| Таков случай 181 (Journal of the S. P. R. Anp. 1886, стр. 249 – 262) и случай 163 (Journal. Дек. 1885, стр. 136–141). Однако же и этого рода факты, взятые сами по себе, не могут еще служить доказательством объективной реальности призраков. Блестящие опыты Бине и др. показали, что и чисто галлюцинаторные образы, вызываемые путем внушения в гипнозе, могут не только отражаться в зеркалах, но также отклоняться призмами, закрываться экранами и т. д. Для объяснения этого рода явлений Бине прибегает к следующей гипотезе: он допускает, что вызываемый у пациента галлюцинаторный образ ассоциируется с какой-либо действительной точкой в пространстве – точкой пола, стены и т. д. При отражении подобного рода точки зеркалом или отклонении ее призмой и т. д. естественно отражается или отклоняется и ассоциированный с нею образ. Бине считает, таким образом, этого рода образы за нечто среднее между галлюцинациями и иллюзиями. Заметим мимоходом, что наблюденные Бине свойства галлюцинаторных образов можно также объяснить и простыми законами ассоциаций: если в зеркале отражается, например, вся обстановка, окружающий данный галлюцинаторный образ, то, естественно, в этой обстановке повторится и тот же образ, так что будет казаться, что данный образ как бы отразился и зеркале. То же самое следует сказать и об опытах с призмами и т. д. В своих опытах Бине вызывал галлюцинации бабочек на письменном столе, портретов на листах белой бумаги и т. д. В случаях этого рода теория ассоциирования галлюцинаторных образов с объективными точками пространства не встречает затруднений. Но Бине уверяет, что и в тех даже случаях, когда галлюцинаторный образ проектировался, например, в середину комнаты и двигался, – экранами можно бывало заслонять его от галлюцинанта и т. д. Наконец, в случае 476 (Journal of the S. P. R. Май, 1886 г.) призрак, одновременно видимый двумя супругами, поравнявшись с лампой, отбрасывает ясную черную тень. Сверх того, он произносит два слова. Явление отбрасывания тени также можно до известной степени объяснить законами ассоциаций. |
| Ставень отворяют и видят в окне бледное лицо бывшей горничной (одна из женщин не знала ее, а узнала призрак впоследствии по портрету). Женщины удивляются, что посетительница стоит под проливным дождем с непокрытой головой. В это время лицо начинает принимать цвет трупа и, наконец, исчезает. На другой день они узнают о смерти горничной. (К этому случаю приложима гипотеза влияния сосредоточивания мыслей умирающей горничной на данной местности – дом ее бывшего служения). 2) В случае 476 посмертных призраков (Journal of the S. P. R. Май, 1886) мистрис и м-р П. видели одновременно ночью в запертой комнате фигуру отца м-ра П. (флотского офицера в фуражке, умершего за 15 лет перед тем, и которого м-с П. не видала ни разу в жизни); галлюцинируют в непокойных домах довольно часто. Казуистика прижизненных фантасмов показывает, что у некоторых фигура была усмотрена м-с П., которая и разбудила мужа. На вопрос м-ра П, фигура произнесла полным грусти голосом: «Вилли! Вилли!» (уменьш. имя м-ра П.) – и затем стала подвигаться к стене. Когда она поравнялась с лампой, от нее отбросилась ясная черная тень. По осмотре запоров и замков, в комнате все оказалось целым. Явления посмертных призраков в громадном большинстве случаев имеют чисто местный, эндемический характер, т. е. бывают связаны с той или другой местностью, а не с тем или другим лицом, как явления фантасмов прижизненных. Положение это, однако же, нужно понимать с известным ограничением. Прежде всего, как мы заметили уже в начале нашей статьи, они не всегда ограничиваются тесными пространствами, но иногда захватывают и довольно обширные местности, а понятие о местности есть понятие очень растяжимое. Сверх того, не все лица бывают, по-видимому, способны видеть призраков, и нередко случается, что одни из обитателей данного дома встречаются по несколько раз с призраками, другие же не видят их ни разу. Следовательно, и здесь личный элемент (личное уравнение) играет некоторую роль. С другой стороны, и в некоторых случаях прижизненных фантасмов появление фантасма имело, по-видимому, отношение скорее к данной местности, чем к данному лицу. |
| 1979 " The Origin, Character, and Early History of the 364-Day Calendar: A Reassessment of Jaubert " s Hypotheses, " Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41, 390-411. " The Poetry of 1 Q Ap Gen XX, 2-8a, " Revue de Qumran 37, 57-66. Review of C. A. Moore, Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions in Journal of Biblical Literature 98, 434-36. Review of S. Lund and J. A. Foster, Variant Versions of Targumic Traditions Within Codex Neofiti 1 in Journal of Biblical Literature 98, 465. Review of J. M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41, 669-70. 1980 " Old Problems Revisited: Inerrancy, Princeton, and Orthodoxy, " Reformed Journal 30, 18-21. " The Righteousness of Noah, " in Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and Paradigms (ed. G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. J. Collins; Septuagint and Cognate Studies 12; Chico: Scholars Press) 13-32. " Davidic Complicity in the Deaths of Abner and Eshbaal: A Historical and Redactional Study, " Journal of Biblical Literature 99, 521-39. Review of P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran in Religious Studies Review 6, 72. Review of J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 in Journal of the American Oriental Society 100, 360-62. Review of E. Ulrich, The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus in Journal of Biblical Literature 99, 599-601. 1981 " 2 Maccabees 6,7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem, " Journal for the Study of Judaism 12, 52-74. " Intertestamental Pronouncement Stories " in Pronouncement Stories , ed. Robert Tannehill ( Semeia 20) 65-72. " The Putative Author of the Book of Jubilees, " Journal of Semitic Studies 26, 209-17. Review of J. C. H. LeBram, Lijden en redding in het Antieke Jodendom in Religious Studies Review 7, 82. Review of Carrol V. Newsom, The Roots of Christianity in Religious Studies Review 7, 69. Review of Eretz-Israel 14 : H. L. Ginsberg Volume in Religious Studies Review 7, 64. Review of J. Fitzmyer and D. Harrington, A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts in Journal of Biblical Literature 100, 142-43. |
| Participating in the discussion on the theme on the agenda are archpastors, clergy and laity - members of the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission; representatives of theological schools of the Russian Orthodox Church; faculty of higher education institutions, clergy from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and guests from Local Orthodox Churches. Among those present are Patriarchal Vicar of the Metropolis of Moscow Metropolitan Juvenaly of Krutitsy and Kolomna; chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate Metropolitan Dionisy of Voskresensk; Metropolitan Isidor of Smolensk and Dorogobuzh, Metropolitan Ambrose of Tver and Kashin; DECR vice-chairman Archbishop Leonid of Vladikavkaz and Alania; Archbishop Matfey of Yegoryevsk; Archbishop Aksiy of Podolsk and Lubertsy; Bishop Nikolay of Balashikha and Orekhovo-Zuevo; rector of Moscow Theological Academy and Seminary Bishop Feodorit of Zvenigorod; deputy chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate Bishop Savva of Zelenograd; chairman of the Synodal Department for Youth Bishop Seraphim of Istra; Bishop Peter of Lukhovtsy; Bishop Feofilakt of Mytishchi; head of the Moscow Patriarchate Administrative Secretariat Bishop Foma of Odintsovo and Krasnogorsk; rector of St. Petersburg Theological Academy and Seminary Bishop Siluan of Petergof; Bishops Foma of Sergiev Posad and Dmitrov, Constantine of Zaraisk, Paramon of Naro-Fominsk, Porfiry of Ezersk, Roman of Serpukhov. Taking part in the conference remotely are Patriarchal Exarch of All Belarus Metropolitan Veniamin of Minsk and Slutsk, Metropolitan Alexander of Riga and All Latvia; Metropolitan Nikoloz of Akhalkalaki and Kumurdo (Georgian Orthodox Church); hierarchs of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus - Metropolitan Nikiforos of Kykkos and Tillyria and Metropolitan Isaiah of Tamassos and Oreini, Metropolitan Augustine of Belaya Tserkov and Boguslavsk, Metropolitan Sergiy of Voronezh and Liski, Metropolitan Andrew of Gori and Ateni (Georgian Orthodox Church), chairman of the Synodal Department for Monasteries and Monkhood Metropolitan Feognost of Kashira; Metropolitan George of Nizhniy Novgorod and Arzamas; Metropolitan Zinovy of Saransk and Mordovia; Archbishop Seraphim of Kaliningrad and Baltijsk, administrator of the diocese of Berlin and Germany Archbishop Tikhon of Ruza, Archbishop Theodosius of Sebastia (Orthodox Church of Jerusalem), Bishop Irinej of Bac (Serbian Orthodox Church), rector of Kiev Theological Academy and Seminary Bishop Silvestr of Belgorod, Bishop Seraphim of Bobruisk and Bykhov; Bishop Veniamin of Romanovo-Borisoglebsk, chairman of the Synodal Department for Cooperation with the Armed Forces and Law-Enforcement Bishop Savvaty of Bronnitsy; Bishops Mitrofan of Gatchina and Luga, Augustine of Gorodetz and Vetluga, Anthony of Grodno and Volovysk, and Herman of Sochi and Tuapse. |
| On the 29 th of October, the Primate of the Assyrian Church of the East led the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the opening of the Moscow Assyrian Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Mat Maryam) - the Representative Office of the Assyrian Church in Russia. His Holiness Catholicos Mar Awa performed the rite of the great consecration of the renovated temple altar and Divine Liturgy in the company of members of the Assyrian delegation. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church who accompanied the Assyrian First Hierarch were present, as well as the Ambassador of Iraq to Russia K. al-Janabi, the leadership of the Representation of the Kurdistan Region in Russia and the Consul of the State of Palestine in the Russian Federation J. Malki. At the end of the service a solemn act, reception and meeting of the Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa with members of the youth movement of the parish of Mat Maryam were held in the representative premises of the temple complex. The hosts of the festive evening were the rector of the temple, the representative of the Assyrian Church in Russia, Chorbishop Samano Odisho and the head of the parish community churchwarden V.V. Ilyushin. On the 30 th of October, a delegation fr om the Assyrian Church of the East visited the churches of the Patriarchal Chernigov Palace and the Ss. Cyril and Methodius Institute of Postgraduate Studies. The meeting of Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Awa with the members of the faculty and students took place in the Assembly Hall of the Institute. The meeting was followed by a conversation between the distinguished guest and Archpriest Maxim Kozlov, Rector of Instutute, during which the parties discussed issues of academic co-operation between the educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East. In the context of his visit to the Institute of Postgraduate Studies, Catholicos Mar Awa also had a conversation with S.G. Alferov, a lecturer of the joint course of the DECR and the Institute called " Ancient Oriental Churches " . The Primate of the Assyrian Church welcomed the teaching of this course, noting that the initiator of its establishment back in the early 1970s at the Moscow and Leningrad Theological Academies was Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov), of blessed memory - mentor of His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus " Kirill. His Holiness the Catholicos also approved the idea of creating a special educational programme within the framework of the course, dedicated to the study of the heritage of the Syrian Christian tradition, and expressed readiness to assist in the organisation of joint thematic events, including in Iraq. |
| On March 13, 2013, the Patriarch of Antioch urgently summoned the Holy Council, at which it was decided to consider the actions of Jerusalem as an encroachment on integrity of the Church of Antioch; the Council called upon the See of Jerusalem to settle the conflict (which might lead to break-off of the Eucharistic communion between the sister Churches) as soon as possible and to reconsider the Geneva agreements, worked out by the preparatory commissions to the Great, Holy, pan-Orthodox Council. At the earliest possible date delegations of the Patriarchate of Antioch held negotiations with other Local Orthodox Churches, which included the issue of above-mentioned actions of the Church of Jerusalem, which posed a threat to integrity of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Universal Church. The meeting of the Holy Council of Antioch in June 2013 again discussed the problem of the so-called " Archdiocese of Qatar " . The fathers made the decision to respond to the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarch and to be present at the negotiations with the delegation of the Church of Jerusalem at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece on June 21, 2013. The negotiations, held at the time appointed, led to signing of the agreement, which ordered abolition of the " Qatar Archdiocese " of Jerusalem as well as settlement of the presence of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem on the territory of Qatar according to the established Church tradition. Nevertheless, the See of Jerusalem, in spite of all efforts of the Greek government and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, refused to implement the requirements of the signed agreement. Therefore, in accordance with the canon law of the Church, the Holy Council, assembled in October 2013, directed to make up a special commission, authorized to solve the emerged problem within two months; otherwise, the Church of Antioch, in its turn, promised to break off the Eucharistic communion with Jerusalem. Receiving the invitation to the Phanar assembly of heads of the Local Orthodox Churches (March 6-9 this year), the Patriarch of Antioch postponed the implementation of the decision of the Council of October last year. However, the above-mentioned problem was not discussed at the Phanar and was not included in its agenda, in spite of requests of the Antiochian delegation. The latter was given by the Ecumenical Patriarch the message of the Patriarch of Jerusalem of February 29 (sic.), in which he announced inclusion of " Syria and Arabia " into the jurisdiction of Jerusalem. Later, the Antiochian side refused to sign the resulting document of the assembly and to take part in the joint solemn service on the feast of Triumph of Orthodoxy. |
| in the resolution of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 7th 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 7th 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 25th 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. Much to their sorrow, the members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church stated that the aforementioned resolutions of the Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church were in direct contravention of the holy canons, in particular, Apostolic Canons 11, 12, 31, 32, Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council; Canons 5, 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council; Canon 13 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; Canon 17 of the Quinisext Council (in Trullo); and Canons 13, 22 of the Council of Antioch. |
| Our society would accept this tactics as appropriate at the period of lack of allies and resources to revise foreign-policy advances of 1990s, but it has bitter experience of Kozyrev’s foreign policy. The anxiety is quite understandable. It’s useful to to remind again and again of historical and legal parameters of the problem that, in fact, arose in consequence of nihilism and lack of will of the first decade of perestroyka. And we are faced with estimating and feeling of this consequence. The active balanced policy of Russia in the entire Asian-Pacific region, long-awaited return of multivector policy of Russia as a great Eurasian power has, in fact, impediments because of ambiguity in Russian-Japanese relations. But the hope of Japan to get Kuril Islands was the result of Russian policy of the beginning of 90s itself, when M. Gorbachev suddenly declared that the “territorial problem” had existed. This hope is cherished with open support of the USA, which has the most serious interests in Pacific region. And, concerning this problem, besides sharp weakening of Russian strategical positions, making concessions to Japan would be a precedent of extraordinary importance for changes in territorial status quo in Europe. Destruction of the Yalta-Potsdam system and appearance of new states in Europe weren’t juridical revision of the territorial results of the World War II, that’s why all these dramatic for Russia events couldn’t cause automatic undermining of legitimacy of the post-war settlement of territorial problems. It would cause a different effect to satisfy all the claims of Japan to “return” the Islands that means to undermine the principle of indisputability of the results of the World War II. It would also give other states an opportunity to call in question other aspects of a territorial status quo. Terms and concepts However archaic this method seems to supporters of “globalization” and substitution of rights of nations and national interests by “human rights” and “interests of universal democracy”, the principle of indisputability of the results of the World War II - the basis of all post-war international relations keeps its fundamental importance; the term “to return” must be withdrawn from use of Russian officials. Because the use of this very term is nothing less than a conceptual revision of the results of WW II, meaning indirect recognition of new Japan as a continuer of its predecessor – the state of Japan that unleashed the war and surrendered without any condition. |
| Review of D. W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of Enoch in Journal of the American Academy of Religion 49, 489-90. Review of H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 43, 447-49. Review of M. Hengel, Jews, Greeks and Barbarians in Interpretation 35, 428-29. Review of Lars Hartman, Asking for a Meaning: A Study of 1 Enoch 1-5 in Journal of Biblical Literature 100, 641-42. Review of M. A. Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A New Edition in the Light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments in Journal of the American Oriental Society 101, 412-14. 1982 " Some Major Issues in the Contemporary Study of 1 Enoch: Reflections on J. T. Milik " s The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 , " MAARAV 3, 85-97. " A 28-Day-Month Tradition in the Book of Jubilees? " Vetus Testamentum 32, 504-506. Review of F. M. Cross, Jr., The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modern Biblical Studies in Calvin Theological Journal 17, 102-105. Review of Melvin K. H. Peters, An Analysis of the Textual Character of the Bohairic of Deuteronomy in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44, 493-94. 1983 " 1 Enoch 77, 3 and a Babylonian Map of the World, " Revue de Qumran 42, 271-78. " The 364-Day Calendar in the Enochic Literature, " Society of Biblical Literature: Seminar Papers (Chico: Scholars Press) 157-65. Review of M. Küchler, Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45, 111-13. Review of B. E. Thiering, The Gospels and Qumran: A New Hypothesis in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 45, 512-14. Review of B. E. Thiering, The Gospels and Qumran: A New Hypothesis in Religious Studies Review 9, 283. Review of K. Berger, Das Buch der Jubiläen in Religious Studies Review 9, 283-84. 1984 Enoch and the Growth of An Apocalyptic Tradition (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 16; Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association) " Recent Studies in " Apocalyptic " , " Word and World 4, 70-77. " Sensitive Conservatism, " Reformed Journal 34, 24-27. |
| The Russian Orthodox Church, faithful to the centuries-old canonical tradition, has always defended and continues to defend the equality of the local Orthodox Churches and the independence of each local church from the other local churches in internal government. “The mockery of the sacred institution of autocephaly”, expressed in granting autocephaly to a group of Ukrainian schismatics, has become one of the sad consequences of the distortion of Holy Tradition upon which for centuries the life of the Orthodox Church has been built as a family of local churches independent of each other in matters of internal government. 7. The unilateral revision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of acts that have significance for establishing legal precedents. In laying claim to supposed powers within the Orthodox world, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has not hesitated to revise unilaterally the historical acts that have significance for establishing legal precedents in relation to the local Orthodox Churches and their canonical boundaries. This approach contradicts the canonical Tradition of the Church by violating, in particular, the 129 th (133th) canon of the Council of Carthage and the 17 th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. These canons do not admit of the possibility of revising already established ecclesiastical boundaries which had never been disputed for many years. An example of the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in violating the present church canons would be the “renewal” of the Tomos of the Patriarch of Constantinople Meletius IV on 7 th July 1923, which, without the knowledge and consent of the Patriarch of All Russia Tikhon, received into the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople the autonomous Estonian Orthodox Church, which was then part of the Patriarchate of Moscow. After the restoration in 1944 in Estonia of the legitimate jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate the Tomos of 1923 was forgotten. On 3 rd April 1978 an act by the Patriarch of Constantinople Dimitrius and the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople declared the Tomos to be “invalid”, while Constantinople’s activities in Estonia were said to be “finished”. Nonetheless, on 20 th February 1996 the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, under the presidency of Patriarch Bartholomew, gave a new interpretation to this decision in stating that in 1978 “the Mother Church ... declared the Tomos of 1923 to be invalid, that is to say, having no validity at that time on the territory of Estonia, then part of the Soviet Union, but did not cancel or annul it, or deprive it of its power.” Now Patriarch Bartholomew and his Synod have declared that “the renewal of the Patriarchal and Synodal Tomos of 1923 is valid.” |
|
|
