As part of the family, the dog deserves a vacation no less than we do. Instead of searching for the best pet-friendly hotels, plan your trip so that your friend is part of the adventure. There are many opportunities, and some that are a great opportunity to discover a new destination.
Europe is the best and closest choice, whether by car, camper or by plane, you can always experience memorable emotions.
Remember that your pet must be vaccinated, dewormed, microchipped and have a passport. This is quite enough to carelessly indulge in the journey. Keep in mind that if you’ve decided to visit museums and cultural centers, this can’t happen with your dog, but you’ll find so many other different ways to entertain yourself.
Ireland and Scotland
The Irish don’t just love dogs – they adore them. It is no coincidence that they also have a breed – the Irish Wolfhound. The blissfully gentle giant is an ancient breed that existed in Ireland as far back as the 4th century. Even just this short canine reference can give you an idea of what to expect in terms of treatment for your furry pet. There are even tour operators here that specialize in finding the best for your dog. Special insurances are also available. Everywhere you will be well received and appreciate the Irish spirit. The Scots also offer excellent opportunities. Besides hotels and restaurants, you can even visit the castles with your dog. Mandatory with a leash, and if it is of a larger breed, with a muzzle. In Norway, you can enjoy endless expanses and routes worthy of any adventurer
Switzerland
It is among the most dog-friendly. Most of the owners of the hotels and apartments for rent do not mind having a four-legged guest. The only requirement is that you have made a reservation in advance. Restaurants, except those with a Michelin star, will also welcome you. If you choose Bern, you will enjoy opportunities for long walks around the city and its surroundings. Lake Yoshinen is 66 kilometers from the capital. It is mesmerizingly beautiful and worth a visit. Every other city in Switzerland will also offer you its hospitality.
Norway
There isn’t a dog or a person here that doesn’t feel at home wherever they come from. Norwegians value our friends and want them to be as well as we do. If the dog is on a leash, you have followed all the important regulations for deworming and vaccination, you can be together almost anywhere. In Norway, your dog will be the ruler of the forest. Endless expanses and routes worthy of any adventurer.
Italy and France
They are always the perfect travel option. And when you head out with your pet, there’s nothing to worry about. Italians are not as affectionate towards dogs as the Irish, but they are wonderful companions, even on four legs. This means they will enjoy your dog as much as they welcome you. And if you decide to leave him for an hour or two at the hotel, they’ll make sure he’s not bored. The Abruzzo region, for example, is the perfect destination for you and your dog. It’s only a little over an hour’s drive from Rome, and it’s not that well known to tourists. There are three national parks in the region. The trails are great for long walks and you can enjoy the architecture of the small Italian villages. If you don’t have a car, the train is the most convenient transport, and dogs are allowed. Local hotels don’t mind accommodating you and your dog. In Italy, there is also a culinary surprise for your pet that will not be offered anywhere else – ice cream for dogs. In almost all gelaterias, he can try different flavors. In France, you can even take your dog to the beach and try specialties together at one of the chic restaurants along the Seine if you choose Paris. The Abruzzo region is the perfect destination for you and your pet
Germany and Austria
Both countries have excellent options for dogs, in every city. You can travel in public transport, visit the parks and gardens of some of the palaces. Every restaurant and bar will take care of your pet by giving you a bowl of water, others also offer food. In Austria, dogs are equal citizens. Once they have documents, they also have rights. They can enter stores, even some of the big grocery chains. If you use the subway, your dog must be muzzled.
Barcelona is one of the dog friendly cities. Your dog can safely travel on public transport, be with you on the beach and swim freely without being penalized. Dogs are welcome in the restaurants.
Recognized already in pre-revolutionary Russia, Rachmaninov and in the West after emigration quickly became popular and in demand: tour, big fees, attention of the public and the press. But if you get to know his fate closer, it becomes clear: behind this external success story lies a completely different story, full of pain of parting with his native land, loneliness among strangers and at the same time – inexhaustible faith. To God and Russia.
“I am a Russian composer,” Rachmaninov said about himself, “my Motherland determined my temperament and worldview. My music is the brainchild of my temperament, so it is Russian.”
Condensed milk from the maestro
Early twenties of the twentieth century. In the USSR, devastation and famine. Composer Mikhail Slonov asked his friend to pick up a parcel at the post office: 49 pounds of flour (1 pound is almost half a kilo), 25 pounds of rice, 3 pounds of tea, 10 pounds of fat, 10 pounds of sugar, 20 cans of condensed milk … In total, about 53 kilograms. The post office clerk was surprised: “Who is this Rachmaninoff? Is he going to feed half of Moscow?!
Pianist Elena Gnesina recalled: “Rakhmaninov began to help Moscow musicians through the American organization APA, sending food parcels. Some of them came to my address for transfer to other persons, including A.T. Grechaninov and others whom I do not remember. But one day a double package arrived for me personally. I was very pleased with Sergey Vasilievich’s attention to me and I was happy that I could treat the entire staff of our school to a satisfying meal. I remember that we drank coffee with condensed milk, ate white pies and sweet buns. Everyone was happy and infinitely grateful to Rachmaninov.”
Sergey Vasilievich sent 20-30 such parcels monthly. He fed and provided money for poets and writers, musicians and artists. Stanislavsky, before the 1922 tour of the Moscow Art Theater began in Europe and America, like everyone who was starving in Moscow, signed for receiving humanitarian assistance from Rachmaninov: “I certify that the products I received will be used by me personally and will not be sold or exchanged.”
“I lost myself”
Parting with Russia became a bleeding wound for Sergei Rachmaninov, from which he could not recover until his last days.
By nature, closed, sensitive, prone to depression, at first he did not communicate with foreigners abroad, he surrounded himself exclusively with Russian people and practically did not come into contact with the “outside world”. He was in pain and hard.
The departure divided his life into two halves not only geographically, but also creatively: in 25 years in Russia, the composer created 3 concerts, 3 operas, 2 symphonies, 80 romances, the poems “The Bells” and “Isle of the Dead”, “The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom”, “All-Night Vigil” and much more. And when he left, he was silent for many years. In total, in exile, he wrote 6 works, and 4 were started in Russia.
“Having lost my homeland, I lost myself. The exile, who has lost his musical roots, the traditions of his native soil, has no desire to create, no other consolation remains, except for the indestructible silence … memories, ”he wrote.
What was Russia for him? What was his heart aching about? Of course, about the places where he grew up, where he received the most vivid and deep impressions in his childhood and youth. About loved ones. About language and culture… But not only. Russia for Rachmaninoff was inextricably linked with the Orthodox faith. It is no coincidence that he considered the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom” and “All-Night Vigil”.
Four silver weeping notes
“For the strongest musical impressions, I have to thank my grandmother,” Sergei Vasilyevich recalled. At the age of nine, Seryozha Rachmaninov entered the junior department of the St. Petersburg Conservatory. In the capital, he lived in a strange family, but for the holidays, his grandmother-godmother Sofya Alexandrovna Butakova took him to Veliky Novgorod.
She was a deeply religious woman, she took her grandson to church, gave communion, took her to the monastery, where there was a good choir. There, the boy, most likely, first heard about the canons of osmosis – “angelic singing”, as they called it in Russia.
In his grandmother’s house, he often heard old songs and chants, which she knew by heart. Seryozha also met the collector of Russian epics, the harpist Trofim Ryabinin. And in the mornings, the shepherd drove the flock past the grandmother’s house, playing on the birch bark.
And, of course, bells. Not far from the grandmother’s house was the temple of Theodore Stratilates, and a familiar sexton allowed Serezha to climb the bell tower. The future composer soon began to understand the ringing, the names of bells, distinguished them by their voices.
He especially remembered the chime of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral. “The bell ringers were artists,” he recalled, “four notes formed a repeating theme again and again, four weeping silver notes surrounded by an incessantly changing accompaniment … A few years later I composed a suite for two pianos … – the Sofiysky bell again sang to me cathedral.”
For the rest of his life, the composer kept in his memory the ancient Novgorod znamenny chant. And the four bell tones of Novgorod Sophia – gentle, cheerful, plaintive, formidable – sounded in his piano sonata No. 2 and the symphony-poem “The Bells”.
Rachmaninoff’s friend, composer Alexander Gedike, wrote: “He was very fond of church singing and often, even in winter, got up at seven o’clock in the morning and left for the Andronikov Monastery, where he stood in the dim huge church for a whole mass, listening to the ancient, stern chants from Oktoikh, performed by parallel monks. fifths. It made a strong impression on him.”
In 1910, Sergei Rachmaninov wrote music for the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. And five years later he completed the All-Night Vigil, his greatest creation on the themes of ancient chants of the Znamenny chant.
The first performance of the All-Night Vigil by the Synodal Choir under the direction of Nikolai Danilin took place in March 1915 in Moscow. The success was stunning. The well-known critic Florestan (Vladimir Derzhanovsky) wrote: “Perhaps never before has Rachmaninoff come so close to the people, their style, their soul, as in this work. Or maybe it is this work that speaks of the expansion of his creative flight, of the capture of new areas of the spirit by him and, consequently, of the true evolution of his strong talent.
And the Japanese pianist Sadakatsu Tsuchida, who converted to Orthodoxy, said: “Rakhmaninov is a huge wealth. In his work there is the spirit of Orthodoxy, there is the power of the Resurrection, Russia, kindness, a merciful view of the world, the memory of eternity.
Ivanovka and its inhabitants
The fatherland of Rachmaninov is, first of all, Holy Russia, believing, prayerful. But this is also a specific place, about which Sergei Vasilyevich himself wrote in exile: “Living in Russia, I constantly strove for Ivanovka. Hand on heart, I must say that I still aspire to go there.
We are talking about the estate in the Tambov province, which belonged to Rachmaninov’s aunt and mother-in-law, Varvara Satina. In his youth, having quarreled with his teacher, Professor Zverev, with whom he lived on a full board, he found refuge in the Satin family, and later married his cousin Natalia Satin and became the de facto owner of the estate.
Until 1917, all the funds that he earned from concerts and received from the publication of his works, Sergei Vasilyevich invested in Ivanovka: he built new cowsheds there, repaired the horse yard, barns, brought equipment and new breeds of livestock … More than once he helped the peasants with the housework built a local school in the village.
And in 1913, when both daughters of Rachmaninov fell ill and the doctors were already preparing their parents for the fact that the girls would not survive, a miracle happened: Ira and Tanya suddenly recovered. And in gratitude for the fact that God gave children life, the gentlemen gave the peasants of Ivanovka 209 acres of land.
The last time Rachmaninoff visited Ivanovka was in 1917.
“Leave, master, from sin!”
It was spring. The Provisional Government for the first time introduced firm, directive prices for bread when purchasing it for army needs. And fermentation was already going on among the peasants: deserters incited them to plunder, the seeds were stolen, the sowing campaign was practically disrupted.
When they came to Sergei Vasilyevich from the village, he answered questions about the land for a long time, about who now controls Russia. Then everyone dispersed peacefully. But soon several old men returned and began to persuade the master not to linger in Ivanovka, they say, they often come here “some, Lord knows who, stir up the people, get drunk”: “Go away, master, from sin!”
But he spent so much energy, invested so much money in Ivanovka, helped local residents for years! Where does this cruelty come from?
He was never on the estate again. I wanted to give it to the peasants, but there were big debts on Ivanovka … And after the October Revolution, the estate was simply expropriated.
“Now the word ‘freedom’ sounds like a mockery!”
Rachmaninoff, like many thinking creative people in Russia, greeted the February Revolution with restrained optimism – like a wind of change … He transferred all the funds from the very first concert to the needs of the army. And then he gave two more concerts in favor of the front.
However, enthusiasm soon gave way to confusion: something clearly went wrong and in the wrong direction … Rachmaninov did not categorically accept the Second Revolution. “Even under Nicholas II, I felt freer than now, but now the word “freedom” sounds like a mockery!” he wrote. Back in March, the composer tried to go abroad. Then it didn’t work out. And in December, he suddenly received permission to leave and six months later, with his wife and two daughters, he left Russia.
Formally, it was a tour – he had scheduled performances in Copenhagen, Oslo and Stockholm. There he received several offers from America and emigrated to the United States. He was 44 years old. Rachmaninov never returned home, but all his later life in a foreign land passed with an eye on Russia.
New life
In America, he was offered the position of chief conductor of two of the best American orchestras, but Rachmaninoff decided to give up his career as a conductor. But America applauded him as a virtuoso pianist. He played great! At first, he was paid fees like ordinary guest performers – $ 500 per performance. But soon they began to pay 1000, 2000, 3000 dollars…
In 1922, Rachmaninov was able to buy a mansion on the banks of the Hudson. And he began to give about a third of his earnings to charity. And it all started with those same parcels with flour and condensed milk for friends and strangers – everyone who asks. Only a very narrow circle of people knew about the scale of assistance that Rakhmaninov provided: the personal secretary who transferred money, the person who compiled the lists of those in need, and family members. To the rest, the maestro seemed to be a closed snob, not shy about raising the bar of fees by signing new contracts. Who knows where these fees went …
“I believe in you and your plane”
Rachmaninoff performed at charity concerts both in the USA and in Europe, paid for the studies of personal scholarship holders, helped compatriots get jobs, provided orders for artists and sculptors, and bought Russian paintings. He was a member of charitable organizations helping Russian emigrant students in France and Germany, donated the proceeds from concerts to help needy Russian musicians, and transferred money to specific addresses. For example, the inventor Igor Sikorsky.
Sikorsky lived in New York and actually begged. There was little interest in airplanes at that time: there was a crisis in America. Igor Ivanovich designed his first planes literally in a chicken coop. There was no money at all.
Once Sikorsky was at a Rachmaninoff concert at Carnegie Hall. After the concert, he ran backstage with flowers in delight and … asked for help. Rachmaninov recognized him, was deeply moved: “I believe in you and your plane and I want to help!” And, without hesitation, he gave him the entire fee for his performance – $ 5,000 in an envelope: “Return when you can!” (According to another version, the composer simply bought shares of Sikorsky’s company for $5,000 and agreed to become its vice president. The risky financial transaction eventually paid off: Sikorsky’s design bureau soon gained momentum, and the inventor was able to return the money even with interest).
Another illustrative example of targeted assistance is associated with the Committee for Assistance to Russian Students in Emigration. Rachmaninoff regularly helped the Committee, and once wrote a letter there: “I heard that in France there are boarding houses in which the maintenance of one child a year costs 150 dollars. If the information is correct, then I would like to take care of one child and would be grateful if you would choose him for me and send information – his name, age and a short biography. After that, I will send you a check.”
The French immediately sent Sergey Vasilyevich a photo of Pavel Milovanov, a student of the Faculty of Chemistry at Sofia University. A capable young man became the first Rachmaninoff scholarship holder. Sergei Vasilievich annually transferred $150 to him and then, during his internship in France, he was interested in his fate. Rachmaninov also had other scholarship holders.
“Leave me alone!”
Rachmaninoff was able to provide for his family: he bought houses, rented a summer house near New York, at the end of his life he acquired land in Switzerland near Lucerne and built a villa there. The new estate was named “Senar” – Sergei and Natalia Rachmaninoff. But in his habits he was modest.
When he first moved to the US, a music critic asked him why he dresses so modestly. Sergei Vasilievich shrugged his shoulders: “No one here knows me anyway…” Years passed. Glory came, fees increased. The same critic asked why the maestro did not dress better. “Why? Rachmaninoff was surprised. “Everyone knows me anyway…”
All his life, the composer was worried that his piano playing interfered with his neighbors and in hotels he always booked exclusively corner rooms.
Intelligent and punctual to the extreme, he was never late for anything. A principled opponent of self-promotion, he refused to communicate with journalists and critics, did not go to pompous banquets and receptions. Once, on tour in a small American town, an ubiquitous photojournalist literally stuck to him at the station, but Rakhmaninov ran away from the paparazzi. During lunch in a restaurant, he was again nearby. The composer, in despair, covered his face with his hands: “Please, leave me alone!” The evening paper came out with a photograph accompanied by the caption: “Hands That Worth a Million.”
Bullying
For fourteen years in exile, Sergei Vasilievich avoided politics – his mother and brother remained in Soviet Russia, and he did not want trouble for them.
But in 1931 Rabindranath Tagore visited the Soviet Union. Impressed by the “Soviet experiment”, he shared his observations in an interview with the American press. The Russian emigration reacted violently: a collective letter was drawn up, which was signed by many celebrities, including Rachmaninov. True to himself, he could not accept the praise of a system that grinds human destinies in the millstones of repression.
The letter, published in The New York Times, was blunt. At first, the Soviet Union did not react in any way. But then Rachmaninov’s symphonic poem “The Bells” was performed in the Great Hall of the Moscow Conservatory, and it began … The magazine “For Proletarian Music” published an accusatory article “Let’s repulse the sortie of reaction”, where Rachmaninov and Balmont (the author of the translation of Edgar Poe’s poem “The Bells” ) were called “sworn enemies of the Soviet regime” and “fascist white émigrés”.
Further – more: articles, statements, minutes of meetings poured in as if from a cornucopia. “An attempt to rally and organize the hostile forces of reaction”, “a hardened enemy of the Soviet government”, “White Guard Rakhmaninov”, “counter-revolutionary speech” … The logical conclusion of the persecution was the ban on performing and publishing the works of “the singer of Russian merchants, wholesalers and bourgeois”. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kyiv, Odessa conservatories called for a boycott of Rachmaninov’s music… The only one who did not participate in the general hysteria was the conductor of the Bolshoi Theater Nikolai Golovanov: at his own peril and risk, he continued to perform Rachmaninov’s works.
“From one of the Russians”
And then the war began. And Rachmaninoff stepped over himself: he still did not like the Bolsheviks and did not accept Soviet power, but decided that the fate of his country was more important than ideological differences. It was important for him to help the Russian people defeat Nazism, which he hated with all his heart.
When the Nazis invaded the USSR, Rachmaninov set a condition: the entire collection from every third concert goes to the fund for helping the Soviet Union.
On June 28, 1941, the composer addressed the Russian emigrants: “Regardless of their attitude to Bolshevism and Stalin, true patriots of Russia must help their Fatherland defeat the aggressors.” In certain circles, he was even nicknamed “Red”.
One of the first checks sent to the Soviet consul in New York, Rachmaninov accompanied by a letter: “This is the only way I can express my sympathy for the suffering of the people of my native land over the past few months.” And he commented on another donation as follows: “From one of the Russians – all possible assistance to the Russian people in their struggle against the enemy. I want to believe, I believe in complete victory.
He traveled with concerts throughout the United States and Canada, transferring tens of thousands of dollars to the American Fund for Relief of the Soviet Union. Rachmaninov’s money was used to purchase medicines for the Soviet army. The Soviet authorities also softened in their attitude towards the composer. They even thanked “for what you are doing for our common Motherland.” And they assured that “true patriots will always be provided with freedom of life and creativity in our country.”
Evidence remained that Rachmaninov wanted to attend charity concerts in Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. He began to write the Stalingrad Symphony, was going to announce his return to the USSR, and even met with the Soviet ambassador to the United States, asked for a visa, and supposedly Molotov himself, while on a visit to the United States in the summer of 1942, approved his request. A year later, on his seventieth birthday, the composer received a congratulatory telegram from ten Soviet composers.
Maybe everything would work out. But … In 1943, the state of health of Sergei Vasilyevich deteriorated sharply, doctors discovered cancer.
In recent days, Rachmaninoff, rarely regaining consciousness, asked his wife to read him reports from the Russian front. And, having learned about the victory at Stalingrad, he whispered: “Thank God!”
A few days before his seventieth birthday, on March 27, 1943, he took communion in the morning and at night, without regaining consciousness, quietly died.
The word “icon” has a primarily sacred meaning for us today. This is what we call a pictorial representation of the Holy Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Mother of God, the angels and saints, and also the events of sacred history, drawn in accordance with church canons and consecrated.
By the way, in the ancient Greek language the word ἡ εἰκών (eikōn), from which our word “icon” is derived, did not denote sacred objects. In Russian (and also in Bulgarian – note translation) it is translated as “image”, “image”, “similarity”, “comparison”.
This was the name given to any painting or artistic image, even statues. This ancient Greek word is cognate with the verb ἔοικα (eoika) – “I am similar”, “resemble”, “suitable”, “suitable”. In Byzantium, after the adoption of Christianity, the ancient Greek word ἡ εἰκών (eikōn) was transformed into ἡ εἰκόνα (ikona), and this word began to designate the church’s sacred images, i.e. the icons.
In the second century, the images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the saints and the events of sacred history appeared. And already by the fourth century, the walls of many of the temples were painted with picturesque images.
However, as is known, icon veneration in the Church is not easily established. In the 8th – 9th centuries in Byzantium, the heresy of iconoclasm – ἡ εἰκονομαχία (ikonomahia) became widespread.
Her followers, among whom there are also Byzantine emperors and even patriarchs, believe that the worship of icons violates the Second Commandment of God: “You shall not make for yourself an idol or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on earth below or that is in the water underground; do not bow down to them and do not serve them…” (Ex. 20:4-5).
We should mention that the heresy of iconoclasm arose partly as a response to the extremes of popular icon veneration, which by this time was beginning to degenerate into superstition. I.e. like many other heresies, iconoclasm was actually a completely wrong way out of the wrong situation that was created at the time. In this period, for example, the custom of taking icons as children’s adopters (godparents), mixing icon paint into wine for Holy Communion, etc. was widespread.
Iconoclasts justify their fight against icons by saying that we should not worship “something made by hands”. In the course of the theological disputes on this topic, the defenders of icon veneration formulate that we should worship icons and kiss them, but not serve them, because only God is fit to serve: “We can worship not only God, because worship is an expression of respect, but we should serve no one but God”.
We may also worship the Cross, the Gospel, other holy places, but not serve them. The icon is an image of the First Image, and “the honor which is given to the image ascends to the First Image; and he who worships the icon, in fact worships the person (hypostasis) of what is depicted on it”.
Interestingly, the heresy of iconoclasm combines two extremes: extreme spiritualism and prosaic worldly interests. On the one hand, in the words of the iconoclasts, the Deity is completely indescribable and it should not be “insulted by wordless and dead matter”. On the other hand, the heresy of iconoclasm also received support for state-political, purely secular reasons, under the conditions of the Byzantine Empire’s struggle against monasticism. The monks had no intention of abandoning icon veneration, and the emperors Leo III Isaurus (717-741) and Constantine V Copronymus (718-775) thought that the monasteries attracted too many material resources and people who could serve the empire in her many wars against the barbarians.
And perhaps there would not be such ferocity in the fight against the icons if the question about them was not related to material and state interests. The iconoclast emperors, fighting against monasticism, simultaneously became fierce against icons. By the way, the real support in the fight against the “iconoclasts” the iconoclasts receive precisely from the Byzantine army and the military.
It got to the point where the most zealous and cruel iconoclasts destroyed the monasteries and killed the monks who refused to “put on white clothes and marry immediately”.
Under Emperor Constantine Kopronimus in Constantinople, “no trace of monastic robes can be seen, they all hid.” This causes a huge monastic emigration. According to historians’ calculations, no less than 50,000 monks fled to Italy alone.
However, the fierce struggle against icons, which in many ways is being waged because of the secularization of public life and culture and because of worldly interests, leads to a significant impoverishment of culture. Icons representing remarkable works of art were destroyed, and the walls of churches were painted with images of birds and plants, the artistic value of which was immeasurably lower.
A.V. Kartashev in “History of the Ecumenical Councils” writes about the “hypocritical and false argument of the iconoclasts”, which calls “to leave all knowledge and art, given by God for His glory”. The iconoclasts reject “in principle all knowledge, all theology, and all human thought and word – as tools for expressing dogmas. This is not only hypocritical, feigned barbarism, but also simply dualism, denying the sanctity of all material things. The Seventh Ecumenical Council orthodoxly rises against this hidden heresy of monophysitism and dualism, and defends together with art “all knowledge and art as given by God for His glory”. In this way, the enlightened liberalism of the iconoclasts turns out to be obscurantism, and the theology of the Seventh Ecumenical Council – the deepest and indisputable blessing of science and culture”.
In 754, an iconoclast council was held, which condemned the veneration of icons. This council anathematized the Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople and the Venerable John Damascene, who were staunch supporters of icon veneration. Although the council claimed ecumenical status, its decisions were later rejected by the Church.
The Seventh Ecumenical Council held in 787 confirmed the dogma of icon veneration. And in 843, another church council took place, which confirmed all the creeds of the Seventh Ecumenical Council and established an order of proclamation of eternal memory of the zealots of Orthodoxy and anathematization of heretics. This rite is still performed in our Church on Orthodox Sunday (the First Sunday of Great Lent).
Note about the author: Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, senior researcher of the Philosophy Department of the Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INION RAN), researcher of the “Information Systems in Humanities Education” Laboratory of the Philosophical Faculty of Moscow State University, researcher of the magazine “Questions of Philosophy”.
Photo: Icon of Ever-Virgin Mother of God / Ikoni Mahnevi, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057324623799
The Serbian Orthodox Church has proven to be an unavoidable factor in the political and social processes of the last nearly three years in the small Adriatic republic of Montenegro. It all started in December 2019, when the ruling Democratic Party of Socialists (DPS) of Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic pushed through the local parliament the law on religious properties, which encroached on the property of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
The arguments of Djukanović and the government in Podgorica were that this act restores a historical justice connected with the end of the First World War, when not only Montenegro, but also its territory was forcibly annexed to the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slavs – Yugoslavia, and the Montenegrin Church is part of the Orthodox Church.
After the adoption of the law, the late Montenegrin Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church, Amfilochius, and his close assistant, Ep. Ioanikiy started holding daily litany processions throughout the territory of Montenegro, which had an open anti-government character. The protesters did not achieve the resignation of the then government of Duško Marković, but they succeeded in mobilizing everyone dissatisfied with the policies of Milo Djukanović, who ruled Montenegro for thirty years (with one brief exception of two years). And in the months before the regular parliamentary elections in 2020, they created a big front against him.
Thus, on August 30, 2020, Djukanović’s party was forced to step down from governing the country, because six deputies did not have the necessary forty-one votes in the Assembly out of a total of eighty and went into opposition. After several months of negotiations, the parties around Bishop Amfilohiy announced a coalition government, headed by the technocrat Prof. Zdravko Krivokapich. He himself was proposed by Amphilochius as a unifying figure for the opposition in the course of the elections. The SPC presented him as a believer who could return the controversial Law on Religions and Their Properties and restore the SPC’s place in Montenegro. However, Krivokapić’s government was never able to repeal the law due to the harsh actions of the opposition, which intensified the internal contradictions, and the partners against the rule of President Djukanović split into different camps.
Meanwhile, the influential local Metropolitan Amfilochius, a Montenegrin, died of COVID-19, and at his funeral, Serbian Patriarch Irinej contracted the disease and also died, leading to a change in the SPC. It was headed by the Zagreb-Ljubljana Metropolitan Porfiry, and in the Montenegrin-Primorska Diocese, the Metropolitan came to Ep. Ioannicius. And instead of looking for a normal solution to the problems between Montenegro and the Serbian Orthodox Church, in the fall of 2021 there was very serious tension because of the actions of the Serbian church elite to hold the enthronement of Ioanniki in Cetinje. Residents of the old Montenegrin capital Cetinje protested violently, blocking the road to the city, burning tires and erecting barricades for the enthronement of Ioannici as the new Serbian metropolitan.
Cetinje has always been considered the heart of Montenegrin statehood, which the country received after the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Ultimately, the enthronement caused tension in the Balkan state. Serbian Partiarch Porfirij and guests at the ceremony arrived in military helicopters provided by the government of Zdravko Krivokapic, which was a politically engineered product of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Montenegro, and this further raised tensions. The Serbian Orthodox Church has always perceived Montenegro as an irrevocable part of Serbia, and Montenegrin independence as a transitional element that sooner or later will be fixed and the old status quo will be restored. It will thus return either as part of Serbia or as a joint state with it, as it was until 2006, when it seceded in an internationally monitored referendum.
Many Serbian politicians in Belgrade have similar views, reaching a complete denial of Montenegrin statehood. In fact, Montenegro is central, along with the Bosnian Serbs, to plans to create a “Serbian world” in the Western Balkans along the lines of the “Russian world” promoted by the Kremlin authorities after the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
The political crisis in Montenegro led to the fall of the Krivokapić government and the creation of a new government headed by Dritan Abazović. Abazović’s desire to resolve the issue of the contract between Podgorica and the SOC led to his fall from power, as his biggest coalition partner, President Djukanović’s party, withdrew its confidence from the cabinet just four months after it was formed. According to supporters of the signing of the Basic Treaty between Montenegro and the Serbian Orthodox Church, this document formally ends decades of attacks against the only canonically recognized Orthodox Church in Montenegro. According to Prime Minister Abazović, the agreement with the SOC had to be signed in order to achieve two-thirds support and unblock reforms in the judicial system in Montenegro. Abazovic commented that anyone who wants destabilization is helping Russian influence in Montenegro and wants to “do what happened in Kosovo” in October, when local elections are scheduled in several municipalities, alluding to the blockades in the north of Kosovo.
In fact, Djukanovic spoke out against the treaty that Prime Minister Abazovic signed because it did not guarantee Montenegro’s sovereignty. In an interview with Autonomy, Djukanovic spoke quite categorically, saying that “SPC uses lies and commits historical falsifications. The SPC is the most sinister instrument of Great Serbian nationalism and Russian imperialism in the Balkans. The SPC participated in the theft of Montenegrin history”.
The SPC achieved its goal by signing the document with the authorities in Podgorica, but at too high a price – it plunged Montenegro into a serious political crisis. It is by no means certain that within the constitutional period of three months the parties in the Montenegrin parliament will agree to form a new government. But even if they succeed, it is not certain that it will last until 2024, when the regular parliamentary elections should be held. It is becoming increasingly clear that early parliamentary elections will be held in the country along with the local elections scheduled for October.
Apart from Serbia, Russia is also among the main opponents of Montenegro, because Podgorica complies with the policy of EU sanctions against Moscow due to its aggression in Ukraine. A month before it fell, Abazović’s government froze forty-four properties owned by Russian citizens in Montenegro. This was done as part of compliance with the EU sanctions regime imposed on Russia in connection with the war against Ukraine. According to local experts, Russian citizens and companies invested over 129 million euros in the Montenegrin economy last year, including 49.46 million euros in real estate that Russians bought there.
In the context of the war in Ukraine, the political instability in Montenegro is one part of the unclear political mosaic in the region that makes observers very wary. A few months ago, Montenegro and Bulgaria closed their airspace and prevented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov from visiting Belgrade, which angered Moscow, and ten days ago the Adriatic country declared a Russian diplomat from the embassy in Podgorica “persona non grata”.
Whether the SOC will continue to interfere in the public and political processes in Montenegro remains to be seen. And the policy of Belgrade is not much different from that of the SOC, because in recent years the Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has not visited Montenegro even once, which is taken as an attitude towards the actions of Podgorica towards the local Serbs. Belgrade actively supports the Serbs in Montenegro and has made it clear that it will not recognize the outcome of the upcoming census in the country in the fall if half of its inhabitants do not declare themselves Serbs and supporters of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which can be perceived as direct interference in its internal affairs. It is clear that Montenegro faces serious challenges both domestically and regionally, which heightens worrying expectations that the processes could spiral out of control.
On the eve of the new school year, the French Federation of Consumers UFC-Que Choisir is urging parents not to buy pens for their children because they contain a “cocktail of harmful ingredients”.
The association analyzed six categories of school supplies present in children’s kits: pens, erasable gel rollers, ink cartridges for pens, markers, felt-tip pens and colored pencils. Young users often stain their fingers with ink and tend to chew on their pencils and pens, putting them at risk of ingesting harmful substances that cause skin allergies, cancer or endocrine system disorders.
The inspection found that almost half of the tools analyzed contained potentially dangerous substances. The risk was taken seriously by the National Agency for Sanitary Safety (Anses) at the beginning of the summer, based on previous research by the consumer union, reports AFP. The agency’s experts have come to the conclusion that the necessary legislation is missing both at the French and at the European level. The agency is therefore recommending that school supplies regulations be brought into line with the much more restrictive toy regulations.
Truly vain by nature are all people who had no knowledge of God, who, out of visible perfections, could not know Jehovah, and, looking at the deeds, did not know the Creator, but revered for the gods that rule the world, or fire, or wind, or moving air , or the circle of stars, or stormy water, or celestial bodies. If, captivated by their beauty, they revered them as gods, then they should have known how much better their Lord is, for He, the Creator of beauty, created them. And if you marveled at their strength and action, you should have learned from them how much more powerful he is. Who created them; for from the greatness of the beauty of creatures, the Author of their being is comparatively known” (Wisdom 13, 1-5).
Heaven, earth, the sea – in a word, the whole world, this great and glorious book of God, in which God, preached by silence itself, is revealed, while this world stands firmly and at peace with itself, not protruding from the limits of its nature, while in it not a single creature rises up against another and breaks those bonds of love with which the Artist-Creative Word has tied everything, until then he lives up to his name and truly is the world (cosmos) ** and incomparable beauty, until then nothing can be imagined more glorious and greater than him. But with the cessation of the world (irini), the world (cosmos) also ceases to be the world (cosmos)… But when the substance in the world revolts against itself and, preparing destruction with its confusion, becomes indomitable, or when God, in fear and punishment for sinners, somewhat disturbs the orderly order either by a flood of the sea, or by an earthquake, or by extraordinary rains, or by the darkening of the sun, or by the duration of some season, or by an eruption of fire, then discord and fear spread over everything, and in the midst of confusion it is revealed how beneficent the world (irini). Saint Gregory the Theologian (11, 231-233).
The heavens, moving at his command, obey him in the world; day and night proceed in the course determined by them, without interfering with each other. The sun and the faces of the stars, at His command, according to, without the slightest deviation, penetrate into the
* In the topic “World (2)” the word “world” is considered in the sense of the totality of God’s creation.-Ed.
** The word “cosmos” is derived from the verb “cosmeo” – to decorate. way. The fruitful land, by His will, at certain times produces abundant food for people, beasts, and all animals that are on it, without slowing down or changing anything that was prescribed for them. The unsearchable and incomprehensible regions of the abyss and the underworld are kept by the same decrees. The boundless sea, united by His arrangement into great masses of water, does not go beyond the barriers set for it, but does as He commanded. For He said: “To this point you will reach … and here is the end of your haughty waves” (Job 38:11). The ocean, which is impassable for people, and the worlds behind it, are governed by the same commands of the Lord. The seasons – spring, summer, autumn and winter are peacefully replaced by one another. Certain winds, each in its own time, each perform their own service without hindrance. Inexhaustible springs, created for enjoyment and health, constantly deliver to people their moisture, necessary for their life. Finally, the smallest animals peacefully and in harmony form cohabitation among themselves.
All this was commanded to be in the world by the great Creator and Lord of everything. Who does good to all, and especially to us, who resorted to His mercy through our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory and majesty forever and ever. Saint Clement of Rome (1, 86-87).
How is everything motivated to peace when much is satisfied by disagreement and division?.. In disagreement and division (consists) the originality of everything that exists. But none of the existing unique (phenomena of nature) seeks to destroy the other … And this world, perfectly preserved in relation to each individual original (phenomenon of nature), we call equilibrium. Areopagitics. About the names of God. Migne, PG 3, 952 B, C.
He must be great Who created such a great machine out of nothing, must be wise He Who created everything so wisely. He must be good who did all that is good. Who gave light to the sun, moon and stars. That Himself in Himself is certainly a still better Light. Who gave the mind to man. He certainly has an even better mind… Just as the mind of a writer is known from a book, the wisdom of an architect is known from a building, as a pure image of a person looking into it is reflected in a mirror, so the Creator is known from the creations and perfection of each of them (113, 158).
Just as a writer of a book takes words out of his mind and writes them on paper, and so he composes a book, and, as it were, makes something out of nothing, so the All-Wise and Almighty Creator created everything that he wrote in His Divine mind, whatever He wished, and, as it were, a book, consisting of two sheets, that is, heaven and earth, he composed. In this book we see God’s Omnipotence, Wisdom and Goodness. Omnipotence, for He created everything out of nothing by His will and Word. Wisdom, for You have done everything in wisdom: “You have done everything in wisdom” (Ps. 103:24). … For God Himself does not require anything for His own sake. As before the beginning of the ages, so now, and unto the ages of ages. He is in all-perfect bliss (104, 1049-1050).
The world was created for the sake of man, but all things in the world are traces of God, they testify to God; they, like streams, lead a person to Life, the Source of Life, and show Him, and teach from Him to draw and refresh their souls; who would want to drink from streams, seeing the very Fountain of Life? Creatures are good, and very good, but the Creator Who made them good is incomparably better. What is created shows the Goodness and Love of God for us and teaches us to love God, to praise and thank Him as our Creator and Benefactor. They do not require love for themselves, but as if they are telling us: we were created by the Creator for your benefit and your use, love the One who created us for your sake, and not ourselves, for we ourselves cannot love you, and, using us for your own benefit, give thanks to Him who gave us to you (104, 1051).
From this you will know, Christian, that there is a Creator God, to whom creatures testify, as skill about a master. Everything has its origin and existence from Him. Everything by the command of God serves man. A person, using God’s creation, must certainly thank God, glorify His name and diligently serve Him. Those who do not fulfill this duty are mistaken like the blind, and are convicted by their conscience as ungrateful. This will be a rebuke for them at the Judgment Seat of Christ, that they used God’s goodness while living in the world, but they did not want to thank God, the Giver of goodness, and did not want to serve Him. From this you can also consider yourself whether you are trying to fulfill this duty, so as not to appear ungrateful to your Creator and not be condemned along with ungrateful servants on the day of the Judgment of Christ. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk (104, 1054-1055).
The Creation of the World
God the Creator of the invisible and visible world
If the world has a beginning and was created, then let us ask ourselves: Who gave it a beginning and Who is its Creator? But so that you, seeking this through human reasoning, would not deviate somehow from the truth, Moses preceded you with his teaching, instead of sealing and protecting our souls, imposing the venerable name of God when he said: “In the beginning God created …” (Gen. eleven). This blissful Essence, this inexhaustible Goodness, this Beauty, beloved and longed for by any creature endowed with reason, this unapproachable Wisdom – that is Who created heaven and earth in the beginning! Saint Basil the Great (4, 6).
As soon as the Benevolent and Most Gracious God was not satisfied with the contemplation of Himself, but, out of an excess of Goodness, desired that something happens that in the future would benefit from His blessings and participate in His Goodness, He brings from non-existence into being and creates everything without exception, as invisible, so is the visible, and also man, who is made up of the visible and the invisible. He creates by thinking, and this thought, supplemented by the Word and completed by the Spirit, becomes a deed. St. John Damaskin, “An Accurate Statement of the Orthodox Faith”. St. Petersburg, 1894, p. 44.
In the Arian controversy, as in a knot, many threads are gathered, many questions are joined. This is the beginning of the great theological controversies in which almost five centuries of the history of the Church will pass and which will leave us as a heritage the inspired writings of the fathers and teachers of the Church, together with the precise formulations of the ecumenical councils. However, this struggle for the Truth is soon complicated by the involvement of state power. It ceases to be purely ecclesiastical and acquires a new state dimension. Thus, in its course, the faith of the Church was not only refined, but also the slow and painful birth of a Christian Byzantium took place. Outwardly, the fourth century is probably one of the most tragic in the history of the Church – it was then that the theme of the Christian world was put into its real depth for the first time, that idea and that vision were born that will never be completely erased from the church consciousness.
The dispute began in Alexandria, the capital of Christian thought. Arius, a learned Alexandrian presbyter and preacher, began to teach that Christ, though the son of God, must necessarily be recognized as created in time—one of God’s creations, since birth cannot but be an occurrence in time. He was born of God for the creation of the world, an instrument of creation, and therefore there was a time when He was not. Therefore, the Son of God is completely different from the Father and unlike Him.
It is difficult for the modern ecclesiastical society, for which theological interests are generally alien (they are only unnecessary and dangerous assumptions), to understand, in the first place, how such a teaching could have arisen, which obviously goes against the most basic positions of Christianity, and, secondly, the resonance of this controversy for five whole decades, during which it did not cease to tear the Church apart. In order to understand this, it is necessary to feel, in the words of Archpriest Georgi Florovski, the fact that for the Christians of those times, theology was really a vital matter, a spiritual feat, a confession of faith and a creative solution to life’s problems, that apparently arguing about words and formulas, they actually defended and defended precisely the vital – today they would call it the practical or existential meaning of Christianity, which is contained in the word salvation. Because salvation is not a magical, externally performed action – it is a gift from God, the achievement of which depends on the complete perception and assimilation by man. In this situation, however, theology, i.e. the insight, expression and confession of the Truth through the means of the word, is revealed as a higher, royal vocation of man; in it, man’s participation in the meaning of divine things is restored, man’s birthright in the world as a rational person. Theology is the revelation, in the concepts of reason, of the faith of the Church – not the verification of this faith by the means of reason and not subordination to reason, but quite the opposite – the extension of reason itself to the Revelation, its agreement with the true and evident faith. Faith precedes theology, and therefore theological development can be spoken of as a gradual perception and refinement of the originally complete faith. From the example of Origen, we see that the first attempts in this direction were imperfect and even turned out to be heretical. However, this only shows how difficult it was to find the right words to express the faith; centuries were to pass until the thought itself was assimilated into the spirit of Christianity.
By faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, i.e. with the experience of the Triune God, the Church has lived since its first days. The meaning of the Gospel is in the Revelation of the Trinity as perfect unity, perfect love and perfect life. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit – we can find this liturgical blessing everywhere in the messages of St. Ap. Pavel. However, if in the Revelation about the Triune God are the source of our salvation and the power of the Christian life, then this Revelation must also enlighten the human mind, expand it to comprehend the mystery that was revealed to us by Christ.
Because accepting the Truth always means effort, crisis and aging. Natural reason confronts Revelation as a contradiction and a paradox. How can the original belief of the Church in the Triune God be reconciled with such an undoubted affirmation of His unity – with that monotheism, in whose name Christians, following the Jews, reject every form of paganism? This faith must be revealed; the experience must be explained. Thus, the first fundamental theological question arises in the church’s consciousness – the question of the Trinity.
* * *
Arius is wrong when he approaches the resolution of the theological question about St. Trinity exclusively as a philosopher who looks at everything from the point of view of logic. There are two cornerstones and vital in the proper sense of the word truths of Christianity: about the One God and about the salvation of the world accomplished by the Son of God. However, Arius perceives these truths as abstract situations. He is a convinced monotheist, but not in the spirit of the Old Testament, but in the spirit of the philosophical monotheism prevailing in the Hellenistic world at that time, namely – recognition of some One or One, which lies at the basis of everything that exists as its beginning and as unifying principle of everything plural. God is One, and in Him there can be no multiplicity; but since He has His Son, that Son is already different from Him and therefore cannot be God. The Son is born, but the birth is the coming into being of something that did not yet exist. The Son is born for the sake of creation, for the salvation of creation, but He is not God in that single and absolute sense in which God is the Father. Arianism thus manifests itself as an attempt to rationalize Christianity. In this experience, it is not the living religious experience that fertilizes thought and makes it see and understand things that it previously did not understand, but on the contrary, the experience of faith dries up in the course of logical analysis and is turned into an abstract construction. Arianism, however, is in tune with the age. It offers both a strict monotheism and a rejection of everything irrational and incomprehensible. It is accessible to the average mind who seeks a reasonable faith rather than the actual Tradition of the Church with its biblical, realistic images and expressions. As one historian has rightly remarked, Arianism deprived Christianity of its living religious content, turned it into theism—into cosmology and morality.
The first reaction against Arianism is the reaction of the living faith, which feels shaken by this perversion of the very sanctuary of the Church. Arius was condemned by his own bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. However, this is only a condemnation, not an answer. In his answer, Bishop Alexander himself gets confused and fails to find the right words. For his part, Arius turned for support to his former friends from the school of the famous Antiochian theologian Lucian. As educated theologians, many of them occupy episcopal chairs. Special attention should be paid here to the two Eusebians – Eusebius of Caesarea, the first church historian (whose Church History is one of our most important sources for the life of the early Church), and Eusebius of Nicomedia, later baptized imp. Constantine the Great. It must be said that they support Arius not only for personal reasons. During these years, the intelligentsia grew in the Church, which thirsted for a reasonable explanation of the faith and for which the Church’s teaching suffered from a lack of philosophical character. In this sense, Arianism seems perfectly adequate as a modern interpretation of church teaching, acceptable to the broad circles of educated people. Thus, the local Alexandrian dispute spread gradually throughout the East.
At this point, the imp intervenes in the dispute. Constantine the Great. We must try to imagine what the conversion of the emperor himself meant for the Church – after three centuries of persecution – in order to understand why the court of St. Constantine became a center of attraction, not only for the opportunists and careerists, but and for those who, inspired by the victory of Christ, dream of spreading this victory throughout the world. In a short time, the emperor and the Empire turn into providential instruments of the Kingdom of Christ. A circle of Christian advisers was immediately formed around St. Constantine the Great – something like his unofficial headquarters, in which very early, in fact, from the very beginning of Constantine’s appearance in the East, the Nicomedian bishop Eusebius occupied a prominent place – the first of the unfortunate series of court bishops53. Of course, Constantine himself was not able to navigate the essence of the theological dispute, but he was shocked by the emergence of a new dispute in the Church precisely in the years of his full celebration. The victory over Licinius in 324 definitively confirmed his one-man power and before him the image of an Empire, united not only politically, but also internally spiritually renewed by a single Church. However, instead of realizing these dreams of his, he is faced with the sad reality of new disputes and divisions. It is very likely that the idea of a council of all the bishops, as a means of settling the dispute, was suggested to him by his Christian advisers. St. However, Constantine wished to make this council a symbol and crowning of his victory, as well as of the new position of the Church in the Roman Empire. Thus, in the spring of 325, the First Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea – ecumenical not because of the number of bishops present (the Tradition of the Church sets this number at 318), but from the point of view of its design and purpose (1). And indeed, for the first time after the long centuries of semi-legal existence, bishops from all corners of the Church gathered in Nicaea, many of whom still bear the scars of wounds and bodily injuries received during the Diocletian persecution. What a tangible experience of celebration and victory! To this is added the splendor of the reception, the unprecedented solemnity of the welcome, the generosity and kindness of the emperor – factors that cannot but strengthen the joyful confidence at the beginning of a new era, the faith in the actual victory of Christ over the world. This is how Constantine himself perceived the council above all. He scheduled its opening on the day of the twentieth anniversary of his rule. He wants this day to pass in parade and joy, not in the disputes he hates. In his speech to the bishops on the opening day of the council, he says that disputes between them are more dangerous than wars and other conflicts, and give him the most grief of all.
Of course, the importance of the Council of Nicaea is above all in the great victory of the Truth withheld from it. No protocols or acts have been preserved from this council, as from other ecumenical councils. It is only known that the council condemned Arianism and in the traditional content of the Baptismal Creed (2) introduced a new specification of the relationship of the Son to the Father, calling the Son one with the Father, i.e. having that essence which the Father has, and therefore equal to Him in Godhead. The term used, according to Vasily Bolotov, is so precise that it excludes any possibility of reinterpretation (3). With it, Arianism was condemned unconditionally. This very term, however, remained for many years a stone of stumbling and temptation, leading the Church into prolonged turmoil.
This turmoil filled the next fifty-six years – until the convening of the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381. In the course of its development, of course, individual themes must be distinguished, but their mutual connection must always be sought. Almost equally, these themes determine the course of the subsequent history of the Church – a history in which there is hardly another half-century that has been so decisive.
Externally, the reason for the continuation of this turmoil is that, although condemned, the Arians not only did not surrender, but with the help of the most complicated intrigues they managed to attract the state power to their side. With this, the first major topic is set – the participation of the emperor in the life of the Church. From now on we will say that from this point of view the balance sheet of the fourth century is more than negative; it is even tragic. Here, however, it is necessary to immediately determine the second topic of the Arian dispute – the celebration of the Arians would have been impossible even with the help of the emperor, in the event that the Church, which had condemned Arius with complete unanimity, had proved to be united in this condemnation and especially in the acceptance of the doctrine proclaimed at Nicaea. However, this is not what happens. The Council of Nicaea brings confusion and doubt into minds, which begs the question of the theological content of the post-Nicene controversy. And precisely in this is the positive meaning of the fourth century, which clearly shows the categorical power of the Truth in church life even in hopeless circumstances.
Most of the participants of the council took lightly the condemnation of Arianism, in which they saw a too obvious distortion of the primitive Tradition of the Church. However, the matter is quite different with the disclosure of the positive doctrine of the Trinity, which is contained in the term oneness. This word was proposed and practically imposed on St. Constantine, and through him on the council itself, by a small group of far-sighted and courageous theologians who understood the inadequacy of the condemnation of Arius and the need to cut the Tradition of the Church into clear concepts. To the majority of the bishops of the council, however, the word is foreign and unintelligible; with it, for the first time, a philosophical term, which is foreign to the Holy Scriptures, was introduced into the teaching of faith. At the same time, this term is suspect, since the oneness can return the Church to the recently overcome temptation of Sabelianism, which merges the Father and the Son into one entity. Nevertheless, the council – at the express request of the emperor – accepted this term in the Creed, without, however, delving much into its meaning. The bishops think that what is important is the condemnation of heresy, and as for the Creed – practically every local church has its own symbol, which agrees with all the others in substance, though not quite literally.
In this way, outwardly, the council ended successfully, if we do not consider the repeated, after Donatism, mistake of Constantine, who sent Arius and his like-minded people into exile and thus once again mixed the judgment of the Church with the judgment of Caesar.
This is precisely where the group of court bishops we mentioned above manifests itself. This group was composed exclusively of friends of Arius, and at their head was Eusebius of Nicomedia. These are men forced to accept the condemnation of their friend, but only in view of the unanimity of the majority of the bishops of Nicaea, while in fact they do so only with a contrite heart and a thought of revenge. To declare openly against the Council is impossible for them, and therefore they resort to the means of intrigue. Taking advantage of the bishops’ indifference to the positive revelation of the Nicene Creed, they decided simply not to mention it, but to direct all their energies to that handful of theologians who alone grasped the full meaning of the term oneness. Denunciations and accusations are underway that have nothing to do with theology. Their first victim was Eustathius of Antioch, whom they succeeded in defaming in the eyes of the emperor and causing him to be sent into exile. After their success, for many years, the young – newly elected – Alexandrian bishop St. Athanasius the Great (328–373), who in all probability was the main inspirer of the Nicaean unity, became the main object of their intrigues. And again in the same way, without entering into any theological dispute with him, the enemies of the Council of Nicaea succeeded in obtaining his condemnation on the charge of some canonical offences—first at the episcopal council of Tire in 331, and then by the exile of St. Athanasius by order of the emperor to Trier on the Rhine. St. Constantine the Great could not tolerate troublemakers, and it was precisely as such that they managed to present the Bishop of Alexandria before him. Having achieved the removal of St. Athanasius, it was not difficult for the court bishops to restore to Alexandria Arius himself, who signed some vague penance in this connection, after which he was received into communion. St. Constantine, who probably never managed to understand the essence of the dispute, thinks that everything is already in order – peace has been achieved in the Church again, and only enemies of this peace can recall things that have remained in the past. The opportunists are celebrating on all fronts in the apparent misunderstanding and silence of the entire Church.
But Constantine’s days were drawing to a close. In the same year 336, when St. Athanasius was exiled, he celebrated his last – thirtieth – anniversary from the beginning of his reign. However, the empire is now ruled by another Constantine. Over the years, the mystical mood that has lived in him since his childhood grows. At the end of his days, even the interests of the state took a backseat to this mood. The speeches and celebrations of this ante-mortal jubilee were illumined by that light which grew more and more strongly in his soul, and shortly before his death hands were laid on him, he became famous and no longer wore his royal robes. His longtime dream was to be baptized in the waters of the Jordan, but this did not come true. Constantine was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and from that moment on he lived with the joyous assurance of the nearness of Christ and His eternal light. St. Constantine the Great died on the sunny noon of Pentecost. Whatever his faults, and perhaps even his crimes in his personal life (such as the murder of his son Crisp – a dark family drama that remains unsolved until the end), we can hardly doubt that he is a man who invariably he aspired to God, lived with the thirst for the absolute and wanted to establish on earth the radiance of heavenly justice and beauty. The greatest earthly hopes of the Church, her dreams for the celebration of Christ in the world, are connected with his name. This is also the reason why the love of the Church and her gratitude to him prove to be stronger than the merciless but fickle and often superficial judgment of historians.
Notes:
1. Until the rise of Constantinople (formerly Byzantium) as the new capital of the Empire and a significant ecclesiastical center, Nicomedia (today the city of Izmit, about 100 km east of Istanbul in Turkey) played a leading role in the region, including as an ecclesiastical center in whose diocese Byzantium itself is also located. In Nicomedia at the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century is the palace of the imp. Diocletian (284–305), after in 286 he introduced the well-known tetrarchy system into the administration of the Roman Empire. Nicomedia also played the role of the interim capital of Constantine the Great himself until the official proclamation of Constantinople.
2. At the time of the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea (today the city of Iznik, southeast of Istanbul, on the shores of Lake Nicaea) was also a leading center in the region, with which Nicomedia competed as the capital of the province of Bithynia. In Nicaea Emp. Constantine I had a palace in which the said council was opened (May 20, 325). In the thirteenth century, during the Latin rule in Constantinople (1204–1261), Nicaea was the strongest center of Byzantine power. (Bel. trans.)
3. Here we are talking about the Baptismal symbol of the Church of Caesarea, which was proposed to the council by Eusebius of Caesarea, and not about any Baptismal symbol of the Church in general. The beginning of the 4th century was a time when the churches in some places still used different, although they agreed with each other in the most important, baptismal symbols. See below. (Bel. trans.)
4. See: Bolotov, V. Cit. cf., item IV. M., 1994 (phototyped), p. 41.
Source: From the Bulgarian edition of the book “The Historical Path of Orthodoxy”, Protopr. Alexander Schmemann, IC “Omofor”, Sofia, 2009.
Photo: Fresco of the First Council of Nicaea (325).
Speaking Friday from Kharkiv in northeast Ukraine, where shelling has intensified in the last week, the UN's top aid official in the country issued an urgent appeal for access across frontline for guarantees from Russia and affiliated forces, to allow humanitarians to deliver “absolutely necessary” relief items.
“Winter is coming,…[and] all we want to do [is] provide insulin to the hospitals, provide blankets, provide mattresses…it’s not complicated”, said Denise Brown, the Resident Coordinator for the UN in Ukraine.
Humanitarian Coordinator Denise Brown is starting today a three-day mission to eastern & central Ukraine to see first-hand the humanitarian impact of the war and the response.
She is currently on a three-day mission to eastern and central Ukraine (Kryivyi Rih, Kharkiv and Dnipro) to assess the humanitarian situation first-hand.
Ms. Brown told reporters in Geneva that the UN was “constantly negotiating” for access, “up and down” the line that divides those fighting the war stemming from Russia’s invasion on the 24 February, in the south and east.
Ms. Brown also said that she had no way of confirming what relief items, “if anything”, Russia had reportedly sent to non-Government-controlled areas. Aid organizations “just have no reliable way of crossing the frontline”.
But she said that she was “hopeful that the Russian Federation will provide the security guarantees that we require to go across”.
So far they have “reached less than a million people in the non-government controlled areas” and she warned, “if farmers can’t reach their land, that’s going to have a huge impact on their economic situation.”
Fearful winter ahead
The UN aid coordinator also warned that winter is fast approaching in Ukraine and that she did not believe that vulnerable communities in the east and south had what they needed to survive.
Six months since Russia’s invasion, nearly 18 million people, around 40 per cent of the country’s entire population, need humanitarian aid.
Many elderly people were living in damaged houses and the lack of access to gas or electricity in large parts of the east “could be a matter of life or death” if people could not heat their homes, Mrs. Brown said in a statement.
Regarding OCHA’s plans for winter, Mrs. Brown explained, “we will have to work differently …we can only assume” that people caught in a war “do not have what is necessary to make it through,” the season, “which starts early and lasts long”.
Humanitarian community delivering
On a positive note, the Humanitarian Coordinator pointed out that the war has not prevented the humanitarian community from delivering: “Since the start of the war, we’ve reached over 12 million people,” providing “cash transfers, health care, shelter… access to clean water, protection, rehabilitation”.
Agricultural production is also “now finally moving” due to the UN-brokered Black Sea Grain initiative. This “will have an impact on families, on farmers and their communities and on the food insecure, particularly in the Horn of Africa right now,” she added.
Having met people uprooted by the war, Mrs. Brown said “morale and hope was still there”. While internally displaced people told her they are grateful for support from the UN and NGOs, they “still want to go home”.
Trouble sleeping? It may be your diet at fault if you fall asleep and wake up several times during the night. Many of us assume that an overactive mind is causing sleeplessness, but that may not be the case.
Did you know that certain foods, besides the obvious culprit caffeine, can keep you from a peaceful night’s sleep? Here are five culprits that may cause wakefulness at night.
You probably did not know that a high saturated-fat diet, low in fiber, may lead to lighter sleep. You’ll be waking up more at night. If you eat large amounts of food high in saturated fats, it can affect your deeper sleep as well as the overall quality of your sleep. Making alertness more difficult during the day, this non-REM sleep happens earlier in your sleep cycle.
2. Caffeine-rich Foods and Chocolate
Hot chocolate may seem like a great choice to catch some Z’s. However, it contains caffeine, the enemy of sleep. Sweet, fluffy marshmallows add to the anti-sleep mix, as they are loaded with sugar. This brings us to…
3. Sugar-loaded Desserts
Refined carbohydrates and sugar may cause anxiety and insomnia. They can also trigger late-night cravings. Volunteers in a research study who ate more sugar spent less time in slow-wave sleep, essential for healing and immune function; this became evident in these controlled studies. People also took longer to fall asleep and, once asleep, were more restless and frequently awoke during the night.
4. Alcohol Nightcaps
Sometimes alcohol is taken to induce drowsiness. On the other hand, according to studies, alcohol causes restless sleep. This is because the calming effects dissipate after a few hours. Studies show that after three nights of drinking before bedtime, the body becomes more resistant to the sleep-inducing effects of the nightcap.
5. Spicy Foods
Highly acidic food that can initiate heartburn is commonly a cause of interrupted sleep. Spicy dishes, such as those made with tomato products, can also be the culprit. Citrus fruits, marinated dishes, such as olives and pickles, and dairy products may be the cause of heartburn in some people, thus bringing on sleeplessness.
An empty stomach can make insomnia worse. A healthy light snack, such as a banana with almond butter, or fruits, such as kiwi or tart cherries, can help you to fall asleep and stay asleep. Also healthier in general, a diet rich in fiber, associated with deeper sleep, may lead to less wakefulness at night. Sleepwalkers might need to see a doctor. In fact, visit your doctor if you have chronic sleep problems. You may want to know the underlying cause. Meanwhile, making some dietary changes may help.
A limited supply of donor organs, paired with a massive demand for transplants, has fuelled the global organ trafficking industry, which exploits poor, underprivileged and persecuted members of society as a source of organs to be purchased by wealthy transplant tourists.
- Photo by Guillaume Piron on Unsplash
China is the only country in the world to have an industrial-scale organ trafficking practice that harvests organs from executed prisoners of conscience.
Organ transplantation is a life-saving therapy for millions of patients and one of the greatest successes of modern medicine. However, a limited supply of donor organs, paired with a massive demand for transplants, has fuelled the global organ trafficking industry which exploits poor, underprivileged and persecuted members of society as a source of organs to be purchased by wealthy transplant tourists.
Although this practice occurs in many countries, the situation in China is particularly concerning. China is the only country in the world to have an industrial-scale organ trafficking practice that harvests organs from executed prisoners of conscience. This practice is known as forced organ harvesting.
To understand forced organ harvesting, it is useful to consider a hypothetical scenario: a patient in Canada with end-stage heart disease is in need of a life-saving cardiac transplant.
Doctors in Canada tell the patient he needs to go on a waiting list until a compatible donor dies under suitable conditions. This process can take weeks, months or even years. The patient then finds a transplant program in China that can schedule a cardiac transplant from a compatible donor weeks in advance.
This raises several important questions. Cardiac transplant can only come from deceased donors, so how can the hospital match this patient with a potential “deceased” donor weeks in advance? How did the hospital find this donor? How do they know when that donor will die? Has the donor consented to have their organs harvested?
Explainer: China’s multi-billion-dollar murder for organs industry.
The answers to these questions are extremely distressing. China uses incarcerated prisoners of conscience as an organ donor pool to provide compatible transplants for patients. These prisoners or “donors” are executed and their organs harvested against their will, and used in a prolific and profitable transplant industry.
As transplant nephrologists and medical professionals, we aim to spread awareness about organ trafficking, particularly forced organ harvesting, to colleagues, institutions, patients and the public. We are involved with organizations like Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting and International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, which have done considerable work in this area for over a decade.
China currently has the second-largest transplant program in the world. Transplant operations in China increased rapidly in the early 2000s without a corresponding rise in voluntary organ donors, which led to questions about the source of the organs.
Demonstration in Berlin, 2007, denouncing the practice of forced organ harvesting in China – Commons Wikimedia CC BY 2.0
Human rights investigations
Concerns about forced organ harvesting began to surface in 2006-7 by the work of two international human rights lawyers, David Kilgour and David Matas, who were later nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for their work. The China Tribunal, led by human rights lawyer Sir Geoffrey Nice, was formed in 2019 to independently investigate the claims of forced organ harvesting.
Despite Chinese transplant officials claiming significant transplant reform had taken place since 2015, recent evidence suggests that the barbaric practice of forced organ harvesting has continued. The American Journal of Transplantation, the world’s leading transplant journal, published a paper in April that found that brain death had not been declared in many organ retrievals in China, and that retrieval of the donor’s vital organs was the actual cause of death. In other words, these prisoners were being executed by removal of their organs for the purpose of transplantation.
China has been executing prisoners of conscience and using their organs for transplantation for decades. Transplant physicians, medical professionals and the global community must raise awareness and pressure governments, institutions and hospitals to take action.
It is essential that we conduct due diligence and avoid collaborations where transparency regarding the source of organs cannot be guaranteed. We must protest the unjust and inhumane incarceration and oppression of Uyghurs and marginalized groups around the world.
