St. Tikhon’s University Review . Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies

The article is devoted to an important problem in the relations between the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople at the beginning of the 21st century. The author provides a complex analysis of the infl uence exercised by the ecclesiastical crisis in the Ukraine on the relations between Moscow, Phanar and Kiev. Special attention is paid to the activities of non-recognized Ukrainian ecclesiastical structures and their attempts to join the Orthodox world by way of obtaining recognition on the part of the Church of Constantinople. Their frequent joint meetings held at Phanar proved fruitless; however, they were quite illustrative as to the double standards of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in its policies towards the ecclesiastical schisms in the Ukraine. An important role here,according to the author, was played by the Ukrainian civil authorities, although the relations between Church and state as well as the events of the internal ecclesiastical life in the Ukraine (such as the attempted dialogue between the Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Patriarchate of Kiev) are left outside the framework of the present research; facts concerning these areas are cited only when they contribute to the understanding of the processes under analysis. Proceeding from the data of Russian and Ukrainian ecclesiastical periodicals, the author maintains that the problem of the religious life in the Ukraine has long ago overstepped the boundaries of a “local confl ict” and that the “Ukrainian question” plays the part of a powerful catalyst in the inter-Orthodox relations. The Patriarchate of Moscow aims at preserving its status in the Orthodox world. As for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, it keeps voicing certain claims at strengthening its position as primus inter pares among the Orthodox Patriarchates, dreams about convening a new “Ecumenical Council” and puts the Ukraine at stake in its relations with Moscow.

Patriarchate of Constantinople, Patriarchate of Moscow, Phanar, Chambésy, Ukrainian question, Estonian crisis, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Patriarchate of Kiev, Bartholomew I, Ale

1. 2000 “Avtokefaliju za kanonichnist'?” (Autocephaly for Canonicity) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2000, no. 5, p. 7.
2. 2000 “Patriarh Filaret: ≪Ob’jednannja ukrai'ns'kyh cerkov mozhe vidbutys' v s'omu roci≫” (Patriarch Philaret: “Unity of Ukrainian Churches could take Place in this Year”) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2000, no. 16, p. 6.
2. Arhyjerejs'kyj Sobor UAPC pryjnjav zajavu pro mizh’jurysdykcijnyj dialog (The Assembly of Hierarchs of Ukrainian Autocephaly Orthodox Church resolved to open the Inter-Jurisdictional Dialogue) in: uaoc.net/2009/12/arhyjerejskyj-sobor/.
3. V Stambule zavershilsja Vsepravoslavnyj Sobor (Pan-Orthodox Council in Istanbul is Completed) in: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/16450.html.
4. V Cjurihe sostojalis' peregovory oficial'nyh delegacij Konstantinopol'skogo i Moskovskogo Patriarhatov (Summit of Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates’ Delegations took Place in Zurich) in: http://www.mospat.ru/archive/nr104201.htm.
5. 2009 “Vizit Svjatejshego Patriarha Moskovskogo i vseja Rusi Kirilla v Konstantinopol'skij Patriarhat” (Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Kirill’s Visit to Patriarchate of Constantinople) in: Zhurnal Moskovskoj patriarhii, 2009, no. 8.
6. Vselens'kyj Patriarhat ne vyznaje faktu pidporjadkuvannja kyi'vs'koi' mytropolii' moskovs'komu patriarhatu u 1686 roci (Ecumenical Patriarchate does not Admit the Fact of Subordination of Kiev Metropolitanate to Moscow Patriarchate in 1686 y.) in: Golos pravoslav’ja, 2007, no. 7, p. 2.
7. Gudzyk K. 2001 “Zrobleno shhe odyn krok do Jednosti urkai'ns'kogo pravoslav’ja ta kanonichnogo viznannja Ukrai'ns'koi' Pomisnoi' Pravoslavnoi' Cerkvy” (One more Step was taken to Unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy and Canonical Recognition of Ukrainian Local Orthodox Church) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2001, no. 2, p. 3.
8. 2000 “Data voistynu planetarnogo masshtabu. Urochysta Akademija v Nacional'nomu palaci ≪Ukrai'na≫” (The Date of Really World-wide Renown. Grand Academy in the National Palace “Ukraina”) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2000, no. 3, p. 5.
9. Delegacii Konstantinopol'skogo i Moskovskogo Patriarhatov vstretilis' v Krymu (Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates’ Delegations met in Crimea) in: http://www.mospat.ru/archive/nr204221.htm.
10. 2001 “Dopovid' Svjatijshogo Patriarha Kyi'vs'kogo i vsijei' Rusy-Ukrai'ny Filareta na Pomisnomu sobori z nagody 2000-littja Rizdva Hrystovogo” (Holy Patriarch of Kiev and All Rus-Ukraine Philaret’s Report on Local Council on the Occasion of 2000 Year of the Nativity of Christ) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2001, no. 2, p. 6.
11. Drabinko A. Pravoslavie v posttotalitarnoj Ukraine (Orthodoxy in Post-Soviet Ukraine), Kiev, 2002.
12. 2010 “Episkop Evstratij: ≪Vrjad li Moskve udastsja ot Konstantinopolja dobit'sja dejstvij, uhudshajushhih nashe nіneshnee polozhenie≫” (Bishop Eustratius: “Moscow will hardly obtain Actions from Constantonople, that Could Make our Current Condition Worse”) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2010, no. 11, p. 6.
13. 2008 “Episkop Perejaslav-Hmel'nickij Aleksandr: ≪V dialoge s Konstantinopolem my rukovodstvuemsja duhom bratskoj ljubvi≫” (Bishop of Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi Alexander: “We are guided by the Spirit of Brotherly Love in our Dialogue with Constantinople”) in: Cerkovnaja gazeta, 2008, no. 12–13, p. 16.
14. 2008 “Jepyskop Jevstratij: ≪Ne mozhna govoryty pro nezalezhnist' Ukrai'ni, poky Pravoslavna Cerkva upravljajet'sja z Moskvy≫” (Bishop Eustratius: “It is Impossible to Talk about Sovereignty of Ukraine while Moscow rules Orthodox Church”) in: Golos pravoslav’ja, 2008, no. 16, p. 4.
15. 2001 “Zajava jepyskopatu Ukrai'ns'koi' Pravoslavnoi' Cerkvy shhodo shljahiv podolannja rozkolu v Pravoslav’i' v Ukrai'ni” (Official Statement of the Episcopate of Ukrainian Orthodox Church on Ways of Overcoming the Orthodoxy Schism in Ukraine) in: Pravoslavna gazeta, 2001, no. 1, p. 4.
16. Zajava Predstojatelja UAPC mytropolyta Mefodija (Head of Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church Metropolitan Methodius’ Statement) in: http://www.uaoc.net/2009/11/zayavapredstoyatelya.
17. 2000 “Zajava pres-sluzhby Kyi'vs'koi' Patriarhii' ≪pro sytuaciju navkolo procesu ob’ednannja ukrai'ns'kogo pravoslav’ja v jedynu Ukrai'ns'ku Pomisnu Cerkvu≫” (Press-Service of Kiev Patriarchate’ Statement on “Situation around Association of Ukrainian Orthodoxy into One Ukrainian Local Church”) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2000, no. 15, p. 5.
18. 2000 “Zvernennja Arhijerejs'kogo soboru Ukrai'ns'koi' Pravoslavnoi' Cerkvy Ego Svjatejshestvu Patryarhu Moskovskomu y vseja Rusy Aleksyju II, Arhyerejskomu Soboru RPC” (Appeal of Council of Bishops of Ukrainian Orthodox Church to Holy Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Alexy II, Council of Bishops of ROC) in: Pravoslavna gazeta, 2000, no. 5, p. 4.
19. 2000 “Zvernennja Arhijerejs'kogo Soboru Ukrai'ns'koi' Pravoslavnoi' Cerkvy Jogo Svjatosti Svjatishomu Varfolomiju, Patriarhu Konstantynopol's'komu” (Official Statement of the Council of Bishops of Ukrainian Orthodox Church to His Holiness, Most Holy Bartholomew Patriarch of Constantinople) in: Pravoslavna gazeta, 2000, no. 4, p. 6.
20. 2005 “Zustrich zi Vselens'kym Patriarhom” (Meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2005, no. 6, p. 3.
21. 2005 “Zustrich z Vselens'kym Patriarhom Varfolomijem I” (Meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2005, no. 12, p. 4.
22. 2007 “Zustrich z Vselens'kym Patriarhom Varfolomijem I” (Meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2007, no. 14, p. 2.
23. 2008 “Zustrich z Vselens'kym Patriarhom Varfolomijem I” (Meeting with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2008, no. 21, p. 3.
24. “Interv'ju s A. N. Saganom” (Interview with A. N. Sagan) in: Lichnyj arhiv avtora (Author’s Personal Archive).
25. “Interv'ju s arhiepiskopom Aleksandrom (Drabinko)” (Interview with Archbishop Alexander (Drabinko)) in: Lichnyj arhiv avtora (Author’s Personal Archive).
26. “Informacija o peregovorah vice-prem'er-ministra Ukrainy N. G. Zhulinskogo s Vselenskim Patriarhom Varfolomeem po voprosu ob ob’edinenii Ukrainskogo Pravoslavija i poluchenija ob’edinennoj Ukrainskoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkov'ju avtokefalii. Stambul, Rezidencija Vselenskogo Patriarha, 1 ijunja 2000 goda. Mashinopis'” (Information about Negotiations of Vice-Premier-Minister of Ukraine N. Zhulinsky with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on Question of the Union of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy and Receipt the Autocephaly by United Ukrainian Orthodox Church) in: Arhyv Kyevskoj mytropolyy (Archive of Kiev Metropolitanate)
27. 2009 “Kyi'vs'ka popravka. Patriarh Filaret pro pravoslav’ja v suchasnomu sviti ta rol' u n'omu Ukrai'ny” (Kiev Amendment. Patriarch Philaret on the Orthodoxy in the Present-Day and the Role of Ukraine in It) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2009, no. 7, p. 4.
28. Konstantinopol'skij Patriarhat kategoricheski oproverg zajavlenie deputata Verhovnoj Rady Ukrainy P. Movchana (Patriarchate of Constantinople flatly disproved Deputy of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine P. Movchana’s Announcement) in: http://www.mospat.ru/archive/nr112202.
htm.
29. Konfeta po-kievski (Bonbon in Kiev) in: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1323691/print.
30. 2010 “Lyst Vselens'komu Patriarhu Varfolomiju I” (Letter to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2010, vol. 3, p. 5.
31. “Mitropolit Vladimir: ≪Chtoby vocarilsja cerkovnyj mir≫” (Mitropolitan Vladimir: “To Save the Churches’ Peace”) in: Cerkovnaja gazeta, 2005, vol. 21, p. 7.
32. 2001 “Mitropolit Odesskij i Izmail'skij Agafangel: ≪Raskol v Ukraine davno by rassypalsja, esli by ne bylo podderzhki so storony okolocerkovnyh politicheskih krugov≫” (Metropolitan of Odessa and Ismail Agathangel: “Ukrainian Schism Should Have Gone to Pieces Long Time Ago but for Near-Church Political Circles Support It”) in: Pravoslavna gazeta, 2001, vol. 8, p. 5.
33. Mizh’jurysdykcijnyj dialog jak shljah do pobudovy Jedynoi' Pomisnoi' Pravoslavnoi' Cerkvy v Ukrai'ni (Between-Jurisdictional Dialogue as the Way to Build the United Local Orthodox Church in Ukraine) in: http://www.uaoc.net/2009/12/zayava-soboru/.
34. 2008 “Obrashhenie Svjashhennogo Sinoda Ukrainskoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi k Vsesvjateshemu Arhiepiskopu Konstantinopolja — Novogo Rima i Vselenskomu Patriarhu Varfolomeju I” (Appeal of the Holy Synod of Ukrainian Orthodox Church to All-Holy Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I) in: Cerkovnaja gazeta, 2008, vol. 14, p. 8.
35. 2008 “Opredelenie Osvjashhennogo Arhierejskogo Sobora o edinstve Cerkvi” (Definition of Holy Archbishopric Council on Unity of the Church) in: Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarhii, 2008, vol. 8, p. 16.
36. 2000 “Opredelenie Osvjashhennogo Jubilejnogo Sobora Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi ob Ukrainskoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi” (Definition of Holy Anniversary Archbishopric Council of Russian Orthodox Church on Ukrainian Orthodox Church) in: Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarhii, 2000, vol. 10.
37. 2001 “Opredelenija Svjashhennogo Sinoda” (Decisions of Holy Synod) in: Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarhii, 2001, vol. 8.
38. 2001 “Otvet General'nogo sekretarja Svjatogo i Svjashhennogo Sinoda mitropolita Filadel'fijskogo Melitona na pis'mo Vysokopreosvjashhennejshego mitropolita Smolenskogo i Kaliningradskogo Kirilla, Predsedatelja OVCS MP. 14 dekabrja 2001 g. Stambul, Patriarhija” (Answer of Metropolitan of Philadelphia and General Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod Meliton to the Letter of His Eminence Metropolitan of Smolensk and Kaliningrad Kirill, Head of the Department for External Church Relations of Moscow Patriarchate 14 /12/ 2001) in: Arhiv OVCS MP (Archive of Department for External Church Relations).
39. Patriarh Varfolomej: ≪Spustja 17 let ja nahozhu sovershennoinuju Rossiju≫: Interv'ju kanalu ≪Rossija 24≫ (Patriarch Bartholomew I: “After 17 years I Find New Russia”: An Interview to Channel “Russia 24”) in: http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=364586.
40. Peregovori u Kyjevi (Talks in Kiev) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2000, vol. 17, p. 4.
41. 2008 “Poezdka Svjatejshego Patriarha Moskovskogo i vseja Rusi Aleksija v Kiev na prazdnovanija 1020-letija Kreshhenija Rusi” (Visit of Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus’ Aleksy I to Kiev for Celebration of 1020 years of Christianization of Kievan Rus’) in: Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarhii, 2008, vol. 8, p. 77.
42. 2001 “Pomisnyj shljah UPC: kriz terny do zirok” (Local Way for Ukrainian Orthodox Church through the Thorns to the Stars) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2001, vol. 7, p. 7.
43. Postanova №1 Arhyjerejs'kogo Soboru Ukrai'ns'koi' Avtokefal'noi' parvoslavnoi' Cerkvy ot 16 lypnja 2010 roku (Decision №1 of Hierarchal Council of Ukrainian Orthodox Church from 16 July 2010) in: http://www.uaoc.net/2010/07/postanovy/.
44. Prezident Ukrainy i Vselenskij patriarh vystupajut za uchastie predstavitelej Konstantinopol'skogo i Moskovskogo patriarhatov v razreshenii krizisnoj situacii v ukrainskom pravoslavii (President of Ukraine and Ecumenical Patriarch Advocate the Participation of Deputies of Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates in the Ukrainian Orthodoxy’ Crisis) in: http://www.interfax-religion.ru/islam/?act=archive&div=9026.
45. 2010 Pres-centr Kyi'vs'koi' Patriarhii': ≪Try frazy, vyrvani z kontekstu, — ne pryvid dlja kategorychnyh tverzhen' zhurnalistiv≫ (Press-centre of Kievan Patriarchate: “Three Phrases out of Context – are not Excuse for Journalists to assert categorically”) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, 2010, vol. 11, p. 7.
46. Pro pomisnyj status i svoje misce v dyptyhu (On Local Status and own Place in Diptych) in: http://www.uaoc.net/2009/12/predstojatel/l/3/.
47. Protoierej Nikolaj Balashov prokommentiroval poziciju Konstantinopol'skogo Patriarhata po voprosam mezhcerkovnyh otnoshenij (Archpriest Nikolay Balashov has commented the Position of Patriarchate of Constantinople on Issue of Interchurch Relations) in: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/40499.html.
48. 2000 Proces ob’jednannja rozpochavsja. Ukrai'ns'ke Pravlslav’ja pid egidoju Vselens'koi Konstantynopol's'koi' Patriarhii' (The Process of Unity has begun. Ukrainian Orthodoxy under Aegis of Patriarchate of Constantinople) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, vol. 22, p. 2.
49. 2001 Real'ni kroky v ob’jednavchomu procesi (Real Steps in the Process of Unity) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, vol. 13, p. 3.
50. 2010 Sluzhenija i vstrechi Svjatejshego Patriarha Kirilla (His Hollines Patriarch Kirill’s Divine Services and Meetings) in: Zhurnal Moskovskoj patriarhii, vol. 6, p. 20–23.
51. 2000 Shljahy ob’jednannja ukrai'ns'kogo pravoslav’ja. Dopovid' Svjatijshogo Patriarha Kyi'vs'kogo y vsijei' Rusi-Ukrai'ny Fylareta na vseukrai'ns'kij cerkovno-gromads'kij konferencii' ≪Ob’jednannja ukrai'ns'kogo pravoslav’ja≫ (Ways of Unity of the Ukrainian Orthodoxy. His Holliness Patriarch of Kiev and All the Rus-Ukraine Filaret’s Report at All-Ukrainian Church-Public Conference “Unity of Ukrainian Orthodoxy”) in: Golos Pravoslav’ja, vol. 17, p. 6.
52. Denysenko N. E. “Chaos in Ukraine: the churches and the search for leadership” in: International journal for the Study of the Christian Church, in: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1474225X.2014.925261.
53. Letter of His Excellency Viktor Yuschenko, President of Ukraine, to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in: http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/hisexcellency-
viktor-yuschenko-presidento-ukraine-2005.
54. Letter to His Excellency Victor Yuschenko, President of Ukraine in: http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/president-of-ukraine-2005.
55. Press Release for the visit of His All Holiness to Kiev, Ukraine in: http://www.patriarchate.org/news/releases/kiev-press-release-2008.

Chibisova Anastasiia

The author considers the historical circumstances of the creation of the Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Churches under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Western Europe in 1931. This event was a crucial one for the fates of the Orthodox Diaspora in the 20th century. It exemplifi ed two ecclesiological concepts bearing on the role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Orthodox Diaspora ascribed to it by the participants of the discussion. The first of these concepts maintains that only the patriarchate of Constantinople has the right of jurisdiction over the Orthodox Diaspora, while the second one rules this necessity out and emphatically states that the jurisdiction over their respective Diasporas should be exercised by the national Churches. The opposition of these two concepts has become a characteristic trait of the Orthodox history in the 20th century.

Patriarchate of Constantinople, Patriarchate of Moscow, Patriarchate of Serbia, Russian Exarchate in Western Europe, Orthodox Diaspora, jurisdiction, autonomy, autocephaly, primacy.

1. Ageev D. A. 2005–2006. Jekzarhat pravoslavnyh russkih prihodov v zapadnoj Evrope. Hronika vzaimootnoshenij s Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkov'ju (Exarchate of Orthodox Russian Parishes in the Western Europe. Chronicle of Relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church) in: Cerkovno-istoricheskij vestnik, vol. 12–13, pp. 5–53.
2. Gubonon M. E. (ed.) 1994. Akty Svjatejshego Tihona, patriarha moskovskogo i vseja Rossii, pozdnejshie dokumenty i perepiska o kanonicheskom preemstve vysshej cerkovnoj vlasti 1917–1943 (Acts of Most Holy Tikhon Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, Posterior Documents and Correspondence on Canonical Continuity of Higher Church Authority 1917–1943), Moscow.
3. 1931. Arhipastyrskoe poslanie Vysokopreosvjashhennejshego Mitropolita Evlogija, ot 25 fevralja 1931 goda (His Eminence Metropolitan Eulogius’ Pastoral Epistle 25.02.1931) in: Cerkovnyj vestnik zapadnoevropejskoj eparhii, vol. 2, pp. 4–5.
4. Burega V. V. 2005–2006. Vzaimootnoshenija mitropolita Evlogija (Georgievskogo) s Konstantinopol'skim patriarhatom v pervoj polovine 1920-h godov: k postanovke problemy (Relationship of Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievky) with Patriarchate of Constantinople in the First Half of 1920-s) in: Cerkovno-istoricheskij vestnik, vol. 12–13, pp. 67–77.
5. 1931. Doklad Prihodskogo Soveta Aleksandronevskoj Svjato-Troickoj Cerkvi Prihodskomu Sobraniju o polozhenii Zapadno-Evropejskoj Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, v otchetnom 1930 godu (Parish Council of Alexander Nevsky Cathedral’ Report on situation in Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox churches in Western Europe in 1930) in: Cerkovnyj vestnik zapadnoevropejskoj eparhii, vol. 3, pp. 19–32.
6. Metropolitan Evlogius (Georgievsky). 1994. Put' moej zhizni — vospominanija mitropolita Evlogija (Georgievskogo) izlozhennye po ego rasskazam T. Manuhinoj (My Life’s Way – Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky)’s Memoires expounded by T. Manukhina according to his Words), Moscow.
7. 2001. Zhurnal Moskovskoj patriarhii v 1931–1935 gody, Moscow.
8. 1998. Iz perepiski Zamestitelja Patriarshego Mestobljustitelja mitropolita Nizhegorodskogo Sergija (Stragorodskogo) i mitropolita Evlogija, upravljajushhego pravoslavnymi russkimi cerkvami v Zapadnoj Evrope. 1927–1928 (From the Correspondence of Sergius (Stragorodsky), Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan of N. Novgorod, and Metropolitan Eulogius, Governor of Orthodox Russian Parishes in Western Europe) in: Cerkov' i vremja, vol. 2 (5), pp. 75–110.
9. Lomako G. 1931. Golos pastyrja (The Voice of the Shepherd) in: Cerkovnyj vestnik zapadnoevropejskoj eparhii, vol. 12, pp. 13-16.
10. 1931. Obrashhenie Vysokopreosvjashhennejshego Mitropolita Evlogija k duhovenstvu ot 31 oktjabrja 1931 goda (His Eminence Metropolitan Eulogius Appeal to the Cleargy 31. 11.1931), in: Cerkovnyj vestnik zapadnoevropejskoj eparhii, vol. 11, pp. 1–3.
11. 1932. Poslanie Patriarha Fotija Mitropolitu Sergiju ot 25 ijunja 1931 goda (Patriarch Photius’ Epistle to Metropolitan Sergius 25.06.1931) in: Golos litovskoj pravoslavnoj eparhii, vol. 1, pp. 3–5.
12. 1932. Pis'mo Serbskogo patriarha Varnavy mitropolitu Vil'njusskomu Elevferiju ot 14 fevralja 1932 goda (Serbian Patriarch Barnabas’ Letter to Eletherius, Metropolitan of Vilnius 14.02.1932) in: Golos litovskoj pravoslavnoj eparhii, vol. 2, pp. 29–30.
13. 1932. Pis'mo mitropolita Vil'njusskogo Elevferija Serbskomu patriarhu Varnave (Eletherius Metropolitan of Vilnius’ Letter to Serbian Patriarch Barnabas) in: Golos litovskoj pravoslavnoj eparhii, vol. 2, pp. 31–33.
14. Troicki S. V. 1932. Crkvena јurisdikciјa nad pravoslavnom diјasporom (Church Jurisdiction under Orthodox Doaspora). Sremski Karlovci.
15. Troicki S. V. 2008. Izabrane studiјe iz crkvenog prava (Selected Works on Church Canonical Law). Belgrade.
16. Ε. Φ. 1948. Ἐξ ἀϕορμὴς ἔνος ἀρθροῦ (In connection with the Article) in: Ὀρθοδοξία, vol. 23, pp. 210–240

Puzovich Vladislav

The author considers the principal moments of the understanding of religion in psychoanalysis as perceived by Russian thinkers of the first half and the middle of the 20th century. The author indicates the conditions and context of the perception of psychoanalysis in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the main contiguity points shared by the psychoanalytic understanding of religion and its treatment by the Russian symbolists, mainly by Vyacheslav Ivanov. He proceeds to consider the perception and criticism of psychoanalysis off ered by Russian thinkers of the fi rst half and the middle of the 20th century: Father P. Florensky, N. A. Berdyayev, S. L. Frank, B. P. Vysheslavtsev and S. A. Levitsky. The final part of the article contains conclusions bearing on the general meaning of this perception and its potential signifi cance for the Russian psychology of religion. Beyond any doubt, Russian philosophers have managed to enrich their understanding of religion by making use of the attainments of psychoanalysis. They have productively used even such ideas as had been conceived by the founder of psychoanalysis as instrumental in criticizing religion. Alongside repetition of the ideas common in the criticism of psychoanalysis, they have put forward a number of original arguments proceeding from an immanent analysis of psychoanalytical ideas indicative of the internal problems that exist in the psychoanalytical approach to religion. They have also outlined ways of overcoming them within the framework of Christian thought. In a number of cases they have evidently foreshadowed the interpretation of psychoanalytical doctrines in Western Christian thought.

psychoanalysis, unconscious, subconscious, imagination, fancy, libido, Eros, symbol, cult, reductionism/antireductionism, Freud, Jung, Frankl, Vyacheslav Ivanov, Florensky, Berdyayev, Frank, Vysheslavtsev, Levitsky.

1. Corvelyen J., Leuten P. 2005. Psychodynamic Psychologies and Religion: Past, Present, and Future in: Paloutzian R. F., Park C. L. (ed.) Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality, New York, pp. 80–100.
2. Crone A. L. 2010. Eros and Creativity in Russian Religious Renewal, Leiden.
3. Vergote A. 1998. Psychoanalysis, Phenomenological Anthropology and Religion, Luven.
4. Antonov K. M. 2009. Filosofija religii v russkoj metafizike XIX - nachala XX veka (Philosophy of Religion in the Russian Metaphysics in XIX – Beginning of XX Century), Moscow.
5. Berdjaev N. A. 1989. Smysl tvorchestva (The Sense Creation), Moscow.
6. Berdjaev N. A. 1931. O naznachenii cheloveka (On Human Destination), Paris.
7. Boneckaja N. K. 2010. «Homo faber» i «Homo liturgus» (Filosofskaja antropologija o. P. Florenskogo) («Homo faber» and «Homo liturgus» (P. Florensky’s Philosophical Anthropology)) in: Voprosy filosofii, vol. 3, pp. 90–109.
8. Bratus' B. S. et al. 1995. Nachala hristianskoj psihologii (The Origin of Christian Psychology), Moscow.
9. Vorozhihina K. V. 2012. Lev Shestov i istorija psihoanaliza (Lev Shestov and History of Psychoanalysis) in: Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seria 7. Filosofija, vol. 3, pp. 28–38.
10. Vysheslavcev B. P. 1993. Jetika preobrazhennogo jerosa (Ethics of Eros Transfigured). Moscow.
11. Gorjachenko E. A. 2010. Metodologija issledovanija religii i religioznogo opyta v postklassicheskom psihoanalize (Methodology of the Religious Research and Experience on Post-classical Psychoanalysis), in: Religiovedenie, vol. 1, pp. 150–156.
12. Gorjachenko E. A. 2010. Metodologija psihoanaliticheskogo issledovanija religioznogo opyta
v koncepcijah klassicheskogo i postklassicheskogo psihoanaliza. Dal'negorsk.
13. Damte D. S. 2013. Issledovateli sovetskogo perioda o sblizhenii psihologii bessoznatel'nogo i teologii (Researchers of Soviet Period about Convergence of Unconscious and Theology), in: Vestnik PSTGU. Seria 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, vol. 3 (47), pp. 101–111.
14. Damte D. S. 2013. Psihoanaliz v dele pastyrskogo sluzhenija: sravnitel'nyj analiz podhodov Oskara Pfistera i Ojgena Drevermana (Psychoanalysis in the Pastoral Ministry: Comparative Analysis of O. Pfister and E. Dreverman’s Approaches), in: Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seria 7. Filosofija, vol. 1, pp. 74–85.
15. Dronov M., prot. 1998. Otec psihoanaliza protiv svjatyh otcov. Uchenie o cheloveke v hristianstve i vo frejdizme (Father of Psychoanalysis versus Holy Fathers. Doctrine of a Man in Christianity and in Freudism), in: Pravoslavnaja beseda, vol. 4.
16. Zen'ko Ju. M. 2009. Psihologija religii (smotrovoj variant) (Psychology of Religion), Saint-Petersbourg.
17. Ivanov V. I., Gershenzon M. 2006. Perepiska iz dvuh uglov (Correspondence from Two Angles). Moscow.
18. Kiprian (Kern), arhim. 1957. Pravoslavnoe pastyrskoe sluzhenie (Orthodox Pastoral Ministry), Paris.
19. Kondrat'ev V. Ju. B. P. Vysheslavcev i L. S. Vygotskij: dva vzgljada na psihoanaliz Z. Frejda in: Voprosy filosofii. 2012. № 10. S. 108–116.
20. Levickij S. A. Sochinenija. M., 1995.
21. Lejbin V. M. Frejd i Rossija in: Zigmund Frejd i psihoanaliz v Rossii. M.; Voronezh, 2000. S. 305–518.
22. Maslin M. A. [rec. na]: Crone A. L. Eros and Creativity in Russian Religious Renewal. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2010 in: Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofija. 2011. Vyp. 2 (34). S. 117–123.
23. Pavljuchenkov N. N. Psihologija religii v trudah svjashhennika Pavla Florenskogo in: Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofija. 2011. Vyp. 5(37). S. 99–112.
24. Popova M. A. Frejdizm i religija. M., 1985.
25. Religiovedenie / M. M. Shahnovich, red. SPb., 2006.
26. Rjazanova E. V. Psihologija religii in: Vvedenie v obshhee religiovedenie / I. N. Jablokov, red. M., 2008. S. 255–327.
27. Rjazanova E. V. Svjashhennik Ojgen Drevermann i nekotorye problemy proniknovenija psihologii v katolicheskuju Cerkov' in: Gosudarstvo, religija, Cerkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom. M., 1998. № 1–2. S. 105–112.
28. Samygin S. I., Nechipurenko V. N., Polonskaja I. N. Religiovedenie: sociologija i psihologija religii. Rostov n/D, 1996.
29. Serbinenko V. V. Filosofsko-psihologicheskij dialog: V. Zen'kovskij i Z. Frejd in: Vestnik Murmanskogo gosudarstvennogo tehnicheskogo universiteta. 2013. № 2(16). S. 374–377.
30. Solov'ev V. S. Sobranie sochinenij: V 2 t. SPb., b.g.
31. Storchak V. M. Psihoanaliticheskaja koncepcija religii K. G. Junga i sovremennost' in: Religiovedenie. 2006. № 1. S. 138–151.
32. Surova A. B. Religiozno-filosofskaja i psihoanaliticheskaja interpretacija problemy pola: V. V. Rozanov i Z. Frejd. M., 2014.
33. Florenskaja T. A. Dialogi o vospitanii i zdorov'e: duhovno orientirovannaja psihoterapija in: Duhovno-nravstvennoe vospitanie. 2001. № 3. S. 3–94.
34. Florenskij P. A. Filosofija kul'ta. M., 2004.
35. Florenskij. P. A. Sochinenija: V 4 t. M., 1994.
36. Frank S. L. Dusha cheloveka in: On zhe. Predmetznanija. Dusha cheloveka. SPb., 1996. S.
37. Frank S. L. Psihoanaliz kak mirosozercanie in: Put'. № 25. 1930. S. 22–51.
38. Frejd Z. Sobranie sochinenij: V 10 t. M., 2008.
39. Jetkind A. M. Jeros nevozmozhnogo. Istorija psihoanaliza v Rossii. M., 1994.
40. Jung K. G. Struktura psihiki i process individuacii. M., 1996.
41. Junggren M. Russkij Mefistofel': zhizn' i tvorchestvo Je. Metnera. SPb., 2001.
42. Jablokov I. N. Osnovy religiovedenija. M., 2004. S. 168–175.

Antonov Konstantin

The author presents an analysis of an empirical research concerning religion in the worldview of atheists, representatives of today’s youth. She focuses on the results obtained from studying their values and conceptions, emotional attitudes towards religion displayed by atheists and their behavior in religious context. The findings of the research have shown that the values that characterize the representatives of the group under study are subjective and nominative; that their conceptions of religion are characterized by superficiality and lack of system; that their emotional attitude can be defined as self-distancing and equanimity. The behavior of many atheists is predetermined by some kind of religious experience in the past, from which they would like to distance themselves. Among today’s young people, there are those who identify themselves as atheists, but their attitude towards religion is spontaneous and fragmentary, based on an experience of superficial religious enculturation.

religion, atheists, values, conceptions, emotions, behavior

1. Vicenko V. O. Obraz vremeni u predstavitelej razlichnyh religioznyh konfessij. Dis. … kand. psihol. nauk (Image of Time by Representatives of Different Religions. Dissertation), Moscow, 2005.
2. Golovanova T. N. Formirovanie celostnogo ponimanija i ob’jasnenija dejstvitel'nosti cherez religioznoe i nereligioznoe otnoshenie k miru (na primere studentov-pedagogov). Dis. … kand. psihol. nauk (Formatin of Whole Understanding and Explanation of Reality through Religious and Non-Religious Attitude to the World (on Example of Pedagogical Students)), Joshkar-Ola, 2004.
3. Maljavina S. S. 2012 “Religioznaja kompetentnost' predstavitelej sovremennoj molodezhi, identificirujushhih sebja v kachestve pravoslavnyh hristian” (Religious Competence of Representatives of Modern Youth, Identifying Itself as Orthodox Christians), in Izvestija Smolenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 250–259.
4. Maljavina S. S. 2014 “Osobennosti jemocional'nogo otnoshenija k religioznoj kul'ture v srede sovremennoj molodezhi (kross-kul'turnoe issledovanie)” (Features of Emotional Attitude to Religious Culture in Sphere of Modern Youth), in Sibirskij psihologicheskij zhurnal, 2014, vol. 52, pp. 115–128.
5. Mchedlov M. P. 1998 “O religioznosti rossijskoj molodezhi” (About Religious Russian Youth), in Sociologicheskie issledovanija, 1998, vol. 6, pp. 107–111.

Maliavina Svetlana

The Sophiology features the mystical and poetic intuition of the so-called “femme éternelle” as one of the basic concepts of its doctrine. However, the analysis of concrete sophiological concepts shows that this trend in thought was characterized by a fairly strong internal competition of projects. Trying to build up such sophiology as would, in the eyes of its creators, correspond to the Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition, individual authors attempted to purify their constructions from certain aspects of Solovyov’s sophiological ideas. But an unbiased examination of certain sophiological doctrines shows that the struggle for a truly “ecclesiastical” Sophia in reality led to a re-thinking of the very notions of ecclesiasticism and tradition - on the basis of theoretical refl ection over the data provided by immediate religious experience which was perceived by its subjects as a personal revelation. The Sophiology of Father P. Florensky constitutes one of such attempts. In his book “The Pillar and Ground of the Truth” Sophia represents a carefully thought-over philosophical and theological concept representing an onto-symbolic representation of the Truth, which is not so much conceived rationally as by way of religious praxis. Central for such conceiving is the notion of “ecclesiasticism”. The experience of building-up a religious and philosophical synthesis found in the book of Florensky in reality presupposed (in view of the alleged traditional character of his constructions and his appeals to the archaically stylized medieval imagery and symbols) the emergence of a substantially new style of religiousness which found wide recognition in the quickly modernizing Russian society of the beginning of the 20th century.

Sophiology, religious experience, mystical Eros, friendship, ecclesiasticism, asceticism, symbol, method, Truth, Beauty, Sophia, modernism

1. Volkov S. A. 1996 “P. A. Florenskij”, in P. A. Florenskij: pro et contra, Saint-Petersburg, 1996, pp. 141–161.
2. Zen'kovskij V. V. Istorija russkoj filosofii (History of Russian Philosophy), Leningrad, 1991.

Vaganova Natal'ia

The author of the article describes the philosophical complexity and the ideological coherence of the two earliest philosophical concepts of the One belonging to early Pythagoreans and to the Eleatics, as well as the connection between the concept of the One and the ontological and epistemological dualism. The analysis of the concept of the One in the early Pythagorean school is based on the fragments of Philolaus and on the extant material concerning the science of music and geometry in this school. Part 1 considers the interrelation of two fragments by Philolaus: according to one of them, at the center of the Cosmic Space (Sphere) there is the One which is identified with fire; according to the other fragment, the multitude of things were brought into being by the harmonious corresponding of the limiting and the limitless. Part 2 describes the understanding of harmony, musical consonances, tetraktys, geometrical constructions, the expressible and the inexpressible in the early Pythagorean school. Part 3 considers the concept of the Central Fire. In Part 4 the author demonstrates the connection existing between the ideas of the early Pythagorean school mentioned above and the key topoi of the philosophy of the Eleatics. The author concludes that the amalgamation of monism and ontological and epistemological dualism - one of the richest philosophical, scientifi c and religious phenomena in the history of thought - has its roots in the doctrines of Pythagoreans and Eleatics.

ontology, Pre-Socratic philosophers, Pythagoreans, Eleatics, the One, (cosmic) space, nature, the limiting, the limitless, number, origin, dualism

1. Vol'f M. N. Filosofskij poisk: Geraklit i Parmenid (Philosophical Search: Heraclites and Parmenides), Saint-Petersburg, 2012.
2. Dobrohotov A. L. 2008 “Vozvrashhenie metafiziki, ili Kakie dejstvitel'nye uspehi sdelala metafizika so vremeni Parmenida” (Return of Metaphysics, or What Real Advances Did Metaphysics Do after Parmenides), in Izbrannoe, Moscow, 2008.
3. Dobrohotov A. L. Kategorija bytija v klassicheskoj zapadnoevropejskoj filosofii (Being Category in Classical West European Philosophy), Moscow, 1986.
4. Zhmud' L. Ja. Nauka, filosofija i religija v rannem pifagoreizme (Science, Philosophy and Religion in Early Pythagorism), Saint-Petersburg, 1994.
5. Zhmud' L. Ja. Pifagor i rannie pifagorejcy (Pythagoras and Early Pythagorians), Moscow, 2012.
6. Baldry H. C. 1932 “Embryological Analogies in Pre-Socratic Cosmogony”, in The Classical Quarterly, 1932, vol. 26/1, pp. 27–34.
7. Burkert W. Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism, Cambridge (Mass.), 1972.
8. Cornford F. M. 1923 “Mysticism and Science in the Pythagorean Tradition (cont.)”, in The Classical Quarterly, 1923, vol. 17/1, pp. 1–12.
9. Herz-Fischler R. A Mathematical History of the Golden Number, Mineola (NY), 1998.
10. Huffman C. Philolaus of Croton: Pythagorean and Presocratic, Cambridge, 1993.
11. Kahn C. H. Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: a Brief History, Indianapolis, 2001.
12. Næss A. “The World of Concrete Contents”, in Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy and the Social Sciences, vol. 28, pp. 417–428.
13. Schibli H. S. 1996 “On «The One» in Philolaus, Fragment 7”, in The Classical Quarterly, 1996, vol. 46/1, pp. 114–130.

Lechich Nikola

The article deals with the development of the teleological argument (the design argument) as elaborated in the works of the English natural philosophers Robert Boyle and John Ray. The argument in question constitutes one of the most convincing proofs of the existence of the rational design and is primarily known from the “fifth way” of Thomas Aquinas and from the “Natural Theology” by W. Paley. However, the basis for the modern research in this field was created precisely by the above-mentioned natural philosophers in the context of scientific revolution of the 17th century and the mechanistic philosophy that this epoch gave rise to. Recognizing the irrevocability of the conceptualization of the “teleological argument” in Paley for the modern times, the author analyzes the early stages of its formation. The main part of the article is devoted to the analysis of “The Treatise of the Final Causes” by Boyle and “The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation” by Ray. Conclusions as to the signifi cance of these works for the consequent development of teleology are given in the final part of the article.

philosophy of nature, natural theology, teleological argument, argument from design, rational design, Christianity, Robert Boyle, John Ray.

1. Davis E. D. 2007 “Robert Boyle’s Religious Life, Attitudes, and Vocation”, in Science & Christian Belief, 2007, vol. 19/2, pp. 117–138.
2. Harrison P. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, Cambridge, 2001.
3. Hooykaas R. Robert Boyle: A Study in Science and Christian Belief, Lanham, 1997.
4. Hunter M. Boyle: Between God and Science, New Haven; London, 2009.
5. Moreland J. P., Craig W. L. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, Westmont, 2003.
6. Moss S. A Bird in the Bush: A Social History of Birdwatching, London, 2004.
7. Osler M. J. 1992 “The intellectual sources of Robert Boyle’s philosophy of nature: Gassendy’s voluntarism, and Boyle’s physico-theological project”, in Kroll R. W. F., Ashcraft R., Zagorin P. (eds.) Philosophy, Science, and Religion in England, 1640–1700, Cambridge, 1992.
8. Osler M. J. 2001 “Whose Ends? Teleology in Early Modern Natural Philosophy”, in Osiris. Series 2. Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions, 2001, vol. 16, pp. 151–168.
9. Raven C. John Ray, Naturalist: His Life and Works, Cambridge, 1942.
10. Shanahan T. 1994 “Teleological Reasoning in Boyle’s Disquisition about Final Causes”, in Hunter M. (ed.) Robert Boyle Reconsidered, Cambridge, 1994.
11. Harwood J. (ed.) The Early Essays and Ethics of Robert Boyle, Carbondale; Edwardsville, 1991.
12. Woolford T. Natural Theology and Natural Philosophy in the Late Renaissance, in https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/242394 (Date: 06.09.2014)).
13. Appolonov A. 2013 “Robert Bojl'. Razmyshlenija ob odnoj teologicheskoj distinkcii (predislovie k publikacii)” (Robert Boyle. Thought about One Theological Distinction), in Gosudarstvo, religija, Cerkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom, 2013, vol. 1, pp. 150–154.
14. Flint T. P., Rej M. K. (eds.) Oksfordskoe rukovodstvo po filosofskoj teologii (Oxford Handbook for Philosophical Theology), Moscow, 2013.
15. Suinbern R. Est' li Bog? (Is There God?), Moscow, 2006.

Koshelev Igor'