Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
…
3 pages
1 file
Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, signed on 25 January, 1990 recognizing and adopting the Autocephalous status of the Orthodox Church of Georgia. Translated into English from the official source: მიტროპოლიტი ანანია ჯაფარიძე, საქართველოს საეკლესიო კანონთა კრებული, თბილისი, 2010, 622-624 [Metropolitan Anania Japaridze, the Corpus of the Ecclesiastical Canons of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2010, 622-624] in Georgian
Hovorun: Pastoral Care for the Ukrainian Orthodox, 2019
Chapter in the book: The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Ukraine Autocephaly. Edited by Evangelos Sotiropoulos, Order of Saint Andrew the Apostle, Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, 2019.
An Historical Approach to the Question of the Autocephaly of the Georgian Orthodox Church.
Il Regno Attualità e docomenti, fascicule n° 20, 2018
Italian journalist Daniela Sala, of the bi-monthly Roman Catholic magazine Il Regno, interviewed Father Jivko Panev on November 15. The interview is available online under the title “Ucraina – Ortodossia: la guerra dei patriarchi”.
The ecclesiastical organization uniquely characteristic of the Christian East is the autocephalous ("self-headed," or self-governing) church, which in the modern states of Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Balkans are truly national churches, whose boundaries, administrative structures, and identities closely mirror those of the state. Conventional wisdom attributes autocephaly to nationalism: Christianity inevitably becomes closely associated with national identity in those states whose churches are of Byzantine political patrimony, and autocephaly is the organizational manifestation of that association. This study argues that a better explanation for the prevalence of autocephaly lies with the church's institutional framework. Formal and informal institutions, or "rules of the game," structure the relationships between groups of local churches and provide incentives to observe constraints upon actions that restructure
CAS Sofia Working Paper Series, 2018
The working paper discusses one of the least studied developments in the post-synodal Russian Orthodox Church – the birth of her ecclesiological geopolitics. Until now, however, it was not a subject of systematic investigation. On the one hand, the focus of most studies falls on the Church’s domestic affairs and church-state relations. On the other hand, the Church’s international activities have not attracted much attention before the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Today, however, the Russian Church’s policy toward the Orthodox communities in Ukraine and other former Soviet republics is a hot issue. Yet, most analyses fail to take into account the interwar experience of the Russian Church when, for the first time in her history, she has experienced a high degree of institutional disintegration and a significant loss of believers. More importantly, they ignore key concepts, developed by the interwar generation of Russian hierarchs for restoring the institutional unity, canonical authority, and territorial jurisdiction of their Church from the imperial times. In addition, these churchmen had to address previously unknown ecclesiological questions, namely about their Church’s rights over the communities of Russian émigrés and her structures created abroad before 1917. In this endeavor, they also conceptualized the role of their Church in contemporary Orthodoxy and her relations with the other Christian churches. By analyzing these views from religious, historical, and political perspectives, the paper reveals the process of creation of modern Russian ecclesiastical geopolitics and sheds light on its influence on the contemporary one.
Theologia, 2017
The Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow have been at loggerheads throughout much of the 20th and 21st century without any reconciliation in sight. This might not be readily noticeable to a casual observer since both Churches are in communion with each other as part of a canonical federation of Orthodox Churches. If one, however, were to inspect the issue a little closer, one would see a subtle but complex historical and scholarly narrative which developed in such a way that it has led to an escalation of tensions between the two. This paper seeks to give a succinct historical analysis of the conflict between the two Patriarchates in order to focus more specifically on the scholarly and ideological aspect of the dispute. This will entail an analysis, i) of the historical background and polemical discourse of the Russian nationalist and canon law professor S. V. Troitsky (1878-1972); ii) of Troitsky’s major article against the extra-jurisdictional rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which was adopted by the Moscow Patriarchate; and iii) of the “Greek” response of Professor Photiades of the Chalki School of Theology, who defended the rights of Constantinople through a historico-canonical narrative.
US-China Law Review, 2017
The Historian, 2016
Computer Law & Security Review, 2020
Revista de Geografía Norte Grande, 2024
Psychoanalysis of the Psychoanalytic Frame Revisited, 2023
Relationship between Accounting Information Systems Quality and Organizational Performance in Selected NGOs in Juba, South Sudan, 2021
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2020
Journal of Innovative Technologies, 2018
Academia Biology, 2024
Nutrients, 2013
Asclepio-revista De Historia De La Medicina Y De La Ciencia, 2007
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2004
The Indonesian Biomedical Journal, 2022
BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2024