| А.Л. Беглов Summary. Alexey Beglov. In search of «ideal church catacombs». Church underground in the USSR This book is the first study of the illegal, i.e. prohibited by the Soviet law, Church life during the Soviet period. It underlines the illegal surviving strategies and describes the variety of forms, used by the Church underground movement (podpolie) as a reaction to the state policy towards the Church. The book describes the illegal parishes and monasteries, the underground charity work and church economy, as well as the pilgrimages to the «non-official» (that is the places located in the closed monasteries) holy places. The period between 1920 and 1940s is the focus of author " s attention, although the most important tendencies of the church underground movement are traced up to the 1980s. It was in the 1920s, during the campaign of the exemption of the church treasures that the state power defined in an arbitrary way what was legal and illegal as far as the Church was concerned. This approach was soon to become an effective tool for oppressing the Church. During 1922–1927 the central and diocesan administration of the patriarchal Church was denied the official registration. The absence of registration immediately became another reason for oppression. When the required registration was obtained in 1927 the decree of VZIK and SNK «On the religious organizations» established an extremely narrow zone of legal church practice by prohibiting the church charity activity and church education. The decree demanded an extremely strict procedure of registration for church communities. As a result mass closure of churches followed, which in turn led many church communities to go underground, thus de facto becoming illegal. The sphere of legal activity for the Church continued to shrink during the 1930s. The existence of Church underground movement became one of the main reasons for State repressions against both the legal Church and the underground communities. The situation changed in the period from 1930 to the beginning of 1940. |
| 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 The Primates of the Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches head the Divine Liturgy and take the funeral for the bishop of Moravica Anthony at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow DECR Communication service, 16.03.2024. On 16th March 2024 on the day of all the venerable fathers who have shone forth, a moveable feast celebrated on the Saturday of Cheese-Fare Week, at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and His Holiness the Patriarch of Serbia Profirije headed the Divine Liturgy and tool the funeral service for the newly-departed bishop of Moravica Anthony, the auxiliary of the Patriarch of Serbia, representative of the Patriarch of Serbia to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and dean of the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul at the Yauza Gates in Moscow, which also serves as the representation church (metochion) of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Moscow. The bishop of Moravica Anthony reposed in the Lord on 11th March 2024 after and long and grave illness. Up until 15th March the body of the newly-reposed bishop lay in its coffin at the Serbian metochion in Moscow at the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul by the Yauza Gates. In the morning of 16th March the coffin with the body of the newly-departed bishop was transported to the Christ the Saviour Cathedral and placed in the centre of the church. Wreaths were placed of the steps of the solea fr om the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of Serbia. Concelebrating with the primates of the Russian and Serbian Orthodox Churches were: the chancellor the Moscow Patriarchy and first auxiliary bishop of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia for the city of Moscow the metropolitan of Voskresensk Gregory; the chairman of the Department for External Church Relations the metropolitan of Volokolamsk Anthony; the metropolitan of Kazan and Tatarstan Kirill; the director of the administrative secretariat of the Moscow Patriarchy the archbishop of Odintsovo Thomas; the archbishop of Yegorievsk Matthew; the bishop of Zheleznogorsk and Lgov Paisius; the bishops of the delegation of the Serbian Orthodox Church - the bishop of Baka Irinej; the bishop of Upper Karlovac Gerasim; the bishop of Valjevo Isihije; the bishop of Remesiana Stefan; the bishop of Jegra Nektarije and the bishop of Toplica Petr. |
| His Holiness Patriarch Kirill Delivers Address at a Meeting of the Supreme Church Council Source: DECR On 26 December 2018, the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church held a regular session in the Hall of the Supreme Church Council of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow under the chairmanship of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. His Holiness delivered an opening address. Photo: Oleg Varov/foto.patriarchia.ru I greet all the members of the Supreme Church Council at this year’s last session. Of course, we will discuss the results of the year, but first of all, I would like to cordially greet all of you. And I have to say a few words about the year gone by, which, as we all feel, was very difficult. The situation of our Church in Ukraine is still a source of great tension, a factor affecting the well-being of Orthodox Christians, their spiritual welfare. You are well informed, you know what is going on, what developments – radical, extremely dangerous for the integrity of the Ukrainian people, and not only for our Church – have recently taken place in Kiev following the decision of the Ukrainian parliament requiring to change the name of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. These changes will be followed by repressions, and it is completely obvious that an ultimatum has been presented: if the Church does not change its name, its registration will be cancelled. And if the Church changes its name, then, naturally, an enormous pressure will be exerted on the Ukrainian people, on the public. There is no doubt that acts of violence will be committed to take away church buildings. People in Ukraine are believers, they are Orthodox Christians, firm in faith and emotional, hence there is a risk that the situation concerning the church buildings can escalate into bloody conflicts. Therefore, I ask you to pray even more zealously for peace in the brotherly Ukrainian land and for the preservation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. As is widely known, what triggered persecutions of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy was the unprecedented decision of Constantinople, going beyond the bounds of any canonical order and therefore criminal, to encroach on the canonical territory of the Ukrainian Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, on the territory of our Church. This encroachment resulted in and was followed by the devastating developments, first of all, the interference of the governmental authorities, also unprecedented. And it occurred in the country which declares its commitment to the European values, one of which is the separation of the Church, of religion, from the state! In violation of this fundamental European value the state in the person of president directly interferes in church administration, one may say, presides at what is called “unification church council” and participates in negotiations with Constantinople on the so-called “tomos,” doing all this in front of TV cameras, in plain view of the whole world. |
| On the situation caused by the refusal of several local Orthodox Churches to participate in the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church Source: DECR Photo: http://www.patriarchia.ru Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church For many decades the Russian Orthodox Church took and continues to take an active part in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Since the 1 st Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1961 on Rhodes, the outstanding hierarchs and the best theologians of our Church have made their contribution to the work on a great number of the Council’s topics, including those which were not to be included later in the agenda of the Holy and Great Council. For the sake of the earliest convocation of the Council, the Russian Orthodox Church has repeatedly re-affirmed her readiness to achieve decisions mutually acceptable for all the participants in the pre-Council process, even if such decisions diverted from the already agreed rules of the Council’s preparation. However, the principle of pan-Orthodox consensus has been the invariable basis of the pre-Council process beginning from the 1961 Rhodes Conference, which, on the initiative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, resolved the following: “The decisions of joint meetings shall be adopted with the fullunanimity of the delegations of the Churches” (The Procedure for the Function and Work of the Rhodes Pan-Orthodox Conference, Par. 14). Later this rule was fixed in the Rules of Procedure of Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences adopted in 1986 as follows: “The texts on all the agenda items of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences shall be approved unanimously” ( Article 16 ). The 2014 Synaxis of the Primate of Orthodox Churches re-affirmed the following: “All the decisions made both during the Council and the preparatory stages shall be made on the basis of consensus” (The Decision of the Synaxis of the Primates, Par. 2a). The same principle was established in the Working Procedure of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, which has been developed by the Synaxis of the Primates of Orthodox Churches, which took place on January 21-28, 2016, in Chambesy. This Procedure provides, among other things, that the Council “shall be convened by His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch with the consent of their Beatitudes the Primates of all the universally recognized Local autocephalous Orthodox Churches Article 1). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Church (Orthodox Ecclesiology) TAMARA GRDZELIDZE THE PURPOSE OF THE CHURCH The purpose of the church is to restore fallen humanity and thereby reconcile the whole creation to God. Its sacramental life is the means to fulfill this purpose. The divine economy of salvation is the foundational principle of the church. The mystery of human salvation leads to the mystery of the salvation of the whole creation which is God’s ultimate goal. In this life the church bears witness to a new existence revealed through the incarnation and the resurrection of Jesus Christ – “The Church has been planted in the world as a Paradise,” says St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 5.20.2) – and this new reality already proclaimed is destined finally to attain the status of the new creation. The nature of the church, as Orthodoxy understands it, is deeply experiential and accordingly it is difficult to describe it by any single formula that carries an overwhelming authority. The early church knew no such single doctrinal definition and the reason for this is that, according to Fr. Georges Florovsky (1972: 57), the reality of the church was only made manifest to the “spiritual vision” of the church fathers. The nature of the church can thus be experienced and described, but never fully defined. The closest approximation to a doctrinal definition within orthodoxy is the clause in the creed, which affirms that the church is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” The church is the place par excellence of a believer’s participation in the mysteries of God. The faithful participate in the divine mysteries from the very beginning of their life in Christ through the sacrament of baptism and reach the height of that participation in the Eucharistic celebration. The very essence of this participation is experiential, something that can be readily observed in the case of children whose love exceeds their understanding, or orthodox people of little knowledge but great faith. The love of God manifested to human beings and creation is reciprocated in faith by the church’s constant returning the love of God through the praise of the faithful. This human participation in the divine mysteries is nurtured always by the belief and knowledge that “God is love” (1 John 4.8), and this movement of praise that constitutes the church’s inner life is the height of creation – its meaning and fulfillment. |
| 1998 Synodical Decision of the Orthodox Church of Georgia on the Chambésy and Balamand Agreements, the Branch Theory and more INTRODUCTION Among the milestones of contemporary Orthodox ecclesiastical history with regard to the Church's struggle to maintain " the faith once delivered " and Her belief in the " One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, " the 1998 Synodical Decision of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Georgia is of especial importance. Echoing the earlier decision of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 1983, which condemned the heresy of ecumenism, and in particular made reference to the " Branch Theory, " the Decision of the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Georgia is broader in scope, touching on six different manifestations of unorthodox teachings emanating from the contemporary ecumenical movement and ecumenical involvement of the Local Orthodox Churches. In particular, the decision rejects by name the Chambésy and Balamand agreements, the agreement signed by the Patriarch of Antioch with the Non-Chalcedonians in Syria, in 1991, the adoption of the Gregorian Paschalion by the Finnish Church under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the idea that the Holy Mysteries exist outside the Church and also the various manifestations of the " Branch Theory , " as well as common prayer and sharing of mysteries with the non-Orthodox. Both the particular and wide-ranging nature of the decision increases its importance and significance for the entire Church in terms of coming to a pan-Orthodox consensus with regard to the heretical nature of syncretistic ecumenism. For this reason, the fact that it has (to our knowledge) never been translated into English - until now - is all the more astounding. It is important to note the following concerning this Synodical Decision, so as to put it into its proper historical and ecclesiastical context: The Holy Synod's decision was based on a review done by a theological commission appointed by the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia, Ilia II. The decision to create the commission and review the above-mentioned six issues and texts came on the heel of a major, popular " uprising " of the faithful of Georgia, in particular, the monastic community. Hence, it was the watchfulness and dogmatic sensitivity, not only or even primarily of the hierarchy, but of the entire pleroma of the faithful that brought about this landmark decision in favor of Orthodox ecclesiology. This point cannot be over-stated and must be seriously considered by the faithful everywhere, in every Local Church, for every believer is co-responsible for the guarding of the deposit of the Faith and the upbuilding of the Church. |
| 4th Meeting of Commission for Dialogue between ROC and Assyrian Church held in India Source: DECR Photo: mospat.ru From November 13 to 18, 2019, the 4 th meeting of the Commission of Dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East took place in Thrissur, Kerala State, India. The Moscow Patriarchate delegation included Bishop Clement of Krasnoslobodsk and Temnikov, co-chairman of the Commission; Hieromonk Stefan (Igumnov), secretary for inter-Christian relations of the Department for External Church relations; and S. Alferov, DECR, secretary of the commission. Representing the Assyrian Church of the East were Bishop Mar Awa Royel of California, secretary of the Holy Synod of the Assyrian Church of the East, co-chairman of the Commission; Cor-Bishop George Kanon Toma, cleric of St. Andrew’s Church in Glenview, Illinois, USA; Priest Ephraim Alkhas, secretary of the commission; and Deacon Roland Bidzhamov, cleric of the Assyrian diocese of Northern Iraq and the CIS. Metropolitan Mar Aprem Mooken of India, the oldest member of the Synod, and Bishop Eugene Kyriakos, vicar of the Metropolis of India, welcomed the participants in the meeting on behalf of His Holiness Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Gewargis III of the Assyrian Church of the East, who recalled with warmth his repeated visits to Russia, with the latest one made in late May-early June 2014, during the historic visit of the late Catholicos-Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV to the Russian Orthodox Church in June 2014. The commission discussed the implementation of agreements reached at the previous meeting in October 2018 in Sankt-Petersburg and defined the further cooperation program to be approved by the Supreme Church Authority. The meeting noted the successful development of inter-church contacts in the academic field, in particular, in students’ exchanges, as in autumn 2018, the first representative of the Assyrian Church of the East, Rev. Addai Daniel Nazlu, was enrolled in Moscow Theological Academy. It is planned to involve representatives of the Assyrian Church in academic conferences organized by the Moscow Patriarchate theological schools and to invite delegates of the Russian Orthodox Church to similar events held by the Assyrian Church’s educational institution, in particular, in the recently opened Nisibis Theological College in Sydney, Australia. In 2021, the 2 nd Summer Institute will be organized in Moscow for young Assyrian clergy and student. Its program will include visits to synodal establishments of the Russian Orthodox Church and introduction to ecclesiastical and historical-cultural sights in Russia. |
| Archive Theological consultations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church begin at the Moscow Theological Academy 18 October 2023 year 20:09 On 17th October the second round of theological consultations between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church began at the Moscow Theological Academy, reports the press service of the MTA. The conversations are being held with the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill in accordance with the agreements he reached with the primate of the Coptic Church His Holiness Patriarch Tawadros II. As part of the work of the commission on bilateral cooperation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church there was set up in 2020 a special working group for the development of theological conversations. The members of the working group are: for the Russian Orthodox Church the secretary at the Department for External Church Relations for inter-Christian ties hieromonk Stephan (Igumnov), the deputy rector of study at the MTA Father Pavel Lizgunov and the director of the department of Oriental studies at the MTA deacon Sergei Panteleyev; for the Coptic Church the auxiliary bishop of the Los Angeles metropolitanate bishop Cyrilos and the rector of the Ss. Cyril and Athanasius of Alexandria Coptic Theological Academy Father Macarius Rephel and the representative of the Coptic Church in Russia hieromonk Daoud el-Antoni. Offering their expertise at the second round of theological conversations for the Moscow Theological Academy were honorary lecturer at the department of theology hegumen Adrian (Pashin) and senior teacher at the department of philology hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev). At the beginning of the meeting Father Pavel Lizgunov read aloud greetings from the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy and the vicar abbot of the Holy Trinity and Saint Sergius Monastery the bishop of Sergiev Posad and Dmitrov Cyril: “We are glad to see you at the grace-filled and blessed land of the Holy Trinity which is the Holy Trinity and Saint Sergius Monastery and the Moscow Theological Academy. |
| The Heresy of Constantinoplés Neo-Papism in Light of Orthodox Trinitarian Theology Скачать epub pdf Christ is the Head of the Orthodox Catholic Church In our day we are being challenged with the aggravation of the internal ecclesiastical problem, which may be designated as the “self-institution” of the Constantinople Patriarchate, the would-be head of the Orthodox Catholic Church. In fact, this has been a decades-long issue rooted in Church history. Evidently, it is associated with man’s inexhaustible inclination to the sin of pride, which sometimes may grow worse if one is granted the authority of being a priest. The terrible experience of Judas – who shared the Last Supper as well as many other meals with Christ – is a vivid example to all ages and nations. According to the testimony of many holy fathers, the sin of pride is at the root of every fall. And this sin causes enormous harm to the Church body, to all God’s people, actually headed by the Humblest and Meekest Jesus Christ our Lord. Many great saints of antiquity – specifically including primates in the See of Constantinople – would denounce the current theological speculation of the Constantinople Patriarchate, which identifies the Constantinople Patriarch as the «head of all the Orthodox». Truly, any Patriarch is the “Primate” rather than the “head” of the Church. In accordance with the Holy Scriptures, saints Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom would declare that we have only one head of the Church, and that is Christ. 1 “We make up one Church, which is harmoniously represented by the members of one Head” – the Lord Jesus Christ. 2 The Twentieth Century Idea of Neo-Papism It was in the twentieth century, in the Church of Constantinople, that the idea of Eastern neo-papism was revived. As early as 1950, almost 70 years ago, Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) warned against the dangerous trends gaining strength in the Constantinople Patriarchate. “At present, in the depths of our Holy Church, lies a great danger of perverting the dogmatic teachings concerning Her, and therefore the danger of perverting Her being, because dogmatic thinking is organically connected with the whole course of inner spiritual life. Any minor change in dogmatic thinking would inevitably incur changes in the corresponding mode of one’s spiritual being. And vice versa: evading the truth of inner spiritual life would produce change in dogmatic thinking. The violation of dogmatic truth would inevitably lead to evading the possibility of true knowledge of God, the fullness of which is granted to the Church ... Any particular distortion would certainly affect the whole. If we distort Church doctrine now, and thus ... the mode of Her being, then how could She serve Her sons and provide the way to the Truth? You would ask, in which way is this distortion visible now? The answer is: in Constantinople’s neo-papism, which is quickly trying to move from the theoretical phase into the practical one.” 3 |
| Photo: http://basilica.ro/ The Orthodox world is buzzing with the recent news repor t on the ordination of deaconesses in the Patriarchate of Alexandria. To the best of our knowledge, the ordination occurred after the Divine Liturgy in the nave of the temple, and appears to resemble the rite used to ordain subdeacons. This rite includes the presentation of the orarion, handlaying, a prayer, and the washing of the bishop’s hands. The reports do not offer details on the prayer said by the Patriarch. It seems that the Patriarch did not use the Byzantine Rite for the ordination of a deaconess, which takes place at the end of the anaphora (before the deacon intones the litany before the Lord’s Prayer, “Having remembered all the saints”), in the altar, and includes the deaconesses receiving Communion with the other clergy in the altar, according to order. While Patriarch Theodoros II appeared to use the rite for the ordination of subdeacons, the Patriarchate of Alexandria is referring to these newly-ordained women as deaconesses, and has appointed them to perform crucial sacramental and catechetical ministries as part of the Patriarchate’s missionary work. The ordination of these five deaconesses in Alexandria marks a turning point in the discussion about the order of deaconess within the Orthodox Church. To date, the restoration of the female diaconate has been limited to discussion, deliberation, and study – not to mention heated debate. With this ordination, we now have a historical episode of ordination and appointment to ministry, a pattern for what the female diaconate could become. Will the Alexandrian ordination become the new rite for the order of deaconess, or will the Church dust off the Byzantine rite of the ordination of a deaconess? What other ministries might the deaconesses execute? We do not know the answers to these questions. We do know that the debate on the female diaconate is going to intensify. As part of an ongoing research project, I’ve been asking Orthodox lay women and men for their opinions about the restoration of the order of deaconess. The responses seem to fit the positions presented by ideologues in the debate. Some people argue that restoring the order of deaconess is a legitimate application of ressourcement , of drawing upon our liturgical and ecclesiological history to appoint ministers who contribute to the building up of the body of Christ through particular gifts. Others depict the attempt to restore the deaconess as a trojan horse strategy to inject secular egalitarian values into the Church’s political theology. Others are unsure: one lay woman remarked that Orthodoxy “has the Panagia, and the Greek Orthodox Church has the Philoptochos Society – women essentially run the Church – why do we need a female diaconate?” |
|
|
