| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy UOC Chancellor believes that conciliar church wisdom should give assessment for Patriarch Bartholomew’s actions Having come to Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople refused to talk with thousands of the faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church meeting him at the building of Verhovna Rada in Kiev. During this visit which threatens to overgrow with conflicts and to exacerbate the church conflict in that country further, chancellor of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan Anthony of Borispol and Brovary spoke with Ria Novosti about what developments the canonical Church could expect and what could be done to meet them; how the UOC assesses the current situation; if the Local Churches are ready to defend the purity of the faith and whether it is necessary for them to continue the dialogue in the “Amman format”. – Vladyka Anthony, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople has arrived in Kiev on the occasion of the Independence Day of Ukraine; and there were talks about Pope Francis coming too. What do the followers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church think about the visit of these religious leaders? Is the refusal of your clergy to participate in the events around Bartholomew’s visit still in force? – Judging by what state officials say, Pope Francis’ visit to Ukraine is unlikely to happen, because nothing was said about preparations for it. As for the visit of Patriarch Bartholomew, it was announced several months ago. Many experts predict that this event would accelerate the aggravation of religious situation in the country. This visit and reception of the Phanar’s head on the highest political level could be taken by the followers and supporters of the “OCU” as a signal in support of their efforts for the weakening of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which might provoke a new wave of raider attacks on the communities and parishes of the canonical Church. In this context, we announced that we would not be able to take part in a pre-planned event in the Cathedral of St. Sophia of Kiev if the delegation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople were present there, because none other but the Phanar and its head were responsible for the violation of the rights of the believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. How can one share presence with those whose decisions have brought so many troubles, so much suffering and evil to people who just wanted to preserve intact the faith of their grandfathers and grand-grandfathers? |
| Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, DECR chairman, at the conference on Russia – Ukraine – Belarus: A Common Civilizational Space? (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1st June 2019). Russia, Ukraine and Belarus constitute one spiritual space framed by the Russian Orthodox Church. This space was formed over a thousand years, during which national borders appeared, disappeared and were moved many times, but spiritual commonality remained intact despite numerous external efforts aimed at shattering this unity. A witness to it is the thousand-year history of the Russian Orthodox Church. As far back as the 10th century, the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople first mention the Metropolia of Rus’. Initially the title of its head had no additional naming of a city, but was just τ ς ωσας , that is “of Rus’” . When Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and after him the whole Rus’ embraced Christianity, Orthodoxy became the main spiritual and moral pivot for all the East Slavic ethnic groups that soon appeared in these territories. That moment marked the outset of the history of “Holy Rus’” – a historical phenomenon which owed its existence to the powerful unifying role of the Russian Church in the vast territories of the Great, Little and White Rus’ and in other territories which at different times were in the sphere of its influence. “At the outset of every nation, every nationality, a moral idea always preceded the rise of the nationality, for it was this idea that created it,” Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote. Orthodoxy became such idea for the peoples of the Holy Rus’. Throughout its history the Russian Church went through many ordeals, but managed to preserve its unity. During internecine feuds between the princedoms the Church would reconcile the conflicting parties. The most difficult moment of that period was, perhaps, when in the middle of the 12th century Grand Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich organized in Kiev an appointment of Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich without securing approval of the Patriarch of Constantinople, what, in fact, meant the declaration by Rus’ of its ecclesiastical independence and self-willed separation from its Mother Church. The separatist sentiments of the Prince of Kiev influenced the Prince of Northeast Rus’, Andrei Bogoliubsky, who appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with a request to grant him a separate metropolitan. However, it was the Church of Constantinople that defended the unity of the Russian Metropolia in the 12th century. Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges added a word “all” to the old title of Metropolitan of Kiev – τ ς πσης ωσας – “of All Rus’” – in order to emphasize the indivisibility of the Russian Church . |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf AUTHORITY AUTHORITY. The question of authority, and with it “infallibility,” in the Orthodox Church is primarily dependent on the Holy Spirit (q.v.) or pneumatology, and not upon human agency. Thus, the way the question is handled in the East is different from its treatment in the West. When the Holy Spirit is recognized as the ultimate source of authority, claims to inerrant authority for the hierarchy (e.g., “papal infallibility”) or for Scripture (e.g., sola Scriptura) can be relegated to high-level political posturing; for the claims are actually for a particular hierarch’s interpretation of the matter, and not all hierarchs’ (universal) understanding, and a particular group’s interpretation of Scripture (q.v.), and not how Scripture has been understood by the Church throughout the ages. The Orthodox generally consider the question as posed in the West in the last half millennium, with due respect to Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians, to be a wrong question predicated on unfortunate political developments, both before and after the Reformation. Having said this, it should be pointed out that in the East the same questions of ecclesiastical and civil authority have been as acutely felt as in the West, but with differing appeals: I. The appeal to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as paradigmatic for church decision-making procedure is frequently made by those emphasizing the importance of the hierarchy in the process of defining the faith: “The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter” (v. 6). This citation has as its strength the witness of Scripture and the successful resolution of a difficult problem in the nascent Gentile mission, seemingly a perfect example. On closer examination, the example is problematical. Did the hierarchy really make the decision? First, Peter makes a speech and in it takes responsibility for the Gentile mission; but then James, the brother of the Lord, speaks and states, “I have reached a decision. . . .” Next, we find that “the apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole church decided . . .” (v.22); and again, when we read Paul’s account of what is ostensibly the same Council ( Gal 2:1–10 ), he states that he is the leader of the Gentile mission and the meeting in Jerusalem added nothing to his message or method. Finally, the Council was not really about orthodoxy at all, but about orthopraxy: The decision did not involve theology (q.v.) or the content of the faith, but only whether circumcision and certain types of abstinence would be practiced. Excepting these controversial items, the Orthodox have preserved the formula, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28), in concluding their conciliar deliberations. |
| Palestinians Push Nativity Church as Heritage Site The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is becoming the church of contention, with a bid by the Palestinians to use their position as the newest members of the U.N. " s cultural arm to obtain World Heritage status for the iconic Christian site — and perhaps boost their own campaign for legitimacy. admin 26 June 2012 The Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is becoming the church of contention, with a bid by the Palestinians to use their position as the newest members of the U.N.’s cultural arm to obtain World Heritage status for the iconic Christian site — and perhaps boost their own campaign for legitimacy. The effort by the Palestinian Authority, like its overall efforts for global recognition for an independent Palestinian state, is drawing resistance. And it may fail at the World Heritage Committee meeting that starts Sunday. An experts committee has turned down the emergency bid to quickly confer on the Church of the Nativity, and its pilgrimage route, the status as an endangered World Heritage site, saying the application needs more work. Even custodians of the holy site, the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Armenian churches are opposed, according to a document obtained by The Associated Press. The church — which drew some 2 million visitors last year and parts of which are 1,500 years old — stands above the grotto that Christians believe was the birthplace of Jesus. The Palestinians’ application asks for recognition as a site of “outstanding universal value” urgently in need of attention. There is concern by the United States and others that the Bethlehem holy site and the integrity of the World Heritage process risk falling victim to the politics that for decades have torn the region asunder, with the Palestinians using their foothold in the U.N. system to grab symbolic recognition of their elusive bid for statehood in a long-disputed land. The World Heritage candidacy of the Church of the Nativity and the pilgrimage route is one way for the Palestinians to prove they are responsible stewards of the site which draws tourists the world over. Above all, it is part of a broader attempt by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to seek international recognition for a state of Palestine after its controversial backdoor entry into the U.N. system. |
| The path of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. Observations and thoughts of an old priest In connection with the recent turmoil within the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, I think it would be beneficial to share certain observations and reflections. Recently there has been much talk about the path followed by the ROCA. Now it has become obvious that the «straight» path which some people refer to, has led in the end to a schism within the ROCA. This schism has been ripening over many years. In order to understand what is going on, one should look first of all at the Guideposts that actually have determined the course of the ROCA throughout its history. The First Guidepost was Ukaz (Decree) No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon, dated Nov. 20, 1920, paragraph 2: «In the event that a diocese, as a result of movement of the front lines, or changes of state borders, finds itself out of communication with the highest church authority, or that the highest church authority itself, headed by the Holy Patriarch, for some reason terminates its activity, the diocesan bishop should immediately contact the bishops of the adjacent dioceses in order to organize a higher level of church administration for several dioceses which find themselves in similar circumstances (in the form of a temporary church government or a metropolitan district, or in some other way)». This Ukaz was formulated at the time of the Civil War in Russia, whose consequence was the departure abroad of a sizeable lay flock (estimated at over a million), and of a substantial number of clergy and bishops. The Second Guidepost on the path of the ROCA were the early Sobors (Councils) of Bishops Abroad, presided over by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky): the First Sobor in Constantinople in 1920, in which 34 bishops participated in person or in writing; the First Sobor of representatives of the entire ROCA, held in the town of Sremskii Karlovtsi in Serbia in 1921; and the Sobor of Bishops Abroad on September 13, 1922, which estabilished a Temporary Synod of Bishops, based on the above-quoted Ukaz No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon. At those Sobors, which led to the formal establishment of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, were represented parishes in Europe, the Balkans, the Near and Far East, North and South America, including the soon-to-be-separated Metropolitan Districts: one known as the Paris Metropolia, presently under the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the other known today as the Orthodox Church in America in the USA. |
| Archive Пн Round table on Orthodoxy in China takes place as part of the Nativity Readings 24 January 2024 year 18:42 On 23rd January 2024 as part of the XXXII International Nativity Readings a round table was held at the pilgrimage centre of the Moscow Patriarchate entitled “The Traditions of Orthodox in China: Losses and Gains of the Past and the Image of the Future”. The organizers of the round table were the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate and the metochion of the Chinese Orthodox Church in Moscow. Gathered in the Annunciation Conference Hall of the Universitetskaya Hotel were clergy, sinologists and representatives of the scholarly and educational community from the Institute of Eastern Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow State University, Saint Petersburg State University, the Russian State University for the Humanities, the International State Institute for International Relations, the Moscow Architectural Institute and other institutions of higher learning. Those wishing to participate in the meeting, including guests from China, were able to do so by videolink. Hieromonk Kirill (Peregudin) from the secretariat for affairs of the Far East under the Department for External Church Relations and professor of the Moscow Architectural Institute doctor M.Yu. Shevchenk acted as moderators of the session. Before the work of the round table began, Father Kirill served the Divine Liturgy in Church Slavonic in the domestic Church of Saint Olga located on the fifteenth floor of the pilgrimage centre. Concelebrating with him was cleric of the metochion of the Chinese Orthodox Church deacon Anatoly Goldman. Church hymns in both languages were sung by the choir of the metochion under the direction of O.S. Lesina. During the Litany of Fervent Supplication the prayer for the people of China by Saint Nicholas the Serb was offered. In his greetings to the participants of the round table the director general of the pilgrimage centre hierodeacon Sergei (Turkeyev) wished all the participants success and practical results in their work. |
| A relatively modern term deriving from the Latin Patres, or “Fathers.” It was also known as patrology up to the mid-20th century, though this latter designation has now been restricted mainly to signify reference manuals dealing with the works of the fathers of the church. The fathers were the bishops, outstanding theologians, and leading monastic elders ofthe early church, who left behind them authoritative bodies of spiritual, biblical, liturgical, and dogmatic writings. The age of the fathers is generally seen as extending from after the apostolic era (beginning of the 2nd century) to the 8th and 9th centuries, whose great luminaries then included St. John of Damascus and St. Photios the Great. John is, in many ways, a certain sign of the closing of the patristic age, with his works gathering together as a kind of encyclopedia of the earlier authoritative materials to form a synthesis of patristic theology for the later church’s reference. In terms of Latin patristics, the traditional cut-off point has been significantly extended beyond this time, even up to the medieval western theologian Bernard of Clairvaux, who is sometimes called, in the Catholic Church, the “last of the fathers» Even so, there is not a hard and fast historical line, as Orthodoxy understands it, for some of the late Byzantine writers such as St. Symeon the New Theologian of the 11th century, or St. Gregory Palamas (1296–1359), for example, certainly enjoy a high “patristic status” in contemporary Orthodoxy. The word generally means, in Orthodox circles, those definitive and highly authoritative theologians of the church in its classical ages who represent purity of doctrine allied with great holiness of life; a life that manifests the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in their acts and their consciousness, such that they are not merely good speculative thinkers, or interesting religious writers, as such, but rather substantial guides to the will of God, and Spirit-bearers (pneumatophoroi) whose doctrine and advice can be trusted as conveying the authentic Orthodox tradition of faith and piety. This does not mean that every single thing any one of the fathers ever wrote is given “canonical” status. Orthodoxy admits that the general rule of human authorship applies even among the saints, for as the adage tells, “even Homer nods,” but it does mean that collectively, and by the consensus of the fathers among themselves, and by the manner in which they stand in a stream of defense of the ecumenical faith of the church, they together comprise a library of immense prestige and authority. They are thus collectively strong and concrete evidence for the central tradition of the Orthodox Church. This is why the church affords them a very high theological authority, not as great as the Scriptures or the ecumenical councils, but certainly alongside the latter; for it was from their writings that the doctrine of the great councils generally emerged. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. We focus our attention on the Russian Church in the 19th and 20th c. since the medieval and early imperial history can be found under Kievan Rus’, Novgorodian Tradition, Muscovite Tradition, Unia, and the Spiritual Regulation (qq.v.). The difficulties caused by the Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great in the 18th c. continued into the 19th c. and developed further: The government interfered increasingly in the intellectual and administrative life of the Church; not only was there no patriarch, but the Holy Synod was controlled by the government; and the social status and economic situation of the clergy continued to deteriorate. The ober-procurator’s power, influencing the Holy Synod and leading it, grew until the office became an official Ministry of State. Under Tsar Alexander I the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Education was formed, but had a brief existence (1817–1824). This so alarmed the hierarchy that it complained of persecution of the Church. Nevertheless, Count Nikolai Protasov (1799–1855) became ober-procurator of the Holy Synod from 1836 to 1855 and continued the trend of strengthening the office. During his tenure he successfully transformed the Russian Church into an organ of the state, “The Department of the Orthodox Confession.” His political methodology may be described as attempting to reduce the Russian Church and clergy to civil religion in the worst sense-bureaucratic functionaries of the state’s “confession.” With this goal, true higher education and ecclesiastical freedom became irrelevant. All that was needed was supplied by the tsar, who was “the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the ruling faith, and observer of orthodoxy and all good order in the Holy Church. In this sense the Emperor, in the law of succession to the throne (5 April 1797), is called the Head of the Church” (Fundamental Laws, articles 42, 43, 1832 edition). Under Protasov, church finances and clergy employment became the sole domain of the ober-procurator. Of those who opposed him, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, renowned for his work on the Russian Bible (q.v.) translation project, distinguished himself by attempting to keep Protasov in check. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Metropolitan Onufry on the fate of canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine The information and education department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has published an interview given by His Beatitude Onufry, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine, to Pastor and Flock magazine. - Your Beatitude, according to the Ukrainian Constitution, Church is separated from state. When in the early 20 th century the Bolsheviks adopted this law, many believers perceived it as a serious religious catastrophe. However, as it very soon became clear, the Bolsheviks separated Church from state only to busy themselves with her destruction. Later, in the early 90th, the situation changed as the communists went down from the historical arena and a time of restoration came for the Church. And here the law on the separation of Church from state played to some extent a positive role: the Church could develop in a necessary direction almost without any pressure from the authorities. But now when the authorities seek to influence the solution of church problems, how would you comment on the developments? Can the government help create ‘a One Local Church’? And how should a believer react to all this? - The law on the separation of Church from state is a fruit of revolutionary transformations carried out in the early 20 th century. The Bolsheviks separated the Church from the state in order to show that the country adopted a new, atheistic way of development. This law was also necessary to the Soviet power to untie its hands in its struggle against the Church until her full destruction. And this struggle was waged under the slogan: ‘The Church is an enemy of the state’. However, the Lord, Who does everything for the good of His faithful, ordained that the separation of Church from state became a new stimulus for her powerful development. And we humbly thank the Lord for this mercy to us, unworthy children of His holy Church. |
| Archive Time as Judge. Orthodox Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century 12 December 2018 year 14:16 The topic of relationships between the Mother Church and the Sister Church – the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Russia was very painful in the last century. An open discourse about it is initiated by the Rev. Dr Alexander Mazyrin, PhD/Church History, and Andrey Kostryukov, PhD/Historical Sciences, in the collection ‘From the History of Relationships between the Churches of Russia and Constantinople in the 20th Century’. The publication consists of two essays: ‘Phanar and Renovationism against the Russian Orthodox Church’ by Father Alexander Mazyrin and ‘The Church Diaspora, and the Ecumenical See’ by A. Kostryukov. The below article written by Sergey Firsov, PhD/Historical Sciences, published in the ‘Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarkhii’ (Is. 10, 2018) is devoted to this collection. In fact, the overall title of Father Alexander’s essay already speaks clearly that he regards the actions of the Church of Constantinople as aimed against the Russian Orthodox Church supposing that these actions are conscious and well considered. From the very beginning the author shows that the Phanariots were not embarrassed by the arbitrary actions of the schismatic ‘Supreme Church Administration’ in 1922 and ‘along with the theomachist Bolsheviks and treasonous renovators, became another source of sorrow for the Russian Orthodox Church’. For Phanar, ‘political interests’ proved to be more important than canonical rules and the Orthodox church tradition. The author cites examples of how the Church of Constantinople (in the person of her supreme church authority) while expressing compassion for the Russian Church, sought to use the GRU-inspired church schism for her own political ends. A noticeable role in the negative development of the Greek-Russian church relations was played by two representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch – two Greek archimandrites, un uncles and his nephew, Jacob and Basil (Dimopoulos). The former was a representative of Phanar in Russia since 1894 and lived in his residence in Moscow (Krapivensky Pereulok, 4). Up to his death in 1924, he was an official representative of Phanar in Russia. Since 1924 up to his death in 1934, the same duty was fulfilled by his nephew. |
|
|
