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

The author tries to discern temporal and eternal in the Holy Christian Tradition. He proceeds from the opinion that the theological activity of some canonized hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Synodal period constitutes the most complete representation of a common Tradition of the Church.In a case like this, one has to measure the parameters of Tradition according to the degree of its proximity to our present ecclesiastical factors — linguistic, cultural, historical and hierarchical. As an alternative reason one could propose a period nearer to us from the historical point of view — an experience of perception and continuation of Tradition in theological work of Russian Silver Age and Russian Expatriate period that offers lavish data for the specification of the inner structure of the Holy Tradition. The main theological conceptions, such as sophiology, and methodological programs, such as the concept of neopatristic synthesis, make it possible to speak about some kind of dynamics in the Holy Tradition, its universal or historical and vertical or pneumatological dimensions. Occasionally the author touches upon the understandingof theneopatristic program proposed by G. Florovsky — the principle of Hellenism that becomes clearer in the light of the still unpublished materials of Florovsky’s Archive deposited at Princeton University. The author also appeals to different conceptions of the Holy Tradition, such as the Catholic experience of its interpretation (J. A. Moehler, M. Blondel, Y. Congar), and considers ashis final task some data for formulating the general points of the theology of the Holy Tradition — its unique (local), universal and vertical dimensions.

The Holy Tradition, Russian emigration, ecclesiology, pneumatology, f. PavelFlorensky, f. SergeyBulgakov, f. Georges Florovsky, V. N. Lossky, J.-A. Moehler, M. Blondel, Y. Congar.

1. Georgij Florovskij: svjashhennosluzhitel', bogoslov, filosof (Georgij Florovskij: Priest, Theologian, Philosopher), Moscow, 1993.
2. Ilarion (Alfeev), igum. 2000 “Svjatootecheskoe nasledie i sovremennost'” (Patristic Heritage and Modernity), in On zhe. Pravoslavnoe bogoslovie na poroge tret'ego tysjacheletija. Bogoslovskaja konferencija RPC. Moskva, 7–9 fevralja 2000 g.: Materialy, Moscow, 2000. S. 76–107.
3. Lakrua Zh. 2004 “Moris Blondel', ego zhizn' i tvorchestvo” (Moris Blondel, His Life and Works), in On zhe. Izbrannoe: Personalizm, Moscow, 2004, pp. 536–577.
4. Losskij V. N. Spor o Sofii (Dispute about Sophia), Moscow, 1996.
5. Losskij V. N. 2000 “Predanie i predanija” (Tradition and Traditions), in Losskij V. N. Bogoslovie i Bogovidenie, Moscow, 2000, pp. 513–544.
6. Florovskij G. V. Dogmat i istorija (Dogma and History), Moscow, 1998.
7. Florovskij G.V. 2005 “Sobornost' Cerkvi” (Catholity of the Church), in On zhe. Hristianstvo i civilizacija. Izbrannye trudy po bogosloviju i filosofii, Saint-Petersburg, 2005, pp. 525–542.
8. Hondzinskij P., prot. Russkoe bogoslovie: istorija i perspektivy (Russian Theology: History and Perspectives), in http://pstgu.ru/news/life/new3/2015/11/19/62162/ (Date: 5.04.2016).
9. Chernjaev A. V. G. V. Florovskij kak filosof i istorik russkoj mysli (G. V. Florovskij as Philosopher and Historian of Russian Thought), Moscow, 2010.
10. Blondel M. Carnets intimes, Paris, 1966.
11. Blondel M. Les Premiers écrits de M. Blondel, Paris, 1956.
12. Boeglin J.-G. La question de la Tradition dans la théologie catholique contemporaine, Paris, 1998.
13. Congar Y. La Tradition et les traditions, Paris, 1960, vol. 1; Paris, 1963, vol. 2.
14. Congar Y. La Tradition et la vie de l’Église, Paris, 1963.
15. Florovsky G. 1969 “Patristics and Modern Theology”, in Diakonia. A Quarterly Devoted to Advancing Orthodox-Catholic Dialogue, 1969, vol. 4/3, pp. 227–232.
16. Gavrilyuk P. L. Georges Florovsky and the Russian Religious Renaissance, Oxford, 2013.
17. Möhler J. A. Die Einheit in der Kirche, oder Das Princip des Katholicismus, dargestellt im Geiste der Kirchenväter der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, Tübingen, 1825.
18. Möhler J. A. Symbolik, oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze der Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihren öffentlichen Bekenntnisschriften, Mainz, 1834.
19. Plested M. Orthodox Readings of Aquinas, Oxford, 2012.

Mikhaylov Petr

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article deals with the ecclesiological views of Pope Gelasius I (492–496), formed during the schism between the Roman Church and the Churches of the East after 484. The development of Gelasius’ ecclesiological concepts is studied in connection with the ideological and political legacy of Pope Leo I (440–461), who made a great contribution to the development of the idea of the Roman primacy both ideologically and politically. The article discusses the views of Gelasius on the composition of the privileges of the Roman Church, which generally characterize its authoritative position among other Churches. On the basis of the definitions given by the Council of Nicaea, interpreted in a special way, Gelasius, following here Pope Leo I, introduced the order of the universal sees: Rome is followed by Alexandria and Antioch, and this order is the order of rank and power. According to his views, the see of Rome, being the see of St. Peter, fi nds itself in an exceptional position, while the see of Constantinople is reduced to the status of an ordinary bishopric. The amount of power of the Roman bishop is not comparable to that of other bishops. To the Pope belong the rights of the Supreme Court for the universal Church; one is not allowed to appeal against his decisions. The Roman Pontiff has the right to convene ecumenical councils, and conciliar definitions must be approved by his act. By his decision, without receiving an appeal from other sees and without a special Council, he may depose the Primates of the local Churches. Also, by his own decision the Pope determines and condemns heresies.

Pope Gelasius I, Pope Leo I, Pope Felix III, Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, ecclesiology, Councils, the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, Roman primacy.

1. Gracianskij M. V. 2015 “Delo Ioanna Talaji i nachalo «akakianskoj shizmy» (484 g.)” (Case of John Talaia and Begin of “Acacian Schism” (484)), in Vizantijskij Vremennik, 2015, vol. 74/99, pp. 31–46.
2. Gracianskij M. V. 2016 ““Secundum Calchedonensem synodum haec ab apostolica sede gesta”: Papa Gelasij I i «eres'» Akakija Konstantinopol'skogo” (“Secundum Calchedonensem synodum haec ab apostolica sede gesta”: Pope Gelasius I and “Heresy” of Acacius of Constantinople), in Vizantijskie ocherki, Saint-Petersburg, 2016, pp. 63–75.
3. Gracianskij M. V. 2007 “«Pravoslavnaja partija» i prihod k vlasti imperatora Justina I (518–527)” (“Orthodox Party” and Coming to Power of Emperor Justin I (518–527)), in Vizantijskij Vremennik, 2007, vol. 66/91, pp. 125–145.
4. Gracianskij M. V. 2015 “Kanonicheskaja pozicija papstva v dele Akakija Konstantinopol'skogo” (Canonical Position of Papacy in Case of Acacius of Constantinople), in Antichnaja drevnost' i Srednie veka, 2015, vol. 43, pp. 53–72.
5. Gracianskij M. V. 2015 “Prichiny i obstojatel'stva nachala «Akakianskoj» shizmy (484 g.)” (Reasons and Circumstances of Begin of “Acacian” Schism (484)), in Iresiona. Antichnyj mir i ego nasledie. Vyp. IV. Sbornik nauchnyh trudov k 50-letiju professora N. N. Bolgova, Belgorod, 2015, pp. 188–200.
6. Kuzenkov P. V. 2014 “Kanonicheskij status Konstantinopolja i ego interpretacija v Vizantii” (Canonical Status of Constantinople and Its Interpretation in Byzantium), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2014, vol. 3/53, pp. 25–51.
7. Blaudeau Ph. 2007 “Motifs et structures de divisions ecclésiales. Le schisme acacien (484–519)”, in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 2007, vol. 39/1–2, pp. 65–98.
8. Caspar E. Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, Tübingen, 1933, vol. 2.
9. Demacopoulos G. 2015 “Are all Universalist Politics Local? Pope Gelasius I’s International Ambition as a Tonic for Local Humiliation”, in Dunn G. D. (ed.) The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, Farnham, 2015, pp. 141–153.
10. Demacopoulos G. The Invention of Peter: The Development and Reception of the Petrine Discourse at the Close of Christian Antiquity, Philadelphia, 2013.
11. Haller J. Das Papsttum. Idee und Wirklichkeit, Stuttgart, 1950, vol. 1.
12. Koch H. Gelasius im kirchenpolitischen Dienste seiner Vorgänger, der Päpste Simplicius (468–483) und Felix III. (483–492). Ein Beitrag zur Sprache des Papstes Gelasius I. (492–496) und früherer Papstbriefe, München, 1935.
13. Stein E. Histoire du Bas-Empire, Paris; Brussels; Amsterdam, 1949, vol. 2.
14. Ullmann W. Gelasius I. (492–496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter, Stuttgart, 1981.
15. Ullmann W. 1960 “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy”, in Journal of Theological Studies, 1960, vol. 11, pp. 25–51.
16. Vasiliev A. Justin the First. An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great, Cambridge; Massachusetts, 1950.
17. Wessel S. Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome, Leiden; Boston, 2008.
18. Κötter J.-M. Zwischen Kaisern und Aposteln. Das Akakianische Schisma (484–519) als kirchlicher Ordnungskonflikt der Spätantike, Stuttgart, 2013.

Gratsianskiy Mikhail

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

Исследование подготовлено в рамках работы по проекту «Причерноморье и Средиземноморский мир в системе отношений Руси, Востока и Запада в Средние века» (соглашение No 14–28–00213 от 15 августа 2014 г между Российским научным фондом и МГУ им М В Ломоносова)

The article provides a brief overview ofSulayman, bishop of Gaza, an Arab-Christian Orthodox author of 10-11th centuries, and his theological and philosophical writings. Exploring the question of the sources of Sulayman’s ideas associated with the doctrine of man as a microcosm and his representation of the cross as a principle that underlies the created world and human nature, the author comes to the conclusion that most of these ideas are contained in the Greek patristic literature (the Great Cappadocians, St John of Damascus) with which Sulayman as a person sufficiently educated and having command of the Greek language was likely familiar. Thus, contrary to the opinion of some modern scholars who believe that these anthropological and cosmological ideas were borrowed by the bishop of Gaza from contemporary Muslim (Ismaili) esoteric literature, the author concludes that the presence of these ideas in the writings of Sulayman of Gaza suggests a good acquaintance with the Greek patristic tradition rather than his openness to borrowing from non-Christian sources.

Sulayman of Gaza, Arab-Christian literature, microcosm, cross, patristic literature, anthropology, cosmology.

1. Heijer J., den, Spisa P., la. 2010 “La migration du savoir entre les communautés: Le cas de la littérature arabe chrétienne”, in Res Antiquae, 2010, vol. 7, pp. 63–72.
2. Nasrallah J. Histoire du mouvement littéraire dans l’église melchite du Ve au XXe siècle, Louvain, 1983, vol. 3.
3. Noble S. 2014 “Sulayman al-Ghazzi”, in Noble S., Treiger A. (eds.) The Orthodox Church in the Arab World, 700–1700: an Antology of Sources, Illinois, 2014, pp. 160–170.
4. Spisa P., la. 2005 “Un trattato sul microcosmo di Sulaymān Ibn Ḥasan al-Ġazzī”, in Edelby N., Masri P. (eds.) Mélanges en memoire de Mgr. Néophytos Edelby (1920–1995), Beirut, 2005, pp. 237–279.
5. Spisa P., la. 2002 “Una citazione di Giovanni Damasceno in Sulaymān ibn Ḥasan al-Ġazzī”, in Parole de l’Orient, 2002, vol. 27, pp. 85–104.

Davydenkov Oleg, archpriest

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

In Vladimir Solovyov’s works myth is presented in two ways: as the authorial myth, which is a part of the future “universal religion”, and as an object of theoretical refl ection in the process of philosophical and religious research. In both cases myth is understood as an actual process of theogony, and so Solovyov’s “religious studies” turn out to be a part of his religious metaphysics. The philosopher marks three periods in mythological process: uranic – solar – phallic, and maintains such development to be a law. Solovyov’s theory of the origin of religion is based upon the idea of the essential analogy between cosmic and theogonic processes. These two processes are different ways in which the same conscious principle of the world manifests itself; in Solovyov’s religious doctrine this principle is described as the “universal soul” which strives for the divine unity. The theory of mythological process by Solovyov is compared with a similar conception of bishop Chrysanthus (Retivtsev), who also appeals to primeval monotheism as the basic form of religion. In contrast to Solovyov’s theory, Chrysanthus understands the genesis of the ancient religion as a development of tribal psychology, which is localized entirely in the consciousness of a collective religious subject.

Vladimir Solovyov, myth, mythological process, theogony, cosmogony, universal soul, bishop Chrysanthus (Retivtsev), astral religion, magic, theurgy, primeval monotheism.

1. Antonov K. M. 2011 “Istoricheskoe izuchenie religii v duhovno-akademicheskoj tradicii v dorevoljucionnoj Rossii” (Historical Religion Studi in Spiritual-Academic Tradition in Russia before Revolution), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2011, vol. 1/33, pp. 42–44.
2. Luk'janov S. M. O Vl. S. Solov'eve v ego molodye gody: Materialy k biografii (About Vl. S. Solovjev in His Young Years), Moscow, 1990, vol. 3.
3. Mochul'skij K. V. Vladimir Solov'ev: Zhizn' i uchenie (Vladimir Solov'ev: Life and Teaching), Paris, 1936.
4. Solov'ev S. M. Vladimir Solov'ev. Zhizn' i tvorcheskaja jevoljucija (Vladimir Solov'ev. Life and Creative Revolution), Moscow, 1997.
5. Hrisanf, arhim. Religii Drevnego mira v ih otnoshenii k hristianstvu: Istoricheskoe issledovanie (Religions of Ancient World in Their Attitude to Christianity: Historical Study), Saint-Petersburg, 1873, 1875, 1878.
6. Müller F. M. The Hymns of the Rigveda, with Sayana’s commentary, London, 1849–1875.
7. Benfey T. (eds.) Orient und Occident, Insbesondere in Ihren Gegenseitigen Beziehungen, Göttingen, 1863–1865.

Vaganova Natal'ia

*According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011, the degree of Candidate of Sciences (Cand.Sc.) belongs to ISCED level 8 — "doctoral or equivalent", together with PhD, DPhil, D.Lit, D.Sc, LL.D, Doctorate or similar.

The article deals withan unexplored episode of Berdyaev’s philosophical thought, namely the case of his changing views at the beginning of 1900s when he rejected Neo-Kantianism and converted to his first version of existentialistic and personalistic worldview. In the first part of the article the author focuses on the logic of “re-evaluation of everything” (the expression that Berdyaev himself used) putting forward a hypothesis that this “re-evaluation” was induced by the ideas of Lev Shestov and can be understood as a personal religious conversion. The second part focuses on how the “paradigm shift” in Berdyaev’s anthropological philosophy entailed «paradigm shifts» in his philosophy of religion and theological thought, since it was one of the first emergences of this typical phenomenon of the tendency significant for the 20th century theology to be formed under the influence of anthropological philosophy terms and concepts.

Berdyaev, Shestov, Personalism, Existentialism, Religious Conversion, History of Russian Philosophy, Theology, Anthropological Philosophy.

1. Boldareva V. N. 2013 “Antropologicheskie predposylki filosofii religii v rannem tvorchestve N. A. Berdjaeva (1900–1910)” (Anthropological Presuppositions of Religion Philosophy in Early Works of N. A. Berdjaev), in Vestnik PSTGU. Ser. I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija, 2013, vol. 2/46, pp. 103–113.
2. Brilliantov A. I. Vlijanie vostochnogo bogoslovija na zapadnoe v proizvedenijah Ioanna Skota Jerigeny (Influence of Eastern Theology on the Western One in Works of John Scott Eriugena), Moscow, 1998.
3. Vizgin V. P. 2003 “Berdjaev i Shestov: spor ob jekzistencial'noj filosofii” (Berjaev and Shestov: Dispute about Existential Philosophy), in Istoriko-filosofskij ezhegodnik 2001, Moscow, 2003, pp. 303–324.
4. Volkogonova O. D. N. Berdjaev: Intellektual'naja biografija (N. Berdjaev: Intellectual Biography), Moscow, 2001.
5. Zaharova T. N. 2010 “Vzaimovlijanie idej L. Shestova i N. Berdjaeva” (Interaction of Ideas of L. Shestov and N. Berdjaev), in Vestnik Cheljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2010, vol. 16/197, pp. 138–147.
6. Kudaev A. E. Problema tragicheskogo v jestetike N. A. Berdjaeva: Avtoref. dis. … kand. filos. nauk (Problem of Tragic in Esthetics of N. A. Berdjaev: Dissertation Abstract), Moscow, 2011.
7. Kudaev A. E. Tragedija tvorchestva v jestetike Nikolaja Berdjaeva (Tragedy of Creation in Esthetics of Nikolaj Berdjaev), Moscow, 2014.
8. Levickij S. A. 1964 “Jekzistencial'nyj dialog. N. Berdjaev i L. Shestov“ (Existential Dialogue. N. Berdjaev and L. Shestov), in Novyj zhurnal, New York, 1964, vol. 75, pp. 218–227.
9. Ovsjannikov A. V. Problema bytijnyh osnovanij chelovecheskogo Ja v religioznom jekzistencializme N. Berdjaeva i L. Shestova: Dis. ... kand. filos. nauk (Problem of Being Grounds of Human I in Religious Existentialism of N. Berdjaev and L. Shestov: Dissertation), Orel, 2006.
10. Rezvyh T. N. 2016 “Kantianskie motivy v obosnovanii idei spasenija v knige «Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny»” (Cantian Motivs in Basing of Salvation Ideas in Book “The Pillar and Ground of the Truth”), in «Filosofstvovat' v religii»: k stoletiju vyhoda knigi «Stolp i utverzhdenie Istiny» o. Pavla Florenskogo: Sb. st., Moscow, 2016 (in print).
11. Titarenko S. A. Specifika religioznoj filosofii N. A. Berdjaeva (Specifics of Religious Philosophy of N. A. Berdjaev), Rostov-na-Donu, 2006.

Boldareva Viktoriia

The author analyzes different approaches towards evaluating the number of Roman Catholic and Protestant priests in the USA and in the Church of England. He considers the three narratives in the framework of which the problem under investigation has been posed: the “demography of the priesthood”, the “priest labor market” and the “territorial distribution of the clergy”. Schoenherr’s model (1993) is built upon the “organizational demography” approaches as well as upon the theory of rational choice and asks the question about what is going to happen to the population of the Catholic priests in the US in the nearest twenty years. Demographic tendencies for a long time prevalent lead to substantial changes in the overall structure of the population. The singling out of such tendencies and the determining factors behind them is extremely important for organizational planning. American Protestant denominations have toward the end of the 20th century found themselves in the situation of redundancy of priests. The research authored by Carroll (1980) is based upon the logic of the labor market and considers the interrelation between three values: number of the members of a Church; number of priests; number of churches. These values reflect the offer and demand dynamics in the priest labor market. The researcher calculates the number of payments necessary to ensure the receiving of constant salary by a priest. He analyzes the factors determining the offer and demand interrelation in the labor market. The research poses the question about the functions exercised by a priest. Still another tendency in the research on the number of priests exists in the Church of England; this tendency is connected with the issue of optimum territorial distribution of priests. The key research work here is the so-called “Paul report” (1964) which establishes the dependence of involvement in religious practices on the three following factors: number of those with full or part-time occupation in the sphere of pastoral activities; number of inhabitants of a given territory; number of churches in a given territory. The article points at the absence in the Christian discourse of normative criteria which could allow to determine the number of priests. The author also investigates how the number of priests infl uences the religious situation in a country as well as various processes in other social spheres (economy, politics, demography, etc.).

Sociology of priesthood, priests ratio to church members, priests shortage after the Second Vatican Council, demographic models of priests shortage, the clergy job market, «The Paul Report», the deployment of the clergy.

1. Greeley A. M. The Catholic Priest in the United States: Sociological Investigations, Washington, 1972.
2. Kennedy E. C., Heckler V. J. The Catholic Priest in the United States: Psychological Investigations, Washington, 1972.
3. Hoge D. R. 2009 “The Sociology of the Clergy”, in Clark P. B. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, Oxford, 2009, pp. 581–598.
4. Froehle B. T. 2011 “Research on Catholic Priests in the United States since the Council: Modeling the Dialogue between Theology and Social Science”, in United States Catholic Historian, 2011, vol. 29/4, pp. 19–46.
5. Carroll J. W., Wilson R. L. Too Many Pastors?: The Clergy Job Market, New York, 1980.
6. Miskin A. B. 1963 “The Shortage of Clergy: a Scientific Answer”, in Prism, 1963, pp. 14–22.
7. Paul L. A. The Deployment and Payment of the Clergy: a Report, Westministry, 1964.
8. The Paul Report Considered, Chester, 1964.
9. Paul L. 1972 “The Role of the Clergy Today — an Organizational Approach: Problems of Deployment”, in Mitton C. L. (ed.) The Social Sciences and the Churches, Edinburgh, 1972.
10. Lenz K. Katholischer Priester in der individualisierten Gesellschaft, 2009.
11. Knobloch S. 1996 “Der Pastorale Notstand“, in Knobloch S. Praktische Theologie. Ein Lehrbuch für Studium und Pastoral, Herder, 1996, pp. 27–160.
12. Pesch W., Hünermann P., Klostermann F. 1971 “Priester für Morgen. Pastoraltheologische Aspekte“, in Klostermann F. Priestertum — Kirchliches Amt zwischen gestern und morgen, Aschaffenburg, 1971, pp. 71–100.
13. Klostermann F. (ed.) Der Priestermangel und seine Konsequenzen, Düsseldorf, 1977.
14. Zulehner P. M. Priestermangel praktisch, München, 1983.
15. Zulehner P. M. 2009 “Wirklich ein Priestermangel? Zur Lage der pastoralen Berufe im deutschsprachigen Raum“, in Herder Korrespondenz Spezial, 2009, vol. 1, pp. 36–40.
16. 2011 “Rahmenstatuten und Rahmenordnungen für die Gemeinde- und Pastoralreferentinnen/-referenten“, in Die deutschen Bischöfe, 2011, vol. 96.
17. Burgalassi S. Preti in crisi? Tendenze sociologiche del clero italiano, Fossano, 1970.
18. Dalla Zanna G., Ronzoni G. Meno preti, quale Chiesa? Per non abbandonare le parrocchie, Bologna, 2003.
19. Diotallevi L. (ed.) La parabola del clero. Uno sguardo socio-demografi co sui sacerdoti diocesani in Italia, Torino, 2005.
20. Strark R. 2001 “Gods, Rituals, and Moral Order”, in Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 2001, vol. 40/4, pp. 619–636.
21. Schoenherr R. A., Young L. Full Pews, Empty Altars: Demographic of the Priest Shortage in United States Catholic Dioceses, Madison (WI), 1993.
22. Hoge D. The First Five Years of the Priesthood: A Study of Newly Ordained Catholic Priest, Collegeville, 2002.
23. Schoenherr R. A., Yamame D. (eds.) Goodbye Father: The Celibate Male Priesthood and the Future of the Catholic Church, New York, 2002.
24. Young L. A. 1998 “Assessing and Updating the Schoenherr-Young Projections of Clergy Decline in the United States Roman Catholic Church”, in Sociology of Religion, 1998, vol. 59/1, pp. 7–23.
25. Sullins P. 2001 “Empty Pews and Empty Altars: A Reconsideration of the Catholic Priest Shortage”, in The Catholic Social Science Review, 2001, vol. 6, pp. 253–269.
26. Hoge D. The Future of Catholic Leadership: Responses to the Priest Shortage, Kansas City, 1987.
27. Hoge D. R., Marti Jewell R. The Next Generation of Pastoral Leaders: What the Church Needs to Know, Chicago, 2010.
28. Kuhrt G. Ministry Issues for the Church of England: Mapping the Trends, London, 2001.
29. Blizzard S. The Protestant Parish Minister: A Behavioral Science Interpretation, Storrs (CT), 1985.
30. Zulehner P. M. Priester im Modernisierungsstress, Ostfildern, 2001.

Emelyanov Nikolai, archpriest

The paper is devoted to a critical analysis of one of the newest trends of modern Anglo-American freethinking. It is called “new atheism”. The most known spokesmen of this trend are R. Dawkins, D. Dennett, S. Harris and Ch. Hitchens. Theology and Christian philosophy place high emphasis on the critique of the “new atheism”. One of the most talked-about critics of this trend is A. McGrath. The author of the paper notes that some of specific theological criticisms are just. Among them are the critique of the meme-theory and the lack of reflection of the “new atheism” on itself. At the same time the author of the paper demonstrates that some theses of the theological critics are insufficiently grounded. For example, theological critics are rather premature in their conclusions about bringing the “new atheism” into line with L. Feuerbach and K. Marx. The author believes that the ideas of the “new atheism”, as well as the method and the style of expression of its viewpoints are much more successfully integrated in one line with the ideas of such atheists as Bertrand Russell, than a number of the creators of really new ideas of freethinking. In addition, the “new atheism” is also close to the radical wing of the US freethinking of the early 20th century graphically represented by the ideas of R.G. Ingersoll. The author points to the desire of the “new atheists” as well as their critics to simplify the views held by the opposite side. This desire often leads to misinterpretation of the logic of thoughtin both the “new atheists” and their opponents.

Christian apologetics, critique of the «new atheism», meme theory, science and religion, theism and atheism, R. Dawkins, D. Dennett, S. Harris, Ch. Hitchens, A. McGrath, J. F. Haught.

1. Gol'dberg N. M. Svobodomyslie i ateizm v SShA (XVIII–XIX vv.) (Free Thinking and Atheism in USA (XVIII–XIX Cent.)), Moscow, 1965.
2. Dzhems U. Mnogoobrazie religioznogo opyta (Variety of Religious Experience), Moscow, 2012.
3. Novaja filosofskaja jenciklopedija (New Philosophical Encyclopedia), Moscow, 2010, vol. 1.
4. Tazhurizina Z. A. 2006 “Ateizm” (Atheism), in Religiovedenie: Jenciklopedicheskij slovar', Moscow, 2006.
5. Jaroshevskij T. M. 1969 “Ateizm poterjannyh i neukorenennyh: Ocherki ob ateizme Zhana-Polja Sartra” (Atheism of Lost and Non Conquered: Essays in Atheism of Jean-Paul Sartre), in Ot Jerazma Rotterdamskogo do Bertrana Rassela: Problemy burzhuaznogo gumanizma i svobodomyslija, Moscow, 1969.
6. Allen N. 2007 “In Defence of Radicalism”, in Free Inquiry, 2007, vol. 27/4, pp. 52–53.
7. Aronson R. Living without God: New Direction for Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists and the Undecided, Berkley, 2008.
8. Blackman E. A Jewish response to modern Atheism, in www.oxfordshabad.org/templates/blog/post_cdo/AID/708481/PostID/24832 (Date: 16.08.2015).
9. Clark S. 2007 “Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion or the Dawkins Delusion?”, in Foundations, 2007, vol. 57, pp. 37–42.
10. Day V. The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting The Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, Dallas, 2008.
11. Dowd M. Thanks God For the New Atheists!, in http://thegreatstory.org/new-atheists.pdf (Date: 12.08.2015).
12. Feser E. The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism, South Bent, 2008.
13. Gallagher M. P. 2012 “Revisiting the «New Atheism»”, in Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, 2012, vol. 101/401, pp. 57–68.
14. Gould S. J. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, New York, 1999.
15. Griffith-Thomas W. H. The Principles of Theology, London, 1930.
16. Haught J. F. God and the New Atheism: A Critical Response to Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, Louisville, 2008.
17. Haught J. God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, New York, 1999
18. Jinn B. Illogical Atheism: A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinker from a Lapsed Agnostic, New York, 2013.
19. Kaufman W. E. A Jewish Philosophical Response to the New Atheists: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, New York, 2014.
20. Kurtz P. 2007 “Are «Evangelical Atheists» Too Outspoken?”, in Free Inquiry, 2007, vol. 27/4–5.
21. Marshall D. The Truth Behind the New Atheism: Responding to the Emerging Challenges to God and Christianity, Oregon, 2007.
22. McGrath A. E. Dawkins’ God: Genes, Memes and the Meanings of Live, Oxford, 2007.
23. McGrath A. E. 2012 “Transcendence and God: Reflections on Critical Realism, the «New Atheism» and Christian Theology”, in Hartwig M., Morgan J. (eds.) Critical Realism and Spirituality: Theism, Atheism, and Meta-Reality, London, 2012.
24. McGrath A. E. Why God Won’t Go Away: Engaging with the New Atheism, London, 2011.
25. McGrath A. E., McGrath J. C. The Dawkins Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine, Downer Grove, 2007.
26. Mohler A. The New Atheism and the Dogma of Darwinism, in http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/02/07/the-new-atheism-and-the-dogma-of-darwinism (Date: 15.08.2015).
27. Gilson T., Weitnauer C. (eds.) True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenge of Atheism, Colorado, 2012.

Sleptsova Valeriia