the difficulties, which could then be forwarded to Rome (though the letter proved to be «too harsh» to be sent). 87 After the letter exchange, Toth called and chaired a meeting of Carpatho-Rusyn clergy in America. 88 The clergy met on October 29, 1890. The group attending the clergy meeting was small, with eight of the ten priests in America attending. 89 At this meeting, the Carpatho-Rusyn priests adopted nine proposals: (1) to petition for a bishop over the Eastern Rite Roman Catholics (2) that the Eastern Rite be maintained (3) bishops in Europe should send only married priests (4) parish property should be appropriately deeded, i.e., not left solely in the hands of a small group of the laity (5) Church organizations are not to accept non-Catholics and officers must be installed in a church building (6) parish boundaries must be flexible, so that people have the freedom of attending the parish they helped build (7) the local priest is the one who should head parish finances and property (8) those assigned the duty of collecting pledges must be honorable men and their collection books must contain an introduction by a pastor (9) each parish should have an annual meeting. 90 One can extrapolate two factors that will become important to Toth " s later success from the nine proposals. First, there was a clear desire to promote and maintain their traditional Eastern Christian heritage to the fullest extent, even going so far as to bypass Western Rite clergy within the American dioceses that already existed. Second, the parishes were largely controlled by lay members, often a small group of lay members. 91 The first three proposals speak directly to the Carpatho-Rusyns» difficulty with maintaining their religious tradition. In proposal two, demanding that the Eastern Rite be allowed, they wrote of the «intolerance and total ignorance» of the American Catholic clergy and claimed such «negative influence can only harm our Greek Catholic tradition and draw our faithful into the Latin rite.» 92 The final six proposals addressed the situations caused when a parish was deeded to a member, or handful of members, of a given congregation without including the governing oversight of the local priest and his bishop. 93 |
| This was the national religious context at the time Bob Dylan was converted to Christ in 1978-79. It would have made some sense if he had become a new leader of the Christian Zionist movement. He is Jewish. Even before his conversion, he believed in God and was familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. In Hibbing, Minnesota, his parents were leaders in the local Hadassah (a women’s Zionist organization) and B’nai B’rith. He spent some of his boyhood summers near Webster, Wisconsin, attending Herzl Camp, a Jewish summer camp with a Zionist focus. He visited Israel in the early 1970s. He was interested in End Times prophecy and embraced the premillennial dispensational interpretation of Lindsey. And yet Dylan did not become a leading Christian Zionist. Why not? There are three reasons. Dylan’s newfound Christianity was in many ways less-culture-bound than the average American evangelical at the time (partly because it was new and he approached the Bible with the fresh eyes of a convert). The type of Christianity to which Dylan belonged during his early months as a believer was the latter-day Jesus Movement. The Jesus People had a Christ Against Culture theological ethic which meant that they strived to be less culturally-co-opted (worldly) than mainstream Christians in America. Of course, the Jesus People had their own cultural traits but support for the Israeli government and support for Cold War militarism and U.S. imperialism were not among these traits. A second reason that Dylan did not go the route of Christian Zionism is that he had a more-spiritual, less-politicized understanding of Bible eschatology (study of the Last Things or End Times). The late nineteenth-century/early twentieth-century theological movement known as dispensational premillennialism is often credited or blamed for post-1967 Christian Zionism among American evangelicals. But this is not accurate. The Scofield Reference Bible has little to do with the devotion to the Israeli government—mostly to the Likud Party—that is so prevalent among evangelical Christians belonging to the Republican Party. |
| Braune, Helm. Gotische Grammatik. – Braune W. Gotische Grammatik. Hrsg. von K. Helm. Halle, 1939. Brehier. Les institutions. – Brehier L. Les institutions de 1 " Empire byzantine. P., 1949. Brinkmann. Die Meteorologie. – Brinkmann A. Die Meteorologie Arrians. – RhM. N.F. 1920–1924, Bd. 73. Brixhe. Le dialecte. – Brixhe C. Le dialecte grec de Pamphylie. P., 1976. Brockelmann. Lexicon. – Brockelmann C. Lexicon Syriacum. Hallae, 1928 2 . Bromberg. Miscellanea. – Bromberg J. Toponymical miscellanea. – Byz. 1938, t. 13. Browning. Camp. – Browning R. Where was Attilás camp? – JHS. 1953, vol. 13. Bruckner. Slowianie. – Brückner A. Stowianie i Niemcy. – Biblioteka Warszawska. Warszawa, 1900, t. 1, 2. Brzdstkowska. «Anaxyrides». – Brzostkowska A. «Anaxyrides» u Prokopa z Cezarei na tie greckiej i Rzymskiej tradycij literackiej. – Eos. Poznan, 1980, t. 68. Buga Lietuviu kalbos zodynas. –BugaK. Lietuviu kalbos iodynas. Kaunas, 1924–1925. Buga. Lietuviu jsikurimas. – Buga K. Lietuviu jsikunmas Siy dieny Lietuvoje. – Buga K. Rinktiniai rastai. T. 3. Vilnius, 1961. Bulst. Tacitus. – Bulst Chr. M. Tacitus und die Provinzen. Heidelberg, 1959 (Diss.). Bury. History. – Bury LB. A history of the later Roman empire (395–800). Vol. 1–2. L., 1889; (395–565) L., 1931 2 . Butnarhi. Raspindirea.– Butnariu KA/.Raspindirea monedelor bizantine din sec. VI–VIII in tentcriile Carpato-Dunarene. – Buletinul Societtii numismatice romane. Bucuresti, 1986, 131–133. ajkanovic. Märchenmotiv. – ajkanovit B. Ein frühslawisches Märchenmotiv bei den Byzantinern. – RIEB. 1934, Vol. 1. Cameron. Factions. – Cameron Al. Circus factions. Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxf., 1976. Cameron. The Cycle. – Cameron Av. The Cycle of Agathias. – JHS. 1966, vol. 86. Cameron. Herodotus. – Cameron Av. Herodotus and Thucydides in Agathias. – BZ 1964, Bd. 57. Cameron. The «scepticism» – Cameron Av. The «scepticism» of Procopius. – Historia. Wiesbaden, 1966, Bd. 15. Cameron. Agathias. – Cameron Av. Agathias. Oxf., 1970. |
|
|
