| “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. |
| There is no right to choose and no right to privacy. Abortion has been permitted in Britain on the utilitarian grounds that it would cause more harm to try to suppress it than to allow it; few people feel sufficiently indignant about its availability to want to change the law or to thwart its increasingly liberal interpretation by the medical profession. Even in 1967, when the law was liberalized, the only significant opposition came from Britain’s (largely of Irish descent) Roman Catholic minority. It was not an important issue for most Protestants. In the 1980s the Roman Catholics tried hard to amend the details of the Abortion Act of 1967 in such a way as to thwart its liberal interpretation by the doctors, but the Conservative governments of 1979–1997 would never allow enough Parliamentary time in which their proposals could be fully debated, and new restrictions were agreed upon by Parliament. 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. |
| 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. |
| Радуйся добродетели, когда поступаешь добродетельно, но не превозносись ею, чтобы не случилось крушение в пристани (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 233). Источник. Добродетели скрывай, но старайся иметь многих свидетелей жизни своей (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 235). Источник. Ничего не почитай по достоинству равным добродетели, потому что она – образ Божий, как Сам Бог, непреложна (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 240). Источник. ...Вслед добродетели идти должно, пока не сойдем с поприща жизни (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 242). Источник. Всему предпочитай душу, и путь добродетели совершится тогда без труда (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 247). Источник. Носи на себе образ добродетели, но не для того, чтобы обмануть видящих тебя, а чтобы принести им пользу (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 250). Источник. Как связанным трудно ходить, так и прилепившиеся к житейскому течение добродетели совершают нечисто (прп. Мил Синайский, 73, 252–253). Блажен, кто украшает дела свои прежде, нежели явит их огонь, которым все искушается (прп. Нил Синайский , 255). Блажен, кто чист в добродетели и нелицемерен в душе; будет он судить мир, а не судим вместе с миром (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 255). Источник. ...Не начало только добродетели положить надлежит, но и увенчать ее и привести к концу... (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 289). Источник. Добродетель в старости может быть названа не добродетелью, но бессилием. Посему в юности наипаче должно нам упражняться в добродетели, и в юном теле показывать благоразумие, приличное сединам (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 329). Источник. Правильное упражнение в добродетелях доставляет блаженство на Небесах, которого невозможно ни словом выразить, ни умом постигнуть, ни мыслию объять (прп. Нил Синайский , 73, 341). Источник. ...Если будешь не пристрастен к вещам, то удобно исполнишь всякую добродетель (прп. авва Зосима, 91, 126). Источник. ...Если бы и мы предварительно посевали в себе семена кротости и смирения и располагали к ним сердце своё, то враг не имел бы места сеять в нем злые семена свои. Но как он находит нас пустыми без добрых помыслов, или даже более того, самих себя разжигающими на худое, то берет отсюда поводы наполнять нас своим злом. При любви же к добродетели бывает совершенно противное сему, ибо тогда Господь, видя, как душа жаждет спастись и как усердно возделывает в себе добрые семена, ради сего благого произволения ее, исполняет ее Своими дарами (прп. авва Зосима, 91, 128). Источник. |
| Out of two hundred and eighty letters by Archimandrite John (Krestiankin, +2006) collected in a volume published during the author’s life by the monastery where he lived and worked, 182 are replies to women correspondents, compared with 82 addressed to men and 16 that either cannot be positively identified or are addressed to married couples. That is more than double the number! Similarly, in a truly fundamental research work on Fr. John of Kronstadt (+1908), Nadieszda Kizenko writes that “women twice as often as men wrote him long letters asking for spiritual counsel, describing their lives in great detail” (127). A collection of letters written by Hegumen Nikov (Vorobiev, +1963) contains 334 letters, 237 of which are replies to female correspondents, only 72—to men, and 25 could not be identified or are addressed to couples. Lest anyone think that the publishing establishment harbors an anti-male bias, a collection of letters of Saint John Chrysostom contains only 32 letters to women compared to 82 to men. Of those 82 letters, however, many can be classified as “business” rather than “letters to spiritual children”: 28 are to bishops, 21—to presbyters, and of the remaining 33 many are to government officials, and are of a character strikingly different from that of the 17 letters to Deaconess Olympiada (or Olympias), for example, which average more than nine pages per letter. We can also recall the letters of Archpriest Avvakum Petrov (+1682) to his spiritual daughters Theodosia Morozova, Evdokia Urusova, and Maria Danilova; the letters of Elder Paisios (Eznepidis, +1994) to the sisters of Saint John the Evangelist Convent; and the special spiritual bond that Saint Seraphim of Sarov shared with the sisters of the Diveyevo convent. However, leaving the intricacies of monastic relationships to those who possess a personal first-hand experience with the angelic life, we shall return to the discussion of matters parish life. In a rather unscientific and unreliable way based mostly on almost eight years of personal experience as a parish priest, I shall propose that women typically have a richer spiritual life than men, at least, if we gauge this on the length and content of their confession. This may draw the attentions of some parish priests who are usually also—at least based on the vocational choice they have made—predisposed to having a somewhat richer than average spiritual life. Noting another intriguing connection between parish priests and women (nuns, in particular), Kizenko asserts that |
| These trends are obvious, but there are some less noticeable developments that are just as significant. Along with the continued decline of the Christian population in Europe and North America, there is an explosive expansion of the Catholic and Protestant population of South America, Africa and Asia. In the generations to come the average citizen of Christendom will be darker-skinned, poor or of the lower middle-class. And what is more important, this average Christian will have little historic allegiance to European or Russian culture.. As a result, Europe and the West will become mostly non-Christian, while the Christian population will largely be made up of Hispanics, Africans and Asians. Western society continues to become more reliant upon technology for daily life. The modern culture, in its addiction to false images and entertainment, has become " disengaged " from the original design for human life. As a result, our young person will becoming " less-connected " with other people and with their natural world. He is becoming, in the terminology of the Holy Fathers, increasingly " insensitive " to the beauties and truth of God's Creation. Society continues to push religion - especially the Holy Orthodoxy - out of the public square and into the backstreet alleys. Religious belief has been demoted to the status of " private opinion " . Ethics and morality have become matters of personal taste, instead of reflecting the eternal constants of truth and goodness. Society continues to ignore the moral witness of the Church, and has adopted only one simple value: the materialistic satisfaction of people who can speak for themselves. This means that society will increase in moral permissiveness. It will be liberation for those who have power and wealth. But those who are poor, or who cannot speak for themselves - they will be the ones who will have lows heaped upon them, and will lose their right even to live. You may be asking yourself what these trends have to do with the Holy Orthodox Church, this Diocese or our families. We are even now seeing the effects of these trends in our parishes. By the time our young people reach adulthood, there will be no doubt about the reality of these developments: |
| Пс.73:1. Вскую, Боже, отринул еси до конца; разгневася ярость Твоя на овцы пажити Твоея; Пророк предсказывает будущее, как прошедшее, по свойству пророков. «До конца» — означает совершенное оставление Богом иудеев за их нечестие против Христа. Под «гневом» и «яростию» выражает чрезвычайность отвращения (Дидим). Пс.73:2. Помяни сонм Твой, егоже стяжал еси исперва: избавил еси жезлом достояния Твоего, гора Сион сия, в нейже вселился еси. «Сонм» — еврейский народ, который избрал Себе Бог «исперва» в наследие. «Избавил» от египетского рабства и ввел в землю обетованную, в «гору Сион» — в Церковь Свою святую (Феодорит, Афанасий). Пс.73:3. Воздвигни руце Твои на гордыни их в конец, елика лукавнова враг во святем Твоем. Иудеи сетуют и плачут о том, что римляне сделали с храмом иерусалимским (Феодорит). Пс.73:4. И восхвалишася ненавидящии Тя посреде праздника Твоего: положиша знамения своя, знамения, и не познаша. Поскольку в день праздника Пасхи иудеи пригвоздили ко кресту Спасителя, то в этот же день и были преданы врагам за свое нечестие. Ибо в Пасху, когда все иудеи по закону собрались в Иерусалим, была произведена осада, в то именно время, в которое пригвоздили они Господа Иисуса Христа ко кресту (Афанасий). Пс.73:5. Яко во исходе превыше: яко в дубраве древяне секирами разсекоша Пс.73:6. Двери его вкупе: сечивом и оскордом разрушиша и. Пс.73:7. Возжгоша огнем святило Твое: на земли оскверниша жилище имене Твоего. Пс.73:8. Реша в сердце своем южики их вкупе: приидите и отставим вся праздники Божия от земли. Описывает разорение Иерусалима и божественного храма, сожжение и осквернение Святилища. «Южики» (союзные римлянам народы) согласились уничтожить все Богом учрежденные праздники в Иудейской земле (Афанасий). Пс.73:9. Знамения их не видехом: несть ктому пророка, и нас не познает ктому. Особенно опечаливало верных иудеев в спасении то, что не видели они более в народе «пророка» , который бы мог умилостивить за них Бога (Афанасий). Пс.73:10. Доколе, Боже, поносит враг; раздражит противный имя Твое до конца; |
|
|
