To help those wishing to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Mountain

In recent years, there are more and more Orthodox Christians who wish to make a pilgrimage to various holy places around the world. To help those who wish to make their pilgrimage, as well as to answer our readers’ questions related to such trips, the “Doors” team will expand its “Pilgrimage” column with practical guides and materials for popular destinations of the so-called “pilgrimage tourism”. Undoubtedly, among the most preferred places of worship is Mount Athos – Athos.

This is the name of a community of 20 monasteries (17 Greek and 3 Slavic) and smaller monastic settlements, inhabiting the eastern arm of the Halkidiki peninsula, bearing the geographical name Athos since ancient times. Its length is approx. 60 km, and the width – from 6 to 12 km. The territory is divided unevenly into the 20 patriarchal and imperial monasteries, which include another 20 or so hermitages and hundreds of cells (separate monastic houses in which from 1 to several monks live). Skits are called either monastery complexes, sometimes as big as the largest Bulgarian monasteries, but without an independent status, or settlements of several to tens of cells (houses in the above sense).

The Athenian monastic “republic” is under the omophorus (ie supreme authority) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. St. Mountain has complete administrative independence from Constantinople, but canonically the Ecumenical Patriarch has the supervision of spiritual life. The Patriarchate also has one of its own bishops there – Bishop Chrysostom of Rhodes, former rector of the Athos Seminary. However, he does not have ecclesiastical-administrative authority, but can only ordain hierodeacons and hieromonks by decision of a given monastery. His contact address is: Megisti Laura, 63086, Karyes, Mount Athos.

Since Mount Athos is part of the territory of the Republic of Greece, the state also has its representative there with the status of regional governor, who has his headquarters in the administrative center of Ato – Kareia. The supreme body of Mount Athos government is the Holy Kinotis (community), which consists of representatives (antiprosopi) of all twenty monasteries of Mount Athos. Each monastery elects its representative annually and the term of office of the kinotis starts from the new year (January 14 new style).

The executive power of Aten is carried out by the Sacred Epistasia (lit. “headship”, “oversight”), whose composition also changes every year, but the mandate begins on June 1 (14 AD). Since 1972, the Esphygmen monastery did not participate in the general events and did not send its representative to the general governing bodies (Holy Kinotis and Holy Epistasia), and did not allow the decisions of the Kinotis to be implemented in relation to the monastery. Therefore, a few years ago a new brotherhood was created, loyal to St. Gora, but it could not enter the monastery and now lives in another place near Kareia.

The monasteries of St. Gora are divided into five groups, each of which includes four monasteries. The groups are arranged as follows:

First group: Great Lavra, Dochiar, Xenophon, Sphygmenus.

Second group: Vatoped, Kutlumush, Caracal, Stavronikita.

Third group: Iver, Pantokrator, Philoteus, Simonopetra.

Fourth group: Hilendar, Xiropotam, St. Pavel, Grigoriat.

Fifth group: Dionysiatus, Zograph, St. Panteleimon, Constamonite.

Each year one of the five groups forms a Candle. epistasia, with the representative of the first monastery from each group being the chairman of the epistasia.

Short list of monasteries (ordered by seniority):

1. The Great Lavra. The monastery was founded in 963. It celebrates its feast on 5/18 (the second number here and below is in the old style – b. r.) July on the day of St. Athanasius of Athens. The abbot is Archimandrite Prodrome. Tel. +30 23770 23761. Fax: +30 23770 23013.

2. Vatoped. The monastery was founded in 972. Its feast day is March 25/April 7, Annunciation. Abbot is Archimandrite Ephrem. Tel. +30 23770 41488. Fax +30 23770 41462.

3. Sliver. Founded in 972. The feast of the monastery is on August 15/28, the day of the Assumption. The abbot is Archimandrite Nathanael. Tel. +30 23770 23643. Fax +30 23770 23248.

4. Hillendar. Founded in 1197. The feast of the monastery is November 21/December 4, the day of the Presentation of the Virgin. The abbot is Archimandrite Methodius. Tel. +30 23770 23797, 23760. Fax: +30 23770 23494.

5. Dionysiatus. Founded in 1375. The feast of the monastery is June 24/July 7, the day of the Nativity of St. John the Forerunner. Archimandrite Peter is the abbot. Tel. +30 23770 23687. Fax +30 23770 23686.

6. Kutlumush. Founded at the end of the 13th century. The feast of the monastery is August 6/19, the day of the Transfiguration. The abbot is Archimandrite Christodul. Tel. +30 23770 23226. Fax: +30 23770 23731.

7. Pantocrator. Founded in 1363. The feast of the monastery is August 6/19, the day of the Transfiguration. Abbot is Archimandrite Gabriel. Tel. +30 23770 23253. Fax +30 23770 23685.

8. Xyropotamus. Founded in the 10th century. The feast of the monastery is March 9/22, the day of St. Forty Sevastian Martyrs, as well as September 14/27, the day of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross of God (Krastovden). The abbot of the monastery is Archimandrite Joseph. Tel. +30 23770 23251. Fax +30 23770 23733.

9. Painter. Founded in the 10th century (before 980). The feast of the monastery is May 6, the day of St. George the Victorious. The abbot of the monastery is Archimandrite Amvrosius. Tel. +30 23770 23604. Fax +30 23770 23247.

10. Dochiar. It was founded in the 10th century. The festival of the monastery is November 8/21, on the day of St. Archangel Michael, and also on October 1/14, in honor of the icon of St. Mother of God Soon-obedient. The abbot is Archimandrite Gregory. Tel. +30 23770 23245.

11. Caracal. It was founded at the end of the 10th century. The festival of the monastery is June 29/July 12, the day of the holy apostles Peter and Paul. The abbot of the monastery is Archimandrite Filotei. Tel. +30 23770 23225. Fax: +30 23770 23746.

12. Philotheus. Founded in 990. The feast of the monastery is March 25/April 7, the day of the Annunciation, and August 24/September 6, the day of St. Cosmas of Aetoli. The abbot is Archimandrite Nicodemus. Tel. +30 23770 23256. Fax: +30 23770 23674.

13. Simonopetra. Founded in 1257. The feast of the monastery is December 25/January 7, the day of the Nativity of Christ, and July 22/August 4, the day of St. Mary Magdalene. The abbot is Archimandrite Eliseus. Tel. +30 23770 23254. Fax: +30 23770 23707.

14. St. Pavel. Founded in the 10th century. The feast of the monastery is February 2/15, the day of the Epiphany, and July 28/August 10, the day of St. Paul of Xiropotamski. The abbot is Archimandrite Parthenius. Tel. +30 23770 23250, 23609. Fax: +30 23770 23355.

15. Stavronikita. It was founded in 1541. The feast of the monastery is December 6/19, the day of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. The abbot of the monastery is Archimandrite Tikhon. Telephone and fax +30 23770 23255.

16. Xenophon. Founded in the 11th century. The festival of the monastery is May 6, the day of St. George the Victorious. The abbot of the monastery is Archimandrite Alexius. Tel. +30 23770 23249. Fax +30 23770 23631.

17. Gregoriat. Founded in 1345. The feast of the monastery is December 6/19, the day of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker. The abbot of the monastery is Archimandrite Georgi. Tel. +30 23770 23218, 23669, 23670. Fax +30 23770 23671.

18. Sphygmenus. It was founded in the 11th century. The festival of the monastery is on the day of the Ascension of the Lord. Tel. +30 23770 23796. The old monastic brotherhood does not mention the name of the Ecumenical Patriarch and has no canonical communion with the other monasteries of St. Forest. The new brotherhood, which has not yet entered the monastery, has an arch abbot. Chrysostom and phone +30 23770 23229. Fax + 30 23770 23653.

 19. St. Panteleimon. Founded at the beginning of the 10th century. The feast of the monastery is July 27/August 9, the day of St. Panteleimon. The abbot of the monastery is Archimandrite Jeremiah. Tel. +30 23770 23252.

20. Constamonite. It was founded in the 11th century. The feast of the monastery is December 27/January 9, the day of the holy first martyr and archdeacon Stephen. Abbot of the monastery is Archimandrite Agathon. Tel. +30 23770 23228.

All monasteries of St. Forests are communal (this is the usual form of monastic coexistence today; the other is the idioritmena, lit. “in their own rhythm”, in which the monks live in one monastery, have a common worship service, but do not have a common table, i.e. they do not eat together ; they do not have an abbot, but a council of elders-epitropes – b. r.). At the moment of St. Gora has about 1,500 monks, including the cellists (keliots – from the Greek) and the inhabitants of the sketes.

If a senior Orthodox cleric decides to go on pilgrimage to H. Mountain, he is obliged for the purpose to receive a blessing from the Ecumenical Patriarch. This is done in order to prevent non-canonical ordinations of clerics of Aton. All others who wish to visit Mount Athos, are required to obtain a permit from the Pilgrimage Office in Thessaloniki, which is located on Karamanlis Blvd., and respectively in Ouranoupolis – the port from where you enter (only by water!) Athos. The phone numbers of the office are: +30 2310 833733, 861611. You can get there by buses 38, 173, 546. Since the rules for issuing a permit to enter Athos change frequently, it is good for those interested to call the office first and ask what exactly is needed for the permit. In recent years, it has become more common for pilgrims to call the office in Ouranoupolis, make requests for permits there, and receive them from there immediately before entering Mount Athos. This avoids going to Thessaloniki, which requires 1 extra day. In Ouranoupolis the office has telephones +30 2310 252575 and 252578, fax +30 2310 222424.

Likewise, before going to St. It is a good idea to call one of the monasteries and make an arrangement with the person in charge of the pilgrims to receive you. This is especially recommended in the period around the Nativity of Christ and Easter, when many people go to St. A forest of pilgrimage. This contract is necessary because there are not always enough places in the monasteries for the accommodation of guests.

The permit or the so-called “diamonitirio” costs 25 euros. It gives the right to stay on Athos for four days. If necessary, the diamonitirio can be continued in Kareia. Sometimes this document can be requested from you in a monastery, although this is rare. It is good to know that if the permit is not collected on the day you were told to collect it, it will not be issued to you. This document is required when boarding the ship that transports the pilgrims to the monastery docks (quays), called “arsana”. The ship stops at the quay of Hilendar, Zograf, Dohiar, Konstamonit, St. Panteleimon and reaches Daphne, the main port of St. Forest. From here there is a bus that will take you to Kareia. All the monasteries can be reached from Kareia. Often the cars of some of the monasteries are waiting here. Transport prices vary and depend on the number of passengers, but initially these domestic transports are too expensive.

Those who wish to continue their journey by sea can take a boat from Daphni to the monasteries of Simonopetra, Grigoriat, Dionysiat, St. Paul and the hermit St. Ana. If the weather is calm and fine, the boat will take you to the hermitage of Kavsokalit. However, if the sea is not completely calm, his last stop will be the hermitage of St. Ana.

On St. Gora, in addition to the monasteries, cells and hermitages, you can also see the theological school, the so-called “Atoniada”, which was founded by Evgeniy Voulgaris in 1749. The school since 1953 is located in Kareia.

The Athonian monasteries have several courtyards outside the boundaries of Mount Athos. The most famous of them is the women’s monastery of Ormilia, which is the courtyard of Simonopetra. There are about 100 nuns in Ormilia. The abbess of the monastery is nun Nicodima. The contact phone is: +30 23710 41278 and the address is: 63071, Ormylia Chalkidikis

Author: St. Luka, archbishop of Simferopollis and Crimea

From the letters of St. Archbishop Luka Voyno-Yasenetsky to the priests of the Diocese of Simferopol and Crimea (June 6, 1952)

Be firm in your zeal for God’s justice, for the canons and decrees of the Church.

It has come to my knowledge that recipients (godparents) in the baptism of babies often become people who do not know any prayers and do not even know how to cross themselves, women who have unbaptized children, and people who do not even know if they have been baptized.

The baptism of infants in the Orthodox Church is carried out according to the faith of their parents and guardians, whose duty it is to teach the children God’s Law, prayers and piety. This, of course, cannot be done by recipients who themselves do not know even the simplest prayers, do not know how to be baptized, and during the sacrament of baptism laugh at the prayers-incantations over Satan uttered by the priest.

Thus the role of recipients in baptism becomes completely formal. I strictly forbid the baptism of infants with such receivers. Receivers can only be true Christians who know God’s Law and prayers.

If it should prove impossible to find such receivers, infant baptism must be postponed until it becomes possible, or we may even have to go back to the apostolic and early Christian times, when people were baptized only when they were of conscious age and not they needed receivers.

I also remind you of my long-standing prohibition to baptize with sprinkling, but necessarily with triple immersion.

Priests who do not obey this requirement will be banned by me from priestly ministry for half a year.

Photo by Marius Muresan on Unsplash

Written by Kalin Yanakiev

There is a unique paradox in the Orthodox iconography of the Mother of God – extremely difficult to articulate, though at the same time very clearly felt when we compare this face with Western-Renaissance images of the “Madonna”. The thing is, for all its deep and peaceful spirituality, the Immaculate Orthodox Icon can hardly be defined as “beautiful” or “lovely”, as “captivating” or “charming”. This is difficult, however, not because any deprivation is felt in the image, but because in the face of her incomparable and all-surpassing chastity, definitions of this kind sound somehow impious – too bold and, in any case, inadequate for the description of her character. The Virgin is chaste in a unique, unique way. She is – dare I say it – so chaste that she’s no longer… “beautiful”.

How could we explain this paradox – the holy non-beauty of the image of the Virgin in Orthodoxy, where “loveliness” turns out to be not exactly absent, but rather a transcended category?

To answer this question, let us first look at any icon of the Immaculate Conception and try to say how it most immediately differs from Renaissance images of Virgo Maria. Don’t we first of all have a feeling that the Orthodox icon painter – in contrast to the Western artist or sculptor – has somehow fundamentally and essentially devoted himself to giving this Most Holy and otherwise completely and “immaculately” female image, even the most sublimated, even the most -enlightened gender characteristics. Do we not have the feeling – however paradoxical this may sound – that he did not dare to give the Mother of God a glimpse of her naturally beautiful femininity? So look carefully at this unique flesh without carnality – flesh woven, as it were, only from the soul and mental silence, and compare it with the blossoming corporeality of some of the Western Virgins: somewhere – a little more rustic, healthy and pure, elsewhere – aristocratic-cool and solemn . Look at this peculiar femininity without femininity – washed as it were of its gender, though not sexless, and compare it with the fresh “veneracy” of too many Western Madonnas – somewhere spring-tender, elsewhere – maturely regal. Look, I say, at this strange beauty without charm—as if all chastity and humility—and compare it with the frank loveliness of almost all the Renaissance Madonnas—self-confident, self-conscious—somewhere a little narcissistic, elsewhere even coquettish. See, finally, this immaterial flame of the Spirit, which has literally burned away all sensuality, which shines from her face, making it in a peculiar way ageless, and compare it with the full-bloodedness of the Western Madonnas—somewhere young-faced maidens, elsewhere—mature Roman or German matrons. Carefully compare the two rows of images to see that although both of them undoubtedly show us virgins – still – the Orthodox Mother of God does not seem to be a Virgin in the same way that the Western one is. And as it were, indeed: the immediately striking difference here is precisely that the Western Virgo is definitely feminine, definitely lovely in its feminine purity. She is a Virgo, but a Virgo, if I may say so, in the essentially gendered sense of the word. She is the pure woman in her sex, and as such—though perfectly, aristocratically pure—remains in it, remains in her sex without transcending it, and therefore inspires in the beholder the feelings which the beautiful virgin woman naturally and primordially inspires. Not a word – these feelings, given the nature of the image, are extremely sublime. But they are, nevertheless, feelings inspired by the beautiful woman – by the woman of supreme beauty, ideal femininity, and therefore they are feelings of infatuation: of chivalrous and platonic adoration of the Virgin.

It is precisely this “beautiful femininity” of the Western Viigo Maria that is alien to the Orthodox Virgin’s face. It is foreign to him, although – we must note this once again, because it also contains the paradox – it is foreign to him not in the elementary negative sense of this word, but rather in a difficult to express (but clearly visible in the icon) exceeding the feminine “loveliness” sense.

For, on the other hand, it is not subject to any doubt that in the Orthodox Virgin’s face we do not perceive a trace of unnatural gender idiosyncrasy such as that which we can see, for example, in some ancient images of pagan goddess-virgins – figures with a masculine, hermaphrodite (and therefore unfeminine) appearance. In contrast, the Mother of God of the Orthodox icon is completely female – completely and flawlessly “female hypostasis”. However, it is she – this “feminine hypostasis” – that is, if I may say so, perfectly washed by the lovely femininity. Her image is contemplated, so to speak, comforted by the feelings – in super-sensual ecstasy, which is why it radiates not exactly inspiration for the imagination and emotions, but peace – a peace that leads out of them and introduces into the purely spiritual sphere of prayerfulness.

And so, in Orthodox iconography, the Mother of God is a Virgin in an exclusive sense of this word. I would even venture to say that in her icon she is neither simply a virgin woman, nor simply a noble mother-woman, but a woman, as it were, freed from the very limitation, passion, and naturalism of sex; freed, one might say, from the sexual guilt of the natural man—a woman virgin of sex. Completely female by nature and at the same time extremely non-gendered, hyper-gendered by grace. Completely oversexed, I say, because she is perfectly chaste – chaste to the point of overcoming the very half-ness of human nature, and completely female – because it is she, the woman Mary, who is here so perfectly spiritual and so exceedingly chaste.

Such a virgin woman (and yet a woman) is the Mother of God of the Orthodox icon, and this is determined by the exceptional personal holiness in which she is remembered in the ecclesiastical lore of the East. Let’s remember that Orthodoxy confesses the Virgin as the holy in a unique sense, i.e. not just as the holy, but as the pre-holy, the all-holy (in Greek: Παναγία): a woman, the only one who has reached the fullness of sanctification and in this respect yielding only to the Son of God born of her in the flesh, Who is holiness itself. The Mother of God of Orthodoxy is truly the “living temple of God” on earth, i.e. she is sanctified to the point of being a flesh-temple, a being-temple, in which therefore the light of the One to Whom the temple is already dawns, the light of the Godhead, not just the flesh that is this temple.

However, we also see something similar when we look at the way in which the motherhood of the Immaculate is depicted on Orthodox and Western Renaissance icons, motherhood, which, as we know, is inseparable from the virginity of the Mother of God.

Let’s compare the two rows of images once more.

Aren’t we forced to admit here, too, that although both the one and the other are “mothers” to us, the Orthodox Mother of God does not seem to be a mother in the same way that the Renaissance one is. So notice how symptomatically Renaissance art is attached to the representation of the Mother of God in its most immediate and most primal, even natural manifestations. In it, the Mother of God is very often shown to us here as a mother caressing the Infant, blissful and playing with Him, then as a mother intensely and deeply suffering for her Child, then even – as nursing Him from her breast, a nurse. It goes without saying that all this is very touching, charmingly intimate and sometimes manages to evoke an almost heart-wrenching tenderness, but… Are we not still left with the feeling that the earthly side of the mystery is too much revealed here, that it somehow even has enveloped and suffocated – him, the unattainable and unique, bright sacrament of carrying God Himself in the lap of a woman?

On the contrary: it is precisely this exciting sight of the soulful, womb-warm, reaching its luxuriant “entelechia” femininity of the mother that is especially muted in Orthodox icons. Looking at them, we will certainly feel how deeply and fundamentally impossible it is for the Orthodox icon painter to allow himself such a daring and presumptuous penetration into the mysterious intimacy of the Immaculate Mother with her divine Infant, with the Son of Man, Who is far from being simply “Marian” . All this is foreign to the Orthodox icon, although – and here we must repeat this again – there is not a trace of coldness or non-commitment in the face of the mother with the Child. Rather, we have before us an infinite delicacy, holy trembling and detachment of the mother in this visible, close to her and yet infinite mystery of the Infant in her lap.

Emphasizing once again this element that surpasses the flowering of motherhood in the Orthodox icon, I would say that in Western images we really see the image of a noble and devoted mother, but, with all our affection, we fail to achieve in it the face of the only one, of God mother, of the Virgin Mother, of the Immaculate Mother of God.

How are we to clarify this delicate, subtle, but very definite difference between the two sets of images? How do we articulate our deeply felt dissonance between that undeniably pure, captivating, and yet disturbing and ambiguous loveliness of the Western, Renaissance Madonnas, on the one hand, and that strangely hypersexual, unlovely, but undeniably all-surpassingly-holy chastity of the Orthodox faces of the Purified? How can we explain the fact that precisely in the immanent and definitely present feminine charm of the Western Madonnas we feel a, so to speak, lack of “virginity” and, on the contrary – that in the certain absence of charm, of femininity and, as it were, even of sexuality in the Orthodox faces of the Virgin, we feel the mysterious presence, the essence of the Most Holy?

I am sure that the Orthodox sense knows the answer to these questions very immediately and clearly, although the absence of a special theological reflection on the fundamental aesthetic categories applied to icon painting makes its formulation an infinitely delicate task. In fact, I think that the main thing is that in the ontology of the Orthodox icon “beauty” in the traditional sense of its application exists and must exist as an essentially overgrown, objectively irrelevant category. A category, I say, outgrown and irrelevant in principle, because it is constitutively incapable of manifesting the nature of the holy face.

“Beauty” – we must definitely say – as it is known to us in ancient and Renaissance-New European aesthetics, characterizes the image of the natural man – of man in his natural and (precisely because of that) gender-separated, gender-limited, ontologically half-guilty being. That is why “beauty” – as the ancients astutely noted this – is, as far as the characterization of man is concerned, in an essential way necessarily either male or female beauty, i.e. it is of necessity or wonderful “manliness” (in the terminology of the ancients – dignitas – “significance”, “impressiveness”, “importance”) or lovely “femininity” (venustas, i.e. “loveliness”, “gracefulness”, “loveliness”, “veneracy”). So it is in the natural feeling of the natural man, so it is in his aesthetic attitudes. And this is because in the realm of nature itself, man resides (and resides in his idea), in gender division, in half-ness—he is either “male” or “female,” and every idiosyncrasy, any gender indeterminacy or confusion in his particular face represents the imperfection of “masculinity” or “femininity” (which are – as perfections – the beautiful). As regards the female face in particular, to the “feminine hypostasis” of man, her beauty, that is, her perfect “femininity,” her venustas appears either as the charm of the clear and unblemished sex—as femininity in its pristine purity , or as “motherhood”, i.e. fulfillment of gender realized in its ideal expediency – as femininity in its fulfillment. So it is in the realm of naturalness, where the characteristic of “beauty” is relevant, applicable to the ontologically divided human being.

However, neither the beauty of the pure, unblemished gender (the beauty of virginity), nor the beauty of the gender that has reached its flowering (the beauty of motherhood), are capable of manifesting in the female face its holiness, and this is so for a very important reason. In the sanctity (both of the man and of the woman – it doesn’t matter) in the face of the depicted shines no longer just the nature, not just the idea of ​​the woman or of the man, but rather in their nature, in their concrete hypostasis shines the light of the one who surpasses their being Holy Spirit. Therefore, in the holy face, the “flesh”, the “hypostasis” of the man or the woman do not shine by themselves, but with the light of the Spirit – they are oh-spirit-created faces, spirit-bearing faces. And, as is known, the Holy Spirit is neither “male” nor “female”, namely “holy”, i.e. supernaturally and Easternly “whole”, all-wise. That is why, therefore, as pierced by the Holy Spirit, as spirit-bearing, the human face – whether it is a man or a woman, it does not matter – no longer radiates its natural, created, sexual “beauty”, but what exceeds it, the supernatural for the human face chastity. He is holyly chaste, and that is different from “feminine” or “masculine”; different, therefore, from “beautiful” – dignified or venereal. In the sanctified human face – in so far as it has become spirit-bearing, oh-spirit-created, deified – one can no longer see its gender limitation, not its half-guilt (even in its perfection, in its “beauty”), but that which which transcends this limitation, which is transcendent of gender in general – of “femininity” or of “masculinity” – and which has no other name than holiness – irreducible to nothing else and inferable from nothing else holiness per se. This holiness ripens, of course, in him, in the man who has attained it – it ripens, therefore, in the man or in the woman, but still holiness ripens in them, and therefore ripens something more than their “masculinity ” or “femininity”, something more than the dignitas and venustas that characterize them, namely: the chastity that surpasses them, dwarfs them.

All of this ultimately shows us why in the Orthodox icon of the Mother of God (remembered specifically and above all as the All-Holy, Παναγία) we meet a face so special and so difficult to characterize: the face of a woman – completely a woman, who at the same time somehow it is not feminine, it is not sexually beautiful, and at the same time it is not so not because it is sexless or sexless, but because it is more than feminine, more than beautiful – it is washed out of sexuality, it is all-wise

Source: This text was first published in Portal Kultura (https://kultura.bg) on ​​August 15, 2016 (in Bulgarian).