| ‘The passing of this bill was preceded by a whole set of measures targeted at the canonical Church in Ukraine, including the slanderous anti-church campaign in the national mass media, seizure of church buildings with the use of brutal violence against clergyman and faithful, the initiation of numerous falsified criminal cases, pressure on bishops from the special services, attempts to seize the cradle of Russian monasticism – the Dormition Kiev Lavra of the Caves and other large monasteries with the forcible eviction of the inmates, as well as a wave of forced closure by local authorities of the church buildings of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the ban on celebrating the divine services and the free use of plots of land upon which are located its monasteries, churches, and shrines,’ the Primate of the Russian Church underscored. According to His Holiness, ‘The outlawing of the religious organization uniting many millions of followers, thousands of communities and hundreds of monasteries throughout the country places the Ukrainian state alongside the most horrific theomachist regimes of the past.’ On behalf of the plenitude of the Russian Orthodox Church His Holiness Patriarch Kirill asked the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches to come out in support of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and all her faithful children who are afflicted ‘on account of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ (Rev 1:9). The message of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ was sent to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches; Pope Francis; Patriarch Tawadros II of the Coptic Church; Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Communion; Catholicos of the East and Malankara Metropolitan Baselios Marthoma Mathew III; Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II; Catholicos Aram I of the Great House of Cilicia of the Armenian Apostolic Church; Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa III of the Assyrian Church of the East, Maronite Patriarch Bechara Boutros al-Rai of Antioch and All the East; Rev. Dr. Jerry Pillay, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches; and Franklin Graham, President of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. |
| “In 2009 we set about forming new Synodal departments and were faced with a task of creating a body for discussing the agenda common for all the Synodal institutions. With the view of coordinating the work of the Synodal bodies we started holding meetings of their heads. Several such meetings took place, and in 2011 the Synod and then, in February 2011, the Bishops’ Council decided “to give to the meeting of the heads of the Synodal institutions the proper status with the name ‘Supreme Church Council’.” “In other words, the Supreme Church Council established by the Bishops’ Council in 2011, undoubtedly, differed from the Supreme Church Council of the time of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. However, the Supreme Church Council was entrusted with the tasks, many of which were on the agenda of the Supreme Church Council under Patriarch Tikhon. On the 14th of April 2011, in the Red Hall of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, the Supreme Church Council held its first session. “Today is an important event in the history of church governing institutions. On the threshold of the centenary of the last joint meeting of the Holy Synod and the Supreme Church Council we are holding the first joint session, reviving the tradition severed by the troubled 20th century.” The joint session of the two bodies of supreme church governance was organized for the first time in a hundred years with the view of resolving ecclesiocanonical problems, addressing issues of church governance and efficient planning, and considering annual reports of the Synodal institutions. On the 26th of December, at the Patriarchal and Synodal residence in St. Daniel’s Monastery in Moscow, the Holy Synod will continue its work. The permanent members of the Holy Synod are: Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine; Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna; Metropolitan Vladimir of Kishinev and All Moldova; Metropolitan Alexander of Astana and Kazakhstan, head of the Metropolitan area in the Republic of Kazakhstan; Metropolitan Vikenty of Tashkent and Uzbekistan, head of the Metropolitan area of Central Asia; Metropolitan Varsonofy of St. Petersburg and Ladoga; Metropolitan Pavel of Minsk and Zaslavl, Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus; Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, and Metropolitan Dionisy of Voskresensk, chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate. Invited to take part in the winter session (September – February) were Metropolitan Kornily of Arkhangelsk and Kholmogory, Metropolitan Grigory of Chelyabinsk and Miass, Metropolitan Dimitry of Chita and Petrovsk-Zabaykalsky, Bishop Ignaty of Vyborg and Priozersk, and Bishop Mathew of Sourozh. |
| Not all of the holy fathers were defenders against falsehood or heresy. Some of them were simply the very positive teachers of the Christian faith, developing and explaining its meaning in a deeper and fuller way. Others were teachers of the spiritual life, giving instruction to the faithful about the meaning and method of communion with God through prayer and Christian living. Those teachers who concentrated on the struggle of spiritual life are called the ascetical fathers, asceticism being the exercise and training of the “spiritual athletes”; and those who concentrated on the way of spiritual communion with God are called the mystical fathers, mysticism being defined as the genuine, experiential union with the Divine. All of the holy fathers, whether they are classified as theological, pastoral, ascetical or mystical gave their teachings from the sources of their own living Christian experience. They defended and described and explained the theological doctrines and ways of spiritual life from their own living knowledge of these realities. They blended together the brilliance of the intellect with the purity of the soul and the righteousness of life. This is what makes them the holy fathers of the Church. The writings of the Church Fathers are not infallible, and it has even been said that in any given one of them some things could be found which could be questioned in the light of the fullness of the Tradition of the Church. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the writings of the Fathers which are built upon the biblical and liturgical foundations of Christian faith and life have great authority within the Orthodox Church and are primary sources for the discovery of the Church’s doctrine. The writings of some of those fathers who have received the universal approval and praise of the Church through the ages are of particular importance, such as those of Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Photius of Constantinople, and Gregory Palamas; and those of the ascetical and spiritual fathers such as Anthony of Egypt, Macarius of Egypt, John of the Ladder, Isaac of Syria, Ephraim of Syria, Simeon the New Theologian, and others. |
| The Patriarchate of Constantinople has used the threat of canceling its earlier decisions as a device to exert pressure on the local Orthodox Churches. For example, the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew in his letter to the former primate of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia metropolitan Christopher of 4 th February 20212 threatened to annul the autocephalous status of this church. It has to be noted that the attempts by the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew to impose upon the Orthodox world the supposed right belonging to the see of Constantinople to cancel unilaterally conciliar or synodal decisions, regardless of when they were taken, goes against the canonical order of the Church and cast inter-church relations into a state of chaotic lawlessness. 8. The claim by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the sole right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the diaspora. The claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the sole right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all countries of the Orthodox diaspora were shaped in the 1920s. Prior to this the Church of Constantinople had different views on this issue. It recognized, in particular, 1. The jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church over America; 2. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem’s spiritual care for the Orthodox flock in Australia and New Zealand; 3. The canonical administration of the metropolitan of Saint Petersburg for the Russian Orthodox diaspora in western Europe; 4. The right of the Church of Greece to administer Greek parishes within the diaspora as set out in the Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos of 18 th March 1908, signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople Joachim II and the members of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople. The author of the new theory of the obligatory subjugation of all the Orthodox diaspora to the see of Constantinople was Patriarch Meletius IV (Metaxakis), who occupied the throne of Constantinople from 1921 to 1923. At the basis of the theory lay the conception of transforming the Patriarchate of Constantinople into a global church, organized along the lines of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and making it a sort of ‘Orthodox Vatican’. The Synod at its session on 1 st March 1922 annulled the validity of the Tomos of 1908; if this document concerned solely the Greek parishes in the diaspora, then this new decision declared Constantinople to be the head with “direct oversight and administrative power over all without exception Orthodox parishes located beyond the confines of the local Orthodox Churches in Europe, America and other countries.” |
| In the introduction, G. Benevich gives an overview of the historical and theological context of Opusc., taking account of the most recent scholarship in patristics and church history. The main themes of the introduction to the present translation can be seen from the titles of its chapters: Opusc. 1 and the combination of Ambigua ad Thomam and Ambigia ad Iohannem; Prehistory of the Monoenergist Union of Cyrus; Monoenergist Union and St. Sophronius’s reaction; Letter 19 of Maximus the Confessor; Patriarchate of St. Sophronius and the question of “the Council of Cyprus” (an alternative history); “God-man activity” in the Ambigua ad Thomam in the context of the Monoenergist crisis; Prehistory of Monothelitism and of the polemics against it; Special features of the Ecthesis; After the Ecthesis; Theological and polemical writings of 640–643, their order and main themes; On the interpretation of the unitary formulas in opusc. 7, 8 and 20; Interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer and the problem of the relative appropriation; Opinions and hypotheses on what was new in St Maximus’s position after 643; Opusc. 16 and the issue of natural and gnomic will; Maximus’s refusal of γνμη and προαρεσις in Christ, philosophical and theological aspects; Alliance with Rome; Dispute with Pyrrhus, historical reality and text; On the way to the Lateran Council; Historical events and St. Maximus’s works of 645–648; Opusc. 11 and the status of the Lateran Council; In lieu of a conclusion, Problems in the current discussions of the Opusc. In the wake of P. Sherwood and D. Bathrellos, a new attempt is made to suggest the order in which the Opusc. were written. In this, not only textual and historical data has been taken into consideration, but also the novelty and complexity of the issues that were, according to our hypothesis, more and more complicated with the growth of the controversy. In the discussion of Maximus’s interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer, emphasis is placed on the importance of his theory of Christ’s relative and compassionate appropriation of our disobedience. Only within a complex understanding of the two dimensions of the Maximus’s interpretation of the Gethsemane prayer (essential or “physical” appropriation of the human will and relative appropriation of our disobedience) can his view of this issue be properly understood. The process of Maximus’s formulation of the relative appropriation concept in the context of his polemics against the Monothelites is analyzed starting with its possible background in amb. 7. |
| 18 сентября ст. ст./1 октября нов. ст. Иеросхимонах Гавриил (1956). 27 сентября ст. ст./10 октября нов. ст. Схимонах Архипп (1896). 28 сентября ст. ст./11 октября нов. ст. Иеросхимонах Иоанн (1957). 1 октября ст. ст./14 октября нов. ст. Схимонах Иоанн (1890). 5 октября ст. ст./18 октября нов. ст. Схиархимандрит СЕРАФИМ, настоятель Глинской пустыни в 1943–1958 гг. (1958). 6 октября ст. ст./19 октября нов. ст. Игумен Серафим (1956). 11 октября ст. ст./24 октября нов. ст. Архимандрит Аполлинарий (1864) и схимонах Никита (1960). 12 октября ст. ст./25 октября нов. ст. Иеромонах Арсений (1859) и монах Иоанн терпеливый (1891). 20 октября ст. ст./2 ноября нов. ст. Иеромонах Феодосий (1850). 22 октября ст. ст./4 ноября нов. ст. Послушник Андрей смиренный (1898). 5 ноября ст. ст./18 ноября нов. ст. Монах Досифей благоговейный (1874). 9 ноября ст. ст./22 ноября нов. ст. Иеросхимонах Иона (1960). 30 ноября ст. ст./13 декабря нов. ст. Иеросхимонах Анатолий благоговейный (1860). 1 декабря ст. ст./14 декабря нов. ст. Иеросхимонах Иларион (1957). 13декабря ст. ст./26 декабря нов. ст. Схимонах Пантелеймон (1895). 19 декабря ст. ст./1 января нов. ст. Схиархимандрит Серафим (1976). 26 декабря ст. ст./8 января нов. ст. Схимонах Симон (1958). ПРИМЕЧАНИЯ ИЗДАТЕЛЕЙ 1.Принятые сокращения. АГР – архив Глуховского райисполкома. АУПЦ – архив уполномоченного по делам Православной церкви. АСЕУ – архив Сумского епархиального управления. АШР – архив Шалыгинского райисполкома. ГАБО – Государственный архив Брянской области. ГАКО – Государственный архив Костромской области. ГАСО – Государственный архив Сумской области. ЖМП – Журнал Московской Патриархии. ИСТОРИКО-СТАТИСТИЧЕСКОЕ ОПИСАНИЕ МОЛЧЕНСКОЙ... ПУСТЫНИ... – Историко-статистическое описание Молченской Рождество-Богородицкой Печерской мужской общежительной Софрониевой пустыни и состоящего при ней скита во имя пророка Предтечи и Крестителя Господня Иоанна, находящихся в Курской епархии, составленное игуменом Палладием по благословению преосвященного Ювеналия, епископа Курского и Белоградского. М., 1895. |
| In the final part of the communication statement, the UN Special Rapporteurs stated: " ...we wish to express our concern about an alleged pattern of harassment against the UOC and its believers, which appears to be related to the legitimate and peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of religion or belief, to freedom of expression and to freedom of association enshrined in articles 18, 19 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) ratified by the state of Ukraine in 1973. In particular, we are concerned about this pattern of intimidation depicted by the abovementioned allegations targeting the UOC monastic community and believers to change their religious affiliation. This runs counter to the prohibition of coercion enshrined in article 18 of the ICCPR. We are also concerned about the resultant backlash (due to the calls to violence and administrative sanctions imposed on the UOC in general) that may be faced by UOC believers which effectively restrict their right to manifest their religion. " As noted by the human rights organisation Public Advocacy, the text of the communication statement of the UN Special Rapporteurs thus testifies to the recognition at the international level of the facts of violation of the rights of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the course of the implementation of the systemic policy of discrimination against this religious organization and restriction of the rights of its hierarchy and believers. Metropolitan Theodosy of Cherkassy and Kanev, a hierarch of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, human rights activist, initiator and co-founder of the International Human Rights Association " The Church against Xenophobia and Religious Discrimination " , made a comment on the publication of these documents. In his opinion, " for the first time in the last few years, international figures with diplomatic status of UN officials and authorised to consider individual complaints about violations of the rights of believers, raised specific questions to the Government of Ukraine on the facts of violations of the rights of believers and expressed not only serious concerns about such violations, but also assessed the actions of the current leadership of the country as inconsistent with the norms of international law. If earlier we observed only some comments or references to violations of the rights of the UOC believers in the reports of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, now there is a document that provides evidence of a rather deep consideration of the situatio with the UOC in international organisations " . |
| The years passed. The monastery flourished with the construction work and efforts of St Joseph, and as he got old, he prepared himself for life eternal. Before his end he received the Holy Mysteries, then summoned all the brethren. He gave them his peace and blessing, and peacefully fell asleep in the Lord on September 9, 1515. The funeral oration to St Joseph was composed by his nephew and disciple, the monk Dositheus Toporkov. The first Life of the saint was written in the 1540s by a disciple of St Joseph, Bishop Sava the Black of Krutitsa, with the blessing of Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and all Rus (+ 1564). It entered into the Great MENAION Readings compiled by Macarius. A second redaction of the Life was written by the Russified Bulgarian writer Lev the Philolog with the assistance of St Zenobius of Otensk (October 30). Local celebration of St Joseph was established at the Volokolamsk monastery in December of 1578, on the hundred year anniversary of the founding of the monastery. On June 1, 1591, the church-wide celebration of his memory was established under Patriarch Job. St Job, a disciple of the Volokolamsk saint, tonsured St Germanus of Kazan, and was a great admirer of St Joseph and was author of the Service to him, which was included in the MENAION. Another disciple of Sts Germanus and Barsanuphius was also the companion and successor to Patriarch Job, the Hieromartyr Patriarch Hermogenes (February 17), a spiritual leader of the Russian people in the struggle for liberation under the Polish incursion. The theological works of St Joseph comprise an undeniable contribution within the treasury of the Orthodox Tradition. As with all Church writings inspired by the grace of the Holy Spirit, they continue to be a source of spiritual life and knowledge, and they have their own theological significance and pertinence. St Joseph’s chief book was written in sections. Its original form, completed at the time of the 1503-1504 councils, included eleven sections. In the final redaction, compiled after the death of the saint and involving a tremendous quantity of scrolls, The Book against the Heretics or The Enlightener includes sixteen sections, prefaced by An Account of the Newly-Appeared Heresies. The first section expounds the Church teaching about the teaching of the Most Holy Trinity; the second, about Jesus Christ, the True Messiah; the third, about the significance within the Church of the prophecies of the Old Testament; the fourth, about the Incarnation of God; the fifth through seventh, about the veneration of icons. In the eighth through tenth sections, St Joseph expounds on the fundamentals of Christian eschatology. The eleventh section is devoted to monasticism. In the twelfth the ineffectiveness of the anathemas and sanctions imposed by heretics is demonstrated. The final four sections consider methods of the Church’s struggle with the heretics, and the means for their correction and repentance. |
| The importance of the All Russian Church Council of 1917–18 is universally recognised in connection with the restoration of the office of patriarch and the election of Patriarch Tikhon (now canonised) as the first Patriarch in over 200 years. Most other aspects of this council are in dispute. Some see the council as the proper touchstone for the life and structure of the Russian Orthodox Church, affirming conciliarity, the convening of regular councils, the participation of priests and lay delegates as council members, and the creation of a mixed Supreme Church Council, composed of elected hierarchs, priests and lay members. Others denounce the council as a paradigm which led to the Living Church movement and proposed structures of church organisation poisoned by democratic ideas which are foreign to the Orthodox Church. In most cases, however, both the supporters and the critics of the council hold to their opinions on the basis of their ecclesial orientation, and not on the basis of deep and documented knowledge of the council " s actual work. Serious, detailed studies of the council " s work are now being written and published. The authors do not limit their assessments to the plenary sessions, but take a close look at the work and minutes of the council " s sections and subsections. In a recent book, Fr Nicholas Balashov offers a deep analysis of the liturgical problems and challenges in the Church of Russia, and of how the council of 1917–18 approached these challenges in honest and open discussion and debate, within the «Section on divine services, preaching, and the church temple». 486 It is clear that the question of reforms in the liturgical life of the Russian Orthodox Church was high on the priority list of challenges before Russian Orthodoxy, and that the word »reform» was not at all taboo. An interesting and significant discovery in this study is that the supporters of liturgical reform were to be found in a very wide spectrum of opinion and orientation. We discover, for example, that future confessors and martyrs were among those who supported liturgical reforms. In another recent work, E. V. Beliakova gives us a vivid and descriptive assessment of the state of church life at the time of the council of 1917–18. 487 The problems of canon law and its application, marriage and divorce, mixed marriages, the second marriage of priests, celibacy, the monastic episcopate, women in the Church (including the question of deaconesses), the discipline of fasting, prayer for the heterodox and with the heterodox – all these were among the topics on the agenda of the council. Finally, a recent work by Sergei Firsov presents a history of the Russian Orthodox Church in connection with the growing demand for reform, the attitude of church leaders and the government towards reform, the plans and efforts to convene a council, the «revolutionary destruction», and the council as a movement towards reform in a time of revolution. 488 |
| The Assembly of Bishops specifically demands the inviolability of the religious rights and freedoms of the Serbian people and of other peoples in Kosovo and Metohija. We, the bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the ancient and glorious Patriarchate of Pech, gathered by the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the regular convocation of the Holy Assembly of Bishops in the historic See of Serbian archbishops and patriarchs, the Monastery of the Patriarchate of Pech, and in the republic capital Belgrade. During this preparatory year for the Commemoration of the 800 th Anniversary of Autocephaly of our Church of Saint Sava (1219-2019), concerned with the survival and wellbeing of the Serbian people and their holy sites in Kosovo and Metohija, headed by His Holiness the Serbian Patriarch, direct this message to all faithful sons and daughters of our holy Church, as well as local and international media. The question of Kosovo and Metohija represents a Serbian church, national and state question of the first order. Our Church, the spiritual mother of our people, as a whole, and of Serbia, the country in which the largest number of Serbian people reside, to which the territory of Kosovo and Metohija belongs, bears the greatest burden of responsibility for the preservation of that historic province within the borders of Serbia and for the future of the Serbian people in it. Kosovo and Metohija, with its one thousand and five hundred Serbian Orthodox monasteries, churches, foundations and monuments of Serbian culture, represents the inalienable central part of Serbia. This is convincingly witnessed by the traditional spiritual conscienceness of our Church, in which the Kosovo Testament signifies the expression of the central message of the New Testament. Concretely, experienced in the historical experience of the Serbian people, as well as the conscienceness of the Serbian people with regard to their indentity, spiritual and ethical values and historical path. Kosovo and Metohija, from our standpoint, is neither a question of national ideology or mythology nor, even less, of mere terminology, but represents the very core of our being and existence as a church and people, without which we will be lost in the overall process of globalization and secularization. The prosperity of Serbia cannot be built on the disintegration of that which represents the cornerstone of its identity, history and statehood. |
|
|
