| The communiqué of the extraordinary Council of Hierarchs informed of the decision taken following the discussion of this report. However, it remains unclear who exactly took this decision and in what form. A whole number of authoritative hierarchs drew the Council’s attention to the critical state of the world Orthodoxy, to the need for extreme caution and thorough examination of the problem – without any haste and external pressure. Several metropolitans, including those not present at the Council, asked the Council in writing to postpone a decision. Decisions of the Council of Hierarchs in the Greek Church are taken by a vote of all participants. However, either on the issue of recognition of the Ukrainian uncanonical communities, or on the issue of approval of the decisions of the Permanent Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church on Ukraine, the voting of the episcopate did not take place. For instance, Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira made the following statement: “As it is known, decisions in our Church are taken by a vote: either by raising a hand, or by an open or secret vote, or by questioning all the participants in the assembly. Perhaps, enough votes would be cast in favour of autocephaly, but there would also be many of those taking the opposite point of view, as well as those who by their silence would join the latter.” No official document signed by the Greek archpastors which can be regarded as an expression of the common conciliar decision of the Local Church is publicly available. Moreover, spread rather quickly was the news alleging that the Greek Orthodox Church had recognized the Ukrainian autocephaly, which does not conform either to the text of the communiqué or to the position of many participants in the Council. Serious concerns arise that the conciliar method of decision-making, sanctified by the words of the holy apostles – “good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Act 15:28) – and by the thousand-year history of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, in this case has been violated. |
| Secondly, the law significantly narrowed the area of the permitted presence of the UOC in society. Thirdly, it created prerequisites for the abolishment of the UOC communities or for putting an administrative pressure on them. Communities received a re-registration deadline of 26 th April 2019. The very possibility of such successful re-registration depended on governmental bodies interested in dismantling the UOC. If the communities had not re-registered on time, their bank accounts would have been closed with all the ensuing consequences. Procedural violations committed during the adoption of this law prompted the Kiev District Administrative Court to temporarily suspend it. However, Chairman of the Supreme Rada Andrey Parubiy does not recognize the court’s decision and calls it “absurd.” The second discriminatory law changed the registration procedure for religious organizations. It prescribes that the decision to “change the subordination” of a community has to be made with votes of two thirds of community members, but the law does not contain any clear legal criteria for belonging to a community, which makes it possible to legalize the seizure of churches according to the following scheme: 1) Under the guise of voting by a religious community, a fictitious vote of a territorial community takes place. Such voting is often held in the absence of the majority of local residents, with the participation of persons of other faiths and strangers, or by collecting signatures, the authenticity of which is not verified. 2) The results of the “vote” are fictitiously recorded as a decision of a religious community. At the same time, the decisions of the true parish assembly of a valid religious community to establish a fixed membership and to voice their unwillingness to join schismatics are ignored; the changes that such community makes to its charter would not be registered. 3) By the decree of a regional administration, a new community of the so-called “Orthodox church of Ukraine” is created. It receives its registration with all the details of a legal entity. The religious community of the canonical Church is thereby abolished. |
| Concerning the same, pre-revolutionary period one must mention the held by Archbishop Anthony revision of the Kiev Spiritual Academy, which stopped the decomposition of our spiritual educational institutions, that started under the influence of the revolution of 1905. Archbishop Anthony was the brightest representative of the people, faithful to the elements of Orthodox Russia. It is not strange that the new government hurried to get rid of such people in any administration. One of the first decrees of the new authority was the dismissal of the number of Archpriests, starting with three Metropolitans. Simultaneously Archbishop Anthony was deprived of his leading post at the chair. He did not start the struggle for preserving it, but without complaints went to the Monastery of Valaam, which attracted him with its monastic life. But if the dismissal of other bishops happened unimpeded, like other revolutionary changes, then the plans to dismiss Archbishop Anthony did not come true. Having accepted the new law about elections of eparchial bishops by people, the Kharkov eparchy elected Archbishop Anthony as their new Archpriest by the majority of votes. The revolutionary authorities could do nothing to stop his return to the ruling position in the eparchy. Meanwhile, he came to the Russian council, not as the eparchial archpriest, but as a representative of scientific monasticism. His return to Kharkov was triumphant and there were so many people that the government had to tolerate the fact that archbishop Anthony naturally became the most authoritative member of the Council, so to say, its leader, first of all guiding it in the restoration of the Patriarchate. As it is known, Metropolitan Anthony got many voices at the election of the Patriarch, but less that 2/3, and so he could not be considered to be elected without casting the lot, and after that the Moscow Metropolitan Tikhon received the lot of the Patriarch. Soon after that the Council members went for vacations. |
| Today one can confidently say that the Muslim Brotherhood has no chance of taking full power in Egypt; and, most likely, if the chance does arise it will be no time soon. The elections demonstrated that the country is seriously divided and that any attempt to impose the Islamist model would cause strong resistance from both the army and secular forces – namely, those citizens who voted for former Prime Minister Hosni Mubarak Ahmed Shafiq in the second round of presidential elections. Turnout was low, but votes were divided almost equally: Mursi won by only a few percent. In the short turn, one will need to look at how relations develop between Mursi and the army and at Egypt’s international relations. I do not think that Egypt will withdraw from peace talks with Israel any time soon, although relations may cool. The Muslim Brotherhood and President Mursi cannot afford an agenda that is too radical, since Egypt’s revenues actually come from three main sources: tourism, tariffs for use of the Suez Canal, and American aid, which will continue as long as Egypt remains an element of stability and predictability in the Middle East – which includes maintaining relations with Israel. So I do not think there will be any surprises here. As for domestic policy, no sudden shifts are expected here either. Mursi will likely gradually replace officials and officers with more loyal ones, but that process will take many years. Today Mursi and his Islamist supporters are in a rather difficult situation. They are now in power and have to take responsibility for two things that bother Egyptians: security and the economic situation. In such a situation it is in the Egyptian government’s interests to defend the rights of Christians and to prevent confessional conflicts, because blame for any such conflict will now be placed on the government. Christians in Egypt are always in danger: the conflicts that took place between Muslims and Copts under Mubarak and Sadat will likely continue into the future. But I do not think there is any danger of mass repressions against the Copts. Any inter-religious violence would bring the army back to power. |
| “Regrettably, less than two years later, Patriarch Bartholomew did exactly what he had promised not to do,” the archpastor added, “In October 2018, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople made a whole number of unilateral decisions concerning the church life in Ukraine.” As Metropolitan Hilarion emphasized, it was done with complete disregard for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which from the very beginning stated its non-recognition of all these actions. “It is impossible to find explanations for the actions of the Church of Constantinople in the Orthodox canon law. They represent an evident and gross violation of the canons of the Church, Orthodox ecclesiology and the very foundations of inter-church relations. At the same time, one cannot fail to notice the presence of a non-ecclesiastical factor in the decision made at Phanar. Nobody tried and tries to conceal the exceptional role played by now former President of Ukraine in granting ‘a tomos of autocephaly’,” the DECR chairman said. Metropolitan Hilarion presented facts of seizures of church buildings of the canonical Ukrainian Church, of beatings of old men and women, of banishments of priests from the places of their ministry, of fictitious votes of territorial communities’ members in favour of “transfers” of religious communities to the schismatics. As the DECR chairman noted, the efforts to seize churches plummeted immediately after the victory of Vladimir Zelensky in the presidential elections in Ukraine; there have even been cases of taking action to prevent such abuse. “We are looking with hope to the first moves of the new leadership of our fraternal country. We hope for the establishment of peace in Ukraine, elimination of hatred and enmity, protection of the rights of believers of all confessions and non-interference in the affairs of religious communities in the country,” Metropolitan Hilarion added. Answering the question put in the title of the conference, Metropolitan Hilarion said, “Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are one spiritual space. We contest neither national self-identification of the three Slavic nations, nor the boundaries of the independent states, but we will continue our struggle for the preservation of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church which assures spiritual unity of all Orthodox believers living within its space irrespective of their national and ethnic belonging. Simple words of the holy elder Lavrenty of Chernigov ‘Russia, Ukraine, Belarus – all these are Holy Rus’’ remain topical and resound in the hearts of millions of people.” |
| In addition to the fact that documents were published and people were able to discuss them openly in the media, we know that in the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as in other local Churches, special panels conducted open discussions of these documents (for example, scientific and practical conferences were convened to discuss misgivings and expectations of the proposed Council). Sensitive Issues I think it is extremely discourteous towards their fellow Archpastors and to God’s people to say to them something along the lines of, “We have already discussed the documents, so we’ll simply bring them to the Council and accept them.” The Council then seems to turn into some kind of convention of the Communist Party where the Political Bureau makes all the decisions and everyone else unanimously votes for it. Shouldn’t the procedure for the discussion of Council documents be different? Strictly speaking, the Council is, in fact, able to introduce changes into the documents, provided there is a consensus, which is practically impossible, as they are planning to discuss subjects that are extremely sensitive for the faithful. For example, the attitude towards the heterodox. The document does not clearly specify that the fullness of the truth exists only in Orthodoxy. So people start worrying: does that mean that we accept that fullness and truth can also exist somewhere else, somewhere outside of Orthodoxy? Does that mean we accept that we are not the only Holy Apostolic Church? An extremely sensitive issue is the question of marriage and of cohabitation outside of marriage, in particular. What does cohabitation actually mean? And, above all, what is same-sex cohabitation – is it something unlawful, unnatural, something that goes against God and humanity or is it something that we may look upon with compassion? We understand that the people in Church are often inert and passive, that they require time to be able to process some ideas and to express their opinion. Thankfully, owing to the Russian Orthodox Church, conciliar documents received a wide exposure; feedback was received; some suggestions were made. And what do we hear in return? No comment. No changes. All documents are to be presented to the Council in their present form. |
| Ibid., pp. 1,8. John O’Mahony, “A People Skating on Thin Ice”, Guardian, February 3,2001, p. 1. Ibid. Robert Cortell, islands of Contention”, Financial Times, August 27,2001, p. 10. “The Population Vacuum: Though Humanity Is Imploding, Demographers Refuse to Urge Women to Have MoreBabies”,p. 43. Sarah Karush, “Government Seeking Ways to Overcome Roots of Low Birth Rate”, Associated Press, May 6, 2001. Ibid. Patrick J. Buchanan, “America Loses an Opportunity, and Russia as Ally”, Augusta Chronicle, February 19, 1998, p. 4. Thomas Babington Macaulay; Lays of Ancient Rome, Horatius, xxvii. American Humanist Association, Humanist Manifesto II, 1973. Nat Hentoff, “Expandingthe Culture ofDeath”, San Diego Union-Tribune, January 1,2001, p. 6. Rita Marker, “Dutch Parliament Votes to Legalize Euthanasia”, International Anti-Euthanasia Task Force Update, Fall 2000, p. 2. Ibid., p. 3. Ibid. “Netherlands Parliament Legalizes Euthanasia”, www.euthanasia.com, November 2000. Marker, p. 3. Licia Corbella, “Euthanasia Law an Open Door to ‘Evil’ ”, London Free Press, April 24, 2001, p. A8. Philip Pullella, “Pope Christmas Speech Laments ‘Culture of Death’ ”, Reuters, December 25, 2000. Ibid. Hentoff.p.G. Marker, p. 7. Marker, p. 8. John Jacobs, “Richard Lamm’s Hard Choices”, Sacramento Bee, July 11, 1996, p. 6. Paula Span, “Philosophy of Death; Bioethicist Peter Singer’s Views on Euthanasia Foment Debate”, Washington Post, December 9, 1999, p. Cl. Jacqueline R. Kasun, “Population Control Today – and Tomorrow?” The World and I, No. 6, Vol. 16, June 1, 2001,p.50. Wesley J. Smith, “Peter Singer Gets a Chair”, FrontPa.geMag.com, October 22, 1998, p. 4. P. J. King, “Lessons from History: Euthanasia in Nazi Germany”, Pregnantpause.org, September 9, 2000. Ibid. Ibid. Walker Percy, The Thanatos Syndrome (New York: Farrar, Straus Giroux, 1987), p. 360. Terence Kealey, “Don’t Blame Eugenics, Blame Politics”. Spectator, March 17, 2001, p. 10. Dorothy Thompson, “Review of Mein Kampf”, from Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (New York: Reynal & Hitchcock, 1939), Introduction. |
| Another cause of anti-Christian moods is the fact that some Protestants in the West, especially charismatics, have committed a deep distortion of Christianity. Regrettably, Muslims have often identified their views with common Christian ones. We can see today how leaders of various charismatic sects who name themselves Christian churches provoke people to commit ill-considered actions for the sake of their own PR image. This leads to a distortion of the image of Christianity, just as actions of Islamic sects present Islam in a corrupted form. In recent years, public and governmental organizations in Europe have given some attention to the problem of discrimination against Christians in the world, though it appears insufficient. Last June, when in Budapest I met with a representative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Prof. Massimo Introvigne from Italy, who has studied this issue for several years. Last autumn, we invited him to Moscow for a conference ‘Freedom of Faith: the Problem of Discrimination and Persecution against Christians’. Quite recently an Observatory for Religious Freedom has been established in Rome. This year it will conduct a conference devoted to the protection of religious minorities in various countries. On January 20, 2011, the PACE adopted a Resolution on the Situation of Christians in the Context of Freedom of Religion, which condemns the killing and discrimination of Christian in various countries, in particular, Egypt, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and Philippines. The resolution addressed to the governments and parliaments in these countries was adopted by a majority of votes. Voting for it were representatives of all the political parties present in the European Parliament. The deputies agreed to set up a standing body at the European External Action Service to monitor the religious freedom situation in the world and to present annual reports to the EU and public at large concerning the cases of infringement on freedom of conscience by authorities or public forces in various countries. |
| The head of the Syriac Orthodox Church, Mor Ignatius Aphrem II, called for the international community to work together toward a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria at a press conference in Laval on Friday. He said everyone was shocked by the photo of Alan Kurdi, a 3-year-old Syrian boy who was photographed lying lifeless on a beach in Turkey. “Our thoughts go out to his family and to the families of all the victims. I would like to say that Alan, as horrible as his story is, there are thousands of people like him (who drowned) and there are thousands of kids like him, but their stories were not told.” Alan, along with his 5-year-old brother, Ghalib, and his mother, Rehanna, drowned when the boat they were travelling in to Greece sank. The three were buried in their hometown of Kobane in Syria on Friday, according to the Associated Press. The photo brought the Syrian refugee crisis to the forefront of the Canadian consciousness this week because the child’s uncle had applied to be sponsored and come to Canada, but the forms were returned because they were incomplete. Agencies that support refugees have been feeling the effect. “We’ve been getting all kinds of emails and requests,” said Janet Dench, the executive director of the Canadian Council for Refugees, a Montreal-based national umbrella organization for refugee assistance groups. “I know some of our members have been talking about how they’ve been receiving lots of calls.” “It’s been a long time since I’ve seen such a level of interest,” she said. “We’ve been scratching our heads for a long time. We’ve been quite discouraged by the lack of popular reaction to the scale of the crisis. But now, you feel like people are doing what we expect them to do, which is to say that this is intolerable and we want action.” Ignatius Aphrem II said average Canadians should focus on the people who are trying to stay in their communities by helping groups respond to their needs, including basic necessities like food, clothing and health care. |
| Thus VAT 4956 gives very strong support to the chronology of the NeoBabylonian era as established by the historians. Attempting to overcome this evidence, the Watch Tower Society, in the abovementioned Bible dictionary, goes on to state that, “While to some this might seem like incontrovertible evidence, there are factors greatly reducing its strength.” What are these factors? And do they genuinely reduce the strength of the evidence in this ancient tablet? (a) The first is that the observations made in Babylon may have contained errors. The Babylonian astronomers showed greatest concern for celestial events or phenomena occurring close to the horizon, at the rising or setting of the moon or the sun. However, the horizon as viewed from Babylon is frequently obscured by sandstorms. Then Professor Otto Neugebauer is quoted as saying that Ptolemy complained about “the lack of reliable planetary observations [from, ancient Babylon],” 274 However, many of the observations recorded in the diaries were not made close to the horizon, but higher up in the sky. Further, Babylonian astronomers had several means of overcoming unfavorable weather conditions. As noted earlier, the observations were performed at a number of sites in Mesopotamia. What could not be observed at one place due to clouds or sandstorms, could probably be observed somewhere else. 275 One method used to get over the difficulty of observing stars close to the horizon due to dust was to observe, instead, “the simultaneously occurring of other stars, the socalled ziqpustars,” that is, stars crossing the meridian higher up on the sky at their culmination. 276 Finally, the horizon as viewed from Babylon was not obscured by sandstorms every day, and some planetary events could be observed many days or weeks in succession, also higher up in the sky, for example, the position of Saturn which, according to our text, could be observed “in front of the Swallow [the southwest part of the Fishes].” As was pointed out above, Saturn can be observed in each of the twelve constellations of the Zodiac for about 2.5 years on the average. |
|
|
