Intensification of the relationship between the Russian Orthodox and Anglican Church in the second half of the 1890s

Статья посвящена описанию настроений церковной среды Грузинской Православной Церкви в начале XX в. В статье описываются настроения среди духовенства и мирян, их недовольство Русской Православной Церковью, а также недовольство положением Грузинской Церкви. Эти недовольства спровоцировали активные действия со стороны членов Грузинской Церкви, которые привели к нестроениям в церковной среде и фактическому отделению от Русской Православной Церкви. Одним из главных лиц выступал епископ, а впоследствии и Католикос-Патриарх, Леонид (Окропиридзе). Данные события привели к разрыву общения между Русской Православной и Грузинской Церквами на долгие годы, которое было восстановлено лишь в 1943 году. The article is devoted to the description of the church environment of the Georgian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the XX century. The article describes the mood among the clergy and laity, their dissatisfaction with the Russian Orthodox Church, as well as dissatisfaction with the situation of the Georgian Church. These discontents led to active actions on the part of members of the Georgian Church, which led to unrest in the church environment and the actual separation from the Russian Orthodox Church. One of the main persons was the bishop, and later the Catholicos-Patriarch, Leonid (Okropiridze). These events led to a break in communication between the Russian Orthodox and Georgian Churches for many years, which was restored only in 1943.

The article is devoted to one of the pages in the history of relations between the Russian Orthodox and Anglican Churches — the first visit of archdeacon William Palmer to Russia. The Anglican theologian, an associate of the Oxford movement, arrived in Russia in order to prove the correctness of the “theory of branches” proposed by the Oxford theologians and, as a consequence, to enter into Eucharistic communion with the Orthodox believers. Palmer had conversations on this issue with the chief Prosecutor of the Synod N. A. Protasov, Archimandrite Athanasius (Drozdov), Archpriest V. Kutnevich, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, and other representatives of the Russian clergy. As a result of meetings and conversations, the Anglican archdeacon was denied intercommunion, but the Russian Church authorities were sympathetic to the idea of rapprochement between the Anglican and Russian Orthodox Churches and agreed to continue the dialogue on this issue. The article analyzes the purpose, content and outcome of W. Palmer’s visit to Russia, as well as the reasons why the Anglican theologian was not accepted into Eucharistic communion. The article highlights the personal contribution of the Archdeacon Palmer to strengthening of the the relationship between representatives of the two Churches, as well as his role in increasing interest for Anglicanism on the part of the Russian clergy and the church community.

Piiskop Platoni roll õigeusuliste eestlaste vaimse vastupanu juhtimisel 1918. aasta Saksa okupatsiooni ajal

The article is devoted to one of the most striking problems of contemporary church construction in Russia — the formation of artistic images of newly erected churches and determination of meaning in their architecture. Today, the mentality of architects, patrons and the parish is primarily determined by the traditional approaches to the creation of new churches. Simultaneously, many architects are longing to find innovative meaning and artistic structures, noting that only these attempts are able to express the present-day emotions of believers. It is also essential to define the features of the cultural code of modern architecture for the Russian Orthodox church. The church hierarchy, believers and scholars, including foreigners, proceed from the idea of Russian Orthodox architecture’s unique identity. The recognizable image of the churches is determined by the constant interest in late medieval decoration from the time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich as the main artistic source and its interpretation by masters of the Neo-Russian style of the 19th — beginning of 20th centuries. The article emphasizes that national identity in Russian Orthodox church architecture is not a combination of immanent features, but a historical process of treasuring artistic character and the formation of meaning over several centuries. At the current time, it is vital to turn to all the creative and meaningful wealth in the development of Russian Orthodox churches, and it is better to seek innovation from within traditional images and meanings, based on the sacred experience of our church. This will support the creation of new churches, which are comparable to the standards of the Russian Orthodox architectural heritage in its artistic variety and semantic profoundness.

The article examines the issues of relations between the Russian Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches in Russian historiography. The methodology is based on classical and modern approaches to the analysis of historiographic sources. The foundation of the Russian Armenian Studies was laid in the 1830s-1850s with the appearance of historical essays, which contained information on the history of Armenia and Armenian communities (including the activities of Armenian dioceses) in Russia. Later, the first scientific works devoted to a comparative analysis of the Armenian and Orthodox dogmas were published. During the Soviet period, the emphasis was mainly put on studying the history of the Armenian diaspora in Russia. However, the Moscow Theological Academy in 1950-1991 reviewed dissertations, the authors of which explored the history and doctrine of the Armenian Church, including its ties with the Russian Orthodox Church. The undeniable achievements of modern historiography include the study of certain aspects of Russian-Armenian church relations, mainly related to the imperial period. The only scientific work where the subject of study is Russian-Armenian interfaith relations in the Middle Ages is the monograph by K.V. Ayvazyan (1989). The first attempt to compile the events related to the ties between the Russian and Armenian churches in the 20th century belongs to the Armenian clergyman V. Hovannisyan (2005). The question of the exact periodization of Russian-Armenian church relations, the analysis of other trends (besides those mentioned above) have not yet been considered in the domestic scientific historical literature, which makes this topic an urgent historiographic issue.

The reсonsidering of the methodological foundations of modern theoretical jurisprudence includes both the search for new approaches and the identification of the limits and conditions for their adequacy. At the same time, the needs for studying the interaction of the value-worldoutlook nature and the spatial conditionality of the state and law, considered in the logic of an open system, correspond with the geocultural approach. This approach is based on the multi-valued category “geoculture”, that allows one to comprehend the cultural codes and meanings of the transformation of reality and space (world projects), including those that exist as ideas about ideal forms of public power and social regulation. The geocultural approach may be part of such methodological phenomena as the worldoutlook research program, world-system analysis and geomeasurement. At the present stage, the geocultural approach of the worldoutlook research program is most suitable for analyzing the conflict of geocultures, allowing to take into account the replacement of geocultural standards, the crisis of the modern capita list world economy, legitimized by liberal geoculture, and the search for new mo dels of world order, carried out in the framework of the conflict of liberal and traditional values. The importance of understanding this conflict is due to the critical attitude of liberalism towards traditional statehood, its fulfillment of the role of an instrument of “controlled chaos” and an instrument of dominance of the West. The reсonsidering of liberal geoculture is permissible on the basis of the doctrines of traditional religious faiths, among which the Russian Orthodox Church is dominant in the post-Soviet space. Liberal geoculture is a multidimensional phenomenon, which at the same time puts forward the idea of protecting human rights and freedoms, and is an instrument for implementation of an elitist policy, characterized by excessive criticality in relation to the state and government, as well as any categories reflecting collective soli darity. Moreover, human rights, which are an integral part of liberal geoculture, initially stem from the Christian idea of a man as an ontologically free human being, the image and likeness of God, whose status metaphysically extends to anyone, but only his own. Substantially there are three interdependent problems in the phenomenon of human rights, the answer to which predetermines the practice of legal regulation: who is a person (in a particular geoculture), who is recognized as the ontological subject of human rights violations, who is recognized as the relevant subject of human rights protection. The complexity of the attitude of traditional Christianity to human rights, including denial (due to historical reasons for using human rights to marginalize Christianity), understanding, and recognition, is confirmed by the historical practice of the Russian Orthodox Church, which positively interprets this phenomenon in its conceptual documents at the present stage. The foregoing makes it expedient to use the canonical positions and official documents of traditional religious faiths in lawmaking and lawenforcement practice, which are the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches for Belarus.

The purpose of the article is to study the history of the second period of activity of the Orthodox-Anglican Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. The special historical methods are used. The re-search period of this Christian public society work is be-tween 1939 and 1945. The article describes the work of the Fellowship in the conditions of the Second World War. The author notes that the previously held confer-ences of a theological nature with the participation of Orthodox and Anglicans were canceled. Instead, they were replaced by annual summer camps, where the participants of the Fellowship discussed issues of the relationship between the Orthodox and Anglican Churches. The article shows that in this period of history the dialogue of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Angli-can Church is weakening. The idea of a possible unification of the two churches continued to develop thanks to the activities of the Orthodox members of the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius. As a result, the author comes to the conclusion that the activities of this organization have positively affected the resumption of dialogue between the Russian Ortho-dox and Anglican Churches. The two church organizations returned to communion in the autumn of 1943 after the Anglican Church leaders visited Moscow.

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.

Russian Orthodox Diocese of Finland, taking advantage of the church and international policy, illegally transferred to the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1923 and its relations with the Russian Church were interrupted for two decades. At the end of the Great Patriotic War, a movement for the reunification of the two churches began, but there was no unity within the Finnish Church on this issue, and the efforts of the Moscow Patriarchate’s hierarchy led to limited results. The article reveals the history of the participation of Petter Nortamo, a Finnish pastor who converted to Orthodoxy and tried to speed up the process of the return of the Finnish Archdiocese to the Russian Orthodox Church, unknown to Russian scientists. One of the characteristic features of his activity was the active involvement in this process of political parties and associations of socialist orientation, as well as the press (in particular, the Democratic Union of the People of Finland). The article disputes the reading of this story by the Finnish historian Juha Riikonen, who sees this primarily as a political background. Nortamo’s active contacts with Metropolitan Grigory (Chukov) and Patriarch Alexy I, his ordination to holy orders in Leningrad indicate that the church component was decisive in his activities. However, Nortamo’s efforts were not enough to solve the problem of the relationship between the Finnish and Russian Orthodox Churches, and his death coincided with the end of such attempts. The Patriarchate of Constantinople played a significant role in freezing the process of church reunification. To this day, the figure of Nortamo remains unknown in Russian historical science.

The article compares the assessments of socialist ideology in the official documents of the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox churches in the late 19th — early 20th centuries. As a reflection of the Catholic position, the encyclicals of the Roman popes are considered, first, the encyclical “Rerum Novarum”, published by Leo XIII in 1891. The author considers the program of the course “denunciation of socialism” approved by the Holy Synod in seminaries. A comparison of these documents shows that both churches condemned socialism as an atheistic doctrine and considered it a dangerous utopia. Leo XIII, in “Rerum Novarum”, denounced basic socialist doctrines such as the socialization of private property and class struggle, but at the same time acknowledged the seriousness of the problems of capitalist society and the plight of the workers. The pope opposed the socialist utopias with the Catholic social doctrine, which provided for the active participation of the church in social life, state regulation of relations between labor and capital, and the development of a peaceful labor movement. The Russian Orthodox Church during the period under review was unable to develop its own social doctrine as an alternative to socialism. In the program of the anti-socialist course for Orthodox seminaries, the materialistic and anti-Christian nature of socialism was proved, and Marxism was subjected to detailed analysis and criticism. At the same time, there was no such harsh criticism of the flaws of capitalism on the part of the Russian hierarchy. Such one-sidedness made the position of the Russian Orthodox Church in the fight against socialism much weaker than the position of the Roman Catholic Church.

The social teachings of Christian churches answer a number of important questions of public life. Such issues include dignity, freedom, and human rights. The task of Church social teaching is to assess modern socially significant problems, state-church relations, and church-social issues and to formulate the official position of the Church on the challenges of modernity based on centuries-old Christian teachings and church traditions. The subject of this research is a comparative analysis of Catholic and Orthodox social teachings on the issue of granting a Christian personal rights and freedoms. The research methodology is based on a comparative analysis of church documents in cultural-historical and socio-political contexts. The work examines the history and development of legal doctrine in the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches. Particular attention is paid to an examination of official church documents, including papal encyclicals, documents of the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church, documents of social issues adopted at the Councils of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. Based on the historical and ideological context of the two positions in relation to human rights, the work reveals the general provisions and differences in the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of this issue. The article argues that, despite the existing differences, these teachings are united by a common desire to bring a moral dimension and an orientation towards Christian values into public and political life.

During the period of the Cold War, we were confronted with the fact that some state churches, in particular the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), collaborated with ‘their’ government to overcome the western rival. For instance, the Patriarch of Moscow tried to influence the World Council of Churches (WCC) in Geneva, co-operating with the KGB to this end. Since the beginning of this century, we are able to observe anew how some old churches are becoming stronger. Supported by the Russian government, the Russian Orthodox Churches are successfully fighting against the ‘new’ religions, stemming from the West – such as the Baptists, Methodists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and so-called ‘psycho-religions.’1 However, Western churches, themselves restricted by the law, are also trying to force back the newcomers and to recover ‘their’ traditional territory. Because of the validity of universal human rights that cannot be shaken in Western democracies, old churches are tempted to express their solidarity with Eastern churches in the fight against ‘the common enemy.’ Jointly, they have founded associations like the Federation europeenne des centres de recherche et d’information sur le sectarisme (FECRIS) to blacken the newcomers’ reputation and, in this way, they are willing to place religious freedom at risk, a fundamental human right, in order to recover their exclusive and highly privileged position in their respective societies. Time and again, religion is a source of conflict between states, but sometimes also a phenomenon of transnational understanding. The changing of borders through violent means often has religious dimensions, as evidenced in the Yugoslavian wars in the mid-1990s. Not only in Europe, but also in the Islamic world, the world is faced with the phenomenon of expanding borders on allegedly religious grounds. In the following article, we will explore the Russian example and that of its neighbours.

The study is aimed at considering theoretical and empirical issues of intercultural communication in Eastern Siberia at the end of the 20–21 centuries in ethno-confessional and geopolitical aspects. To achieve this research task the author has considered theoreticalmethodological and structural-functional aspects of intercultural communication in the ethnoconfessional space of the East-Siberian region. The methodological correlation of the processes of intercultural communication and integration intentions of state policy in the ideological sphere of public relations has been analyzed. Their targets in macro-social communication processes are socio-political stability and minimization of deviations based on ethnic and confessional affiliation through the implementation of organizational and legal forms of state functions. The conclusions have been made about actualization and basic nature of the anthropocultural approach, when considering the functional relationship of state power and state policy in the field of religious space. On the basis of the missionary intentions of the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, the object-subject and subjective parameters of the structure of legal communication have been determined, taking into account the geopolitical characteristics of state control over the unity of the sociocultural space. Interfaith communication problems between the Russian Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism in Russia have worsened due to the proselytizing activities of the Roman Catholic Church in the East Siberian and Far Eastern regions and the lack of an elaborate regulatory framework enabling the government to control ideological space

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.

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.