| by the Bishops’ Council in 2004, which expressed its concern over the reported “attempts to expand the activities of the ‘Metropolis of Bessarabia’ beyond Moldova, which can only heighten the existing inter-church tension;” in the resolution of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 7 th November 2007 (Minutes No. 108) that came in response to the establishment of the dioceses within the “Metropolis of Bessarabia” in the territory of the Republic of Moldova and Ukraine with centres in the cities of Bli, Cantemir and Dubsari regardless of the fact that those territories already had lawfully consecrated Orthodox bishops and the names of those cities were part of the titles of the diocesan bishops of the Orthodox Church of Moldova. In its statement of 7 th November 2007, the Synod of the Russian Church also pointed out that the Diocese of Southern Bessarabia included “‘former Diocese of Bilhorod-Dnistrovskyi and Izmail’ – the area which is part of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and has its bishops whose titles contain the names of those cities;” by the Bishops’ Council in 2008, which expressed concern over the unilateral actions of the Romanian Patriarchate that undermined traditional principles underlying the relationships between the Orthodox Churches and jeopardized the Orthodox unity in general. On 25 th October 2023, the Synod of the Orthodox Church of Moldova (Minutes No. 11) defrocked six clerics who without permission had joined the “Metropolis of Bessarabia” of the Romanian Patriarchate and had been received without canonical letters of release. The decision was based on the following canonical rules: Apostolic Canons 12, 15, 32, 33; Canons 11, 13, 20, 23 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; Canon 17 of the Council in Trullo; Canons 3, 6, 7, 8, 11 of the Council of Antioch; Canons 41, 42 of the Council of Laodicea; Canon 9 of the Council of Sardica; Canons 23, 106 of the Council of Carthage; Canons 15, 16 of the First Ecumenical Council. Several other clerics of the Orthodox Church of Moldova who later transferred without permission to the “Metropolis of Bessarabia” were suspended from service pending their contrition. |
| Metropolitan Hilarion Celebrates the 20th Anniversary of His Episcopal Consecration Source: DECR Photo: mospat.ru January the 14th, 2022, the Feast of the Circumcision of the Lord and the commemoration day of St. Basil the Great, marked the 20th anniversary of the episcopal consecration of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk. The Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate presided over the festive Divine Liturgy at the church of the Icon of the Mother of God ‘the Joy to All Who Sorrow’ in Moscow. His concelebrants were Metropolitan Dionisy of Voskresensk, chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate; Metropolitan Niphon of Philippopolis, representative of the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia; Metropolitan Zinovy of Saransk and Mordovia; Metropolitan Anthony of Chersonesus and Western Europe, Patriarchal Exarch for Western Europe; Metropolitan Leonid of Klin, Patriarchal Exarch for Africa; Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, DECR vice-chairman; Archimandrite Philaret (Bulekov), DECR vice-chairman; Archimandrite Seraphim (Shemyatovsky), representative of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia to the Patriarchal See of Moscow; Archpriest Kakhaber Gogotishvili, a cleric of the Georgian Orthodox Church; and the clergy of the church. During the Prayer of Fervent Supplication, prayerful petitions were offered for the deliverance from the coronavirus infection. After the Divine Liturgy, Metropolitan Dionisy of Voskresensk read out a congratulatory message from His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Metropolitan Hilarion’s episcopal consecration. Then Metropolitan Niphon of Philipoppolis extended congratulations to His Eminence Hilarion on behalf of the representatives of Local Orthodox Church to the Patriarchal See of Moscow. He noted in particular, “In your youth you were given the gift of faith in God. Through the subsequent years, you have lived up to this faith, developing it and bearing in yourself the flame of love for neighbours. In ascending the stairs of the service of the Holy Church and accumulating knowledge and experience in carrying out various tasks, you have discovered how rich the Lord is in His mercy to us in His great love wherewith He loved us (Eph. 2:4). |
| 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. |
| The anti-canonical expansion of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the territory of Estonia led in 1996 to the temporary suspension of eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Church of Constantinople. Communion was renewed by the joint resolutions of the Holy Synods of both Churches on 16 th May 1996 on the basis of the Zurich agreements, which, incidentally, Constantinople has not complied with fully. In 2018 the Patriarchate of Constantinople unilaterally annulled the act of 1686 signed by His Holiness the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius IV and the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople which asserted that the metropolitanate of Kiev was henceforth to be in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow. As the statement of Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 15 th October 2018 noted, the act of 1686 is not subject to revision, as otherwise “it would be possible to annul any document determining the canonical territory and status of a local church, regardless of her antiquity, authority and church-wide recognition.” The Synodal document of 1686 and other documents relating to this issue do not mention at all the temporary nature of the transfer of the metropolitanate of Kiev to the Patriarchate of Moscow, nor do they provide for the possibility of canceling this act. The lack of justification in canceling the act of 1686 is underscored by the fact that on the pan-Orthodox level for three centuries nobody had any doubt as to the allegiance of the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine to the Russian Church, and not to the Church of Constantinople. Moreover, the Patriarchate of Constantinople passes over in silence the fact that the metropolitanate of Kiev in 1686, which Constantinople now declares to have been returned to her, extended only over a small part of the territory of the modern-day Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which emerged subsequently within the jurisdiction of the autocephalous Church of Russia. The 8 th canon of the Third Ecumenical Council forbids bishops to extend their authority over other ecclesiastical areas. In establishing its ‘stauropegia’ in Kiev without the consent of the canonical hierarchy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has transgressed the confines of another church, and this is condemned by the aforementioned canon. |
| The Commission also includes: Metropolitan Ionafan of Tulchin and Bratslav; Metropolitan Georgy of Nizhniy Novgorod and Arzamas; Archbishop Yustinian of Elista and Kalmykia; Archbishop Stefan of Gomel and Zhlobin; Archbishop Amfilokhy of Ust-Kamenogorsk and Semipalatinsk; Bishop Sofrony of Gubkin and Grayvoron; Bishop Vladimir of Klintsy and Trubchevsk; Archimandrite Akhila (Shakhtarin), father confessor of the Old-Rite Convent of the “Kiev-Bratsk” Icon of the Mother of God in the Kievan Metropolia; Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy; Archpriest Ioann Mirolyubov, head of the Patriarchal Centre for Old Russian Liturgical Tradition (Commission secretary); Archpriest Yevgeny Sarancha of the Edinoverie (Coreligionist) Church of Archangel Michael in Mikhaylovskaya Sloboda, Kolomna Diocese; Archpriest Pyotr Chubarov, rector of the Edinoverie (Coreligionist) Church of Saint Nicholas in St. Petersburg; Archpriest Igor Yakimchuk, acting vice-chairman of the Department for External Church Relations; and Priest Daniil Khokhonya, rector of the Holy Ascension Church in Ipatovo town and dean of the Ipatovo district of the Stavropol Diocese. The Holy Synod also adopted decisions concerning the hierarchs serving abroad. Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk was relieved of his duties as Patriarchal Exarch of Western Europe, having received commendation for his work. Archbishop Nestor of Madrid and Lisbon was appointed Archbishop of Korsun and Western Europe, Patriarchal Exarch of Western Europe. He will temporarily continue as administrator of the Diocese of Spain and Portugal. Bishop Alexy of Caffa, vicar of the Korsun Diocese, was appointed Bishop of Vienna and Austria. Having considered a request of Archbishop Nestor of Korsun and Western Europe, the Holy Synod resolved to appoint Hegumen Pyotr (Prutyanu) as Bishop of Caffa, vicar to Archbishop Nestor. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia is to choose the venue for Hegumen Pyotr’s episcopal nomination and consecration upon his elevation to the rank of archimandrite. Discussed during the meeting were also activities of the Russian Orthodox Church’s parishes abroad. The Synod members resolved to relieve Hegumen Innokenty (Denschikov) of his duties as a cleric of the Diocese of Argentina and South America due to the end of his temporary assignment. He will continue his service under the omophorion of the head of the Solikamsk Diocese. Print publication Share: Page is available in the following languages Feedback |
| In October 2018, the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople made a whole number of unilateral decisions concerning the church life in Ukraine. In particular, it “revoked” the 1686 Charter of Patriarch Dionysius of Constantinople on the transfer of the Metropolia of Kiev to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. It also made a decision “on the restoration of the rank” of Philaret Denisenko and the leader of an even less representative schismatic group, Makariy Maletich. At the same time, all the consecrations and rites administered by these persons were recognized as valid. On 15 th December, chaired by a hierarch of the Church of Constantinople and then President Petro Poroshenko, the so-called “unification council” was held in Kiev, at which the two Ukrainian schismatic groups headed by Philaret and Makariy were merged into one. The head of a new structure was elected and recognized straight away by the Patriarchate of Constantinople as canonical “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine”. All this was done with complete disregard for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which from the very beginning stated its non-recognition of all these actions. Out of 90 bishops of the Ukrainian Church only two decided to join the newly created schismatic structure. Finally, on 6 th January 2019, Patriarch Bartholomew granted to the head of this structure the so-called tomos of autocephaly. From the perspective of the canons of the Orthodox Church, all these actions are unlawful and invalid. The Patriarchate of Constantinople has entered into the Eucharistic communion with the schismatics who have no apostolic succession. As for our Church, it has encountered an impossibility for continuing ecclesiastical communion with the Church of Constantinople. 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.” Just as in the 1990s, the interference of politicians and secular authorities in church life did not only fail to unite Orthodoxy in Ukraine but, on the contrary, only inflicted new wound on it. So visible a political track in the problem of the Ukrainian autocephaly opens slightly the curtain of real motives for the decisions made by the Patriarch of Constantinople. It is impossible to believe that these motives are confined to complying with a request of an alleged majority of the Orthodox faithful in Ukraine to grant autocephaly. A different aim was pursued – to break the spiritual unity of Russia and Ukraine, as was openly stated by the highest-ranking representatives of the Ukrainian authorities. |
| And we will not remain silent about the person who indeed approaches the Chalice of Christ unworthily. Of such people the word of God says: He that eateth and drinketh uworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body (I Cor. 11:29). Approaching this awesome mystery, we say, “Neither like Judas will I give Thee a kiss.” Who is it that gives the Lord the kiss of Judas? Without a doubt, it is those who, not having cleansed their consciences by heartfelt repentance, not having grieved over their sins, approach the Chalice of Christ without the fear of God, or those who, having been joined to the Lord, having been sanctified by His most holy gift and freely cleansed of their innumerable transgressions, the spawn of the spirit of malice, return again to their foul deeds, again become enslaved to Satan. Woe, eternal woe, to such people! Let us conclude our discourse on the communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ by pointing out some of the innumerable blessings which it bestows upon those who receive Communion worthily. According to the teaching of the Church (cf. the Order before and after Communion), this most Holy Mystery of the Body and Blood gives to those partaking of it worthily strengthening of joints and bones, healing of divers infirmities, health, strength, preservation, salvation and sanctification of soul and body, estrangement and cleansing of a defiled soul, preservation from every soul-corrupting deed and word, protection from every action of the devil, a rampart and aid in dispersing the enemy (i.e., evil spirits); the driving away of every fantasy, evil act and work of the devil acting mentally in our members; the burning up and utter destruction of wicked thoughts and undertakings, and of nocturnal fantasies of the dark and evil spirits; correction of life and confirmation in holiness of life, keeping of the commandments, increase in virtue and perfection, enlightenment of the senses, peace of the powers of the soul, unashamed faith, fullness of wisdom, enlightenment of the eyes of the heart, boldness and love towards God, the gift of the Holy Spirit, an increase of divine grace; the abiding in our soul of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; strengthening of life, an earnest of the future life and kingdom, provision for eternal life, a good defense before the dread judgment seat of Christ, and communion of heavenly blessings. |
| Novelty of the Matter and Human Body Concepts in the Great Church Fathers Скачать epub pdf In this report I would like to highlight the main results of my doctoral thesis research performed at the Department of Theology of Post Graduate and Doctoral Center of Russian Orthodox Church (in the name of Saint Cyril and Methodius, Chair of Theology). It should be noted that investigation of Holy Fathers’ doctrines concerning matter was up until now a neglected area. ‘Theory of matter’ is usually considered to be a part of pure philosophy. Meanwhile directly or indirectly the majority of Christian dogmatic ideas are connected to the issue of matter. One of the main results of this research consists in the arrangement of the perceptions of matter among Holy Fathers and theologians of Alexandrian theological school, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Cyril of Alexandria and Rev. Maximus the Confessor. Is it has been so far a conviction among Russian theologians and philosophers that Holy Fathers in their teaching of matter either repeatedly kept on affirmation of nonexistence of matter or were simply adjacent to Plato 1 . It’s been demonstrated that Holy Fathers’ view of matter couldn’t be considered as one repeating the ideas of Platonists. At the second half of the 20 th century there has appeared a range of writings of western theologians on issues quite close to ours. 2 Nevertheless, these investigations have narrow focus on works of certain representatives of heathen philosophy and Holy Fathers. Moreover, the doctrine of matter is rarely a logical center of analysis. Therefore the purpose of my research was to carry out the analysis of the concepts of matter as the tangible substance of the material world and the terminology employed to describe the matter and possible changes in it and human’s body in the church’s sacraments and in the Eschatological perspective in the works of ecclesiastical writers of Alexandrian theological tradition. It is well known that in the systems of the Middle Platonists, Philo of Alexandria and the Neo-Platonists a better future for the individual is considered as the abandonment of its earthly body and in the translation to the heavenly spheres for an incorporeal life. Even those Neoplatonist systems opposing a negative ontological status for matter did not suggest any eschatological perspective for it other than its necessary persistence in the universe as the ‘last’ (τν ντων σχατον), 3 ‘worst’ (χερων, Plotinus, Ammonius, Damascene, Olimpiodor, etc.) and ‘always in need’ (νδες, Plotinus, Simplicus) at the edge of being. As a whole, Neoplatonism preserved the tendency descending from Plato of a contemptuous attitude toward matter. 4 |
| 4.”Of course, this unique, substantial independence is enshrined in its Charter, since the Holy Synod of the Church of Ukraine elects and ordains not only all the hierarchs of Ukraine, but also its Primate, the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine. Nevertheless, this regime of the Church of Ukraine’s substantial independence is relativized and weakened by the Patriarchate of Moscow’s anti-canonical claim that the Metropolitan of Kiev is also a regular member of the Holy Synod of Moscow, apparently to express the arbitrary claim of its full dependency on its jurisdiction” (p. 37). Where did the professor realize that the “Patriarchate of Moscow’s claim that the Metropolitan of Kiev is also a regular member of the Holy Synod of Moscow” is “anti-canonical”? He had previously written the complete opposite of this (see paragraph e. below). The participation of the Metropolitan of Kiev in the Holy Synod of Moscow is provided by her statute in a decision of the Council of 1945 which, indeed, had inter-Orthodox participation (including from Constantinople)! So now the professor recalls that it is an “anti-canonical claim”! A most complete refutation of the new opinions of the professor above has been provided by the professor himself in his previous publications. In a whole series of scholarly publications over a period of forty years (1966-2005), Prof. Fidas has written the following, which makes it the full, canonical jurisdiction of the Church of Russia in Ukraine absolutely clear: 1.Fidas, Ecclesiastical History of Russia, pp. 273-274: “Dionysios of Constantinople placed the Metropolitan of Kiev under the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Moscow (1687).” 2.Fidas, Ecclesiastical History of Russia, pp. 317-318 and idem, “The Russian Church,” ΘΗΕ 10 (1965), p. 1055: “The Metropolitan of Kiev participates in the Synod of the Church of Russia as one of three permanent members (along with those of Moscow and Saint Petersburg).” 3.Fidas, Ecclesiastical History of Russia, pp. 301-304: The Theological Academy of Kiev is one of the four most important academies of the Patriarchate of Moscow. |
| Theophania Скачать epub pdf Содержание Preface The first book of Eusebius of Caesarea on the divine manifestation The second book against the philosophers The third book of (Eusebius) of Caesarea The fourth book of (Eusebius) of Caesarea The fifth book of (Eusebius) of Caesarea Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. The Theophania or divine manifestation of our lord and saviour Jesus Christ,/translated into english with notes, from an ancient syriac version of the greek original now lost; to which is prefixed a vindication of the orthodoxy, and prophetical views, of that distinguished writer./inscribed by permission to his grace the duke of Northumberland, chancellor of the university of Cambridge./by Samuel Lee, d.d./d.d. of the university of Halle; member of the société asiatique of Paris; of the historical society of Rhode Island, America; canon of Bristol, rector of Barley, herts., regius professor of Hebrew in the university of Cambridge, &c./Cambridge: printed at the university press Duncan and Malcolm, 37, Paternoster Row, London./1843 To his grace. Hugh Duke of Northumberland, &c. &c. &c. Chancellor of the university of Cambridge, this endeavour to restore to the christian church a long lost work, and to vindicate the opinions, of one of its most learned and laborious prelates, is, in testimony of a deep sense of obligation for the many munificent favours conferred on the university, in which he has the honour of bearing office, by his gracés permission, most respectfully inscribed, by the translator and editor. Preface HAVING now to discharge the very agreeable duty of presenting to the Christian Church (in a translation), a long lost work of one of its most learned and laborious Pastors, my first duty will be, to give the best account I can of this Work ; my second, to describe the Manuscript from which it has been taken ; my third, to lay down the principles by which I have been guided, both in editing the Syriac text of this Manuscript, and in making and illustrating my English Translation of it. When I shall have done these things, I shall,--because some of the opinions of my author have been branded as heretical, and some others will in all probability be considered as groundless and untenable, I mean those which contain his views on Prophecy,--give as brief and candid a review of these opinions as I can: leaving it to the reader to make the conclusions for himself, which he shall deem right and just. |
|
|
