| All these facts were ignored by the two Commissions of the Greek Orthodox Church that were charged with examining the Ukrainian church issue. According to Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythera, these Commissions in their conclusions “overlook over three hundred years of the living tradition of dependence of the Metropolis of Kiev and All Ukraine on the Moscow Patriarchate. These realities were present in all calendars of the Church of Greece till this year. It is possible that the Commissions also overlook the fact that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in his patriarchal letters dated 1992 and 1997 recognized the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Metropolis of Kiev and respected canonical punishments imposed on the defrocked schismatic clerics, now cleared and restored in their rank.” The assertion of His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos that “due to the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate at the Council of Crete in 2016 there was no opportunity to discuss the issue of autocephaly” does not correspond to reality, too. In sober fact, the topic of autocephaly was excluded from the agenda of the Council much earlier at Patriarch Bartholomew’s insistence. The reason has become clear now. Representatives of all Local Orthodox Churches at the meetings of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission in 1993 and 2009 agreed upon the order of granting autocephaly which presupposes: a) consent of the Local Council of the kyriarchal Mother Church for the autocephaly of its part; b) the Ecumenical Patriarch’s ascertainment of consensus among all Local Orthodox Churches expressed by the unanimity of their Councils; c) on the basis of the consent of the Mother Church and pan-Orthodox consensus the official proclamation of the autocephaly by issuing a Tomos which “is signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and is witnessed by the signatures of their Beatitudes Primates of the Holy Autocephalous Churches invited for this purpose by the Ecumenical Patriarch.” As to the last point, only the order of signing a Tomos was not agreed upon, but it does not annul the achieved agreements on other points. At the Synaxises of the Primates in 2014 and 2016 the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate and representatives of some other fraternal Churches insisted on putting the topic of autocephaly on the agenda of the Council. The Russian Church finally agreed to take off this topic from the Council’s agenda only after January 2016, when Patriarch Bartholomew in the presence of other Primates gave his assurances that the Holy Church of Constantinople had no intention to undertake any action pertaining to the church life in Ukraine either at the Great and Holy Council or after the Council. |
| ‘The transfer of the functions of ministry of primacy from the level of the diocese to the universal level, in essence, would mean the recognition of a special type of ministry, a “universal bishop” possessing the right to teach and administer throughout the whole Universal Church’ (3). This recognition does away with the sacramental equality of the episcopate and leads to the appearance of a jurisdiction of a Universal First Hierarch, of which neither the sacred canons nor patristic tradition have anything to say. The consequence would be a diminution of the autocephaly of the autocephalous Local Churches. ‘The expansion of the primacy characteristic of the First Hierarch of an autocephalous Church (according to the 34th apostolic canon) to the universal level would give to the primate in the Universal Church special powers independent of the consent to this of the Local Orthodox Churches’ (3). Such a step would require the corresponding transfer of the procedure of election of the first bishop to the universal level, which would lead to the infraction of the right of the first autocephalous Local Church to elect independently her First Hierarch. The primatial First Hierarch would have to be elected at a Pan-Orthodox Council from among the whole episcopate of the Orthodox Church. 4.The position on the varied nature and the various sources of primacy at different levels of church order as expounded in The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate was greeted with criticism. In particular, Metropolitan Elpidophoros of Bursa in his article ‘Primus sine paribus’ wrote that the Moscow document transforms primacy ‘into something external and therefore alien to the person of the first hierarch’. Instead of this he suggested that we consider that any ecclesiastical institution ‘is always hypostasized into a person’ and that the source of primacy at all three levels of church organization is the First Hierarch himself. In his theology Metropolitan Elpidophoros follows the personalist approach of the ecclesiology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas. I will not go into the theological content of Metropolitan Elpidophoros’ article, but will briefly remark only that it goes far beyond the approach of Metropolitan John. From the perspective of the ecclesiology of Metropolitan John, only a local Church can be ‘hypostasized’ into a person, and this ‘hypostasization’ is connected with the Eucharist which is celebrated always locally. The bishop’s ministry, according to Zizioulas, has a dual source – eschatological (as the alter Christus), and historical – in the apostolic succession (as the alter apostolus), and therefore we cannot say that the First Hierarch is the source of his primacy. |
| The capital of Lebanon, Beirut, is considered to be the birthplace of the Holy Great Martyr George the Victorious. According to legend, the place wh ere St George killed the serpent is now the site of the cathedral of the Beirut Metropolitanate of the Antiochian Orthodox Church dedicated to the saint. On the shores of the Mediterranean Sea lies Byblos, the world " s oldest city, one of the centres of Phoenician civilisation. Another ancient city of Lebanon is Baalbek, the hometown of St Barbara, about which Ivan Bunin wrote that it is more impressive than the Egyptian pyramids. Lebanon is also home to ancient monasteries known throughout the Orthodox world: the monastery of the Dormition of St James of Hamatoura, located on the slopes of the Lebanese mountains, wh ere the relics of its founder, St James, who suffered at the hands of Muslims in the XIII century, rest; a convent in the village of Douma, a convent of Nourieh, a convent of St James the Persian near the city of Tripoli and many others. This is a very incomplete list of the Christian shrines of the land of Lebanon. I am absolutely convinced that acquaintance with the history of Lebanon, its holy ascetics and popularisation of pilgrimage routes to the ancient Lebanese land is one of the promising directions of our activity. - Does the Russian Church now participate in humanitarian projects in Syria? And if so, what kind of projects? - The Russian State, in co-operation with the Russian Orthodox Church, is constantly involved in the process of restoring peaceful life to Syrian citizens. Over the past few years, many humanitarian projects have been carried out, including through the Interreligious Working Group on Assistance to Syria established under the President of Russia. With the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ and with the assistance of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, benefactors fr om Russia are channelling funds for the rebuilding and restoration of churches of the Antiochian Orthodox Church that were damaged both during the military conflict in Syria and as a result of the recent devastating earthquake. In January this year, two such restored churches were solemnly consecrated in the Damascus suburbs of Arbin and Al-Zabadani. We cannot fail to mention the Patriarchal Hospital in Al-Hosn, which is being rebuilt thanks to Russian assistance. |
| The IFUOCN-2011 prizewinners are His Beatitude Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria and All Africa; Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority; and Serbian tennis player Novak Djokovic. Attending the ceremony were Metropolitan Varsonofiy of Saransk and Mordovia, chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate; Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations (DECR); Metropolitan Athanasios of Kyrenaika, representative of the Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; Archbishop Nifon of Philippopolis, representative of the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; Archbishop Arseniy of Istra; Bishop Sergiy of Solnechnogorsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Administrative Secretariat; Bishop Tikhon of Podolsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Finance and Economics Management; archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, chairman of the Synodal Department for Church-State Relations; archpriest Nikolai Balashov, DECR deputy chairman; archpriest Mikhail Ryazantsev, sacristan of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour; members of the delegation of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria; Mikhail Bogdanov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; Mufti Albir Krganov, first deputy chairman of the Central Spiritual Boards of Muslims of Russia; ambassador of the Arab and Balkan states accredited in Russia; members of the delegation of the Palestinian National Administration; and many guests. A documentary film about the history of the IFUOCN was shown before the ceremony. The IFUOCN president, Prof. Valery Alexeyev gave an opening speech and asked His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, president of the IFUOCN Board of Trustees, to open the awarding ceremony. The Primate of the Russian Church welcomed the prizewinners and the guests and, together with Prof. Alexeyev presented diplomas and badges to the prize-winners-2011. |
| 4. The Imposition of a First Bishop on Orthodoxy From that time forward, the USA provided—as a means of neutralizing the Russian factor—their support to the fixed aim of the Phanar of establishing its Primacy in the Orthodox East. The whole matter has been systematically promoted by the leading representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Metropolitan of Prousa came straight to the point in judging as heretics all those who do not accept the imposition of Primacy on the Orthodox Church. He wrote: “The refusal to recognize any primacy in the Orthodox Church, a primacy which cannot be embodied but by some " Protos " [First]—that is to say some Bishop, who has the privilege to be first among his brother Bishops— constitutes a heresy. What is usually said about unity among the Orthodox being guaranteed either by their common faith and worship or by the institution of the Ecumenical Council is unacceptable. Both of these models are impersonal, whereas in Orthodox theology, the principle of unity is always a person. Really, just as in the Holy Trinity, the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the person of the Father (the ‘monarchy’ of the Father); in the same way at the ecclesiological level, in the local church, the point of unity is not the presbyterate or the common worship of Christians but the person of the Bishop. Consequently, at the Pan-Orthodox level, the principle of unity cannot be based on an idea or an institution, but must be some person, if indeed we desire to remain consistent in our theology.” It is clear that the views of the Metropolitan of Prousa reproduce those found in the theology of the Metropolitan of Pergamon [John Zizioulas] concerning the person. According to the Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, “the whole strain of thought concerning the person, without risking saying too much, is a heresy, a continuation of Arianism, of Monotheletism, and came about through the influence of existential philosophy .” “The Church, according to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, is the Body of Christ; the basis of the Church is Christocentric and not Triadocentric, since Christ, ‘one of the Trinity,’ became man, took on human nature and divinized it. When the Church is characterized as an ‘icon’ or ‘according to the image of the Holy Trinity’ then from a strictly theological point of view a confusion of theology and economy occurs and a confusion of created and uncreated. Moreover, in the formulation of the Church as icon of the Holy Trinity many difficulties appear regarding the connection between the Churches and the hypostatic properties of the persons of the Holy Trinity.” |
| Bishop Euthemius took his guests on a tour of the monastery and showed them its holy sites. The representatives of the Coptic Church venerated the monastery’s holy objects, such as a cross with a particle of the Life-Creating Cross of the Lord, the Blachernae icon of the Mother of God, reliquaries with particles of the precious remains of Saints Peter and Paul, Saint Peter of Moscow, Saint Sergius of Radonezh and a host of saints from the Dormition of the Monastery of the Caves in Kiev. In the Saint Sergius Church the pilgrims attended a prayer service with Akathist to the Tolgskaya icon of the Mother of God and venerated the monastery’s copy of the icon of the Virgin, which according to established tradition was transferred from the State Historical Museum to the monastery for the occasion of the feast day. On the same day the Coptic delegation visited the Sretensky monastery. The deputy superior of the monastery abbot John (Ludischev) showed the monastery churches to the pilgrims of Egypt, which included the catholicon of the Vladimir Virgin and the Cathedral of Christ’s Resurrection and the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Church which contain the relics of the monastery’s heavenly protector the holy martyr archbishop Hilarion of Vereya. The monastery’s dean hieromonk Athanasius (Deryugin) spoke about the monastery’s history and contemporary life and answered the guests’ questions, who were interested in various aspects of the organizing of the coenobitic life of Russian monasteries. The conversation between the brothers continued at a joint refectory meal. A concert was given by the choir of the Sretensky theological academy and the students of the monastery’s Sunday school in honour of the visit by the representatives of the Coptic Church. At the Convent of the Nativity of the Virgin the delegation was warmly met by the sisters headed by the mother superior abbess Victorina (Perminova). The Coptic monks venerated the holy sites of the convent, among which are icons with particles of relics of Saint George the Great Martyr, Saint Panteleimon the Great Martyr and Healer, the holy martyr Cyprian and martyr Justina. A lengthy talk was held at the refectory church of the convent. |
| Dorotheus of Gaza (fl. c. 525). Member of abbot Serido’s monastery and later leader of a monastery where he wrote Spiritual Instructions. He also wrote a work on traditions of Palestinian monasticism. Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315–403). Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, author of a refutation of eighty heresies (the Panarion) and instrumental in the condemnation of Origen. Ephrem the Syrian (b. c. 306; fl. 363–373). Syrian writer of commentaries and devotional hymns which are sometimes regarded as the greatest specimens of Christian poetry prior to Dante. Eucherius of Lyons (fl. 420–449). Bishop of Lyons c. 435–449. Born into an aristocratic family, he, along with his wife and sons, joined the monastery at Lerins soon after its founding. Eunomius (d. 393). Bishop of Cyzicyus who was attacked by Basil and Gregory of Nyssa for maintaining that the Father and the Son were of different natures, one ingeneratc, one generate. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260/263–340). Bishop of Caesarea, partisan of the emperor Constantine and flrst historian of the Christian church. He argued that the truth of the gospel had been foreshadowed in pagan writings but had to defend his own doctrine against suspicion of Arian sympathies. Eusebius of Emesa (c. 300-c. 359). Bishop of Emesa from c. 339. A biblical exegete and writer on doctrinal subjects, he displays some semi-Arian tendencies of his mentor Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius of Vercelli (fl. c. 360). Bishop of Vercelli who supported the trinitarian teaching of Nicaea (325) when it was being undermined by compromise in the West. Fastidius (c. fourth-fifth centuries). British author of On the Christian Life. He is believed to have written some works attributed to Pelagius. Faustinus (fl. 380). A priest in Rome and supporter of Lucifer and author of a treatise on the Trinity. Filastrius (fl. 380). Bishop of Brescia and author of a compilation against all heresies. Fulgentius of Ruspe (c. 467–532). Bishop of Ruspe and author of many orthodox sermons and tracts under the influence of Augustine. |
| The article is devoted to the consideration of the most famous ideas from the theological heritage of the Rev. Simeon the New Theologian from the point of view of their practical applicability in the spiritual life of a modern Christian. The author argues against the previously stated thesis about the lack of balance and sobriety in the writings of the Saint. The teaching of the Rev. Simeon on the gradual grace – filled process of deification of human nature, on the relationship between physical asceticism and the spiritual feat of educating of one’s will in the service of God and others is highlighted. The importance of the concept of moderate feat in the writings of the Saint is most clearly evidenced by the teaching of Symeon on the «royal way» (βσλικς δς), as well as repeated use of the expressions «κατ μικρν» and «κατ μικρν μικρν» in the description of the spiritual perfection of the Christian. The teaching about the Holy Eucharist as the main source of sanctification is interrelated with the Saint " s instructions about humility as the main foundation of spiritual creative work. From the point of view of practical Christian psychology it is revealed a significant difference in the feelings and mood of the communicant, provided that he believes that he partakes of both deity and full humanity of Christ, in contrast to the partaker, confident that he accepts the deified substance of bread and wine. Eucharistic realism of Rev. Simeon allows us to once again expose the infidelity of the recently appeared theory of Eucharistic “enipostatization”. The feats of theological contemplation and ascetic efforts, to which the New Theologian calls all Christians, must be carried out in the spirit of Christian sobriety, which includes, in addition to gradualness and vigilance, a clear awareness of the need for fruitful asceticism in the salvation of the soul. The Saint " s teaching on the tears of repentance is considered in the context of the New Testament and patristic ascetic tradition of «sorrow for God». |
| The nihilism of Heidegger, as respect for the unrestricted limits of questioning thought – as refusal to subject God and Being to conceptual constructors – seems provisionally to fit in with what we have here called, in reliance on the Areopagitical writings, apophatic abandonment. It differs crucially from the apophaticism of the Areopagite both in its presuppositions and in its consequences, presuppositions and consequences that make up the ontology of the person, the linking of apophaticism to the existential principle of freedom and otherness. Chapter 5. The ‘Nihilism’ of Theological Apophaticism 109 Theological apophaticism, as the abandonment of every conceptual necessity, defines the annihilation of all conceptual idols of God. 110 Definitions, positive as well as negative, are only symbols of the divine existential event, unable to define the ‘nature’ or ‘essence’ of the God. The replacement of God’s personal presence with conceptual definition and deduction from analogical procedures, the absolutization of the language of symbols, is treated in the Areopagitical Corpus as one of the causes of unbelief, as an essential denial of the divinity of God. That is why so many continue to be unbelieving in the presence of the explanation of the divine mysteries, for we contemplate them solely by way of the perceptible symbols attached to them. What is necessary s to uncover them, to see them in their naked purity. 111 Unbelief in the revealed word of God (which is unavoidably a symbolic word, a word of ana-logical sketches in sensible images) is constructed in the above passage as doubt or rejection not of the reality of God, but of that account which sees the knowledge of God only in terms of types, myth and symbols. Consequently, we could repeat here the declaration of Heidegger and say that position of ‘many unbelievers’ represent ‘a more divine conception of God’ than that defined by conceptual constructs and analogical symbolism. Accordingly, the event of faith is shown to be not a problem of the acceptance of syllogistic conclusions and mythical symbols – that is to say, analogical ascents – but a readiness to be freed from any conceptual absolutization, an annihilation of conceptual idols, an acceptance of unknowing as the sole category of ‘knowledge’. |
| Archive People in Mariupol have received aid from religious communities in Russia 17 April 2022 year 11:42 On April 15, 2022, in the left bank part of Mariupol, the distribution of the humanitarian aid collected by believers in Russia took place as part of the work of the Interreligious Working Group for Protecting the Rights of Believers against Discrimination and Xenophobia under the Presidential Council for Cooperation with Religious Associations. As a result of the joint efforts, about 15 tons of humanitarian supply consisting of, among other things, a thousand of food packages was collected in a short term and delivered to people in Mariupol. Each kit includes over ten kilograms of the most essential foodstuffs: macaroni, canned high-quality fish and vegetables, pastry, sweets, tea, sugar and other foodstuffs. The aid is targeted: beforehand a list of those in the greatest need was compiled locally and already today the food packages have been distributed to concrete families. Another part of the supply includes children hygienic essentials, as well as aids for nursing bed-ridden patients and the elderly. On the same day, a press conference was held at the International Multimedia Center “Russia Today” on the organization of the humanitarian aid given to Donbass by traditional confessions and religious communities in Russia. Journalists had an opportunity to ask questions of secretary for inter-Christian relations of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate and leader of the Interreligious Working Group for Protecting the Rights of Believers against Discrimination and Xenophobia, Hieromonk Stephen (Igumnov), adviser of the Presidential Office for Domestic Policy Pavel Kostylev; head of the legal service of the Diocese of Russia and Novo-Nakhichevan of the Armenian Apostolic Church Deacon Michael Parsadanian; representative of the Buddhist Traditional Sangha in Russia Bato-Lama Dugarov; head of the Administration of the Presiding Bishop of the Russian Church of the Evangelical Faith Ivan Borichevsky; representative of the Russian Union of the Christians of Evangelical Faith (Pentecostals), Rev. Pavel Renner; fist vice-chairman of the Euro-Asian Division of the General Conference of the Church of the Seventh Day’s Christians Oleg Goncharov; and representative of the Russian Orthodox Old Belief Church Roman Atorin. The press conference was moderated by Ms. Olga Lipich, editor-in-chief of the Religions and World View section of the International News Agency “Russia Today”. |
|
|
