On Monday, September 5, Serbian Patriarch Porfiry presented Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán with the golden degree of the Order of Saint Sava – as a reward for his efforts in defending Christianity in Hungary and throughout Europe, promoting Christian values, as well as because of his personal contribution to the friendship between the Hungarian and Serbian peoples.
At the awarding ceremony, the Serbian Patriarch emphasized that Viktor Orbán is a unique statesman in Europe who “fights for the soul of Europe” and whose words are listened to by other peoples, including the Serbs.
In accepting the award, the Hungarian Prime Minister emphasized that he was proud to receive it from his brother, a Serbian Orthodox Christian. “We are peaceful people, we want peace, but there is really a war for the soul of Europe, and without Christian unity – including Orthodoxy – we cannot win this battle,” the prime minister said.
St. Sava was the first archbishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It awards the distinction in his name to ecclesiastical and secular figures of outstanding merit.
Serbian Patriarch Porfiry wrote on his Facebook page:
“Today at the seat of the Government of Hungary, in the presence of Bishop Irinej Bački, member of the Holy Synod of Bishops, and Metropolitan Luka, Bishop of Budinski, I awarded the Prime Minister of Hungary, Mr. Viktor Orbán, with the highest award of the Serbian Orthodox church – Order of Saint Sava, first degree.
The high award was presented to Mr. Orbán as a sign of gratitude for the affirmation of traditional Christian values, for the selfless support of the Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Buda, and for an outstanding personal contribution to strengthening the friendship between our two neighboring nations.
Worthy!”
Source: hungarytoday.hu
Featured photo: MTI/Miniszterelnöki Sajtóiroda/Fischer Zoltán
This week, California launched “its most aggressive effort yet to combat climate change,” the New York Times reports.
The publication added: “Lawmakers have passed numerous bills designed to reduce emissions and divest from fossil fuels.”
Lawmakers “approved a record $54 billion in spending to fight climate change and passed sweeping new restrictions on oil and gas drilling, as well as a mandate that California stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere by 2045,” the paper explained, adding:
The bills, passed late Wednesday night at the end of a hectic two-year legislative session in Sacramento, marked a victory for Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who has sought to cast himself as a climate leader as he boosted his national profile and began attracting speculation about a possible run for the White House.”
Under the new legislation, the state “will now have to cut emissions by at least 85% by 2045, offsetting any remaining emissions by planting more trees or using still-expensive technologies such as direct air capture,” the paper said, noting that “legislators had previously set a legally binding goal for California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.”
Inside Climate News reports that the state has also passed legislation banning new oil and gas wells from being built less than 3,200 feet from homes, schools, nursing homes and other so-called “sensitive receptors.”
While nature gives man true beauty, he increasingly turns to the artificial. Among the mass of tasty but low-quality products, it is difficult to find something that is beneficial for the body. That is why in recent years the call for healthy and environmentally friendly products has become almost a trend.
Honey has become one of the most sought-after honeys, and rightly so. All the healing properties of honey are indisputable. Most doctors recommend regular and systematic use of bee products. It strengthens the cardiovascular system, supports the healthy functioning of the liver, kidneys and gastrointestinal tract. In addition, honey is a powerful force in the fight against certain diseases.
Hundreds of years ago, honey was revered by healers, rulers and commoners. With the daily consumption of bee products, you can purify the blood, strengthen the immune system and protect yourself from colds and heart diseases. Do you suffer from insomnia? Drink milk with honey before going to bed and the problem will stay in the background. No appetite in the morning? A glass of water and a tablespoon of honey will give you a feeling of fullness for several hours, protect your stomach and saturate your body with vitamins and trace elements. The trace elements in the composition of honey are responsible for the health of the whole organism:
– Potassium and magnesium in it preserve youth;
– Iron and manganese contribute to the proper absorption of food; – Nicotinic and ascorbic acid, carotene, vitamins of group B, contained in honey, strengthen the nervous system, increase resistance to various infections and visual acuity;
– Glucose and fructose increase glycogen reserves, having a beneficial effect on liver function and significantly improving tissue metabolism.
– Honey is a powerful antimicrobial agent with a broad spectrum of action. The antibacterial components of honey work synergistically to effectively fight a variety of microorganisms, including multi-drug resistant bacteria.
– It also has an antiviral and antiparasitic effect and plays a role in the anti-inflammatory effect on the organs of the gastrointestinal tract, and also has a beneficial effect on the respiratory system and the nervous system.
– Honey finds its application in athletes, as it allows you to quickly inactivate free radicals formed during sports activities.
– Thanks to the high content of polyphenols, it helps prevent vascular atherosclerosis, that is, it has a protective effect on the cardiovascular system.
Honey is quickly absorbed by the body and provides an instant boost of energy, so it is often recommended to be eaten during recovery from illness or during periods of intense mental or physical stress. The composition, taste and color of the different types of honey depend on the type of plant source, the geographical area, the climate and the different types of bees involved in honey production, as well as the methods of processing and storage.
What can go wrong with corn? It’s delicious, it has a variety of uses, it’s nutritious – what else do we need to know about boiled corn? Want to know about the potential side effects of eating too much corn?
Not only will we detail the consequences of eating too much corn, but we’ll also let you know how corn is not a vegetable! Yes, you got it right! Corn is not a vegetable, but it is a food grain. Originally grown in Central America and Mexico, corn is now widespread throughout the world.
Whether you eat it as roasted corn on the cob or its kernels boiled, buttered, salted or pureed in soups and sauces, corn is one versatile ingredient that can be a good healthy food option at any time. Besides the common yellow corn, other varieties can be brown, purple or blue. Apart from these, could there be another darker shade of corn? Is there any possible risk associated with eating too much corn?
While you may enjoy the subtle sweet taste of corn, it is wise to be aware of the potential health issues associated with its consumption. Read on to learn more.
Corn is full of nutrients that promote overall health. However, the side effects of corn related to excessive consumption should also be noted.
Corn can aggravate pellagra, bloating, flatulence and cause stomach upset. It can also cause tooth decay and increase the risk of osteoporosis and weight gain. Excess starch in corn can also cause lethargy.
It is also not suitable for people with diabetes. Most of these so-called negative effects of corn can actually be counteracted with a balanced diet. For the rest, well, just watch the portion size! Therefore, moderate consumption is recommended.
Is corn good for the lungs? Yes, eating corn in moderation is good for the lungs.
Is the boiled corn sour? Yes, boiled corn is sour. If mixed with oil, it can further worsen acidity symptoms and cause heartburn.
What is the best time to eat corn? Corn can be a healthy addition to any meal of the day. However, many prefer it as an afternoon snack.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said at a press conference on September 7 that during the meeting with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, the importance of peace in the Western Balkans was once again confirmed, reports Kosovo-online.
Erdogan said he was very pleased as the agreement was signed when it comes to crossing administrative lines with only ID cards of Serbian and Kosovo citizens and said that Turkey is ready to provide support in any way to reach a solution in the relations between Belgrade and Pristina. He added that he hoped that an agreement would be reached on the registration numbers as soon as possible, as well as on other problematic issues.
“We have always sincerely supported solving problems through dialogue and will continue to do so,” Erdogan said.
He emphasized that his visit to Serbia will bring special results both for the two countries and for this region.
The President of Turkey thanked Vucic for his hospitality and stated that the talks were extremely fruitful.
He also added that the two presidents exchanged views on the development of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
“Our relations with Serbia, which are at an excellent level, are developing every day. Serbia will be the sixth country whose citizens will be able to travel to Turkey only with an ID card with a chip,” Erdogan added.
He said that the first steps on this topic have been taken since yesterday in BiH and added that the agreements will be signed at the UN General Assembly.
“Our economic relations are the driving force of our cooperation, the volume of our trade exchange continues to grow steadily despite the pandemic. Last year, the growth was 33 percent, and the overall target is five billion dollars in trade exchange,” Erdogan said.
The Serbia-Turkey business forum that we will be attending is, in his opinion, an indication of our goodwill, the Turkish president added, and stated that Turkish companies have $800 million worth of jobs in Serbia.
“When it comes to the Novi Pazar-Tutin road, it is the result of Vucic’s visionary approach. The Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency is implementing 350 projects in Serbia and we will soon start the renovation of the Bayrakli Mosque,” Erdogan announced, saying that every year millions of citizens travel to Turkey via Serbia.
The Paradoxes of Russian Cultural Development – Maximalism –
Culture is related to the sense of measure – to the sense of one’s own limit. Even the ancient Greeks, the creators of one of the world’s greatest cultures, in a certain sense the mother of our modern culture, placed the concept of μέτριος – an adjective meaning exactly measure, harmony,[1] and therefore the natural limitation of all perfection. And measure implies order, structure, structure, form, correspondence of form and content, completeness and completeness. It is obvious that the artists in this cultural tradition understood that the most difficult thing in creativity is precisely in self-limitation, in the recognition of one’s own limit and in a kind of humility before it.
At the same time, one of the paradoxes of Russian culture consists in the fact that, from the very beginning, its most important component turned out to be a kind of denial of precisely this μέτριος – that kind of pathos of maximalism, which seeks to eliminate both measure and on the border. The paradox of this feature lies in the fact that the pathos of maximalism is inherent precisely in Russian culture itself. Both earlier and outside of Russia, maximalism, fanaticism, the denial of culture in the name of whatever values, very often led to the destruction of cultural values, but this was clearly a manifestation of something outside of culture, of the anti-cultural. In our country – and this is exactly the paradox – the feeling of this, this urge was inherent in the very bearers of culture, its creators. And this has brought and brings a particular polarization within the culture itself, making it fragile and often controversial – even, in a literal sense, ghostly.
The sources of this maximalism must be sought in Ancient Russia’s perception of Byzantine Christianity. Hundreds of books have been written about the meaning and significance of this fundamental fact of Russian history; in one way or another, he has always stood at the center of Russian disputes and searches. Its special significance for the destinies of Russian culture makes us turn to it again and again.
We will dwell on only one of the sides of this phenomenon, which will help us to explain the constant tension in Russian cultural self-consciousness – its constant turning to some truly explosive maximalism. There are many Russian historians who note the relatively easy acceptance of Christianity by Russia, in its Byzantine guise. Much less often, however, attention is paid to the fact that, in the process of this acceptance, far from everything included in the concept of Christian Byzantinism was assimilated.
The fundamental difference between the “Byzantine and Russian versions of Christianity” was that Christian Byzantium was the heir of such a rich and deep Greek culture, while Kievan Rus did not possess such a cultural heritage. For the Byzantine, Christianity was the crowning of a long, complex and infinitely rich history, it was the ecclesiasticalization of an entire world of beauty, thought and culture. Ancient Russia could not have such a cultural memory and such a sense of crowning and completion. Naturally, in this situation, the maximalism inherent in Christianity was perceived differently in Byzantium, on the one hand, and in Russia, on the other.
That Christianity is maximalist is beyond dispute. The entire Gospel is built on the maximalist appeal: Seek first the Kingdom of God,[2] on the offer to throw away everything, deny everything and sacrifice everything – for the sake of the coming, at the end of time, of the Kingdom of God. And it cannot be said that Christian Byzantium somehow “minimized” this appeal, that it softened its decisiveness. However, in the complex system of Christian teaching developed by Byzantium, the maximalism of this teaching is presented in a kind of hierarchy of values, in which they found a place, and thus in a way the values of this world and, first of all, the values of the culture. The whole world was as if covered by the majestic dome of Saint Sophia – Wisdom of God, pouring its light and blessing over all life and over all human culture. However, the dome of the Kiev “Saint Sophia”, built according to the Byzantine pattern and inspiration, had in its own sense nothing to cover and bless – the ancient, just-emerging Kievan Russia did not possess any hierarchy of values, which had to be reconciled with the maximalism of the Gospel. For this complex but also harmonious relationship between culture and Christian maximalism, which is the essence of Christian Byzantium, in Russia, itself, there was neither place nor data, because one of the constituent parts of this relationship was not there. namely, the old, rich and deep culture.
Ancient Russia did not have to experience the long, complex and often particularly painful process of reconciliation of culture with Christianity, of the Christianization of Hellenism and the Hellenization of Christianity – processes that marked five or six centuries of Byzantine history. Ancient Russia had almost no history. Which in turn means that Byzantine Christianity was adopted in Russia both as a faith and as a culture, and that, in this way, the maximalism inherent in the Christian faith turned out to be practically one of the main foundations of its new culture.
Accepting Byzantine Christianity, Russia was not interested either in Plato, or in Aristotle, or in the whole tradition of Hellenism – in anything that remained a living and vital reality for Christian Byzantium. Ancient Russia did not give a single particle of its soul, its attention and its interest to Byzantine culture. Historians emphasize that, regardless of the abundance of its ecclesiastical and political ties with Constantinople, Russia, with all its soul, aspired not to it, but to Jerusalem and Mount Athos. To Jerusalem, as a place of the real history of Christ – of His humiliation and His sufferings, and to Athos, to the monastic mountain – as a place of a real Christian feat. That the image of the evangelical – the crucified and humiliated Christ, together with the image of the hero-monk, with the image of the ascetic – pierced the Russian self-consciousness much more than all the subtleties of Byzantine dogmatics and all the splendor of the Byzantine ecclesiastical-cultural world. In a truly amazing way, Russian Christianity began without its school and school tradition, and Russian culture somehow at the time turned out to be centered in the temple and in worship.
Of course, the Russian Christian culture also began to be created. It is one thing, however, when the temple was built in the center of the ancient – fertilized by culture – Greek city, in which one of its tasks turned out to be the joining of culture with Christianity, in the Christianization of this culture, and quite another when this same temple was showed everything: both faith and culture. And that’s exactly what happened in Russia. Its culture, its true culture, turned out to be concentrated in the temple, where the essence of this culture became, so to speak, self-reproach, the appeal to that maximalism which requires renunciation of the world. And all that is true, all that is beautiful and great in ancient Russian culture is, at the same time, a call to escape, to renounce, to liberate yourself. Or, if you don’t run away, to give your strength to the construction of one last, perfect, completely aimed at heaven and living through heaven, “kingdom”, in which everything without a residue will be subordinated to the one necessary.
This is how maximalism has become the fate of both Russian culture and Russian cultural self-consciousness. Not only in the past, but also later, when the immediate connection between Christianity and culture was broken, he was least of all inspired by culture as a measure, as a limit, and as a form. In a certain sense, it can even be said that in our country – in Russia – the very concept of culture did not arise, was not formed: for culture as a collection of knowledge, of values, monuments and ideas – a collection that is passed down from generation to generation per generation, for preservation and reproduction, but also as a measure of creativity. Because Christian culture, which found its expression in the temple, in worship and in everyday life, by its very nature turned out to be foreign to the idea of development and creativity, because it became sacred and static, excluding doubt and search; and in our country there was no other culture than this.
And that is why here too, every creativity, every search and change was felt as a rebellion, almost as sacrilege and anarchy, and thus the essence of culture was never understood as creative continuity. [Each creator turned out to be a revolutionary as well – he could create and create something fundamentally new, only on ruins, refusing to allow any development, any revision of what he had built.]
Such are the sources of maximalism – as a denial of measure and limit – that we so often have to face in the complex dialectic of Russian cultural self-consciousness. And this maximalism was not able to be eradicated even by Peter’s cultural reform, which brought Russia so sharply to the Western cultural tradition. And here, too, we can speak of a significant paradox: that one of the derivatives of this incorporation into Western culture – the great Russian literature of the 19th century – has turned out to be the factor for the West that explodes precisely the measure and limitations of Western culture from within, that she had introduced into her the explosive substance of such a search, of such insights and tension, which undermined her slender and measured edifice.
The famous words about the Russian boy who – having received a map of the starry sky – half an hour later returned it corrected,[3] are not devoid of deep justice. The Russians after Peter turned out to be amazing students. In less than a century, all the techniques of Western culture were assimilated by Russia. But the students, after learning, naturally and almost unconsciously returned to what had been instilled in them from the beginning, namely, to that maximalism, which in the West had been almost completely neutralized by centuries of mental and social discipline.
And this applies, albeit differently, to all three layers of Russian culture, to the three cultural groups that we talked about in our previous talk[4] – both in folk culture and in what we called technical-pragmatic, and, finally, in the Derzhavin-Pushkin-Gogol culture – this gradual accumulation of explosive maximalism is visible everywhere, as well as the feeling of the impossibility of being satisfied with culture alone; perhaps, because of the absence in it of the habits and methods that allow solving the questions that arise before the person. And this, in turn, leads us to the second paradox of Russian cultural self-awareness – the inherent minimalism that opposes the maximalism we talked about today.
Minimalism
In our previous talk about the foundations of Russian culture, we talked about maximalism – as one of the characteristic properties and even paradoxes of Russian cultural development. We associate this maximalism with the Byzantine-Christian sources of Russian culture, which gave it the aspiration to reach moral-religious perfection and left in the shadow, – somewhere on a secondary plan – the awareness of the need for everyday, planned and always inevitably limited cultural work. But as is well known, maximalism is almost always quite easily associated with minimalism. If someone wants too much, everything, the unattainable, such relatively easily, in the impossibility of achieving this everything, resigns himself to nothing. The “few” – “at least the few” – seem to him unnecessary, half-hearted, unworthy of his interest and efforts. [So, to a certain extent, it also happened in Russian cultural development, and historians and critics of Russian culture often point to this feature in our national image – of “all or nothing”; it—this trait—has also often served as one of the subjects of fiction.]
One hundred percent in affirmations leads to one hundred percent in negations, and this polarization can be traced here in the entire development of our national self-consciousness. Thus, for example, the history of the state and cultural creation of Muscovite Russia is matched and opposed by the history of its constant “dilution” from within by negation, by flight, by rejection. When, in the second half of the 15th century, the Muscovite state-national self-awareness was formed, it was immediately clothed in the extreme maximalist ideology of the Third Rome – the only, the last, purely Orthodox Kingdom, after which “there will be no fourth”.[5]
But this maximalist self-affirmation and self-exaltation – at the same time – was also accompanied by a kind of cultural nihilism. Particularly characteristic from this point of view was the so-called heresy of the Jews,[6] which in fact conquered almost the entire upper part of Moscow society at that time. Striking in this fascination was the ease of breaking with native tradition and an insistent, almost passionate desire to sever ties with all the usual criteria of faith, thought and culture, and to reincarnate into something completely opposite to them. The Novgorod and Moscow proto-popes – the color and support of the then educated stratum – secretly changed their Russian names to Hebrew-biblical ones, thereby denying in a certain sense their own personalities.
In reality, this was an unprecedented and mysterious phenomenon, but it is relatively easily explained by one of the peculiarities of Russian culture – with the recurring desire in it to get out of history and “action” or, in any case, to reduce one’s own our activity to the minimum – because of some otherworldly ideal, which in history, in our earthly life, in our “activity”, anyway, is something unrealizable. This minimalism of Russian cultural development is manifested, above all, in the stubborn resistance to any changes and to the very idea of reform, improvement and development. In what was written by Nil Sorski[7] – the head of the movement of non-appropriators, who protested not only against any “appropriation” [8] – of the Church, the monasteries and the clergy, but also against the very idea of any historical responsibility, for whatever one’s own work in history – there is also a peculiar flavor of anarchism, anti-historicism and quietism.
(to be continued)
Source: Schmemann, A. “Paradoxes of Russian cultural development” – In: Yearbook of the House of Russian Foreign Countries named after Alexandra Solzhenitsyn, M.: “Русский Пут” 2012, pp. 247-260 (in Russian).
[3] The words of Alyosha Karamazov are meant (see: The Brothers Karamazov, part 4, book 10, chapter 6): “… Not long ago I read the review of an overseas German living in Russia, about our today’s learning youth, who says: “Show a Russian student a map of the starry sky, of which he had no idea until then, and he will return it to you tomorrow all corrected.” No knowledge and unselfish conceit – this is what the German wanted to say about the Russian student” (See: Dostoevsky, F. M. Polnoe sabrany sochinenii, item 14, p. 502).
[4] Namely, in the third, but the first preserved, of the entire series of talks by Father Alexander, Basics of Russian Culture: “Culture in Russian Self-Consciousness” [“Culture in Russian Self-Consciousness”] – In: Ezhegodnik…, pp. 242-247 (note trans.).
[5] We are talking about the ideologeme “Moscow – Third Rome”, which was proposed by the elder Philotei (c. 1465 – 1542) of the “Pskov-Eleazar Monastery” and which was shaped in the form of a letter to the Grand Prince of Moscow Vasiliy Ivanovich and to the royal secretary M. G. Munekhin thus: “Preserve and take care, pious king, that all the Christian kingdoms may gather in one kingdom of yours, because the two Romes have fallen, and the third stands; and there will not be a fourth” (For the entire text, see: “The message of the elder Philofey to the great prince Vasiliy” – In: Pamyatniki literatury Drevnei Rusi, item 6: End of the XV – first half of the XVI century, M. 1984, p. 441) .
[6] The heresy of the “Jews” is a religious movement that arose in the second half of the 15th century among the Russian clergy and high society in the most cultural centers of Russia – Novgorod, Pskov, Kyiv and Moscow. The heresy was a mixture of Judaism and Christianity, it denied the dogma of the Trinity, of the Divinity of Jesus Christ and the Redemption, it preferred the Old Testament to the New, it rejected the creations of the Holy Fathers, the veneration of relics, of holy icons, etc. Follows to note also that the question of the essence of this heresy belongs to the darkest problems in the history of Russian sectarianism, since its characterization was necessarily carried out with the help of denouncing words; words biased towards her and having no precise idea of the nature of the doctrine which had to be denounced.
[7] Nil Sorsky (in the world – Nikolay Maikov; 1433-1508) was the founder and head of “non-proprietaryism” in Russia – an opponent of church land ownership at the council of 1503 in Moscow and a supporter of the reform of monasteries on the beginnings of the Scythian life and the personal work of the monastics. He also develops the idea of ”smart work” – the special kind of prayerful contemplation, also known as hesychasm. The general direction of Nil Sorsky’s thought is strictly ascetic, calling mainly for inner spiritual asceticism, which distinguishes him from the concepts of asceticism among the overwhelming majority of Russian monks of that time.
[8] That is to say – the pursuit of profit, i.e. self-interest.
During the first period of its existence, the Church consisted of numerous communities, completely separate and independent, having no canonical connections with each other – in our use of the word. While at the same time, never later was the consciousness of the united Church so extremely strong among Christians, as precisely then, when “the united Church was not just an idea, but the most real fact”.[15] And this was so, because each church, each separate municipality – in itself, in its local unity – had the living experience of the unity of God’s people. And “the unity of the external organization did not exist, not because it is allegedly contrary to the very Christian idea of the Church, as Protestant scholars tend to imagine the events, but only because in reality there was such a unity, which was even deeper , and narrower. Compared with the later forms of communion – formal, juridical and chancellery – the forms of communion that can be distinguished in the Church during the early times of its life testify to a greater penetration among Christians of the idea of a single church”.[ 16] In other words, the unity of the Church was not determined by the canonical ties, but they themselves represented the development, embodiment and preservation of that unity which was given above all in the unity of the local church.
So, locality and universality – such is the dual basis of the Catholicity of the Church. The One Universal Church does not break up into separate parts and is not some federation of churches, but a living organism in which each member lives with the life of the whole and reflects in itself all its fullness. Local unity therefore turns out to be a necessary condition for the universal character of the Church, an organic basis of its catholicity.
4. Development of the church system
However, if the local principle is a primary and basic norm of the church structure, organically arising from the very nature of the Church, then in history this principle was embodied differently – depending on the changing external conditions of the Church’s life.
The first stage of this development was the unification of the local churches into larger ecclesiastical areas and the establishment – in parallel – of the hierarchy of senior and junior churches. Initially, Christianity was established in the large cities of the Roman Empire, after which new communities gradually arose around these first centers, which naturally preserved their ties with the respective mother church, from which they received a hierarchy, a “rule of faith” at the time of their foundation. and liturgical tradition. Thus, even in the era of the persecutions, the natural church associations or areas were already formed, whereby the bishop of the senior church received the title of metropolitan. The metropolitan ordained the newly elected bishops in his area, twice a year presided over regional episcopal councils and was the appellate authority in cases between individual bishops or in complaints against bishops. In turn, the metropolises were grouped around the most ancient or metropolitan cathedrals – Rome, Antioch, etc., whose bishops later came to be called patriarchs. At the time of the conversion of the imp. Constantine to Christianity, this naturally developing structure of church organization was almost universally affirmed and was sanctioned at the First Ecumenical Council (325).[17]
Of course, the reconciliation of the Roman Empire with Christianity had the most profound impact on the life of the Church, and henceforth its external destiny began to be determined more and more by its union with the state. And since the Roman Empire declared itself a Christian state, and all its subjects became members of the Church, the Church also quite consistently began to harmonize its structure with the administrative structure of the Empire. “The order of church parishes should follow the state and civil distribution” – this is what the canons of this era say (Fourth Ecumenical Council, 17; Trul Council, 38).[18] At the same time, the final distribution of the Church within the boundaries of the five great patriarchates was also confirmed, whereby – as a result of the above-mentioned reason – the importance of some episcopal cathedrals grew in relation to the importance of their respective cities from a state point of view. The most telling example in this regard is the rapid growth in the importance and power of the Bishop of Constantinople, who already at the Second Ecumenical Council (from 381) received – as “bishop of the City of the King and Synclitus” (Rule 3)[19] – second only to the bishop of old Rome.[20]
We speak of this evolution, since the organic law of the development of the ecclesiastical structure is clearly outlined in it. On the one hand, the Church invariably “follows” history, i.e. it consciously and systematically adapts its structure to the forms of the world in which it lives. In this adaptation, however, it does not change those foundations which, representing its very essence, cannot depend on external historical conditions. Whatever changes have occurred in the system of grouping churches, in their mutual seniority, in the action of the council institute, etc., the local principle remains unchanged – as a root from which all the diverse forms of church organization grow. And the canonical activity of the ecumenical and local councils is invariably aimed at preserving this very principle – that “the churches should never mix” (Second Ecumenical Council, Rule 2).[21] Here we refer to the canons prohibiting the presence of two bishops in one city, the canons regulating the transfer of clerics from one diocese to another, the canons prescribing “in no way to perform ordinations [in any degree of the ecclesiastical hierarchy” (note trans. .)], except when appointed to a [certain (note trans.)] town or country church”[22] etc. (see, for example, Fourth Ecumenical Council, rules 6, 10, 17; Trulli Council, 20; Antioch Council, 9, 12, 22; Serdic Council, 12). Understood in their proper historical and ecclesiological context, all these canons in fact preserve the same fundamental fact of church life – the need for Christians in one place, united under the gracious authority of one bishop, to constitute an organic unity in that place, to show and to embody the Catholic and universal essence of the Church.
Thus, in connection with this development, we can only repeat the already quoted words of Fr. N. Afanasiev: “Church life cannot take arbitrary forms, but only those that correspond to the essence of the Church and are able to express this essence under the specific historical conditions.”
5. Local, universal, national
Having noted the immutable and “organic” character of this basic principle of development of the church organization, it is now necessary to trace the action of that new factor which gradually entered the life of the Church in the post-Byzantine era and which already quite closely leads us to our modern difficulties. This factor is the national one.
The Roman Empire thought of itself as a worldwide, supranational empire and even referred to itself as a “universe” (ecumena). Becoming a Christian, i.e. accepting Christianity as her faith, she continued to see her own religious vocation and purpose in the unification of all peoples in the united Christian kingdom, corresponding – in earthly terms – to the unification of all people in one Universal Church .[23] This belief was shared (although they never “dogmatized”) also the representatives of the Church. Therefore, in the Byzantine ecclesiastical writings of that time, the providential coincidence at the same time of the unification of humanity in one universal state and in one true religion is often indicated.
But must we be reminded that this dream of a united Christian kingdom was not destined to come true, and that in reality, over time, the Empire lost more and more of its universal character? At first the invasions of the barbarians cut off the West from it, and Arabs, Slavs and Turks without interruption – until the moment of its final collapse – ate away at it from the north and from the east. In the 9th-10th centuries, Byzantium became a relatively small Greek state, surrounded on all sides by newly emerging “barbarian” states. In turn, the latter, warring with Byzantium, and thus coming into the closest contact with it, themselves fell under its religious and cultural influence and accepted Christianity. Here, for the first time, the question of ecclesiastical nationalism was raised with particular acuteness.
Now, in contrast to the initial stage of the spread of Christianity in the age of persecutions, not individuals, but entire nations, already accept it and are baptized as a result of their personal conversion. Thus, carried out from above, by the state power, the adoption of Christianity naturally acquired a national and political character. Such is the conversion of Bulgaria in the 9th century, such is the conversion of Russia in the 10th century. For both St. Prince Boris and St. Vladimir, the conversion of one’s own people is not only their enlightenment through the light of true faith, but also a way towards national-state self-determination and self-affirmation.
However, in a paradoxical way, the religio-political concept that the young Orthodox peoples perceived from Byzantium and its ideal of the Christian world and the Christian state collided again with the Byzantine concept of the one Orthodox kingdom – an ideal that, despite its historical failure, continues to dominate the minds and the hearts of Byzantines. In Byzantine thought, the conversion of the new peoples naturally meant their introduction into the single imperial religious-state organism, as a rule, they were subordinated to the universal Orthodox kingdom. But in reality, this same kingdom had long since lost its authentic universal and supranational character, and for newly converted peoples, the Byzantine ideology very often turned into Greek ecclesiastical-political imperialism. At that time, “in the Greek church, the pathos of the early Christian universal unity in love had already been largely extinguished. And very often, in its place, the national-Greek pathos appeared… In Byzantium itself, that once powerful chord of languages, so wonderfully presented to the Zion hill as a symbol and sign of the Christian gospel among all peoples, almost no longer sounded.[24] And so a struggle began between these nationalisms, which inevitably affected – due to its religious nature – church life as well. One of the main goals of the young Orthodox nations is their acquisition of ecclesiastical autocephaly – as the basis of their ecclesiastical and political independence – and their struggle for autocephaly as a red thread runs from then until today through the entire history of the Orthodox world. [25] ]
In order to avoid misunderstandings, we will immediately state quite definitely that in itself this national moment in Christianity is far from an evil thing. Above all, the replacement of the one Christian kingdom by the many Christian nations is as much a historical fact as the conversion to Christianity of the imp. Constantine. And since it does not absolutize any form of historical being that existed in the world in which it itself lives, the Church can equally adapt its life both to the Greco-Roman conception of the universal Empire and to national forms of statehood. The Church has always been both thoroughly “in this world” and equally thoroughly “not of this world.” Her essence, her life, does not depend on the forms in this world. Moreover, just as the reconciliation of the Empire with Christianity after three centuries of conflict has produced fruits of greatness and sanctity in the face of the ideal of Christian statehood and Christian culture, so has the education of Christian peoples who have realized the purpose and meaning of their national existence in service of the Christian Truth and in the consecration of his national gifts to God, there remains forever the unfading glory of the Church. Such is the ideal of Holy Rus and of the great Russian culture – an ideal that is inseparable from the Orthodoxy that nurtured it. And the Church, having once blessed the Empire in its “universal” way, has thus blessed and sanctified this national ministry of this same Truth.
However, giving due credit to all the positive value of the national in Christianity, we must not fall into the idealization of history either. Seeing the light, we must not close our eyes to the shadow. The path of the Church in this world – in earthly history – has never been an idyll and requires a tireless feat and tension of the church’s consciousness. No formula is salutary in itself – neither is the universal Empire, nor the Holy Rus, nor the “symphony” between church and state – and each of these forms must be constantly filled not only with theoretical correctness, but also with living justice. For just as the Byzantine ideal of a “symphony” between church and state had too often in practice turned into simple subordination of the church by the state, so here, in the conditions of this new national path – with its shadow side – there was more subordination of the Church before the national, than enlightenment of this national by the Church. And the danger of nationalism consists in the subconscious change of the hierarchy of values - when the people no longer serve the Christian Truth and measure themselves and their lives by it, but vice versa – Christianity itself and the Church itself begin to be measured and evaluated by from the point of view of their “merits” before the people, homeland, state, etc. Nowadays, alas, for many it seems quite natural that the right of the Church to exist should be proven through its national and state merits, through its ” utilitarian’ value. Speaking of Holy Russia, they too often forget that for that ancient Russia, which carried this ideal on its back, national existence was valuable not in itself, but only to the extent that it served Christian Truth, protecting it from “infidels”, preserving the true faith, embodying this faith culturally, socially, etc. In other words, the true formula of this religious-national ideal is exactly the opposite of that with which one of the great Russian hierarchs in Soviet Russia – saying that “the church has always been with its people.” For the ideologues and thinkers of ancient Russia, however, the value of the people consisted precisely in the fact that the people were always with the Church. And precisely in this sphere of the national, where the voice of blood, of elemental and unenlightened feelings and emotions is so strong, it is so necessary to “stand guard” and discern the spirits – are they from God.
6. The disintegration of universal consciousness
At the same time, although in the history of the Church the “churching” of the new peoples has written so many pages of light and holiness, it is impossible to deny that simultaneously with it in Orthodoxy the disintegration of the universal consciousness has already begun. And this happened precisely as a result of the fact that in this era the question of the organization of the Church was posed not only ecclesiastically, but also politically and nationally. The main goal of each nation-state has become the acquisition of autocephaly at any cost, understood as the independence of the given national church from the old eastern centers and, above all, from Constantinople. We will repeat: the point here is not to blame or defend anyone. It can hardly be denied that the basis of this sad process is above all the degeneration of Byzantine universalism into Greek nationalism. It is important to understand that this semantic equating between autocephaly and independence is a typical phenomenon of a new spirit that appeared in the Church at that time and which testifies that the ecclesiastical consciousness has already begun to be determined from within by the state-national, instead of it itself defining and enlightening this state-national. The national and political categories were unconsciously transferred to the ecclesiastical structure, and the awareness that the forms of the ecclesiastical structure are determined not by these categories, but by the very essence of the Church as a divine-human organism has weakened.
(to be continued)
* “Church and church structure. About books prot. Polish Canonical position of the highest church authorities in the USSR and abroad” – In: Shmeman, A. Collection of articles (1947-1983), M.: “Русский пут” 2009, pp. 314-336; the text was originally published in: Church Gazette of the Western-European Orthodox Russian Exarchate, Paris, 1949.
Notes:
[15] Troitskyi, V. Cit. ibid., p. 52.
[16] Ibid., p. 58.
[17] A detailed exposition of this evolution in: Bolotov, V.V. Lectures on the History of the Church, 3, St. Petersburg. 1913, pp. 210 ff.; Gidulyanov, P. Metropolitans in the first three centuries of Christianity, M. 1905; Myshtsin, V. Structure of the Christian Church in the first two centuries, St. Petersburg. 1909; Suvorov, N. Church Law Course, 1, 1889, p. 34 ff.
[18] See: The Rules of the Holy Orthodox Church with their interpretations, 1, p. 591; 2, p. 195 (trans. note).
[19] Literally, the text of the rule reads: “The Bishop of Constantinople shall have priority in honor after the Bishop of Rome, because this city is a new Rome” (Rules of the Holy Orthodox Church with their interpretations, 1, p. 386). The words quoted by the author are from the text of Rule 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451), which confirms and complements the meaning of Rule 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council: Ibid., pp. 633-634 (trans. note).
[20] On this issue: Bolotov, V. Cit. op. cit., pp. 223 ff. and Barsov, T. Patriarchate of Constantinople and ego power over the Russian Church, St. Petersburg. 1878.
[21] The rules of the Holy Orthodox Church with their interpretations, 1, p. 378 (trans. note).
[22] Ibid., p. 535 (trans. note).
[23] For this ideal and its sources, see: Kartashev, A. “Судьбы Святий Руси” – In: Православная мысл, Труды Правословного богословского института в Париже, 1, 1928, p. 140 ff. See also my work “Судьбы бизантийской теократии ” – Ibid., 5, 1948, pp. 130-147.
Translation of this article by Fr. Alexander in: Christianity and Culture, 4, 2009, pp. 52-70 (note trans.).
[24] Cyprian (Kern), archim. Father Antonin Kapustin (Archimandrite and Head of the Russian Spiritual Mission in Jerusalem), Belgrade 1934, p. 76.
[25] On the history of this struggle: Golubinskii, E. Brief outline of the histories of the Правословних Церквей Болгарской, Ребской и Руменской, M., 1871; Lebedev, A. P. History of the Greco-Eastern Churches under Turkish rule, 1-2, Sergiev Posad, 1896; Radožić, N. “St. Savva and autocephaly Tserkvei Serbskoi i Bolgarskoi” – In: Glasnik Serbskoi Akademii Nauk, 1939, pp. 175-258; Barsov, T. Cit. same
A year ago, Russian Orthodox Church’s Patriarch Kirill had congratulated Gorbachev for his 90th birthday. But that was before the war. When the last President of the Soviet Union passed away a few days ago, Kirill remained silent, offering no condolences, and issuing no statement. That does not seem to be a mistake.
In fact, the hardliners of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) have a grudge against Gorbachev. That might seem weird, when you know he is the one who put an end to 70 years of repression (with ups and downs) of the Orthodox believers in the Soviet Union. In 1988, Gorbachev had a 90 minute meeting with Patriarch Pimen, where he acknowledged the Soviet Union’s mistakes toward the church and promised a new era of religious freedom. And he fulfilled his promise.
But even before enacting the famous law on religious freedom in 1990, Gorbachev extended the Russian leniency to more than only the Russian Orthodox Church. In December 1989, he met with the Pope John-Paul II (that was a premiere) and promised that the Soviet Union would guarantee freedom of religion at home. “People of many confessions, including Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and others live in the Soviet Union. All of them have a right to satisfy their spiritual needs,” Gorbachev said that day. The word “others” was definitely an open door for many religious denominations, and a vision that has been the nightmare of Putin’s regime, justifying a part of the hate they vow today to Mikhail Gorbachev.
Gorbachev was an atheist, even if baptized as an Orthodox when he was a kid. But his willingness to allow religious freedom in the Union gave birth to rumors that he was a Catholic. Even the then US President Reagan had speculated that Gorby could have been a “closet believer”. Whilst it could have been a compliment for Reagan, that was not the case in the Soviet Union, where political leaders and members of the party had to be atheists, or else. But for the ROC, being suspected of Catholicism is worse than being an atheist. Finally, in 2008, Gorbachev had to confirm to Interfax that he was an atheist: “”To sum up and avoid any misunderstandings, let me say that I have been and remain an atheist,” he stated.
A new law guarantying freedom of religion
In 1990, he signed the new law guarantying freedom of religion in the Union. This law, the “law on Freedom of religion”, adopted by the Supreme Court of USSR, has created a real breath of fresh air into which numerous religious movements from the West have rushed. That was too much for the ROC. While it allowed the ROC to increase their assets by millions and grow as never before for the last 70 years, they could not bear the arrival of potential competitors, and could not imagine that they would have to stand on an equal footing with all these “false prophets”, whether they were Catholics, evangelicals, Jehovah Witnesses or belonging to any of the thousand “sects” that started expanding in the country.
For these reasons, the Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and his fellow Orthodox apparatchiks fought for a new law that they even drafted, and that Yeltsin passed in 1997. That was the end of religious freedom for all in Russia, and the ROC got all the protection and privileges it wanted at once. Since that date, new laws added to this one, restricting even further the religious liberty in Russia, which now is about to become a serious China’s competitor as regards religious repression.
For the ROC, freedom of religion is Western decadence
You then understand why Gorby did not receive any attention from Patriarch Kirill when he passed away. I guess Gorbachev does not care very much. Nevertheless, now that Kirill has been one of the most forceful defendants of the Russian war in Ukraine, justifying it with metaphysical considerations, he could definitely not be nice to the one who granted freedom to all the Western “cults” that he believes are the forces behind of the Maidan revolution in Ukraine, and that are a threat to the ROC hegemony in the former soviet Union area. Russian Nationalists, or should I say, “Russian world” nationalists, hate the West, so they hate Gorbachev for having opened the door to believers in Western born religions. They praise freedom when it’s granted to them and believe that others do not deserve it.
We believe freedom of religion for all is a universal right. They believe it’s decadence. Or they believe in their own profits, and do not want to share. Whatever reason is behind, Gorby was not the good guy for them. Putin believes he sold the Union. Kirill believes he sold the religious landscape of the Great Russia. In fact, Gorbachev sold nothing. He gave some freedom to his people, and that, whatever will happen during the next years, will stay and even come back further. As people of Russia tasted freedom of religion, and they will forever remember that it is possible, desirable, and finally vital to live a free and plain life.
The unknown predecessor of Leonardo da Vinci from our lands saw the biblical plot “The Last Supper” in a different way, which makes the temple extremely valuable for world culture
The only fresco of its kind, depicting the forging of the nails for the Crucifixion, can be seen in the Zemen Monastery (painted in the 14th century), reports the Regional Administration – Pernik, quoted by BTA.
The church is the only cross-domed temple in Bulgaria with a cubic shape – 9 by 9 by 9 meters. When entering from the vestibule to the altar, an inscribed cross in a square is formed. The dome of the church is also an inscribed square. The frescoes date from the 14th century, although earlier iconography is not excluded. “St. John the Theologian” is also unique with the only wall painting in our country – the forging of the nails for the cross of Christ. This fresco is nowhere to be found in temples and monumental painting, neither in the East nor in the West.
The frescoes in the monastery church “St. John the Theologian” tell about the way of Jesus to Calvary. The unknown predecessor of Leonardo da Vinci from our lands saw the biblical plot “The Last Supper” in a special way.
On it, Christ is depicted twice, with two images – one Christ hands the bread, the other pours the wine. The “Double Christ” cannot be seen anywhere else. This different reading makes the temple extremely valuable for world culture.
One can talk for a long time about the interesting interpretations of the famous biblical scenes in the frescoes of the monastery, about a number of unique motifs from the life and being of people, about the authenticity and development of faith, but it is better to see them live. Today the complex includes two buildings, a bell tower and a church. On its territory there are centuries-old trees with beautiful trunks and huge crowns. The sense of calm and peace with yourself and the world here is remarkable. The Zemensky monastery is not inhabited by monks and has been turned into a museum. On March 5, 1966 The Zemen church has been declared a monument of Bulgarian architecture and painting, and the Zemen monastery – a national museum, which since 2004 has been a branch of the National History Museum. It has been declared a monument under the protection of UNESCO.
At the foot of the north-eastern slope of Risha Mountain, on a beautiful terrace, a unique pearl is nestled – one of the most valuable monuments of the Middle Ages – the Zemensky Monastery “St. John the Theologian”. The crystalline waters of a large spring bubble up next to the monastery. Located only about 80 km. from the city of Sofia, near the city of Zemen at the foot of the Konyavska mountain, the Zemen monastery enchants with its timelessness and beauty. It is not as big and as famous as the Rila Monastery or the Bachkovo Monastery, but just like them, it hides unsuspected secrets and treasures within itself. It has magic, history, faith. On August 9, 1909 Zemen railway station is solemnly opened. Many people from the capital and cultural figures visit Zemensko and discover the uniqueness of the Zemensko monastery, its wonderful wall paintings, the work of an unknown local artist from the Middle Ages.
Prof. Yordan Ivanov made the first publication about the Earthly Church, with which he announced to the country and the world about the existence of a hitherto unknown and valuable historical monument from the 14th century. The Zemenska Church rivals in value the Boyana Church in Sofia, built in 1259. In-depth studies prove that the church in Zemen dates back not to the XIV, but to the XI century. It was repeatedly burned. The phenomenal thing is that the monastery fence, the monastery building was demolished and rebuilt many times, but the church with the frescoes was not destroyed and survived for more than 7 centuries. From the studies of the monastery archives, it is clear that the church was strengthened in 1830 and 1860. A major architectural restoration of the church was carried out in 1968. Complete conservation of the frescoes was carried out in 1970-1974. under the leadership of Bonka Ilieva. During the conservation, it was discovered that under the frescoes from the 14th century there is an older layer of frescoes, which refers to the monumental art of the 12th-13th centuries. The frescoes from the first painting layer belong to the second half of the 11th century. The popularity of the monument is due not only to the interesting architectural solution, but also to the remarkable wall paintings with biblical scenes. The altar is made of a stone monolith, and the floor is made of multi-colored stone slabs and antique bricks. The Zemlenska church is also another proof that the Zemlengrad fortress existed on these lands at the beginning of the 13th century, and it was rich and significant for its time. The founders of the church were the Earthly ruler Despot Deyan and his wife Doya. Their portraits decorate the walls of the monastery and are one of the earliest portraits of Bulgarian boyars and of the greatest artistic value, like the images of Sevastokrator Kaloyan and Desislava from the Boyana church.
The frescoes of the church are painted with great skill and elegance. The paints with which the earthly artist used to keep the murals so vivid and colorful for so many centuries remain a mystery. From the first mural layer, the most preserved is the depiction of “Rejecting the Gifts of Joachim and Anna”. The painting is divided into four zones. To the right of the entrance are the inscribed portraits of the founders of Despod Deyan and Doya and their family. They are unique, because only in the Boyan Church and in the Zemen Monastery in the times of Medieval Scholasticism were living people drawn, and not only saints and icons. It was revolutionary for its time and heralded the Renaissance. Their images are a valuable source for the clothes and ornaments of the boyars from the beginning of the 14th century. The most impressive is the image of Doya – a young woman, with beautiful expressive eyes, dressed in a red tunic with long lace sleeves, with a white veil on her head and a crown. Above the heads is the founder’s inscription “This temple was written, dedicated to St. John the Theologian with the favor of Despod Deyan. All inscriptions in the church are in Old Bulgarian literary language.
Illustration: The unique fresco depicting the forging of the nails for the Crucifixion, with the “Double Christ”, preserved in the Zemen Monastery (Photo: Regional Administration – Pernik) / BTA
Rita Ora returned to her native Albania on Monday to meet the “most vulnerable children” at a community center in Tirana.
The 31-year-old performer, who is a UNICEF ambassador, was born in Kosovo. She visited the “House of Colors”, which offers a whole range of services for children and their families, including an emergency shelter.
The singer delighted downtown residents by taking time out of her busy schedule to show off her baking skills. She gripped the rolling pin tightly and got involved in cooking a traditional Albanian burek.
She left her mark both visually and physically, from her hand on the wall of the asylum.
Rita Ora was also awarded the “Naim Frasheri” order, which was presented to her by the President of Albania, Bayram Begai. It is awarded to Albanians and foreign citizens for their valuable works and activities in science, art and culture. She went to the ceremony with her father.
“There are some things in life that you never forget, this trip will be one of them. Today was an unreal day. I had the great honor to be awarded the Naim Frasheri Order by the President of Albania Mr. Bayram Begai. Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart,” wrote the singer on Instagram.
