The Constantinople Patriarchate and Orthodoxy in the US Politics: From Roosevelt to Biden

This article studies the US administration's policy towards the Orthodox Church, its historical genesis and the factors influencing the current situation in the Orthodox world. The key role in this direction of the US politics belongs to the Constantinople Patriarchate as a tool for confronting Russia and dividing the Orthodox world. The author examines the connections of the new US President Joe Biden with the Constantinople Patriarchate, including the facts of Constantinople's support of Biden's political course. Constantinople's latest social document and hierarchical actions demonstrate loyalty to the US Administration's policy and globalist ideas, in addition to Constantinople's attempts to politicize the religious factor in promoting “democracy”. The cooperation between the Constantinople Patriarchate and US Administration, which began in 1940s, resulted in high dependence of this church structure upon the US political interests. The author states that Fener and Washington support each other and coordinate their actions: they have attempted open aggression against the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole, which resulted in destroying the unity of the Orthodox world. The Constantinople Patriarchate's affiliation with the political interests of the United States and the Democratic Party leads them to avoid criticizing abortion and LGBT ideology and preventing the development of modernist tendencies within their Church. This causes discontent among priests and laymen, as well as their departure for other jurisdictions, including the Russian Orthodox Church. In the coming years, the dramatic events in the Orthodox world will most likely continue, and the US will proceed using one of the oldest local churches in its political interests.

THE UKRAINIAN-MOSCOW TREATY OF 1654 IN THE INTERPRETATIONS OF POLISH HISTORIANS OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Summary. The purpose of the study is to research the interpretations of the Ukrainian-Moscow treaty of 1654 in the works of Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century; study the approaches of scientists to identify the reasons for the mutual understanding of the Ukrainian Cossacks with the tsarist authorities; analyze the peculiarities of the study by Polish scholars of the history of the relations of the Hetman’s Chancellery of B. Khmelnytsky with Moscow; consider the specifics of historians’ vision of the circumstances of concluding the agreement in Pereyaslav and Moscow as well as the course of negotiations between the parties and their implementation; study the researchers’ assessments of the significance of the Ukrainian-Moscow agreement in the history of Ukraine, Tsardom of Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The research methodology is based on the general scientific principles of objectivity, historicism, scientific pluralism and reliance on historical sources. General scientific (analysis, synthesis, comparison) and special-historical (historical-genetic, historical-typological, problem-chronological, historical-systemic) methods have been used in the work. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the analysis of a wide range of historiographical sources that reflect the interpretations of Polish scholars of the first half of the twentieth century history of the conclusion of the Ukrainian-Moscow treaty of 1654. The peculiarities of the historians’ approaches to the causes of the union between the Cossacks and Moscow and the circumstances of its conclusion are particularly studied. The ideological influences of historical schools and political concepts on the assessments of scholars of the Pereyaslav agreement and bereznevi statti (March articles) have been analyzed. Conclusions. Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century considered 1654 a milestone in the fate of Ukraine and one of the most important in the history of Poland. It was from the Cossack-Moscow treaty that they deduced the beginning of the rejection of the eastern lands of the Commonwealth in favor of Russia. Scholars saw the causes of these fateful events in the significant depletion of the Ukrainian uprising. As another reason, they also pointed to the complication of the international situation of the Cossacks due to frustration with the Turkish protection and the dual role of assistance to the Crimean Khanate. Polish scholars have drawn attention to the long history of Cossack-Moscow relations since the uprisings of the first half of the seventeenth century. However, they also pointed to Moscow’s unpreparedness for the war against the Commonwealth and its indecision. In their interpretations of Cossack-Moscow relations during the national liberation war Polish historians emphasized the parties’ differing views on the terms of the union. Thus, the scholars indicated that B. Khmelnytsky understood the agreement as a military understanding directed against Poland, where there was no talk of any restriction of Ukraine’s broad autonomy. Instead, the tsarist government understood the treaty as a simple incorporation of Ukrainian lands. This, in turn, as scientists have pointed out, it has caused many sharp misunderstandings. Among the most irritating researchers named the issue of financing the Cossack register and the disagreement of the Ukrainian clergy with the attempts of the Moscow Patriarchate to absorb its church structure. Thus, in the vision of Polish historians of the first half of the twentieth century, the Ukrainian-Moscow union was perceived as hopeless and even utterly dangerous for the very existence of the Ukrainian people.

The concept of sobornost’ and the problem of church authority in Russian theology late 19th — early 20th centuries

This article is devoted to the problematization of the idea of сhurch authority in Russian theology at the turn of the epochs, which is considered on the basis of the emergence and development of the concept of sobornost’. The reconstruction of the polemical context of A. Khomyakov allows the interpretation of the texts of which the concept of sobornost’ is included in theological thought. It also makes it possible to connect the problem of the authority of hierarchy with the idea of sobornost’ of the Church. In addition to the “Khomyakovsky” context, the author refers to three other authors, considered in chronological order. First, this concerns a collection of articles by Fr. A. Ivantsov-Platonov, in which he interprets the idea of sobornost’ designating it as an ideal characteristic of church structure. Here sobornost’ is associated with conciliar rule, which was not directly suggested by Khomyakov’s concept, and becomes a marker of (un)canonicity. Secondly, the author turns to the spiritual-academic theology at the beginning of the century, in which “sobornost’” is developed at two levels — institutional and mystical. This attempt receives the greatest meaningful development in the texts of Metropolitan Archbishop Antony (Khrapovitsky), who substantiates the authority of the hierarchy through the development of “personalistic” sobornost’ and the idea of the pastoral “compassionate love” for parishioners. Thirdly, the author considers the documents of the 1917–1918 Local Council in the focus of the connection between sobornost’ and church authority. It is concluded that the inclusion of the idea of sobornost’ into the context of academic theology leads to the formulation of the idea of the hierarchy’s authority, which was expressed in the construction of a new image of patriarchal ministry at the Council.

The Caucasian Territorial Churches and the Sāsānid Commonwealth

At the beginning of the sixth century, the kingships in Caucasian Iberia and Albania were eliminated by the Sāsānids. Thus, the system of vassal kings that served well for centuries was suddenly replaced by direct rule across the board. In this study, we want to ask why this change suddenly became possible. For the Sāsānian administration always needed a central contact person in the countries who could control the local nobility. It is striking that the establishment of a strong church structure always preceded the end of kingship. This can be seen particularly well in the example of Armenia, whose kingship had already been eliminated a century earlier. It is therefore reasonable to assume that after the end of kingship in Armenia as well as in Iberia and Albania, the regional churches took over its central functions of cooperation with the Sāsānian central administration. Now the church served the administration as an important local power factor, and allowed it he control of the powerful dynastic clans. Despite occasional conflicts, the churches cooperated with the Sāsānids and they were able to benefit greatly from this cooperation. Their advantages consisted in access to financial resources and, above all, in strengthening their position of power vis-à-vis the leaders of the local noble clans. Ecclesiastical power reached its peak when the Katholikoi finally also led their countries politically, as Kiwrion did in the case of Iberia at the beginning of the seventh century. Thus, the church became the state-forming institution in the Caucasian countries.

The YMCA and the Protestant Elite Welcome the Revolution

Following World War II, the Chinese began the task of rebuilding their nation. Protestant churches and schools joined these efforts, and Protestant leaders such as Ginling College’s president Wu Yifang represented the Nationalist republic to the world. The wartime alliance between the Chinese Nationalists and the Communists broke down in 1946, and a civil war ensued, ending with a Communist victory in 1949. The YMCA secretary Wu Yaozong took the lead in preparing the churches and the Protestant elite for life under the new regime. Consulting with the Communist leader, Zhou Enlai, Wu published the Christian Manifesto, which was a statement confessing the church’s complicity in Western imperialism and expressing her determination to support the revolution. The Korean War added a sense of urgency to these actions, and a new church structure, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement, was established to better serve the new relationship between state and church.

KLASIS DALAM KRISIS: TINJAUAN EKLESIOLOGIS TERHADAP ATURAN MENGENAI KLASIS DALAM TATA GEREJA MASEHI INJILI DI TIMOR TAHUN 1999

The Church’s self-understanding will help the church to organize herself optimally. The understanding cannot be separated from the Trinity. Therefore, this paper uses the communion approach proposed by John D. Zizoulas to understand the Trinitarian nature of the church. The Trinity is three persons who life in communion, based on equality and respect for differences. As the Trinity’s creation, church life and ministry are based on equal relations and respect for diversity.A creation of the Trinity, the Church is a complementary communion of the equals, that respects diversity. In this understanding, GMIT will be more aware of her true nature. GMIT is obligated to build communion not only in herself but also direct that communion outward. In other words, GMIT is by nature a missionary Church. Equality and respect for diversity are the spirit of GMIT as a missionary Church.As a missionary church, GMIT is also called by the triune God to live and serve in East Nusa Tenggara. The contexts of povery and religious plurality in East Nusa Tenggara are the challenges that GMIT needs to addres in her ministry. In addressing such challenges, GMIT needs direct all of her life, including her structure. GMIT also needs to preserve her identity while answering those challenges. Klasis in GMIT as an integral part of the church structure, enables GMIT to carry out her mission by preserving her identity faithful to the nature of GMIT as a communion inspired by equality and respect for diversity.

KLASIS DALAM KRISIS: TINJAUAN EKLESIOLOGIS TERHADAP ATURAN MENGENAI KLASIS DALAM TATA GEREJA MASEHI INJILI DI TIMOR TAHUN 1999

The Church’s self-understanding will help the church to organize herself optimally. The understanding cannot be separated from the Trinity. Therefore, this paper uses the communion approach proposed by John D. Zizoulas to understand the Trinitarian nature of the church. The Trinity is three persons who life in communion, based on equality and respect for differences. As the Trinity’s creation, church life and ministry are based on equal relations and respect for diversity.A creation of the Trinity, the Church is a complementary communion of the equals, that respects diversity. In this understanding, GMIT will be more aware of her true nature. GMIT is obligated to build communion not only in herself but also direct that communion outward. In other words, GMIT is by nature a missionary Church. Equality and respect for diversity are the spirit of GMIT as a missionary Church.As a missionary church, GMIT is also called by the triune God to live and serve in East Nusa Tenggara. The contexts of povery and religious plurality in East Nusa Tenggara are the challenges that GMIT needs to addres in her ministry. In addressing such challenges, GMIT needs direct all of her life, including her structure. GMIT also needs to preserve her identity while answering those challenges. Klasis in GMIT as an integral part of the church structure, enables GMIT to carry out her mission by preserving her identity faithful to the nature of GMIT as a communion inspired by equality and respect for diversity.

ECCLESIOLOGICAL CONDITIONALITY OF THE AUTOCEPHALOUS SYSTEM OF THE UNIVERSAL ORTHODOXY

The article deals with one of the fundamental problems of the whole corps of the church law – autocephalous principle of the existence of the church. This problem drives the researchers' attention to the very essence of the existence of orthodoxy in general. The preaching of Christ and the Gospel leave no direct pointers of the internal organization of the church. The apostles make only the subtle hints to the administrative arrangement of the church in general. Their mission preaching and spreading the faith to all nations, however, they did not envisage any other administrative system than autocephaly. Church dogmas and canons, which regulate all aspects of the life of the Church, were formed during the heyday of Christianity in the Byzantine Empire. However, the significant politicization and dependence of the church on imperial power led to the proclamation of a number of canons that contradicted the original nature of the church. This also applies to autocephaly. Under the pressure of the state authorities, the primacy of honor together with ancient Rome is shared by the capital's Constantinople chair. The theory of the "Five Patriarchates" is be- ing formed, which are called to rule the world Orthodoxy. During the Ecumenical Councils, autocephaly was transformed from a basic and natural state of the Church existence into a certain privilege and a subject of political bargaining in the international arena.Despite the long process of forming the canonical and legal corps of Orthodoxy, there is no clear regulation of the procedure for proclaiming a new autocephalous church today. This led to significant misunderstandings and the termination of Eucharistic communion by a number of Local Churches after granting autocephalous status to the Ukrainian Church. Theological disputes over the very procedure of signing the Tomos still take place today. Besides theoretical justification, the internal church structure also has a practical value for the process of bestowing autocephaly on the new national Local Churches. This is relevant due to the struggle of a number of modern countries for the church independence and the Ecumenical recognition. Starting since the Byzantine Empire times, the state power has constantly imposed its own church management principle and methods, which often was going against traditions and canonical norms. Orthodox ecclesiology offers its own approach to church-administrative management. It is proved that merely the autocephalous system is the only acceptable option of the existence of the Universal Orthodoxy.