| Tsypin, V.A. Istoriya Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi. Sinodal’nyi i noveishii periody, (1700−2005) [History Of The Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and modern periods, (1700−2005)]. Moscow: Sretenskiy monastyr’ Publ., 2007. (in Russian). U Troitsy v Akademii 1814−1914 g. Yubileinyi sbornik istoricheskikh materialov [Trinity’s at the Academy 1814−1914. Anniversary collection of historical materials]. Moscow: Tovarishhestvo I.D. Sytina Press, 1914 (in Russian). Vereshchagin, N. “Vospominaniya o v Boze pochivshem preosvyashchennom episkope Iakove kak rektore Blagoveshchenskoi dukhovnoi seminarii.” [The memories of the deceased in the Lord, his grace, Bishop Jacob as the rector of Annunciation Seminary] Yakutskie eparkhial’nye vedomosti, no. 18 (1889); no. 19 (1889); no. 23 (1889); no. 24 (1889) (in Russian). Yavlovskii, P.P. Predislovie. Sistematicheskii ukazatel’ statei, pomeshchennykh v neofi tsial’noi chasti “Yakutskikh eparkhial’nykh vedomostei” za pervoe desyatiletie izdaniya (1887−1897 gg.) [Preface. Systematic index of articles placed in the unoffi cial part of the “Yakut diocesan statements” for the fi rst decade of publication (1887−1897)] Sergiev Posad: 2-ia tip. A.I. Snegirevoy Press, 1898 (in Russian). “Rech’ po povodu konchiny preosvyashchennogo episkopa Iakova.” [Speech about the death of Bishop James] Yakutskie eparkhial’nye vedomosti, no. 15 (1889) (in Russian). Yurganova, I.I. “Documents on the history of The Russian Orthodox Church in the national archive of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia).” Otechestvennye arkhivy, no. 4 (2005): 70−74 (in Russian). “Inkorporatciia Iakutskogo kraia v Rossiiskuyu imperiyu na primere khristianizatcii.” [Incorporation of the Yakut region into the Russian Empire on the example of Christianization] Vestnik of North-Eastern Federal University 9, no. 2 (2012): 95−98 (in Russian). “Pravoslavnyi prikhod v Iakutii (XVII – nachalo XX v.).” [Orthodox parish in Yakutia (17 − early 20th century)] Russian history, no. 3 (2014): 97−111 (in Russian). |
| © Sputnik/Kirill Kallinikov European countries and the US along with Canada have decided to expel Russian diplomats amid the Skripal case. “We express a decisive protest over the decision taken by a number of EU and NATO countries to expel Russian diplomats. There will be a mirror-like response. We will work it out in the coming days and give our response with regard to each country… We consider this step as unfriendly and not serving the tasks and interests of establishing the causes and finding the perpetrators of the incident that took place on March 4 in Salisbury,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement . According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, powerful forces in the US and the UK are behind the poisoning attack on ex-spy Skripal in Salisbury. The following countries have announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats, “Fourteen out of 28 EU member-states have decided to expel diplomats from the Russian Federation as a measure of solidarity with London on the Skripal case… Additional measures, including further sanctions within the common EU framework, cannot be excluded in the coming days and weeks,” European Council President Donald Tusk said. Moscow will retaliate against a series of expulsions of Russian diplomats from European countries and will provide a mirror-like response with regard to each case in the coming days, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. Moscow has been ready for the decision of Western countries to expel Russian diplomats, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry. The Russian Consulate in Seattle is working to minimize the effects of the US closure of the mission, the senior Russian consul said. “The Slovak Republic unequivocally condemned the nerve agent attack in Salisbury [the United Kingdom], joined the decisions of the European Council on March 22, 2018, and reserved the right to take further steps in connection with this incident… After the careful consideration of the options, the republic’s Foreign Ministry has decided to urgently summon the Russian ambassador to Slovakia on Tuesday, March 27, and ask him for an explanation of the incident,” Slovakia’s Foreign Ministry’s spokesman Peter Susko said. |
| According to one of the late hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the seminary in Jordanville is “a school of positive thought, correct thought, of orthodoxy.” The seminarians of Jordanville have the opportunity to grasp Orthodox teaching not only from lectures, but via direct contact with the living carriers of a true Orthodox world-view. The memory of Metropolitan Laurus, fifth Primate of the Church Abroad, is revered within the walls of the monastery and theological school. Vladyka Laurus, as abbot of the monastery and a long-time dean of the seminary, was a living witness of the true Orthodox attitude towards the world. Nothing is as inspirational as the living example exhibited by Metropolitan Laurus, who even now gives strength for serving the Church. In the days of old, when the Church Abroad was alone in the Orthodox world, many saw her as a treasury of true Orthodoxy, unharmed Orthodox teaching, a zealot of dogma and canon. Undoubtedly, this attitude drew if not a multitude, then at least a good number of people to the bosom of the Russian Church Abroad. True Orthodoxy is always associated with Russianness, with the preservation of the specific traditions of pre-Revolutionary Russia. For the Jordanville monastery and seminary, this was considered the golden age. The monastic tradition and that of its theological school were established in those years, and the seminary in Jordanville became the main spiritual university of the Russian Church Abroad, and the monastery its lavra. Today, the organization of the educational process is complicated, the number of students has fallen drastically in recent years, but the presence of students from Russian theological schools is its saving grace. It is obvious that filling spaces with students from Russian seminaries is not ideal, but at the same time, for an American to learn Russian is like a Russian learning Chinese—the interest is there, but the difficulty may be too great. The rector of Holy Trinity Monastery and Seminary, Archimandrite Luke (Murianka) , recognizes this problem. The fathers who founded the monastery left a legacy to preserve the Russian Orthodox services in Church Slavonic, but today more and more Americans want to learn about Orthodox Christianity. Forcing them to learn the Russian language would seem unreasonable. At the time, the main goal of Russians living abroad was to preserve the traditions of their Russian culture. One cannot say that today, this goal has lost its purpose, but at the same time we cannot hinder the local population from converting to Orthodoxy. Obviously, the Russian presence in America must not only have a preservationist function, but it must first and foremost have a missionary purpose, that is, open to the people of all nations who wish to receive the truth of Christianity in its fullness. |
| Sergius of Radonezh (1314–1392). The icon of the Holy Trinity by Andrey Rublyov (1370–1430), that masterpiece of Russian art, testifies to this. It shows the vision of the possibility of accord in love and freedom, reflecting the perfect unity of the Holy Trinity. It was this ideal that inspired the Russian leaders of genius in the nineteenth century – Khomiakov and his teachings on «sobornosj:», Dostoevsky and his « Russian Socialism« . Solovyov and his » Free Theocracy «, and Nicholas Fyodorov (1828–1903) and his »Common Task ». These sacred precepts found a place in the works of the Russian emigre thinkers in whom the tradition of the Orthodox Church and the liberal aspirations of the intelligentsia have been reconciled. At the present time there is only one official voice of the Russian people. It proclaims to everyone the happiness of life under the leadership of the all-powerful and «infallible» Party, and never ceases glorifying the achievements of the «Great Socialist Revolution». The Kremlin invites the whole of mankind to follow in the footsteps of Lenin, that «great teacher of the peoples». It threatens the opponents of Communism with severe punishments. Although this voice sounds triumphantly throughout the entire world, it does not appear to be the only expression of the hopes of the Russian people. Other voices are beginning to be heard from Russia, like that of the writer Solzhenitsyn (b. 1918). The emigre leaders have a special place in this opposition, for they bought their freedom by choosing exile. Among them the voices of the religious thinkers are of considerable importance. These are the voices of men who see hope for a better future for mankind not in submission to totalitarianism but in the revival of the Evangelical teachings. This Christian voice threatens no one, but declares its unshakable belief in the living force of genuine freedom, love and forgiveness. Every despotism runs its course, and there will come a time when the thoughts of Orthodoxy " s philosophers will reach those who have no access to them at present. The drama of Russian Christian culture has reached its apogee in this century. The fate of the emigres has been to assume the arduous but glorious task of preserving and deepening the spiritual values of Russian Orthodoxy in a period of trial and tension. Oxford 28-V-1972. 11 Dr. Kullmann played an important role in the religious life and social fortunes of the Russian emigration. He was one of the outstanding participants of that religious and philosophical renewal which characterized the first decades of the Russian dispersion. In the course of the years spent in the work with the Russian Student Christian Movement, he helped the West to understand better Russian Orthodoxy and its theologians and religious thinkers. The second half of his active life he devoted to the political protection of refugees as a representative of the International Orgainzations. |
| However, the emphasis upon Russian nationalism and the attempts at Russification advocated by some leaders of the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese, such as Metropolitan Evdokim (Mischersky), combined with a sense of nationalism among the other immigrants, provided a basis for alienation between the Russian and non-Russian members of the archdiocese. This was further compounded by the difficulties that the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese experienced in the wake of the Russian revolution. The Serbian parishes, which numbered about thirty-six, were organized into a diocese by the Patriarchate of Serbia in 1921. From 1920 to 1921, these parishes received leadership from Bishop Nikolaj (Velimirovich). Their first formal resident bishop was Mardarije (Uskokovich), who was assigned in 1927. 151 The Romanians, with about forty parishes at the time, entered into a relationship with the Archbishop of Sibiu in Romania in 1923 and were organized into a diocese in 1930 by the Patriarchate of Bucharest. Bishop Polycarp (Morusca) was assigned to be the resident bishop in 1935. 152 The Albanians, with three parishes, were organized into a diocese associated with the Church of Albania by Metropolitan Theophan (Noli) in 1932. As a priest, Father Noli had begun to organize the Albanian immigrants as early as 1908. Although he was elected a bishop in 1918, he was not consecrated until 1923 in Albania. Bishop Theofan permanently returned to the United States in 1931. 153 The Bulgarians, with only five parishes, established a relationship with their mother church in 1922 and were finally organized into a diocese by the Church of Bulgaria in 1938. The diocese was led initially by Bishop Andrey (Velichky). 154 Ukrainian immigrants, considering themselves ethnically and linguistically distinct from both Russians and Carpatho-Russians, organized parishes, especially after 1918. These Ukrainian immigrants came from Galicia, a non-Hungarian province of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. When they arrived in America, most were Eastern-Rite Roman Catholics whose union with Rome dated from the Union of Brest in 1596. Like many of the Carpatho-Russians, a number of Ukrainians began to join the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese after their arrival in this country. Because of their growing sense of Ukrainian nationalism as well as the unwillingness of some Russian Orthodox leaders to recognize legitimate diversity in liturgical language and customs, the Ukrainian parishes gradually began to separate from the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese. In 1924, they organized an independent diocese under the leadership of Father John Theodorovich. He claimed to have been consecrated a bishop in Kiev. However, because of a question related to the status of those who consecrated him, Father John Theodorovich " s ordination as a bishop was not recognized by other Orthodox churches. Because of this, the clergy and parishes associated with him had little contact with other Orthodox jurisdictions. 155 |
| The establishment of these ethnic parishes reflected the fact that each existed not only as a worshiping community but also as a center serving the cultural and social needs of the immigrants. In the midst of a new country, the immigrants found emotional support, assistance, and a part of their homeland within their churches. While these ethnic parishes served the immediate needs of the immigrants and their children, they did little to promote cooperation and unity among all the Orthodox. Throughout the period of immigration up until 1921, the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese was the only Orthodox ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the Russian Orthodox bishop was the only resident hierarch in the United States. As a consequence, many Orthodox immigrants who were not of Russian background accepted the authority of the Russian bishop in the United States. This was especially true of the Serbs, Arabs, Albanians, and Romanians. In order to serve better the needs of these immigrants, the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese established a mission diocese with a bishop for Syrian immigrants in 1904. As we have noted, the first Orthodox bishop consecrated in the United States was Father Raphael Hawaweeny, a native of Damascus, Syria, who supervised the Arabic-speaking Orthodox for about twenty years. 105 Likewise, Father Stephen Dzubay was consecrated a bishop, in 1916, especially to serve the Carpatho-Russian immigrants. 106 Plans were also made to consecrate a bishop to serve the Serbian parishes, but this never materialized. In much the same way that the Church of Russia and the Russian Empire acted as the protector of Orthodox Christianity throughout parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East prior to the October revolution of 1917, so also the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese viewed itself as the protector of Orthodoxy in the United States. Given the cultural, ethnic, and historical associations of the Old World, it was somewhat natural that many Carpatho-Russian, Syrian, Serbian, Albanian, and Romanian immigrants would associate their parishes with the Russian Orthodox archdiocese. |
| Russia, by contrast, sees itself as defending not only vital strategic interests in Ukraine, but also its core values of honor, such as spiritual freedom, cultural loyalty, and pluralism. It may seem strange to many in the West, but Russia's attitude on the Ukrainian crisis is inflexible precisely because it sees itself as occupying the moral high ground in this dispute. A key reason why Western moral criticisms of Russian actions have so little traction among Russians is that the Russia Orthodox Church has regained its traditional pre-eminence as the institution that defines the nation's moral vision and sense of honor. Looking beyond Russia's borders, that vision has come to be known as the Russky mir or Russian World. Russian World or the Communities of Historical Rus? It is important to distinguish how this term is used by the Russian state from how it is used by the Russian Orthodox Church. The use of this term as a " community of Orthodox Christians living in unity of faith, traditions and customs, " goes back to at least the beginning of the 19th century, but it was re-purposed as a political concept in the early 1990s by Pyotr Shedrovitsky, an influential political consultant interested in the role that cultural symbols could play in politics. He believed that creating a network of mutually reinforcing social structures in the former Soviet states among people who continue to think and speak in Russian—the " Russky mir " —could be politically advantageous to Russia. 13 Its practical foreign policy appeal stemmed from the fact that, by claiming to speak on behalf of nearly 300 million Russian speakers, a weakened Russia would instantly become a key regional player, as well as an influential political force within the countries of the former Soviet Union. This notion resonated within the Yeltsin administration which, in the mid-1990s was already searching for a " Russian Idea " around which to consolidate the nation and promote a new democratic consensus. 14 Members of the Institute of Philosophy at the Russian Academy of Sciences were tasked to research this concept, but although it influenced sections of Russia's first foreign policy doctrine in 1996, it ultimately ran out of steam. As those involved in this project later explained to me, there were simply too many disparate " Russian Ideas " to choose from, and no consensus within the presidential administration or the Institute of Philosophy on which version to support. |
| Russkaya Pravoslavnaya Tserkov’ 988–1988 [Russian Orthodox Church 988−1988]. Vol. 1, of Ocherki istorii I−XIX vv. [Essays on the history of 1−19th centuries]. Moscow: Moskovskaya Patriarhiya Press, 1988 (in Russian). Savva (Tikhomirov). Ukazatel’ dlya obozreniya Moskovskoi patriarshei (nyne sinodal’noi) riznitsy i biblioteki [Index for review of the Moscow Patriarch (now Synodal) sacristy and library]. Moscow: Je. Lissner i Ju. Roman Press, 1855 (in Russian). Savva (Tikhomirov). Paleografi cheskie snimki s grecheskikh i slavyanskikh rukopisei Moskovskoi sinodal’noi biblioteki VI−XVII veka [Paleographic pictures from Greek and Slavic manuscripts of Moscow Synodal library of VI−XVII century]. St. Peterburg: V. Got’e Press, 1863 (in Russian). Setsinskiy, Ev.I., ed. Prikhody i tserkvi Podol’skoi eparkhii [Parishes and churches of Podolsk diocese]. Vol. 9, of Trudy Podol’skogo eparkhial’nogo istoriko-statisticheskogo komiteta [Works Podolsk diocesan historic-statistical Committee]. Kamenec-Podol’sk: S.P. Kirzhackiy Press, 1901 (in Russian). Sokol’nikov, E.V. “Voprosy reformirovaniya tserkovnogo obrazovaniya v Rossii pervoi chetverti XIX v.” [Issues of reforming Church education in Russia in the fi rst quarter of the 19th century] In Reformy i reformatory v istorii Rossii: K 150-letiyu Velikikh reform: Materialy XVI Vserossiiskoi nauchno-teoreticheskoi konferentsii. Moskva, RUDN, 17−18 maya 2012 g. [Reforms and reformers in Russian History: to the 150th anniversary of Great Reforms Pepers of 16 All-Russian Scientifi c Theoretical Conference, Moscow, RUDN University, May 17−18, 2012], 543−549. Moscow: RUDN Press, 2012 (in Russian). Spiski arkhiereev ierarkhii Vserossiiskoi i arkhiereiskikh kafedr so vremeni uchrezhdeniya Svyateishego Pravitel’stvuyushchego Sinoda (1721−1895 gg.) [Lists of bishops of the hierarchy of the all-Russian and bishops’ departments since the establishment of the Holy Governing Synod (1721−1895)]. St. Peterburg: Sinodal’naya Press, 1896 (in Russian). |
| Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Emperor. De Ceremoniis Aulae Byzantinae (ed/. J. Reiske). 2 vols, in C. S. H. B. Bonn, 1829–1840. Dion Cassius. Historia Romana (ed. U. P. Boissevain). Berlin, 1895– 1901. Ducas. Historia TurcoByzantina (ed. V. Grecu). Bucarest, 1958. Ecloga Leonis et Constantini, in K. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal. Collectio Librorum Juris GraecoRomanorum. Epanagoge Aucta, in K. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal. Jus GraecoRomanum. Vol. IV. Eusebius of Caesarea. Vita Constantini, in PG. Vol. XX. Gennadius, George Scholarius. Contre les Juifs, in CEuvres Completes. 8 vols. Paris, 1928–1936. Gregoras Nicephorus. Historia (ed. L. Schopen and/. Bekker). 2 vols, in C. S. H. B. Bonn, 1829–1855. Gregory Nazianzene. Orationes, in PG. Vol. XXXV; In Pentecosten; Supremum Vale, in PG. Vol. XXXVI; Poemata, in PG. Vol. XXXVII. Gregory of Nyssa. Vita Moysis, in PG. Vol. XLIV; De Instituto Christiano in PG. Vol. XLVI. Irenaeus. Contra Haereses, in PG. Vol. VII. Isaac of Nineveh. Homilies (Greek version, ed. N. Theotoki). Leipzig, 1790. John Chrysostom. In Matthaeum, in PG. Vol. LVII. John of Damascus. De Fide Orthodoxa ( Πηγ Γνσεως); Orationes, in PG. Vol. XCIV. Justinian I, Emperor. Novellae (ed. К. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal). 2 pts. Leipzig, 1881–1884. Leo Diaconus. Historia (ed. C. В. Hase), in С. S. H. B. Bonn, 1828. Mauropus Johannes. Poemata, in PG. Vol. CXX. Maximus the Confessor. Disputatio contra Pyrrhum, in PG. Vol. XCI. Methode de la Sainte Attention (ed. J. Hausherr). Orientalia Christiana Periodica, Vol. IX, 2. Rome, 1927. Nicephorus the Hesychast. De Sobrietate, in PG. Vol. CXLVII. Nicetas Choniates. Chronicon (ed. I. Bekker), in C. S. H. B. Bonn, 1835. Nicetas Stethatus. Vie de Symeon le Nouveau Theologien (ed. with french trans./. Hausherr and G. Horn), in Orientalia Christiana, XII. Rome, 1928. Pachymer Georgius. De Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis (ed. I. Bekker). 2 vols. C. S. H. B. Bonn, 1835. Palamas Gregorius. Defense des Saints Hesychastes (ed. and trans. Y. Meyendorff). 2 vols. Louvain, 1959. |
| 1987//BAR. 1988. Vol. 14. N 4. P. 52-55; idem. Merneptah " s Israel and Recent Theories of Israelite Origins//JSOT. 1991. Vol. 49. P. 3-29; Fritz V. The Israelite «Conquest» in the Light of Recent Excavations at Khirbet el-Meshash//BASOR. 1981. Vol. 241. P. 61-73; idem. The Conquest in the Light of Archaeology//Proc. of the VIII World Congr. of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem, 1982. Vol. 1. P. 15-22; Shanks H. The Exodus and the Crossing of the Red Sea: According to Hans Goedicke//BAR. 1981. Vol. 7. N 5. P. 42-50; Miller J. M. Recent Archaeological Developments Relevant to Ancient Moab//Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan/Ed. A. Hadidi. Amman, 1982. Vol. 1. P. 169-173; Yadin Y. Is the Biblical Account on the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?//BAR. 1982. Vol. 8. N 2. P. 16-23; Isserlin B. S. J. The Israelite Conquest of Canaan: A Comparative Review of the Arguments Applicable//PEQ. 1983. Vol. 115. P. 85-94; Wood B. G. Palestinian Pottery of the Late Bronze Age: Diss. Toronto, 1985; idem. Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?: A New Look at the Archaeol. Evidence//BAR. 1990. Vol. 16. N 2. P. 44-58; idem. The Rise and Fall of the 13th Cent. Exodus-Conquest Theory//JETS. 2005. Vol. 48. N 3. P. 475-489; idem. The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC.: A Response to J. Hoffmeier//Ibid. 2007. Vol. 50. N 2. P. 249-258; Ray P. J. The Duration of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt//Andrews University Seminary Studies. Berrien Springs (Mich.), 1986. Vol. 24. N 3. P. 231-248; Bimson J. J., Livingston D. Redating the Exodus//BAR. 1987. Vol. 13. N 5. P. 40-53; Halpern B. Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed//Ibid. 1987. N 6. P. 56-61; idem. The Exodus from Egypt: Myth or Reality?//The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symp. at the Smithsonian Institution, Oct. 26, 1991. Wash., 1992. P. 86-117; idem. Eyewitness Testimony: Parts of Exodus Written within Living Memory of the Event//BAR. 2003. Vol. 29. N 5. P. 50-57; Bietak M. Contra Bimson, Bietak Says Late Bronze Age Cannot Begin as Late as 1400 B. |
|
|
