Религиозный белый адмирал: к характеристике личности А. В. Колчака и его взаимоотношений с Русской Православной Церковью

In Russia, “fundamentalism” in the Russian Orthodox Church has been on the rise since the early 1990's. “Russian Orthodox Fundamentalists” stand for restoration of autocracy, restriction against the Jews and the confessions other than the Orthodox one, the imperial principle of state structure, the Russian Orthodox Church status as the state church, for complete rejection of the concepts of democracy and human rights (in particular, as concerns the freedom of conscience), opposition to any forms of Western influence within the country and struggle against it beyond its borders, and compulsory imposition of “Orthodox values” in every-day life, culture and even economy. Their worldview is based on extremely mythologized notions about the pre-revolutionary Orthodox monarchy.Inside the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan of Saint Petersburg and Ladoga Ioann, a person of a greatest authority among the conservatives, prodused the most convincing arguments in favor of a “fundamentalist” position. Many Orthodox “fundamentalist” leaders including an activist Konstantin Dushenov, Editor-in-Chief of “Orthodox Rus” newspaper, have followed Ioann. Some church bishops and the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and of the True Orthodox Church have represented “fundamentalist” circles in these churches. A number of Orthodox brotherhoods, such as the Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods, the Christian Regeneration Union, the Union of Orthodox Citizens, ideologically hold extremely nationalist positions. Same as the similar extra-Church groups, such brotherhoods are not supported by the bishops, but it is impossible to expel anybody from the Church for political views and the nationalist brotherhoods continue working actively. Moreover, right-wing extremist organizations, such as “Pamyat”, “Black Hundred”, “Russian National Unity” actively cooperate in many regions with Russian Orthodox Church clerics. These persons and organizations can be classified into “fundamentalism” and “quasi-fundamentalism” for the moment. The clerics in the Russian Orthodox Church Moscow Patriarchate, the Russian Orthodox church Abroad, the True Orthodox Church are the former. The Union of Orthodox Brotherhoods, the Christian Regeneration Union are included in it. The Union of Orthodox Citizens and the right-wing extremist organizations are the latter.“Russian Orthodox Fundamentalists” fight back to defend their national and religious identity and worldview, fight with fundamentals of “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality”, and fight against their enemy. such as Western Europe, globalization under the name of God. “Russian Orthodox Fundamentalism” is similar to Russian Right-wing Extremism, and both of them are violent and aren't tolerant. “Russian Orthodox Fndamentalists” base their core identity on religion and they try to construct structual violence. Russian Right-wing Extremists emphasise race, nationality, state in their identity and they resort to physical violence. In addition, Russian New Right-wing Extremism borrow various ideologies othar than Russian Orthodox Christianity.In 2002, conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church has come to the surface. It seems that since the early 1990's the unstable balance between “fundamentalists” and the Patriarchate has been gradually shifting in favor of “fundamentalists”. It is impossible to ignore the influence of “Russian Orthodox Fundamentalists” at the aspects of politics, society, and public opinion in Russia today.

The article analyzes the relationship between the Anglican and Russian Orthodox churches at the very end of the 19th century. The reasons why the Anglican — Orthodox dialogue received intensive development and significant theological content during this period are considered. Significant attention is paid to the mutual visits of the hierarchs of the two Churches, during which they discussed and agreed on numerous issues related to the rapprochement of the Anglican and Russian Orthodox Churches in connection with the prospect of planned interfaith unity. Emphasis is placed on the problem of recognizing the legitimacy of Anglican ordinations, which arose both due to the historical formation of Anglicanism and in connection with the peculiarities of the Anglican doctrine of the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of the priesthood. The author investigates the reasons why Russian theologians, who have carefully studied the historical, canonical and dogmatic sides of the issue, were forced at this stage to deny the Anglicans the recognition of the legality of their ordinations. In connection with this decision, the prospect of inter-church unity was postponed indefinitely so that Anglican theological thought could finally be defined in the sacramentology of the Anglican creed. At the same time, the dialogue between the two churches was not interrupted, but rather continued fruitfully in the 20th century.

Reviewed by: The Orthodox Church and Civil Society in Russia, and: Russian Society and the Orthodox Church: Religion in Russia after Communism, and: Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov': Sovremennoe sostoianie i aktual'nye problemy [The Russian Orthodox Church: Contemporary Condition and Current Problems] Irina Papkova Wallace L. Daniel , The Orthodox Church and Civil Society in Russia. 251 pp. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006. ISBN 1585445231. $29.95. Zoe Knox , Russian Society and the Orthodox Church: Religion in Russia after Communism. 257 pp. London: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005. ISBN 0415320534. $170.00. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Mitrokhin , Russkaia pravoslavnaia tserkov': Sovremennoe sostoianie i aktual'nye problemy [The Russian Orthodox Church: Contemporary Condition and Current Problems]. 648 pp. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2004. ISBN 5867933245. Post-Soviet Russia has been characterized by a visible resurgence of the country's arguably most important cultural institution, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). After seven decades of alternating persecution and soft repression by the atheistic Soviet state, the Church has experienced a remarkable renaissance, both in terms of recovered physical infrastructure and in social status.1 Visitors to today's Russian Federation will observe the ongoing renovation and reconstruction of church buildings, the proliferation of kiosks selling religious materials on many city streets, the ubiquitous Orthodox clerics offering commentary to the mainstream television stations, and other daily manifestations of Orthodoxy's pervasive public presence. President V. V. Putin is, according to reliable accounts, a practicing Orthodox Christian, as are an increasing number of officials in the government apparatus.2 Accordingly, scholars have begun to explore both the extent [End Page 481] and the implications of this phenomenon. Broadly, analysts have looked at the following issues: the degree to which Russian society can really be called Orthodox; the relationship between the Church and the political regime, specifically Orthodoxy's role in democratization; the position of the Russian Orthodox Church within civil society; and the contribution of Orthodoxy to the creation and maintenance of a cohesive post-Soviet Russian identity.3 The deepening of the research agenda can be easily traced: if at first scholarship on post-Soviet Russian Orthodoxy found expression exclusively in academic articles or conference anthologies, since 2004 several serious monographs on the subject have been published both in Russia and in the West, three of which are reviewed here. The disciplinary background of scholars currently working on today's Russian Orthodoxy is quite varied; it includes sociologists, anthropologists, political scientists, and, less frequently, historians. The methodological difficulty historians experience in tackling a modern-day subject hardly needs to be stated; at the same time, two of the three authors reviewed here—Nikolai Aleksandrovich Mitrokhin and Wallace L. Daniel—are historians by training, suggesting the timeliness of an assessment of the ways that history is employed in the scholarly analysis of the contemporary Russian Orthodox Church. This review, then, focuses not just on how the three monographs treat the subject of their inquiry but also on aspects of these works that should be of particular interest to Kritika's audience. Specifically, the review stresses the pitfalls inherent in the (unavoidable, to be sure) interpretation of a contemporary phenomenon through a particular reading of history; it also brings attention to the need for a critical reassessment of the way in which scholars (historians or otherwise) in general treat fundamental assumptions regarding the historical pattern of church–state relations in Russia. All three books are welcome contributions to our understanding of the post-Soviet Russian Orthodox Church. In terms of institutional analysis, Nikolai Mitrokhin's 650-page volume is the most impressive. Based on eight years of research in over 40 dioceses, the book devotes attention to almost [End Page 482] every imaginable aspect of the ROC's activities. Mitrokhin begins by dissecting the membership of the Church, critically assessing the actual number of active Orthodox believers in Russia and their socioeconomic backgrounds and analyzing the inner workings of parish communities (35–75). He then looks at the organizational administration of the Moscow Patriarchate, its economic activities, and the internal divisions among various Orthodox factions vying for control over the Church's spiritual and political agenda (76–234). The second part of the book analyzes such related issues as the...

The article explores the functioning of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) against the backdrop of the Russian-Ukrainian war. It highlights the unique position of the UOC, which finds itself at the intersection of various political centers' interests and faces pressure both from the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian government. The article presents the process of current internal changes within the UOC and their consequences, such as complete separation from the Russian Orthodox Church and extensive humanitarian assistance to Ukrainians affected by armed conflicts. The dynamics of the relationship between the UOC and the Ukrainian government are discussed, as well as the current state of these relations. The article discusses the reasons why the church seeks independence and thoroughly analyzes the new Statute of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The new statute reflects the need for a more flexible structure, enabling the UOC to make its own decisions without external influence. This step has caused dissatisfaction within the Russian Orthodox Church, which considers the UOC as its canonical territory. The informal pressure on the UOC from the Russian Orthodox Church is also described and analyzed in the article. Additionally, the article thoroughly examines the complex relationship between the UOC and the Ukrainian government, often characterized by tension. In some cases, the Ukrainian authorities resort to unlawful methods of pressuring the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, drawing criticism from believers, foreign journalists, and politicians. One of the key parts of the article is the analysis of legislative initiatives concerning the UOC. In the current political climate in Ukraine, there have been initiatives aimed at limiting the role of the UOC or even excluding it from society. The article examines the content of these bills and their potential consequences for religious freedom. Overall, the article provides a comprehensive study of the current situation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church amidst the Russian-Ukrainian war. It emphasizes the need to understand the intricate relationships between the UOC, the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Ukrainian government to present readers with an objective picture of events and their implications for believers and society as a whole.

Reviewed by: Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy by Dmitry Adamsky Jacob Lassin Dmitry Adamsky. Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019. 413 pp. Dmitry Adamsky's Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy: Religion, Politics, and Strategy offers an astute view into the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Russia's nuclear arsenal. Adamsky, a political scientist, opens new dimensions concerning the study of the ROC and the Russian state in this book, which investigates "the unprecedented role that the Orthodox faith has played in Russian identity, politics, and national security and focuses on the bond that has emerged between the Kremlin, the ROC, and the nuclear weapons community" (3). Adamsky terms the results of this association "Russian Nuclear Orthodoxy." Throughout the book, Adamsky provides a history of how the ROC"utilized the nuclear community as a tool to enhance its social and political influence" (3). His research into the symbiotic relationship between the ROC and the country's nuclear community provides new insights into just one of the myriad ways that the ROC aims to shape the direction of state policy in the current moment. Adamsky divides his book into three sections that roughly correspond to the three decades of the post-Soviet period. He asserts that each of these decades represents a different phase in the process of development of the ROC's involvement with Russia's nuclear weapons program. He begins with what he calls the "Genesis Decade," the first post-Soviet decade. Adamsky notes that, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a grassroots development of interest and engagement with Orthodoxy within the nuclear weapons community. In this decade, he stresses, the Church had to act cautiously so as not to appear overly aggressive in its attempts to influence the Russian military. Next, he speaks of the "Conversion Decade," when religion began to play a much greater role in the political life of the country, coinciding with Vladimir Putin's first decade leading the country. He notes that it is during this period that many of the senior officials became believers, or at least became more amenable to the prospect of the ROC taking a larger role in the life of the nuclear program. The expansion of religion in the nuclear corps reflects a larger trend within Russia during that time: "[As] Russian ruling elite began seeing in Orthodoxy a 'critical ingredient in the formation of a cohesive national identity,' the adoption of Orthodox symbols and narratives gradually began on a national level" (87). In the book's last section, Adamsky writes of the "Operationalization Decade," in which Russia's nuclear weapons are once again seen as a major guarantor of national security and Russian Orthodoxy has become a major facet of state attempts to define Russian national identity: "Closer relations between the state and the Church resulted in the ROC's greatest ever engagement in domestic and foreign policy" (176). Adamsky structures his work with repeating chapter titles within each of the three sections, specifically "State–Church Relations," "Faith–Nuclear Nexus," and "Strategic Mythmaking." These repeating chapters allow the reader to understand the most important thematic elements of the ROC's work to influence the Russian nuclear community and, ultimately, foreign and domestic politics. Adamsky provides a thorough look at various ways that the ROC influences those within Russia's nuclear weapons apparatus, such as through the creation of catechism courses among military personnel and clerical blessings of nuclear weapons. In doing so, Adamsky fills his book with sensational and curious details concerning how the ROC has attempted to infiltrate and cooperate with the nuclear apparatus. This repeating structure helps readers to understand the changes over time that have occurred in the relationship between the Russian military and the ROC. At times, however, the book reads as a sort of exacting catalog of the different ways that religion is present [End Page 241] in the various institutions and elements that constitute the Russian nuclear weapons apparatus. This is useful for learning granular information, but it often leads to a rather halting narrative that makes it more difficult to fully ascertain Adamsky's larger arguments...

Bringing the religious space of Russia into conformity with the Constitution requires replacing the patience in the matters of faith as a principle of the organization of the religious sphere by religious tolerance. Among the religious communities of the country, the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) should play an important role in this process. The study of the role of the ROC in the constitutionalization of the religious space of Russia was not of great interest to science. The special cultural, historical, and spiritual role of Orthodoxy for Russia creates the prerequisites for the leading place of the ROC in this process. Meanwhile, a number of obstacles prevents the ROC from taking this place. The purpose of the study is to identify such obstacles and propose approaches to overcome them. The basis of the research methodology is the dialectic, supplemented by elements of a number of other approaches. Research methods are historical, relatively legal and logical analysis, synthesis, surveys. During the study, the authors interviewed more than nine hundred respondents in six countries, including about 700 individuals who identified themselves as persons of faith. The study showed a reduced level of respectfulness from persons of a different faith for the ROC in comparison with their respectfulness to the Orthodox faith. To change the situation, the ROC should begin by recognizing the historical mistakes of Orthodoxy towards people of a different faith, refusing patience in matters of faith in favor of religious tolerance, and establishing the real number of observers of Orthodox faith in Russia. The relevance of the study is due to the accumulation of prerequisites in a society of disrespect for the ROC. In addition, with the adoption of the UN GA Resolution on Religious Tolerance, supported by Russia, the role of the ROC in bringing the religious space into accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation should increase. In conclusion, possessing the potential signs of a religious leader in bringing the religious space of Russia in accordance with the Constitution, the ROC is in fact not fully prepared for such a role. It is necessary to take a number of measures to change the situation.

For over 50 years the presence of Russian people has been significant in Australia and the Russian Orthodox Church has been established in 24 centers in all states and territories. The richness of the musical heritage of the Russian Orthodox Church is well known; it has a tradition extending over many centuries and one which embraces an enormous repertoire of various styles of chant together with a vast repertoire of polyphonic music, much of it by famous composers. At this point in time there has been virtually no documentation of the history and practice of Russian Orthodox liturgical music in Australia. There are three histories of the Russian church in Australia (Protopopov 1997, 1998, 1999) but the topic of music is not addressed. This is also true of Galina Zakrjevsky's history of St Nicholas Russian Orthodox Cathedral (1998). Studies of Russian immigration to this country include the dissertation by Maria Frolova (1996) and the book by Elena Govor (1997). While liturgical music is not a concern of these writers, their studies nevertheless provide useful background material for an investigation into Russian Orthodox Liturgical music as practised in this country. There are of course numerous studies of Russian church music, notably by Gardner (1980) and Morosan (1991). Their focus is understandably Russian and these books are essential for any understanding of the Australian experience of such liturgical music. This study thus seeks to document the practice of Russian Orthodox liturgical music in Australia from 1926 to 1999.;The central research questions are: What is and has been the makeup of Russian Orthodox church choirs in Australia? What is the repertoire of these choirs? What training is available for choristers? To what extent have Australian choirs been able to maintain the traditions of Russian Orthodox liturgical music? What changes have taken place in performance traditions during the time of settlement? In order to achieve these aims there has been a heavy reliance on surveys by means of a questionnaire and interviews with choirmasters, choristers and clergy in five states. Extensive use has been made of archival sources and church magazines such as Word of the Church and Australiada: A Russian Chronicle. Material for a background study of Russian Orthodox music has been drawn from Secondary sources such as Gardner, Morosan, Brill, and Rasumovsky and for a background history of Russian Orthodox church in history of the Russian Orthodox church in Australia from 'A short history of the first Russian Orthodox parish in Sydney' by Soovoroff. For the discussion in Part 2: The Australian Scene special consideration has been given to four choirs: SS Peter & Paul's Cathedral (Sydney), St Nicholas Cathedral (Brisbane), St Nicholas Church (Adelaide), Holy Dormition Church (Dandenong), Holy Virgin Protection Cathedral (Melbourne), the reason being that these represent the different levels of choral standards in this country. Thus these embrace one choir of a large cathedral church, one of a moderately sized cathedral church, one of a very small cathedral church and one of a tiny parish church. The approach adopted involves an examination of the makeup of these selected choirs throughout the time frame of the study. This is followed by an analysis ofthe their repertoire, based on repertoire lists supplied by choir directors.;Due to the paucity of source material and fading memories of informants, it has often been impossible to identify key persons by their name: only the surname and initial can be given.

The article analyzes the change in the position of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) in Ukraine in the mid-1940s. The influence of the World War II on the change of religious policy in the USSR and the international activity of the ROC was clarified. The meeting of the Soviet leaders with the church hierarchs on September 4, 1943, the activities of the Council of Bishops on September 8, 1943 and the degree of implementation of their previous agreements and decisions were analyzed. The main directions of the state religious policy in the USSR and the achievements of the ROC in the mid-1940s were determined. The study traces the change in the position of the Orthodox clergy in the state and the factors contributing to develoing the position of coexistence with the Soviet authorities in the church environment. Considerable attention was paid to the Local Council of the ROC in 1945 and the adoption of the “Regulations on managing the ROC”. The change of the internal life of the Church was analyzed in accordance with the document. It determined the increasing role of the clergy in managing parishes and the episcopate in managing the Church. The article emphasizes the ambiguity of the religious situation in Ukraine, in particular in the newly joined Ukrainian regions. Emphasis was placed on the problem of lack of educated clergy, which the ROC faced immediately after its legalization. In this context, attempts to solve the problem by restoring the activities of religious schools and expanding their network in Ukraine were studied. The conditions of study and requirements for future seminarians were highlighted. The evolution of the state’s attitude to religious education was investigated. Special attention was paid by the author to involving the ROC to the international and interreligious arena. In this context, the emergence of the confrontation between the Moscow Patriarchate and Vatican authorities was highlighted. The main tasks and directions of such confrontationweare determined, an attempt was made to analyze the main measures implemented by the ROC on the way to transforming Moscow into a new world religious centre.

The Russian Orthodox community is a relatively small and little known group in Australian society, however, the history of the Russian presence in Australia goes back to 1809. As the Russian community includes a number of groups, both Christian and non-Christian, it would not be feasible to undertake a complete review of all aspects of the community and consequently, this work limits itself in scope to the Russian Orthodox community. The thesis broadly chronicles the development of the Russian community as it struggles to become a viable partner in Australia's multicultural society. Many never before published documents have been researched and hitherto closed archives in Russia have been accessed. To facilitate this research the author travelled to Russia, the United States and a number of European centres to study the archives of pre-Soviet Russian communities. Furthermore, the archives and publications of the Australian and New Zealand Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church have been used extensively. The thesis notes the development of Australian-Russian relations as contacts with Imperial Russian naval and scientific ships visiting the colonies increase during the 1800's and traces this relationship into the twentieth century. With the appearance of a Russian community in the nineteenth century, attempts were made to establish the Russian Orthodox Church on Australian soil. However, this did not eventuate until the arrival of a number of groups of Russian refugees after the Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War (1918-1922). As a consequence of Australia's 'Populate or Perish' policy following the Second World War, the numbers of Russian and other Orthodox Slavic displaced persons arriving in this country grew to such an extent that the Russian Church was able to establish a diocese in Australia, and later in New Zealand.;The thesis then divides the history of the Russian Orthodox presence into chapters dealing with the administrative epochs of each of the ruling bishops. This has proven to be a suitable matrix for study as each period has its own distinct personalities and issues. The successes, tribulations and challengers of the Church in Australia are chronicled up to the end of the twentieth century. However, a further chapter deals with the issue of the Church's prospects in Australia and its relevance to future generations of Russian Orthodox people. As the history of the Russians in this country has received little attention in the past, this work gives a broad spectrum of the issues, people and events associated with the Russian community and society at large, whilst opening up new opportunities for further research.

The article examines the problem of the relationship between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople. An assessment is given to the hypothesis that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is only a tool for promoting American political interests in the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. The author proceeds from the fact that the reason for the invasion of Constantinople in the canonical territory of the Russian orthodox Church, which led to the rupture of eucharistic communion between the Russian Orthodox Church and Constantinople Orthodox Church, is rooted in the peculiarities of the ecclesiology of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Historical examples of the interaction between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and political forces hostile to Orthodoxy are given, from which it can be concluded that the achievement of their own goals, the most essential of which is the strengthening of primacy among Orthodox churches, is set higher by the Patriarchate of Constantinople than the preservation of the unity of Orthodoxy. An assumption is made about the possibility of the infl uence exerted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the Russian Orthodox Church through the laity and clergy being in sympathy with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The article analyzes the foundation of the Lithuanian Diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which tends to form a long-term threat of new schisms in the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, primarily in Belarus. It is noted that the foundation of the Lithuanian Diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the granting of the Tomos of Autocephaly to the non-canonical Orthodox Church of Ukraine, both are constituents of a single long-term strategy to drive the Russian Orthodox Church out of territories that were parts of the Metropolis of Kyiv of the Patriarchate of Constantinople up to 1686.

This essay examines some of the ways in which the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) has influenced political outcomes in the Russian Federation between 1995-2005. It is useful to begin by exploring political ideology as a potential point of intersection between the ROC’s preferences and those of the people whom the church purports to represent. If the ROC speaks for the overwhelming portion of Russian society that identifies itself as Orthodox, as the religious leadership has consistently claimed, then it is logical to expect that the political views of that population will display at least some congruence with the official positions of the church. Moreover, this should be a conscious phenomenon: ostensibly Orthodox voters and politicians should demonstrate to at least some degree that they have purposefully referenced the ROC’s official ideology when defining their own political stance. The influence of the ROC on voter choice has been explored in depth elsewhere, and has been found to be minimal. Here, I look beyond the voters to determine whether or not the ideology of Russia’s political elite has been affected at all by the church’s positions. This essay, then, assesses the platforms of twelve political parties that have played a visible role in Russian politics in the period under examination, to determine whether there was a significant increase in their purposeful orientation towards the ROC. A careful study of the available evidence reveals a division within the political elites. On the one hand, some of the party platforms show that politicians tend to assign the ROC more influence over voter choice than the church actually yields. On the other hand, analysis of

This article describes the national mission of Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), the policy of the Moscow Patriarchate towards non-Russian Orthodox. The authors analyse the ROC as a multinational church that includes Finno-Ugrians (Karelians, Komi, Udmurts, Mari, Mordovians), Ukrainians, Belarusians, Chuvash, Yakuts, Ossetians, Kryashens, a significant number of Armenians, Jews, Tatars, Buryats and others. There are already millions of non-Russian Orthodox within the church who want to express their national identity in Orthodoxy. Meanwhile the social mood in Russia today is such that people quite frequently move from one faith to another. Russians become Muslims and Buddhists, and Tatars, Bashkirs, Kabards, Azeris, Buryats become Orthodox. Ethnic multiplicity in the ROC is growing, and this increases the ‘cosmopolitan’ potential of the church. The current authoritarian/bureaucratic system of government in the ROC means however that the ethnic question remains latent. At the same time national movements in the national regions of Russia have strongly criticised the ROC for ignoring the national interests of Orthodox native people. It is not really surprising that national movements and organisations are virtually never orientated towards Orthodoxy. Even among the most ‘Orthodox’ peoples, such as the Chuvash, Komi and Mordovians, with many practising Orthodox and a significant number of Orthodox priests, and among whom there is no other living religious tradition, the national movements are distant from the ROC, and indeed often hostile to it. Since the ROC has a Russian nationalist world view, Chuvash or Ossetian or Karelian Orthodoxy, each with its own original culture, will develop outside official church structures. From time to time Orthodox priests of local ethnic origin take initiatives to develop missionary work among the local people, but no such initiative has yet gained the support of the local hierarchy.

In search of common ground The dialogue between Pax Christi International and the Russian Orthodox Church Pax Christi believes that frontiers may divide states, but not Churches based on the same Christian faith. Therefore it has maintained official contacts with the Russian Orthodox Church. In times of increased international tensions, these contacts were the only channel for dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The increased openness of the society in the former Soviet Union during the last few years has allowed Pax Christi to significantly broaden its range of contacts in the Commonwealth of Independent States. One of the most impressive aspects of the opening up of Russian society has been the spectacular growth of religion in a land which for seventy years has been ruled by an atheist ideology. This revival was made possible by the continued presence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the unbroken tradition of religiousness among the Russian people. During the past twenty years, Pax Christi International has, through its biennial conversations with high-ranking Russian Orthodox delegations, been a privileged witness of the many sufferings in which the Russian Orthodox Church has been involved and of the enormous courage displayed by this Church in order to resist and survive. In this article, E. De Jonghe deals with the difficult history of the Russian Orthodox Church and gives an overview of her contacts with Pax Christi International. He analyses the complexity of the relationships between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church and shows how they have grown more complex by the developments of the last five years. The author points to the problems with the Greek Catholic Church in the Ukraine and reflects on some present tensions, such as the conversion of the Russians, the internal crisis, church properties and proselytism.

The history of the emergence of the CPU takes a rather insignificant amount of time in the development of an independent Ukrainian state in comparison, for example, with the Russian Orthodox Church. The article deals with the state of modern Orthodoxy in the process of its formation and the problems of relations with the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Different variants of searches, which were carried out in the course of creation of PPC and receipt of Tomos (autocephaly), are explored. The development of relations between the former UOC-KP and the UOC-MP, as well as mechanisms for resolving inter-church and inter-confessional conflicts on the way to achieving inter-church accord, is analyzed. It has been established that interconfessional conflict is a significant factor in the development and formation of state-building in our country. The solution of the current conflict between the PPC and the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is possible only on the basis of mutual tolerance of the aforementioned churches. The article examines the state of modern Orthodoxy during its formation and the problems of relations with the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine. Various variants of searches carried out in the course of creation of PPC and receipt of it by Tomos (autocephaly) are studied. The period of development of relations between the former UOC-KP and the UOC-MP, the ways of resolving inter-church and inter-confessional conflict by reaching inter-church agreement is analyzed. The historic path of the emergence of the CEC took a fairly small period in the period of the independent Ukrainian state in comparison, for example, with the Russian Orthodox Church. It has been established that inter-confessional conflict is an important factor in the development and establishment of state-building in our country. The solution of the current conflict relations between the PPC and the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is possible only under the condition of joint tolerization of the two above mentioned churches. In today's globalization, religion appears to be one of the main dominant human beings. Taking into account such global changes we can fix the formation of the network concept of culture (B. Wellman, F. Crotiff, E. Marc, L.-K. Frime, R. Hassan). Most of the works of representatives of Ukrainian religious studies devoted, unfortunately, to the theoretical understanding of the concept of "religion", the peculiarities of its functioning, and the practical use of many concepts to the social structure of society. We also need to focus our attention on socio-cultural changes taking place in Ukrainian society; on the interconnection of economic, political and ideological spheres. At the same time, each sphere should be considered as independent, but at the same time as one constantly interacting with others. It is this interaction that manifests both the integrity of man and the main characteristics of religion. It should be noted that today we observe the maximum tension in the socio-political and, in particular, the religious-church life of Ukraine through the action of the inter-Orthodox conflict; therefore, the main and important is the way of its settlement, especially now when the CEC got the long-awaited Tomos from Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.

The article examines the recent (December 2021) establishment of the African Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), which was related to the recognition of autocephaly (independence) by the Alexandrian Orthodox Church (APC) of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (PCU), and the subsequent rupture of relations between the APC and the ROC. Straight after the establishment of the African Exarchate, more than 100 African clerics left the jurisdiction of the APC and came under the jurisdiction of the ROC. The reasons for the active transition of Orthodox churches to the African Exarchate of ROC are connected not only with canonical issues, that is, unwillingness to be related to the church schism, but also with the policy of the APC in Africa. The African Exarchate, on the contrary, makes every effort to resolve current humanitarian issues and to build long-term cooperation on equal footing with the Orthodox Churches in Africa. An analysis of the events preceding the establishment of the Exarchate, the positions of the UOC and the ROC, as well as the expansion strategy may shed light on the prospects of the African Exarchate of the ROC.