| “One of the participants in the Sobor, a member of the State Duma, Prince I.S. Vasil’chikov, recalls: “By his speeches—always intelligent and beautifully worded—and by his whole external appearance he very soon won general sympathy at the Sobor. The young archimandrite was nominated by six votes as candidate to be a member of the Highest Church Council of the ROC from among the monastics, but, like the majority of monastics, declined to run. He was also among the candidates for election as Patriarch, and received at the first round of votes three votes, overtaking in the process such noted hierarchs as Agathangel of Yaroslavl’ (2 votes) and Evlogy of Volhynia (1), Bishop Andrei of Ufa (2), and also the chairman of the section on the HCA (Highest Church Administration) Bishop Mitrophan of Astrakhan (1). In the second round, four members of the Local Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church gave their votes for the candidacy of Archimandrite Hilarion. The newly-elected Patriarch Tikhon also took notice of Archimandrite Hilarion, to which Fr. Hilarion’s participation in the enthronement ceremony of His Holiness serves as witness. A member of the Sobor, an opponent of the restoration of the Patriarchate and a future Renovationist hierarch, Archpriest Dimitri Rozhdestvensky, spoke ironically about the three votes received by his colleague and fellow-professor at the Academy: “Of course, for a patriarch, it is barely enough… hardly sufficient at all… In order to be an ass, though, on which His Holiness the Patriarch will go out it’s plenty.” Whether Fr. Dimitri intended this or not, his ironic appraisal was not without a portion of prophetic truth, as in the years immediately after the Sobor Archimandrite Hilarion became the vicar bishop of the Patriarch, one of his closest helpers (including helping with the struggle against the Renovationists, whom Archpriest Dimitri also joined), administering the affairs of the Moscow diocese; that is, a kind of “Patriarch’s beast of burden.” With the coming of the Bolsheviks to power, the educational process at the MTA gradually died out, first and foremost from lack of funds. |
| By acceptance of this act, Patriarchy was re-introduced into the ROC and the principle of conciliarity was declared. On October 30, the order for choosing a Patriarch was established: 1. The Council members shall submit ballots on which each is to write one name; 2) A list of candidates shall be made based on the ballots submitted; 3) After the list is read aloud the Council shall choose three candidates by ballot, each giving three names out of the number of those shown in the list; 4) The names of the first three who have received the absolute majority of votes shall be placed on the Holy Table; 5) The election shall be made by casting lots. This is how the election of a Patriarch from only the clerical ranks was established. After submitting ballots (there were 273 in all, but 16 turned out to be empty) the vote count gave 25 names. The leaders of the list were: Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) of Kharkov (101 votes), Archbishop Kirill (Smirnov) of Tambov (27), Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin) (23), Metropolitan Platon (Rozhdestvensky) of Tiflis (Tbilisi) (22), Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky) of Novgorod (14), Metropolitan Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky) of Kiev , Archbishop Anastasy (Gribanovsky) of Kishenev, and Archpriest George Shavelsky (13 each). The rest took no more than five votes. At the next meeting, on October 31, the procedure for electing candidates for the Patriarchy continued. The Council members were offered to submit ballots showing three names out of the number of those chosen the day before. The results gave three names—Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop Arseny (Stadnitsky), and Metropolitan Tikhon (Belavin). That is, the candidates for the Patriarchy were all hierarchs in the ruling group within the Council. On November 4 the election of the Patriarch was appointed to take place on the next day. The Christ the Savior Cathedral was chosen as the venue. The Dormition Cathedral at that time was not accessible because the Kremlin had been occupied by the Bolshevik regiments, which had put down the Junker rebellion. |
| Conservative politicians in Britain have never made a political issue out of abortion; there are no votes in it, and few of these politicians have sufficiently strong moral objections to abortion to make them want to mount a crusade against it. Abortion is not a controversial issue in a society where the Roman Catholics have followed the Protestants into rapid decline. In the 2001 general election, the Pro-Life Alliance put up thirty-seven independent candidates on an anti-abortion platform. Its candidates obtained an average of 255 votes; the highest vote obtained was only 475. They came bottom of the poll in twenty-six seats, and in Cheltenham had fewer votes than the Raving Loony Party. Even in strongly Roman Catholic constituencies in Glasgow and Merseyside, the level of voting for the Pro-Life Alliance was derisory. Abortion is not a possible source of political conflict in Britain, but capital punishment could have been, for it has—and always has had—the strong support of a great majority of the population. By the end of the twentieth century, it can safely be said that neither those in support of capital punishment nor those against it were inspired by religion. It was not always thus. From 1837 onwards, when in practice murder was the only crime punished by execution, there was in England a religious dimension to capital punishment. The execution of a murderer was permitted by the articles of the Church of England. Indeed, for many of those connected with its administration, it was seen as a religious duty—the carrying out of God’s commandment to Noah, the ancestor of all mankind, to shed the blood of the one who had shed blood. Only in this way could the land be cleansed. When, in the 1860s, it was proposed to divide murders into capital and non-capital murders, the debate was centered on the question of degree of moral culpability; those in search of reform sought a formula for dividing murders into the particularly heinous ones, subject to capital punishment, and others not meriting the extreme penalty. |
| Монастырь прп. Иова Почаевского Hofbauernstr. 26 тел.: +49 (0) (89) 2031 9085, +49 (0) (1761) 834 895 9; факс: +49 (0) (89) 88 67 77 архиепископ Марк (Арндт) епископ Агапит (Горачек) игумен Евфимий (Логвинов) монах Имя (Фамилия) Храм Архистратига Божия Михаила Achatstr. 14 тел.: +49 (0) (89) 930 12 92 архиепископ Марк (Арндт) иерей Андрей Березовский Германской епархии РПЦЗ управление Hofbauernstr. 26, тел.: +49 (0) (89) 2031 9085; факс: +49 (0) (89) 88 67 77 архиепископ Марк (Арндт) епископ Агапит (Горачек) Храм свт. Николая Чудотворца Kapelle des Alexianer-Krankenhausses; Alexianerpl. 1 тел.: +49 (0) (241) 401 70 67, +49 (0) (2104) 45390 иерей Андрей Остапчук Нюрнберг Община Рождества Пресвятой Богородицы Kolpingasse тел.: +49 (0) (911) 53 59 24 протоиерей Евгений Скопинцев Ольденбург Храм ап. Петра Ammerländer-Heerstr. 40 тел.: +49 (0) (441) 560 05 26 иерей Аркадий Дубровин диакон Александр Соколов Регенсбург Храм Покрова Пресвятой Богородицы Pruefeningerstr. тел.: +49 (0) (941) 2804 0744, +49 (0) (941) иерей Виктор Вдовиченко Саарбрюкен Храм прмц. инокини Евгении Friedenskirche; Wilhelm-Heinrich-Str. тел.: +49 (0) (1632) 586 298 иерей Димитрий Свистов Сеннештадт Храм Преображения Господня Am Beckhof 16-18 тел.: +49 (0) (5205) 967 863 , +49 (0) (1799) 706 915 иерей Димитрий Калачев Филлинген-Швеннинген Храм Архистратига Божия Михаила Unterer Dammweg 6/3 тел.: +49 (0) (1520) 291 056 5 иерей Димитрий Свистов Франкфурт-Хаузен Храм свт. Николая Чудотворца Am Industriehof 18 тел.: +49 (0) (69) 789 41 40, +49 (0) (6196) 42733; факс: +49 (0) (69) 7880 9931 протоиерей Димитрий Игнатьев иерей Виктор Зозуля Штраубинг Храм Пророка, Предтечи и Крестителя Господня Иоанна Regensburger Str. 7a тел.: +49 (0) (941) 2804 0744, +49 (0) (9421) 923 772 иерей Виктор Вдовиченко Штутгарт Храм свт. Николая Чудотворца Seidenstr. 69 тел.: +49 (0) (711) 22 11 55 епископ Агапит (Горачек) протоиерей Илья Лимбергер иерей Владимир Бошманн иерей Игорь Блинов диакон Александр Бощманн Храм свт. Николая Чудотворца, усыпальница королевы Екатерины Павловны, Вюртембургской |
| Гамбург Храм блж. Прокопия Устюжского Hagenbeckstr. 10 тел.: +49 (0) (40) 40 40 60, +49 (0) (40) 768 15 90 протоиерей Иосиф Вовнюк иерей Николай Волпер Ганновер Храм Рождества Христова Plueschow-Str. 6 тел.: +49 (0) (511) 45 67 38 протоиерей Серафим Корфф Дармштадт Храм равноап. Марии Магдалины Mathildenhoehe тел.: +49 (0) (6151) 424 235 иерей Иоанн Гринчук диакон Михаил Ирищук Зальцгиттер Храм свт. Николая Чудотворца Salzgitter, 38226 тел.: +49 (0) (5205) 967 863 , +49 (0) (5341) 941 366 иерей Димитрий Калачев Ингольштадт Храм свт. Николая Чудотворца Esplanade 38 тел.: +49 (0) (841) 127 22 31, +49 (0) (1764) 120 880 2 иерей Георгий Харлов Кассель Храм вмч. Пантелеимона Alte Bruder Kirche; Steinweg иерей Иоанн Гринчук Клоппенбург Храм прп. Серафима Саровского Ostring 33 тел.: +49 (0) (4471) 184 387 1 иерей Олег Никифоров Констанц Община иконы Пресвятой Богородицы «Всех скорбящих Радость» Schottenkapelle; Am Schottenpl. тел.: +49 (0) (7731) 794 562 иерей Димитрий Свистов Котбус Община свт. Иоанна Шанхайского и Сан-Францисского Cottbus, 3048 тел.: +49 (0) (355) 79 04 89 иерей Александр Калинский Кёльн-Вестхофен Храм вмч. Пантелеимона Neue Strasse тел.: +49 (0) (1631) 858 316 иерей Александр Калинский иерей Андрей Остапчук Ландсхут Храм свт. Николая Чудотворца Gestutstr. 4a тел.: +49 (0) (871) 966 87 99 иерей Валерий Михеев Храм блж. Прокопия Устюжского Glockengiesserstr. 3 протоиерей Иосиф Вовнюк иерей Николай Волпер Мангейм Храм блгв. вел. кн. Александра Невского Gaertnerstr. 10 тел.: +49 (0) (621) 748 13 21 протоиерей Сергий Маношкин Минден Храм равноап. вел. кн. Владимира Sedanstr 19 тел.: +49 (0) (5205) 967 863 иерей Димитрий Калачев Мюнстер Община Казанской иконы Пресвятой Богородицы Hammerstraße 371, 48153 Münster тел.: +49 173 8559657 иерей Аркадий Дубровин Мюнхен Собор Новомучеников и исповедников Российских Lincolnstr. 58 тел.: +49 (0) (89) 690 07 16, +49 (0) (89) 316 31 63; факс: +49 (0) (89) 699 18 12 архиепископ Марк (Арндт) протоиерей Николай Артемов иерей Александр Ролоф иерей Андрей Березовский протодиакон Георгий Кобро |
| their own occupation but also to receive new monks. In the second stage, from the mid-1970s onwards, monks began to move, again in groups, from the more flourishing monasteries to the weaker ones. Again the new arrivals took over the administration and running of their new abode; and thus was avoided a disproportionate increase in the population of some monasteries and the total depopulation of others. Early in the 1980s, there began a gradual movement from the monasteries back to the dependencies. Monks who had lived in the monasteries for some years and acquired the necessary monastic experience withdrew to dependencies, where there was more peace and quiet. And thus began the broader revival of the hesychasteria. The number of monks on Mount Athos is rising in inverse proportion to their average age, because almost all the recent arrivals are young men. Already the vast majority of Athonite monks have arrived within the past twenty-five years. This has had a rejuvenating effect on Athonite monasticism and fully re-established the age pyramid, reducing the average age to about forty-eight. Most of the monks today are aged between thirty-one and forty, and there are more and younger monks in the monasteries than in the dependencies. Furthermore, their level of education is appreciably higher than the average in the Greek population as a whole. Many of the novices have completed further or higher education and hold qualifications in a variety of disciplines. In the five-year period 1960-4, for instance, only three holders of university degrees took up residence on Mount Athos (2.8%), whereas today there are 343 monks (27%) with university degrees. Of these, 133 (10.5%) have degrees in Theology, and 210 (16.5%) degrees in other subjects. Only 1.7% of the monks today have not completed primary education. Regarding the organisation of monastic life on Mount Athos, there have been some rapid developments during this recent period. It is the coenobitic system, which rejects personal ownership of property, that is generally |
| What the Data Really Tell Us Here is what the NFSS (along with the National Health Information Survey) can and does still tell us. These conclusions hold true, whether you read my original study, its follow-up, Simon Cheng and Brian Powell’s new analyses, or crunch the numbers yourself: - The parental same-sex relationships reported by adult children are not, on average, long-term ones. - The longer those parental relationships lasted, the better—on average—were the outcomes for adult children. - Very few same-sex relationships lasted the entirety of the respondents’ childhood. Critics cried foul. I cried, “Reality!” - The stability afforded by continuously intact mom-and-dad families pays benefits, on average, well into adulthood. They remain the standard against which all other forms ought to be compared. Some remarked from the beginning that these data provided evidence in favor of same-sex marriage. I can see why. If marriage stabilizes relationships, and stability is valued, then an argument for it can be made. (And while I hold that same-sex marriage is not an entity identical to opposite-sex marriage, I’ve never contested people coming to their own interpretations of the data.) But if child development were simply a matter of resources and stable access to parent figures, we should consider building cosmopolitan kibbutzim. We don’t, however. Because biology matters. And sexual difference matters. And the stable sexual union between husband and wife matters—as remains evident in the NFSS. The Open Secrets of Social Science Research into LGBT Households A penchant for featuring ideal types while ignoring inequality among LGBT households is not the only open secret that is observable. There are others. Some aren’t even secrets anymore. That’s what happens when an empirical truth emerges over time and in multiple datasets, is suppressed and undermined because it’s politically unhelpful, then becomes owned by insiders, and is, finally, slowly introduced with an “of course that’s true” narrative. It’s happened with the robust association between LGBT households and nonheterosexual development in children (a conclusion that is also obvious in the NFSS). I even remember the National Council on Family Relations conference room in which attendees debated each other about just how free they were to admit the association. They left the room committed to owning it. |
| 128 His desire to address the average Carpatho-Rusyn immigrant can be found in both his publication efforts and in his personal interaction with immigrant groups seeking to establish an Orthodox parish. With regard to his publications, Toth sought to present arguments in a manner that not only might appeal to the common Rusyn sentiments, but would be readily accessible. The important pamphlet, Where to Seek the Truth?, already analyzed, is probably the most obvious example, given that it went through many editions over the years and was distributed to large groups of people. Some of the changes to the editions are also notable. One of the prominent Russophile exponents during Toth’s lifetime in Subcarpathia was Ievhennii Fentsyk (1844–1903), who published the journal Listok. 129 The journal included a supplement intended for the less educated simply entitled Dadotok. In the later 1907 edition of Where to Seek the Truth?, Toth likewise added two supplement sections (also entitled Dadotok), which addressed the sorts of concerns one might expect from a Carpatho-Rusyn peasant, such as why Eastern clergy had beards while the Roman Catholic clergy were clean-shaven. 130 He also added a section that discussed the various types of crosses, including the Slavic three-barred cross. 131 For the average Carpatho-Rusyn, such things were the marks of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, of which they felt a part. Toth also founded the paper Svit because he believed that the Russian Orthodox Mission needed a paper written for the average Carpatho-Rusyn immigrant, akin to the Eastern Catholic paper Amerikanski Russki Viestnik. He belabored this concern many times in his letters to Bishop Nicholas. For example, in the letter to Bishop Nicholas, wherein he argued that Bishop Nicholas should not have written the letter to Svoboda or Amerikanski Russki Viestnik, Toth claimed that having their own newspaper could serve as a means of responding to the Eastern Catholic voices. 132 At one point, by way of a passing remark, he even wrote, «I would have liked to enclose several more letters from people in which they are constantly asking about a newspaper.» 133 In a later letter, Toth noted that the Amerikanski Pravoslavny Viestnik (the Russian Missions paper, which was also known as the Russian Orthodox American Messenger) «would be a magazine in which only learned people would find pleasure, but our uneducated people will not understand anything and because of that – I am convinced – venia sit verb! – that the best would be not to get occupied with grandiloquent questions in the magazine, and with more easy questions for example with the intemperate behavior of the local Russian people.» 134 In another letter still, he wrote, «Your Eminence! Our magazine somehow is writing only for educated persons. |
| To be eligible for election as Patriarch, a metropolitan must have presided over a diocese for at least five year, must be at least 50 years old, while other criteria are more abstract – that the Patriarch should have the appropriate attitude to the Orthodox Christian faith and respect the church order. On January 13, 75 delegates to the electoral college will be chosen, representing the 13 dioceses in Bulgaria and the two dioceses abroad – the United States, Canada and Australia and Western and Central Europe. Each diocese is to send five representatives, made up of three clergy and two lay people, except the diocese of Sofia, which sends 10 representatives – six clergy and four lay people. The electoral college also includes representatives of three monasteries, Rila, Troyan and Bachkovo, as well as the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s seminaries. Other monasteries are also represented. For the electoral college to be quorate, at least 75 per cent of its members must be present. If an hour after the appointed starting time there is still no quorum, the vote for the new Patriarch must be postponed by a week. For a Patriarch to be elected at the first round, he will require two-thirds of the electoral college votes. If there is no first round victory, a second round is held between the two candidates who got the most votes at the first round. Plans are that immediately after the results of the election are confirmed, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church’s new Patriarch will be enthroned the same day in Sofia’s landmark Alexander Nevsky Cathedral. Of the metropolitans, some are ineligible for nomination and election – Nikolai of Plovdiv and Ambrosii of Silistra, respectively for being too young and for not having sufficient years in office as a metropolitan. Metropolitan Joseph of the United States, Canada and Australia has said that his identification as a former State Security agent means that he should not be elected Patriarch. Yoaniki of Sliven also has said that he does not want to be elected Patriarch. |
| All here is sects - nothing other! Christian Schmemann 20 февраля 2014, 17:00 Most of the " Christian " support for Israel and its apartheid policies comes from American Protestants, and specifically American Evangelical Protestants. Many average Fundamentalist Protestants in America are completely ignorant that there are even any Christians in the Middle East at all- let alone Palestine. The few average Fundamentalist Protestants in America who are aware of the Christian plight in Palestine (and the Middle East generally) refuse to refuse to us Catholic and Orthodox Christians as being Christian at all, and they blaspheme the Roman Pope, the Greek Patriarch, the Arab Patriarchs and the Russian Patriarch as " False Prophets " who will be servants of the future Antichrist! The leaders of the Fundamentalist Protestant " Churches " (Temples of Satan)are well aware of the Christian plight in Palestine, and actively encourage Israel in its persecutions against Christians in Palestine, and actively work with the Republican Party (and its Tea Party rebels) and media outlets in America to cover up the fact that Israel persecutes Christians. Besides the Israeli government, the American government is also complicit in the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. Laura Abraham 20 февраля 2014, 16:00 A thoughtful and very accurate piece on the misunderstood and misrepresented plight of Christians in Israel and Palestine. Having been there several times and met with Palestinian Christians, as well as Muslims and Jewish peace activists, it is the Israeli occupation and it " s infrastructure that kills hopes for peace and pushes indigenous Christians out of their homeland. Thank you for writing this and I hope it " s important message will be read and understood by many, especially Christians in the " West " who have contributed to this problem and have a responsibility to help solve it. © 1999-2015 Православие.Ru При перепечатке ссылка на Православие.Ru обязательна Контактная информация Церковь Человек Монашество Семья История Культура Общество Мы в соцсетях Вконтакте Одноклассники Facebook Twitter Instagram LiveJournal Youtube Елицы Подпишитесь на нашу рассылку Выбор редакции Православный календарь Книжные новинки |
|
|
