| The decision to grant autocephaly to parts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was often taken by the Holy Synod or councils of this church. Thus, the Patriarchate of Constantinople granted autocephalous status to the churches of Greece (1850), Serbia (1879), Rumania (1885) and Albania (1937) which were once under its jurisdiction. Autocephaly throughout history has been granted, apart from at councils, not only by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but by other churches. Thus, in the fifth century the autocephaly of the Church of Georgia was granted by the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch, while in the twentieth century the Moscow Patriarchate granted autocephaly to the Polish Orthodox Church (1948), the Orthodox Church of Czechoslovakia (1951) and the Orthodox Church in America (1970). In 2022 the Macedonian Orthodox Church of the Ohrid archdiocese received autocephaly from the Serbian Orthodox Church. His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras in a letter to the locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne of the Russian Orthodox Church the metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna Pimen of 24 th June 1970 wrote: “Special canons which precisely define all things concerning autocephaly are not to be found within ecclesiastical legislation. The granting of autocephaly remains within the competency of the entire Church and in no way can be considered to be the right of any autocephalous church. The final judgment on the issue of autocephaly belongs to a church-wide council representing all of the local Orthodox Churches and particularly to an Ecumenical Council.” The notion of the order of granting autocephaly as the conciliar affair of the ‘entire Church’ formed the basis of a draft document on autocephaly and the means of granting it which was examined at the inter-Orthodox preparatory commission in 1994 and at the fourth pan-Orthodox preconciliar meeting of 2009. The draft document conditionally laid out the order of granting autocephalous status thus: 1. Through the consent of the local council of the mother church that part of it is to receive autocephaly; 2. The Ecumenical Patriarch is to obtain the consensus of all the local Orthodox Churches unanimously expressed at their councils; 3. On the basis of the consent of the Mother Church and a pan-Orthodox consensus, autocephaly is to be proclaimed by means of issuing a Tomos which “is signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and attested by the signatures upon it of the blessed primates of the holy autocephalous churches invited to do so by the Ecumenical Patriarch.” This last provision did not definitively set out the order of signing the actual Tomos, even though this in no way lessened the importance of the agreements reached on the remaining provisions. |
| ‘Act of the Patriarch of Constantinople Dimitrius and the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 3 rd April 1978 on the cessation of the act of the Tomos of the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletius IV of 1923’ in Orthodoxy in Estonia (in Russian), pp.207-208; letter by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dimitrius to the metropolitan of Sweden and All Scandinavia Paul of 3 rd May 1978’ in Orthodoxy in Estonia (in Russian), pp.208-209. ‘The Patriarchal and Synodal Act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the renewal of the Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos of 1923 regarding the Orthodox Estonian metropolitanate’ in Orthodoxy in Estonia (in Russian), pp.314-317. See: Metropolitan of Kikkou and Tylliras Nicephrous, The Contemporary Ukrainian Question and Its Resolution In Accordance with the Divine and Holy Canons (in Russian), Moscow, 20121, p.32. “The same rule shall be observed in the other dioceses and provinces everywhere, so that none of the God beloved bishops shall assume control of any province which has not heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors ... lest the canons of the fathers be transgressed; or the vanities of worldly honour be brought in under pretext of sacred office; or we lose, without knowing it, little by little, the liberty which Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Deliverer of all men, hath given us by his own blood.” From the letter by the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew to the Metropolitan of the Czech Lands and Slovakia Christopher no.102 of 4 th February 2012 (the reason for the letter was the celebration in Prague of the 60yj anniversary of the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia: “In the instance of a repeat of similar events marking the granting of an invalid autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate to the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate will regrettably compelled to annul the canonical autocephaly granted to your Church fourteen years ago, return to the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia the autonomous status which she had previously and to expunge her from the Holy Diptychs of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, wh ere she occupies fourteenth place, and to inform all the sister Orthodox Churches of this act.” Anastassiadis A., ‘Un “Vatican anglicano-orthodoxe” а Constantinople?: Relations interconfessionnelles, rêves impériaux et enjeux de pouvoir en Méditerranée orientale а la fin de la Grande Guerre’ in Voisinages fragiles: Les relations interconfessionnelles dans le Sud-Est européen et la Méditerrannée orientale 1854-1923: Contraintes locales et enjeux internationaux, ed. |
| During the Synod’s meeting, Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk presented a report on the participation of a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church in the 11th General Assembly of the World Council of Churches http://mospat.ru/en/news/89614/ that had taken place in Karlsruhe, Germany, on August 31 – September 8. The Assembly’s theme was “Christ’s Love Moves the World to Reconciliation and Unity.” Taking part in the conference were over five thousand people from various countries and continents. On September 1, a meeting was held between the leadership of the World Council of Churches and the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate led by Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Department for External Church Relations http://mospat.ru/en/news/89585/ . As was emphasized during that meeting, the WCC is to remain an open platform for dialogue between all Christians. On the same day, the DECR chairman met with His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch http://mospat.ru/en/news/89584/ who had arrived in Karlsruhe to attend the Assembly as an honorary guest. The participants in the meeting discussed a wide range of issues of mutual interest, as well as prospects of further cooperation between the Russian Church and the Church of Antioch. On the side-lines of the Assembly, the DECR chairman met with Metropolitan Mark of Berlin and Germany and Bishop Job of Stuttgart http://mospat.ru/en/news/89602/ ; the head of the Church of England, Archbishop Justin Welby of Canterbury http://mospat.ru/en/news/89607/ ; a delegation of the Coptic Church led by Metropolitan Serapion of Los Angeles http://mospat.ru/en/news/89599/ ; the General Secretary of the World Evangelical Alliance, Bp. Dr. Thomas Schirrmacher http://mospat.ru/en/news/89600/ ; Archbishop Urmas Viilma of the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church http://mospat.ru/en/news/89606/ ; and others. On the side-lines of the Assembly, Metropolitan Sergy of Singapore, Patriarchal Exarch of South-East Asia, met with the General Secretary of the Global Christian Forum, Revd Dr Casely Essamuah; a delegation of the Communion of Churches in Indonesia led by Pastor Gomar Gultom; and the General Secretary of the Council of Churches of Malaysia, Jonathan Dgezudas http://mospat.ru/en/news/89605/ . A meeting also took place between co-chairs of the Working Group for the Coordination of Bilateral Relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Malankara Church, Metropolitan Leonid of Klin, Patriarchal Exarch of Africa, and Metropolitan Zachariah Mar Nicholovos of North America http://mospat.ru/en/news/89586/ . During the Assembly, elections were held to the WCC Central and Executive Committees. |
| The man and the profound problems of his existence as expressed in the doctrine of hesychasts are regarded by O.S. Klimkov in conformity with the historical and cultural circumstances of the epoch of the beginning so called the «Palamite controversy». The first part of the monograph deals with the history of the studies of the Byzantine hesychasm in science. The author consider thoroughly numerous investigations of this subject and underlines special topicality of the existential problems of man’s being in the context of the modern consciousness of the mankind that have been regarded by hesychasts. The second part of the monograph brings to the basic features of the Byzantine culture. The author outlines general trends of its development and treats in more detail for the epoch of the «Palaeologus’s Renaissance». Philosophical, theological and mystical traditions in the whole body of the culture of the Byzantine Empire have been carefully analyzed by the author. The investigation of the doctrine of man as presented by hesychasts and their opponents has been developed by Rev Oleg Klimkov in the third part of the monograph, which is the most significant in this volume. It consists of four chapters, the first one being dedicated to the study of the history of the orthodox anthropology in the Byzance before the Fourteenth Century. The author considers various concepts of man belonging to the Fathers of the Orthodox East. Chapter 2 of this part deals with the theoretical treatment of the tradition of Byzantine hesychasm made by Palamas and his followers. The Christian mysticism of the hesychasts has been analyzed in terms of the philosophical and theological thought. The concepts of essence and energy in their relations to God who manifests Himself in concrete Persons and by concrete acts. The third chapter is dedicated to the consideration of the anthropological views of hesychasts of the Eastern Church. O.S. Klimkov begins his investigation from the problem of the structure of man, passes over the reasoning about the image and likeness of God in man as an existential and dynamic reality and crowns his analysis the final purpose of human life. |
| Gaudentius of Brescia (fl. 395). Successor of Filastrius as bishop of Brescia and author of numerous tracts. Gennadius of Constantinople (d. 471). Patriarch of Constantinople, author of numerous commentaries and an opponent of the Christology of Cyril of Alexandria. Gnostics. Name now given generally to followers of Basitides. Marcion, Valentinus, Mani and others. The characteristic belief is that matter is a prison made for the spirit by an evil or ignorant creator, and that redemption depends on fate, not on free will. Gregory of Elvira (fl. 359–385). Bishop of Elvira who wrote allegorical treatises in the style of Origen and defended the Nicene faith against the Arians. Gregory of Nazianzus (b. 329/330; fl. 372–389). Bishop of Nazianzus and friend of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa. He is famous for maintaining the humanity of Christ as well as the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–394). Bishop of Nyssa and brother of Basil. He is famous for maintaining the equality in unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Gregory the Great (c. 540–604). Pope from 590, the fourth and last of the Latin “Doctors of the Church.” He was a prolific author and a powerful unifying force within the Latin Church, initiating the liturgical reform that brought about the Gregorian Sacramentary and Gregorian chant. Hesychius of Jerusalem (fl. 412–450). Presbyter and exegete, thought to have commented on the whole of Scripture. Hilary of Arles (c. 401–449). Archbishop of Arles and leader of the Semi-Pelagian party. Hilary incurred the wrath of Pope Leo I when he removed a bishop from his see and appointed a new bishop. Leo demoted Arles from a metropolitan see to a bishopric to assert papal power over the church in Gaul. 1 5 3 Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315–367). Bishop of Poitiers and called the “Athanasius of the West” because of his defense (against the Arians) of the common nature of Father and Son. Hippolytus (fl. 222–245). Recent scholarship places Hippolytus in a Palestinian context, personally familiar with Origen. Though he is known mostly for The Refutation of All Heresies, he was primarily a commentator on Scripture (especially the Old Testament) and other sacred texts. |
| “It Is Not Too Late To Stop” A Sorrowful Reply to Patriarch Bartholomew Concerning His Anti-Canonical Actions in Ukraine Source: DECR In reply to a letter of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, in which he informed of the “reinstatement” of the Ukrainian schismatics in their “rank,” of the “annulment” of the document which is three hundred years old and indicates the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, of the organization in Kiev of a “local council” of the non-canonical groups admitted to communion, and of the intention to grant “autocephaly” in the next few days to the institution established at this gathering, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia sent a message, in which he expressed his deep pain, astonishment and indignation over the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. HIS HOLINESS BARTHOLOMEW PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE Your Holiness, It was with the feeling of great pain, astonishment and indignation that I read your letter in which you informed me of the recent actions of the Church of Constantinople: of admitting to communion the uncanonical communities in Ukraine; of “revoking” the Letter of Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople which had transferred the Kievan Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate; of organizing in Kiev a “local council” of the uncanonical communities admitted to communion by you; and of intending to give in the next few days a status of an autocephalous Orthodox Church to the institution that you had established. The reunification of the schismatics with the Church would have been a great joy both for Orthodox Christians in Ukraine and for the whole Orthodox world had it occurred in compliance with the rules of the canon law, in the spirit of peace and love of Christ. However, the current politicized process of coercive unification is far from the norms and spirit of the holy canons. A great amount of lies has been piled up, and now violence is being inflicted on the true Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is the same Church of millions of the Ukrainian faithful that you recognized as canonical all the years of your service, until very recently. And now you pretend that it does not exist, that there are only some separate dioceses which have returned under your omophorion. |
| Archimandrite Sophrony argues that the incomprehensible perfection of Trinitarian Existence points to “the assertion of equality of divinity, equality of kingship, equality of power… equality of absoluteness of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity.” 15 And just as there is no “shadow of subjection or subordination” 16 within the Triune Existence, so the relations between the Local Churches, called to display the image of the Triune Existence, should exclude any domination in relation to each other. The dogma of the Holy Trinity testifies to perfect love, “excluding any kind of predominance of one Person over others. Therefore, the Church rejects “all kinds of subordination and professes in regard to the Holy Trinity, “There is nothing more, and nothing less (within It): but the three hypostases are integral, consubstantial and equal.” 17 Fr. Sophrony stresses that “triadological subordination applied to the Church structure results in forms of papism which are analogous to various forms of triadological subordination. Hence, Roman papism , elevating the bishop of Rome to a degree that separates him from the rest of the Church body – making him not just great but OTHERWISE-EXISTING – is an example of ecclesiological subordination corresponding to the ontological aspect of the Arian triadological subordination .” 18 The Roman Catholic Filioque theology ultimately led to “a certain Christ-centrism” due to the Holy Spirit “losing Its equal absoluteness in regard to the Father and the Son and becoming only the power of Christ, the power given to the authority and discretion of the Bishop of Rome.” 19 On the Heresy of Constantinople’s Neo-papism The Canons of Councils denying such a right for any Local Church And now, in the middle of the twentieth century, Archimandrite Sophrony warned us against Constantinople’s neo-papism developing rapidly, despite its embryonic state. “For its having changed faces many times, we cannot clearly characterize it.” 20 The adherents thereof “first recognized the preeminence of jurisdictional rights for Constantinople, “because it holds primacy in the Orthodox Catholic Church”. Then they began to assert for Constantinople the right of the highest appellate instance in the Orthodox Catholic Church, having forgotten the age-old struggle against the claims of Rome to this right; having forgotten that it was these claims of Rome that led to the great and final division of the Churches (1054).” 21 Supporters of Constantinople’s neo-papism also forgot that, at the Council of Florence in 1439, Rome sought from the East the recognition of its “rights of the highest appellate instance in the Orthodox Catholic Church.” 22 However, the canons of the Ecumenical and Local Councils deny such a right for any Local Church. And the Church of Constantinople would firmly adhere to such an Orthodox position in its struggle against the claims of Rome. |
| On March 24, special prayers and petitions were offered up during the Sunday Divine Liturgy in all parishes of the Diocese of Sourozh for the health of “all victims of the terrorist attack in Krasnogorsk and for the repose of the innocent servants of God.” According to the diocesan website, “Bishop Matthew of Sourozh shares with the plenitude of the Russian Orthodox Church the grief of the relatives and friends of the innocent victims and offers up special prayers for the health of all injured at the Crocus City Hall on March 22.” On Saturday, March 23, Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest and Hungary celebrated the Divine Liturgy in the church of the Holy Martyr Alexandra in Üröm, Hungary, during which he offered up prayers for the victims of the terrorist attack at the Crocus City Hall. At the end of the service, the archpastor expressed condolences over victims of this horrific crime and called for augmented prayers for the repose of the dead and the recovery of the injured. On March 23, Archbishop Tikhon of Ruza, administrator of the Diocese of Berlin and Germany, celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the Resurrection of Christ Cathedral in Berlin, the Federal Republic of Germany. At the litany for the dead the worshippers prayed “for the innocent servants of God” killed in terrorist attack committed the day before in Krasnogorsk near Moscow. The death toll stands at over one hundred. On March 23 and 24, memorial services were celebrated in churches and communities of the Russian Orthodox Church in Turkey for the victims of the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall. Rev. Georgy Sergeyev, who is taking care of the Moscow Patriarchate faithful in the Republic of Turkey, took part in the flower-laying ceremony at the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Attending the commemorative ceremony that was held after the meeting of the Coordinating Council of Organizations of Russian Compatriots in Trabzon were also Mr. Alexei Yu. Ivanov, Minister Counselor of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Ankara, Mr. Alexander A. Sotnichenko, head of the Russian House in Ankara, other Russian diplomats, and the chairmen of organizations of Russian compatriots in Turkey. |
| The book published in 1990 written by George Soros is named “Opening the Soviet System”. In it Soros stated his political principles and the strategy of creating in “closed”, i.e. “non-western” countries structures that would assist transnational financial corporations in their speculative operations. The ultimate aim of George Soros is the creation of “the coalition of open societies that will take upon itself the functions of UN and will turn the General Assembly into the true legislative power supporting international law” (quoted from the address of George Soros to the session of the Council for Foreigh Relations of the US Congress, December 10, 1998). GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS The most popular among Russian human rights activists “governmental” fund is National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It was established by the President of the USA Ronald Reagan in 1983 with its annual budget of 30 million dollars. NED formulated its mission: “to support establishing and development of democracy worldwide”. There are 26 members at the Board of Directors of NED: congressmen, businessmen, former politicians. I’ll list some of their names: Vin Weber, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of NED, a former congressman, now the Vice-president of Clark and Weinstock Bank; Gen. Wesley Clark, a former Commander-in-Chief of NATO, who had led NATO agression against Yugoslavia; Ralf Gerson, a billionaire, the President of Guardian International Corp.; Frank Carlucci, a former Secretary of Defense, now the President of Carlyle Group (Investment); Morton Abramowitz, a former Reagan’s advisor, now the Chairman of International Crisis Center (ICC) and Lee H. Hamilton, a former senator, now a member of the Presidential National Security Council. The member of the Board of Directors of NED Julie Finley, the founder of US NATO Committee and the Chairman of the Project on Transitional Democracies has been working in NED for many years. This Project, realized under cover of NED, strives for “acceleration of reformation processes” in former socialist countries and “reduction of terms of integration of these countries into EEC and NATO”. Within this Project NED financed Yugoslavian anti-governmental youth organization “Otpor” (in 2001 NED granted “Otpor” with 220 000 and regularly conducted seminars and other organizing measures for its members. I would remind you that “Otpor” grour took the main part in preparing and conducting putsch in Serbia (October 5, 2000) that caused the dismissal of Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. |
| He underscored a particular importance of strengthening active cooperation between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Coptic Church at international platforms, including the World Council of Churches. A remarkable example of such cooperation was given at the 11 th WCC General Assembly held on August 31-September 8, 2022, as representatives of the Coptic Church spoke out against the unfounded attacks on the Russian Orthodox Church and attempts to impose discriminatory measures on her. The chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate emphasized that full context and agenda of this aspect of cooperation were much wider and continued to say: “There are very dangerous tendencies to thrust another understanding of the principles of morality on the world, to justify the religious-based persecutions and even to provoke them. Serving as a tool of these attacks are attempts to sow discord and schism among Christians, to deprive them of the joy of brotherly contacts and of an opportunity to proclaim God’s truth with one mouth on the earth. We can counteract these tendencies only by preserving and strengthening our unity, by combining efforts in defence of morality and our spiritual and cultural heritage, and of the right to have one’s own view on the events happening in the world.” Discussed during a long talk were other topics of mutual interest. At the end of the meeting the participants exchanged souvenirs. Taking part in the meeting on the part of the Moscow Patriarchate were Bishop Arseniy of Yuriev, vicar of the Novgorod diocese; hegumeness Iuliania (Kaleda), deputy head of the Synodal department for monasteries and monasticism and abbess of the Zachatyevsky convent in Moscow; hieromonk Smefan (Igumnov), DECR secretary for inter-Christian relations and secretary of the Commission for dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church; archimandrite Mitrofan (Pismensky), abbot of St. Anthony of Leokhnovo hermitage and dean of the monasteries in the Novgorod diocese; hegumen Damaskin (Leonov), abbot of the Dormition monastery in Staritsa, Tver metropolia; hieromonk Amvrosiy (Zhelyabovsky), abbot of the hierarchal metochion at the church of the Entry of the Most Holy Theotokos into the Temple, the former Holy Trinity Makariev monastery in Kalyazin, Tver metropolia; hieromonk Pavel (Gelyastanov), dean of the Novospassky monastery; hieromonk David (Legeida), head of the scete of the Smolensk icon of the Holy Theotokos and precentor of the choir of the brethren of the Valaam monastery of the Transfiguration; Rev. |
|
|
