| Treasuring prayerful communion with our brothers in the Greek Orthodox Church, we will preserve with it the living prayerful, canonical and Eucharistic ties – through all those archpastors and pastors who have already spoken or will speak in future against the recognition of the Ukrainian schism, who will not stain their name by con-celebrating with the schismatic false hierarchs, but will show an example of Christian fortitude and firmness in defending the truth of Christ. May the Lord strengthen them, like confessors, in this heroic deed by the prayers of Saints Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas, Maximus the Confessor, and all the Greek saints who were and are venerated in the Holy Rus’. At the same time, we remember that the holy canons of the Church condemn those who enter in prayerful communion and con-celebration with the deposed and excommunicated (Apostolic Canons 10,11,12; First Ecumenical Council, canon 5; Council of Antioch, canon 2; etc.). In view of this we sever prayerful and Eucharist communion with whose hierarchs of the Greek Church who have entered or will enter in such communion with representatives of the Ukrainian uncanonical schismatic groups. We also do not give our blessing to undertaking pilgrimages to the dioceses governed by the aforementioned hierarchs. The relevant information will be widely spread among pilgrimage and tourism organizations in the countries within the canonical territory of our Church. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church authorizes His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to cease the commemoration of the name of His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece in the diptychs in the event that the Primate of the Greek Church will begin to commemorate the head of one of the Ukrainian schismatic groups during divine services or will take other actions indicating his recognition of the Ukrainian church schism. Календарь ← 8 апреля 2024 г. (26 марта ст.ст.) понедельник Седмица 4-я Великого поста, Крестопоклонная. Отдание праздника Благовещения Пресвятой Богородицы. Собор Архангела Гавриила. |
| That " s wh ere your place is for pastoral work, for consoling, supporting, enlightening those who sometimes leave the battlefield in a very difficult condition. " There is a lot of work going on, and I thank our clergy for it. As it is said, there are losses, but we will continue to co-operate with the Armed Forces. And for this purpose it is important to define the legal status of the military clergy at the level of federal law and to provide military clergy with social benefits that are available to all participants of the NWO. Everyone has them, but the clergy do not, although they are not in the wagon. They are among those who were wounded, they are among those who are preparing to go on the attack, and they are very much needed there, their word helps, inspires, encourages, strengthens. And bullets reach these places too, that " s why we suffer losses. On 3 November 2021, an agreement was concluded between Russia and the Vatican on mutual recognition of higher education, qualifications and degrees awarded to graduates of Vatican universities. However, the issue of state recognition of theological titles and degrees awarded to graduates of domestic theological schools has not been resolved to date. So, if you have studied in the Vatican according to practically the same programme, with adjustments for the bias towards Western culture and Western theology, then your diploma is recognised here. But if you graduated from a theological academy and became a candidate of theology, it will not be recognised. So why such discrimination against one " s own theological education? But now it is in theological seminaries and academies, among other things, that we train priests who are able to carry out their pastoral work in the NWO zone. So, the Russian state recognises degrees and diplomas of the Roman Catholic Church, but refuses to recognise diplomas issued in higher education institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church. At present, the State Duma has passed in the first reading a bill that makes it possible to overcome this contradiction and restore justice, and I would ask you to support it. Dear and honoured legislators and all participants of the meeting! I am grateful to all those who have laboured to make our communication today possible. The dialogue of the Patriarch with representatives of state power and public forces has indeed become possible and is carried out regularly. The Church and religious associations of Russia look with hope at your labours, expecting that they will lead to qualitative changes in public life. I testify that the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as representatives of other traditional religious communities in Russia, are ready to work with you in this important endeavour. I call God " s blessing on all of you, on your labours, on your relatives and friends and thank you for your attention. Print publication Share: Page is available in the following languages Feedback |
| ‘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. |
| After several decades of persecution and discrimination against our people and the destruction of one hundred and fifty of our holy places, unfortunately, in the presence of international forces, the recognition of the illegally proclaimed independence of our southern Province, which is persistently being imposed on Serbia, would endanger the survival of our Church and people in the long run and contribute to the proclamation of Serbian holy shrines as Kosovo’s or Albanian cultural monuments. All this would quickly lead to the disintegration of the Orthodox Christian identity among the Serbian people and would constitute memorycide – the “killing of memories” of the Serbian people. The idea of dividing Kosovo and Metohija between Serbia and the self-proclaimed “Kosovo state” remains on in public opinion. As such, consciously or unconsciously, one fact is overlooked: that the division would be nothing more than the recognition of an “independent state of Kosovo” and the giving away of the largest part of the territory of the Province. There is no example in world history in which a people in peace, two decades after an armed conflict, would give away their own for their own. In so dividing, the people of a large part of Kosovo and Metohija would automatically be left to the mercy and mercilessness of the regime of the so-called state of Kosovo; exposed to a pogrom similar to that of March 2004 or, under pressure and quiet terror would be forced into an exodus. We note that the difficult situation in Kosovo and Metohija is a consequence of the systematic failure to fulfill and thereby undermine Security Council Resolution 1244, which guarantees the return of exiles and freedom to all, regardless of their origin. Persistent attempts by certain countries in building at all costs on the shifting mud of Kosovo have brought the world to the situation in which Kosovo and Metohija, under the authority of former KLA leaders, today is more than ever a black hole in Europe and a precedent which threatens the disintegration of many countries throughout Europe and the world. |
| Nestorians, in argument with Eutychians (Monophysites), referred to these works, and Eutychians found in them an excuse to reject the Fourth Ecumenical Council and to slander the universal Orthodox Church, charging that it was deviating toward Nestorianism. The Council was attended by 165 bishops, who condemned all three works and Theodore of Mopsuestia himself, as not having repented. Concerning the other two, censure was limited only to their Nestorian works. They themselves were pardoned. They renounced their false opinions and died in peace with the Church. The Council reiterated its censure of the heresies of Nestorius and Eutychius. The Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in the year 680 A.D., in the city of Constantinople, under the Emperor Constantine IV, and was composed of 170 bishops. The council was convoked against the false doctrine of heretics, Monothelites, who, although they recognized in Jesus Christ two natures, God and man, ascribed to Him only a Divine will. After the Fifth Ecumenical Council, agitation provoked by the Monothelites continued and threatened the Greek Emperor with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, wishing reconciliation, decided to incline Orthodoxy to concession to the Monothelites, and by the power of his office, ordered recognition that in Jesus Christ is one will and two energies. Among the defenders and advocates of the true teachings of the Church, were St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and a monk from Constantinople, St. Maximus the Confessor, who for his firmness in the faith had suffered having his tongue cut out and his hand chopped off. The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned and repudiated the heresy of Monothelitism, and formulated the recognition that in Jesus Christ are two natures, Divine and human, and in these two natures there are two wills, but that the human will in Christ is not against, but rather is submissive to His Divine will. It is worthy of attention that at this Council excommunication was pronounced against a number of other heretics, and also against the Roman Pope Honorius, as one who acknowledged the teaching of one will. The formulation of the Council was signed by a Roman delegation, consisting of Presbyters Theodore and Gregory, and Deacon John. This clearly shows that the highest power in Christendom belongs to the Ecumenical Council, and not to the Pope of Rome. |
| Accordingly, the Rev. Eugene Popoff, a graduate of St. Petersburg Theological Academy, was transferred in the next year from Copenhagen to London, where he was to serve for many years, until his death in 1875. Fr. Popoff used to send periodic reports to the Holy Synod concerning ecclesiastical affairs in England, and he established close links with the leading churchmen in the country, including Pusey and Newman. Unfortunately, these reports were published only in part, many years after the author’s death, and only in Russian. Fr. Popoff had hopes in the beginning, but changed his attitude in the later years. 155 Certain links were established between Oxford and Moscow, and theological professors and students in Moscow used to collate Greek manuscripts of the Fathers for the Library of the Fathers. Nor were the books on Anglicanism which Palmer brought to Russia and presented to the Academy in St. Petersburg left without use. One of the students was advised to write his Master’s thesis on Anglicanism compared with Orthodoxy, apparently on the basis of materials supplied by Palmer. 156 In both countries, Russia and Great Britain, there were groups earnestly interested in the rapprochement of the respective Churches. John Mason Neale, by his historical studies and translations of the Eastern liturgical texts, did more than anyone for furthering this idea. In 1851, under the impression of the famous Gorham case, there was an attempt to approach the Church of Russia in order to secure recognition of a group of Anglicans considering secession from the Established Church. A number of pamphlets were circulated for this purpose, and subscriptions were invited to a “Memorial” to be presented to the Holy Synod of Russia. The initiative seems to have been taken by somebody in Scotland. Although it was not an “ecumenical move” in a proper sense, some points in the project were of importance. The basis of reunion should include recognition of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Russian Catechism as an outline of doctrine, and repudiation of Lutheran or Calvinist leanings. |
| Nothing else was envisaged. 147 The purchase of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands from Russia in 1867 by the United States, and the transfer of the Russian Episcopal see from Sitka to San Francisco, brought the Episcopal Church in the United States into direct contact with the Church of Russia. It is curious to find that when, in the middle of the century, in connection with the gold rash in California, a considerable number of Anglicans established themselves there, the question could be raised whether they might not appeal to the Russian bishop on the spot, rather than to the remote Anglican bishops in the eastern states, for aid and authority, and call themselves the Church of California. At the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in 1862, one of the deputies, Dr. Thrall, raised this question. It was, he affirmed, desirable to nominate a special committee of inquiry and correspondence, which should present to the Orthodox authorities the claims of the Protestant Episcopal Church as a part of the Church Catholic, and as such qualified to assume care of Russians in the Pacific area. A commission, the «Russo-Greek Committee,» was appointed with limited authority, «to consider the expediency of communication with the Russo-Greek Church, to collect information on the subject,» and to report to the next General Convention. 148 The American delegates stopped in England on their way to the East, and conferred with the British. Some consultations were held also with the Russian experts, Fr. Popov and Fr. Joseph Vassiliev, the Russian chaplain in Paris, who was invited specially for this purpose. The problem under discussion was intercommunion, i.e. mutual recognition of the Churches, including the recognition of Anglican Orders by the Orthodox. It was made clear that the Eastern Church would not enter into any formal communion with Anglican Churches, unless certain changes were made in Anglican formularies. The Church of England was hardly in a position to make any changes. |
| As concerns the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, membership in any one of these categories carried with it recognition as a saint. It is known from history that prayer meetings were held in honor of the martyrs as early as the first quarter of the second century (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch). In all probability, they were begun in the period immediately following the first persecution of the Christians – that of Nero. It is apparent that no special ecclesiastical decree was required to authorize the prayerful veneration of this or that particular martyr. A martyr " " s death itself testified to the reception of a heavenly crown. But the numbering of departed hierarchs and ascetics among the choir of the saints was done individually, and was naturally carried out on the basis of each oné " s personal worthiness. It is impossible to give a general answer as to which criteria the Church employed for recognition of saints belonging to this third classification. As regards the ascetics in particular, without a doubt the fundamental, general basis of their glorification was and still is the working of miracles. This is because supernatural evidence is free from human whim or bias. Prof. Golubinsky considers this indication the sole basis for the glorification of ascetics in the history of ecclesiastical canonization. Despite his opinion, however, one may conclude that the commemoration of the great Christian desert dwellers of old, the leaders and guides of monasticism, was kept by the Church for their didactic gifts and their lofty spiritual attainments, apart from a strict dependence on whether they were glorified with the gift of working miracles. They were numbered among the choirs of the saints strictly for their ascetic life, without any particular reference to such a criterion [miracle working]. The ancient Church " " s glorification of holy hierarchs should be viewed somewhat differently. Their lofty service itself was the basis of their glorification, just as the martyrs» holy ends were for them. |
| Over against other measures, like the restriction of the service of military chaplains of our Church, the above-mentioned problem stands out as the most stinging. In case of the successful realization of the scenario of the forceful renaming, the certain forces will get additional possibility for the unlawful re-registration of the property of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in favor of the “OCU.” With the administrative support this will not be difficult to achieve, especially now that, as is typical of raider schemes, the structure of the schismatics has staked out for itself a name of the “OCU,” practically identical to our “UOC.” Unfortunately, there is no hope yet for a qualitatively tangible change of the situation with the discriminatory law. For some unknown reasons, all branches of power are reluctant to rescind the norms contradicting the Constitution, although they have powers and legal justification to do so. – Does the Ukrainian Orthodox Church feel any support of the international community, the European and international organizations, the European Court of Human Rights, and others? – We provide the international organizations with comprehensive information about different offences of law. Moreover, these organizations register certain violations of fundamental rights and freedoms of our faithful. Yet, I cannot say anything about significant support rendered by these organizations. – Have you got any signals from those Local Churches which have not yet find their position on “the Ukrainian issue” – the Bulgarian, Georgian and Romanian Churches? Could other Churches join those which have recognized the “OCU”? On which Churches a particular pressure is being put by the Phanar and different forces from abroad? – The majority of the Local Church has experienced different kinds of pressure concerning the recognition of the “OCU.” Some could maintain their stand against outside pressure, some could not, but even in those Churches that have in whole or in part recognized the Dumenko’s structure there is no unity concerning their relationship with the schismatics. This is obvious to the entire Orthodox world. That is why other Churches have no sights on extending the recognition of the “OCU.” |
| Clement tells why Christians often feel so sure of their knowledge derived from Scripture: ‘So too we, obtaining from the Scriptures themselves a perfect demonstration concerning the Scriptures, derive from faith a conviction which has the force of demonstration’ (Stromateis 7.16.96). The anonymous, second-century author of a treatise on resurrection 310 reasoned in the same way and began his discourse thus: The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves... But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth. The same conviction permeates the writings of Irenaeus, who says, speaking specifically of the New Testament writings, ‘proofs [of the things which are] contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves’ (AH 3.12.9). The point is that, for Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, and many others, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John bore the marks of such self-attesting authority. And, holding such an attitude as this towards Scripture, including ‘the prophets and the gospel and the blessed apostles’, it is only natural that apostolic Christians of the mainstream church should not regard themselves as authorized to choose which books they wanted to be Scripture. With Scripture as a self-attesting first principle, the only response for the church is to recognize what God has revealed. We are bound to say, of course, that questions did arise which prevented these Christians from reaching consensus recognition on the ‘self-attesting’ marks of a few of the books now in the New Testament until the late fourth century. But the four Gospels seem to have attained general recognition impressively swiftly. Still, even with those books in mind which did not so quickly find consensus (or which moved in and out), the importance of the principle we have just observed should be evident. For it shows just how differently the early Christians thought about such things from the way people typically do today. Christian scholars such as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, or Origen poured immense critical effort into the application of all manner of literary tools to the study of Scripture. But what they did not seek to do was to sit in judgement over it. For Scripture, including the four handed-down Gospels, spoke with the voice of God. |
|
|
