| The meeting is intended to produce a joint declaration signed by both church leaders. Its character will not be theological, as dialogue in this area is held within the framework of the International Commission for dialogue between the Catholic Church and all the Orthodox Churches. It will be a statement on the various aspects of cooperation and shared testimony that the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church can offer the world today. In particular, it will address the problem of persecution of Christians in the Middle East, but also the issues of secularization, the protection of life, marriage and the family. This means that the meeting springs from the need and desire of the churches to form a joint front, or joint ministry to a world disintegrating before our eyes: moral decay, political depravity and dissolution of values. World War III looms like darkness threatening to engulf us all with the rising tension in Syria and Turkey, Western proxy wars and Russia’s intervention. Not to mention the growing tensions between the West and Russia springing from the crisis in Ukraine. The two leaders present an example to the entire world when they meet, because they choose to set aside ecclesiastical disagreement to achieve a greater good. The churches have had their own Ukrain e crisis for years. When the Communist regime started falling apart and loosening its grip in the late 1980s, the Russian Orthodox Church emerged once more to play the role in society it had once held, but there were complaints that the Roman Catholic Church had begun proselytizing in the traditional Orthodox areas. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that it made no active efforts to convert members from other Christian communities, which is the definition of proselytizing. No proof of aggressive proselytizing has ostensibly been presented, but the question of the presence and work of the Greek Catholic Church in the traditional Russian Orthodox area of Ukraine has remained problematic, and the controversy persists. |
| The vision for the establishment of jurisdictional unity in North America was rekindled in June of 2009 when Patriarch Bartholomew, meeting with representatives of all the worldwide autocephalous Churches, mandated that in each of 12distinct regions around the world that have not been traditionally Orthodox lands, an “episcopal assembly” would be held, which would include all the canonical bishops in each area. The bishops in North and Central America met in their episcopal assembly for the first time in New York City in May of 2010. This episcopal assembly established a variety of committees to work out various inconsistencies in pastoral practice among the jurisdictions. It also brought the various SCOBA ministries under its oversight. It requested that Mexico be placed with Central America in a separate episcopal assembly, and that Canada have its own episcopal assembly. And it agreed to meet annually, in preparation for the Great and Holy Council which, it is hoped, will finally bring an end to the jurisdictional confusion and discord in America. This Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North and Central America held its second annual meeting in May of 2011, and its third annual meeting in September of 2012. Both of these conferences were held in Chicago. The Orthodox Church in Russia 1900 to 1917 The period from 1900 to 1917 in Russia was a time of spiritual rebirth and ecclesiastical reform. Calls for various reforms after almost 200 years of State control of the Church were heard among clergy and laity in the early 1880s. These reform-minded people were especially concerned to see the restoration of the voice of the laity in the Church, the end of the practice of moving bishops frequently from diocese to diocese, the reduction of the power of government consistories (supervisory boards) in each diocese, and the establishment of conciliarity (sobornost) at all levels of Church administration. In 1905 an imperial decree granted religious freedom in Russia, ending centuries of official State suppression of all religions except Orthodoxy. This was welcomed by the majority of Church people, such as seen in an open letter supporting the decree issued by 32priests in Saint Petersburg. This letter also called for “a return to the traditional canonical order, based on self-governance and independence of the Church from the State. This can only be achieved by the convocation of a Council of the whole Russian Church.” |
| Less than a month ago it was the 10 th anniversary of the abduction of two metropolitans of Aleppo in Syria. Metropolitans Paul of the Orthodox Church of Antioch and Mar Gregorios Yohanna were kidnapped by terrorists and we still do not know what happened to those remarkable religious leaders. The so-called “Arab Spring” only brought sorrow and countless tribulations to people of those countries, the majority of them Muslims. The Western forces were trying to use a religious factor to destroy those countries’ statehood, to sow enmity and provoke divisions on religious grounds in society. It resulted in an outburst of brutality and violence, and a surge in terror attacks committed under religious slogans. Our own history and the history of other countries clearly show that such approach is inadmissible. We – Christians and Muslims – have to stand against extremism, and in this regard the work of the Russia-Islam Strategic Vision Group is of particular value and significance. For decades, the Moscow Patriarchate has been maintaining brotherly relations with Islamic leaders and organisations. In recent years, these contacts have intensified considerably. It is gratifying to note that every such meeting is held in the atmosphere of mutual understanding. The Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate has been taking part in this work for many years. In November 2018, the Expert Council under the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia for Cooperation with the Islamic World was established. Not long ago, we met with the Secretary General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the head of the Muslim World League. This February, Russian and Iranian theologians held their 12 th meeting in Moscow, continuing the dialogue that began more than 25 years ago. Almost 25 years ago the Interreligious Council of Russia was established. My brothers, leaders of the Islamic and Judaic communities in Russia, and I founded it in December 1998. The Council helps the leaders of traditional religions – Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism – to coordinate their work, exchange views on various topical issues and appeal to authorities and society on behalf of our faithful. |
| Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk greets participants and guests of XIV International Festival ‘Russia Abroad’ 08.11.2020 Address by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill at jubilee meeting of Inter-Religious Council of Russia 07.12.2023 DECR Chairman addressed the XV General Assembly of the Christian Conference of Asia 30.09.2023 Address by Patriarch KIRILL of Moscow and All Russia at the meeting of Russia-Islam Strategic Vision Group 19.05.2023 Metropolitan Anthony’s address at closing session of the 7th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions 15.09.2022 Presentation of the DECR Chairman at the interreligious meeting on Religion and Education 06.10.2021 Dostoevsky and the Gospel 20.09.2021 The topic of autocephaly is the only one worthy of a pan-Orthodox Council, believes the Serbian Orthodox bishop of Baka Irinej. 17.09.2021 The Metropolitan of Kykkos Nicephorus: “The unilateral decision by Patriarch Bartholomew on Ukraine threatens pan-Orthodox unity with a schism of monstrous proportions” 17.09.2021 Constantinople’s claims to power as a threat to Church unity 16.09.2021 Presentation by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill at the opening of the ‘World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in the Light of Orthodox Dogmatic Teaching’ conference 16.09.2021 The Orthodox Understanding of the Eucharist 06.09.2021 " Freedom and Responsibility as Viewed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill " . Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk (International Hellenic University online seminar, 16th February 2021) 16.02.2021 Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk gave an online lecture for the Theological Institute of St. John of Damascus, Balamand University 31.01.2021 Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk at a session of the Interreligious Council of Russia attended by Mr. Miguel Moratinos, High-Representative for the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations 21.01.2021 Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk greets participants and guests of XIV International Festival ‘Russia Abroad’ 08.11.2020 |
| In his response to the aforementioned article, His Beatitude, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and All Russia informed the Œcumenical Patriarch that, although he had received his letter concerning the implementation of the New Calendar starting on 10 March, it had, however, become impossible to introduce it into the Russian Church on account of the staunch opposition of the people. As well, the Synods of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1923, 1924, and 1925 totally refused to accept the New Calendar. We ought to remain in steadfast solidarity with these Orthodox Churches, without any compromise, observing the Old Calendar in our Church life, following the prescriptions of the Canons, which must remain unshaken, since they form one of the bases of the existence of the Orthodox Church. Moreover, as attested by scientic data, the New Calendar contains many errors and is certainly less accurate than the Old Calendar. This is the reason why the Scientic Commission that was convened on 18 February 1899 by the Russian Astronomical to make a decision about reforming the calendar stated that “there are no grounds for introducing into Russia (and still less into the Church) the Gregorian Calendar, which is notorious for its It is essential to point out that until recently it was not the Gregorian, but the Julian, Calendar that was used in The American astronomer Newcomb has already spoken in favor of returning to the Julian Calendar, as being simpler and more practical for astronomical calculations. For us, the opinion of the celebrated Professor Vasily V. Bolotov, of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, is both useful and of the greatest interest. In the nal year of his life, the Holy Synod of the Russian Church appointed him a delegate of the Department of Church Affairs under the Commission newly established by the Russian Astronomical Society to inquire whether the Old Orthodox Calendar was compatible with the New Calendar. Professor Bolotov investigated this question in all of its details, not only from an ecclesiastical, canonical, scientic, and historical standpoint, but from every possible aspect. Possessing all of this scientic knowledge, he took part in the astronomical meeting of the Scientic Commission, when the Commission examined the issue of the introduction of the New Calendar. And lo and behold, since the meeting could not reach a denite decision, and since many of its members had begun to incline towards the New Calendar, the chairman of the meeting suggested to Bolotov that he express his opinion. |
| One example of such a comparison can be found in J. Polkinghorne’s attempt to draw analogies between the formation of christological concept and modern quantum theory. 179 It is the fact that Christology is linked to the mystical dimension of theology, whereas quantum mechanics deals with the realities of this world, that makes the comparison devoid of any constructive outcome. Christ-Event as the Foundation of Theology Here we must rearticulate the role of the Christ-event as the major ontological reference in the church’s experience and theology. As discussed earlier, the church had an empirical focus in the beginning of the Christian era and had to commend itself to the systematic exposition of its doctrine in order to defend itself against enemies and heretics. What, then, was that element of the church’s experience that was indispensable for the church and which kept it alive and invariant during its empirical mode? The phrase “church of Christ” refers to the historical initiation of the church’s mysteries in the event of the meeting of humanity with God in Jesus Christ (we call this meeting the Christ-event). This implies that, despite the fundamentally mystical aspects of church life, there was a point where the mysteries, including the mystery of the church itself, were revealed to man. Thus the church (as the gathering of the faithful in order to commemorate this event) is constituted by the initial, and historically real, communion-event, the meeting with the incarnate God Jesus Christ in physical space and time. This event is unique in time as well as in space. A mind outside Christian faith can question on what grounds is it reasonable for the church to consider this single event in history as the foundation of its claim that through this event man received knowledge of truth (Christ as Alpha and Omega), such that by its very constitution it transcends history (that is, time and space). If such a mind invokes a natural, scientific view of the realities of things, it refers to their stability and endurance in space and time, 180 which guarantees that these things can be accessed by different observers, or participants, in different places and at different times. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy His Holiness Patriarch Kirill meets with Primate of the Assyrian Church of the East DECR Communication Service, 16.11.2022. On November 15, a meeting took place, at the Patriarchal Residence in the St. Daniel Monastery in Moscow, between His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and Catholicos-Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East Mar Awa III. Present at the meeting were members of the official delegation of the Assyrian Church of the East including Mar Narsai Benjamin, Bishop of Iran, Armenia and Georgia; Mar Abris Tyari, Patriarchal Auxiliary Bishop in Erbil; Chor-Bishop Samano Odisho, representative of the Assyrian Church of the East in Russia; Rev. Ephraim Alkhass, personal assistant to His Holiness Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa III; Rev. Nikodim Yukhanayev, clergyman of the Diocese of Iran, Armenia and Georgia; Rev. Peter Pavlov, rector of the church of the Assyrian Church of the East in Krasnodar. There were also Adday Nazlu, a student of the Moscow Theological Academy and cleric of the Diocese of Iran, Armenia and Georgia; and Deacon Ronald Bidjamov, a member and expert-adviser of the Commission for Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. Participating in the meeting fr om the Russian Orthodox Church were Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate; Bishop Clement of Krasno-Slobodsk and Temnikov, co-chairman of the Commission for Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East; Hieromonk Stephen (Igumnov), DECR secretary for inter-Christian relations and secretary of the Commission for Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East; and Hierodeacon Peter (Akhmatkhanov), a staff member of the DECR. |
| On January 1/14, Metropolitan Sergius wrote to Archbishop Gregory demanding an explanation for his usurpation of power. Gregory replied on January 9/22, saying that while they recognized the rights of the three locum tenentes, " we know no conciliar decision concerning you, and we do not consider the transfer of administration and power by personal letter to correspond to the spirit and letter of the holy canons. " Sergius wrote again on January 16/29, impeaching Gregory and his fellow bishops, banning them from serving and declaring all their ordinations, appointments, awards, etc., since December 9/22 to be invalid. On the same day, three Gregorian bishops wrote to Metropolitan Peter claiming that they had not known, in their December meeting, that he had transferred his rights to Sergius, and asking him to bless their administration. The free access the Gregorians had to Peter during this period, and the fact that Sergius was at first prevented from coming to Moscow, suggests that the OGPU, while not opposing Sergius, at first favoured the Gregorians as their best hope for dividing the Church. Fearing anarchy in the Church, Metropolitan Peter went part of the way to blessing the Gregorians' undertaking. However, instead of the Gregorian Synod, he created a temporary " college " to administer the Church consisting of Archbishop Gregory, Archbishop Nicholas (Dobronravov) of Vladimir and Archbishop Demetrius (Belikov) of Tomsk, who were well-known for their firmness. This resolution was made during a meeting with the Gregorians in the GPU offices on January 19/February 1. Tuchkov, who was present at the meeting, was silent about the fact that Nicholas was in prison. He agreed to summon Demetrius from Tomsk, and even showed Peter the telegram. But he never sent it. When Peter, feeling something was wrong, asked for the inclusion of Metropolitan Arsenius (Stadnitsky) in the college of bishops, Tuchkov again agreed and promised to sign Peter's telegram to him. Again, the telegram was not sent. |
| Forty-five bishops assembled in order to recognize and affirm our unity in the Orthodox faith, to celebrate our communion in the Holy Eucharist, to recall what has been achieved in fraternal collaboration over the past year and reflect on the challenging work that lies ahead of us. We express our deep gratitude to all those who labored for this year’s Assembly meeting. The Greek Orthodox Church of Saint John the Baptist in Des Plaines, Illinois, welcomed us on behalf of His Eminence, Metropolitan Iakovos of Chicago for the opening Divine Liturgy. A special Pan-Orthodox Doxology was also held at the Holy Resurrection Serbian Orthodox Cathedral in Chicago, Illinois, where we were blessed to sponsor a Youth Event hosted by His Grace, Bishop Longin of New Grachanica and Midwestern America in order to communicate with teens and young adults and address their concerns. We express our gratitude to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew for meeting with the Executive Committee of the Assembly earlier this year and for emphasizing our unique responsibility—as a significant and representative segment of the Orthodox Church throughout the world—to provide insights about the work of our Assembly for consideration by our Mother Churches and by the forthcoming Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches, which is scheduled to take place in Constantinople on Pentecost 2016. In the opening session, our chairman Archbishop Demetrios of America underlined our responsibility as bishops in reflecting the Gospel message of love and unity in our own relationships, in our local communities as well as in the broader, global society. After hearing the executive reports from the officers of the Assembly, we turned our attention and deliberation to matters of canonical regional planning. The Committee for Canonical Regional Planning, which met over the course of the past year, took into consideration the diverse positions of our Churches in the United States of America and drafted recommendations for discussion and deliberation by all the hierarchs. Moreover, during the visit of the Assembly Executive Committee to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, member hierarchs were reminded by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew that the Mother Churches are still awaiting from our Assembly a “plan to organize all the Orthodox faithful in the region on a canonical basis”, as per the Chambésy Rules of Operation. |
| ГАРФ. Ф. 1991. Оп. 2. Д. 427. Л. 166, 168; ГАРФ. Ф. 1991. Оп. 2. Д. 428. Л. 2. The New Delhi Report. The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches 1961//ed. W. A. Visser " t Hooft. — London: S.C.M. Press, 1961. P. 157-158. Письменюк И.Н., свящ. Поместные Православные Церкви и Всемирный Совет Церквей в XX веке. — М.: Наука, 2023. С. 55. The New Delhi Report. The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches 1961. P. 158. Minutes and Reports of the Seventeenth Meeting of the Central Committee. Rochester (USA). August 26 — September 2, 1963. — Geneva: WCC, 1963. P. 18–19. Шкаровский М.В. Указ. соч. С. 329. IV Ассамблея Всемирного Совета Церквей//Журнал Московской Патриархии. — 1968. — 8. С. 3-6; ГАРФ. Ф. 1991. Оп. 6. Д. 176. Л. 157-173. Никодим (Ротов), митр. Указ. соч. С. 291. Там же. Там же. Там же. С. 292. Там же. С. 293. Русская Православная Церковь и экуменическое движение. Публичный доклад, прочитанный митрополитом Ленинградским и Новгородским Никодимом 5 июля 1968 года в конференц-зале Уппсальского университета (Швеция) во время работы IV Ассамблеи Всемирного Совета Церквей//Журнал Московской Патриархии. — 1968. — 9. С. 55. Central Committee of the World Council of Churches. Minutes and Reports of the Twenty-Fourth Meeting. Addis Ababa (Ethiopia). January 10 th -21st, 1971. — Geneva: WCC, 1971. P. 82–83. Подробнее см.: Письменюк И.Н., свящ. Указ. соч. С. 189-258. Central Committee. Minutes and Reports of the Thirty-First Meeting. Kingston (Jamaica). 1-11 January, 1979. — Geneva: WCC, 1979. P. 3. Боровой В., прот. Митрополит Никодим и церковная ситуация середины ХХ в.// (Протопресвитер Виталий Боровой (1916-2008) — профессор, доктор богословия, с 22 февраля 1963 года до 7 октября 1995 года заместитель председателя ОВЦС). Иерей Илия Письменюк — кандидат богословия, заместитель председателя отдела по делам молодежи Московской (городской) епархии , старший преподаватель кафедры церковной истории Московской духовной академии , клирик храма Иверской иконы Божией Матери в Очаково-Матвеевском г. Москвы, автор монографии «Поместные Православные Церкви и Всемирный Совет Церквей в XX в.» . |
|
|
