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

In upholding the distinction of three levels of interpretation of Biblical text, Origen attributed certain meaningful characteristics to the senses of the two superior grades, i.e. the psychic and the pneumatic. The fi rst is qualifi ed as moral and the second as making it possible to comprehend the mysteries of the heavenly kingdom. Following this, some scholars traced the origin of this conception back to the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, where the four parts of “Moses’ philosophy” are related to the Platonic formula that described the sequence of philosophical disciplines (ethics, physics, and epoptics), and where was given the enumeration of the four way by which the doctrine of the Law was proclaimed. The article also deals with the divergences between Origen and Clement in their approaches to the problem of structural affi nities between the system of profane philosophy and the doctrine of the Holy Scripture. Clement acknowledges the scriptural dimension of Moses’ teaching as stated in the books of the Law, but his aim is still to demonstrate its philosophical nature, though he hardly manages to achieve a strict parallelism between the fourfold classifi cation of the types of the Pentateuchal texts (historical, legal, liturgical, and theological) and the triple division of philosophy. Origen, in his turn, associates the distinction of three parts of philosophy not with the name of Moses, but with Solomon as the alleged author of the three books of wisdom, much better suitable for the above-mentioned scheme. But as far as his own doctrine of multiple senses was formulated in accordance with the conception of progressive Revelation, which is carried out through the three phases in the history of salvation and refl ects three consequent grades of knowledge, he chooses an oblique mode to establish a sort of equation, though just partial, between the threefold scale of scriptural senses and the mundane philosophy. For him Solomon represents the community of profane philosophers, who have turned out to be capable of attaining the ethical stage of knowledge corresponding to the psychic level of scriptural interpretation as well as to the exoteric part of the New Testament doctrine, which constitutes a preliminary stage on the way to the highest, spiritual contemplation. As for Moses, he is considered by Origen not as the great precursor or originator of philosophy, but as one of the chosen recipients of divine revelation, and thus his writings contain not a series of philosophical doctrines, but an inner sequence of overlapping meanings, the order of which is most adequately determined by the Pauline distinction of carnal, psychical and spiritual dimensions of human nature. For this reason, he was hardly interested in using as foundation of his own methodological theory Clement’s reasoning on the philosophical value of Moses’ Law, more relevant to apologetic rather than exegetic context.

Origen, three senses of Scripture, threefold division of philosophy, Christian exegetics, Clement of Alexandria, Philo of Alexandria, Holy Scripture, Moses, Solomon

1. Stählin O., Früchtel L. (eds) (1985) Clemens Alexandrinus. Bd. 2. Stromateis I — VI. GCS 52 (15). Berlin.
2. Boulluec A. Le (ed.) (1981) Clément d’Alexandrie. Les Stromates. Stromate V. Vol. 2. Paris: Cerf.
3. Cliff ord H. (2007) “Moses as Philosopher-Sage in Philo”, in A. Graupner, M. Wolter (ed.) Moses in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Traditions, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 151–167.
4. Daniélou J. (1961) Message évangélique et culture hellénistique aux IIe et IIIe siècles. Tournai: Desclée.
5. Droge A. J. (1989) Homer or Moses? Early Christian Interpretations of the History of Culture. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck).
6. Fiedrowicz M. (2005) Apologie im frühen Christentum. Die Kontroverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten. Paderborn; München; Wien; Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh.
7. Hadot P. (1979) “Les divisions des parties de la philosophie dans l’Antiquité”. Museum Helveticum, vol. 36, pp. 201–223.
8. Hoek A. van den (1988) Clement of Alexandria and His Use of Philo in the Stromateis. An Early Christian Reshaping of a Jewish Model. Leiden: Brill.
9. Joly R. (1973) Christianisme et philosophie. Études sur Justin et les Apologistes grecs du deuxième siècle. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelle.
10. Lubac H. de (1959–1964) Exégèse médiévale. Les quatre sens de l’Écriture. Pars I, t. 1–2, pars II, t. 1–2. Paris: Aubier.
11. Meeks W. A. (1967) The Prophet-King. Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology. Leiden: Brill.
12. Méhat A. (1972) “Clément d’Alexandrie et les sens de l’Écriture, Ier Stromate 176, 1–179, 3”, in J. Fontaine, Ch. Kannengiesser (ed.) Epektasis: Mélanges patristiques off erts au Cardinal Jean Daniélou, Paris: Beauchesne, pp. 355–365.
13. Méhat A. (1966) Étude sur les ‘Stromates’ de Clé ment d’Alexandrie. Paris: Le Seuil.
14. Mondésert C. (1944) Clément d’Alexandrie. Introduction à l’étude de sa pensée religieuse à partir de l’Écriture. Paris.
15. Pépin J. (1987) La tradition de l’allégorie. De Philon d’Alexandrie à Dante. Paris: Études augustiniennes.
16. Pépin J. (1976) Mythe et allégorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chrétiennes. Paris.
17. Ridings D. (1995) The Attic Moses: The Dependency Theme in Some Early Christian Writers. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
18. Rizzerio L. (1996) Clemente di Alessandria e la «φυσιολογ[α veramente gnostica». Saggio sulle origini e le implicazioni di un’epistemologia e di un’ontologia «cristiane». Leuven: Peeters.
19. Walter N. (1964) Der Thoraausleger Aristobulos. Untersuchungen zu seinem Fragmenten und zu pseudepigraphischen Resten der jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur. Berlin.
20. Wolfson H. A. (1956) The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Cambridge (Mass.).

Nesterova Olga

*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 auricular confession is a widespread and important practice in the Church of England today. Theological discussions around the auricular confession date back to the very dawn of the English Reformation. The issue has encircled moral theology of the Christian reconciliation as well as sacramental theology of the authority of institutional priesthood of the Church. This article analyses theological, canonical and especially liturgical aspects of the auricular confession in England which refl ect the complex history of this practice in the Anglican tradition. This topic is particularly important considering the key place that belongs to the Church of England’s theological, pastoral and liturgical tradition among other Churches of the worldwide Anglican Communion. In the Introduction to the article the issues of terminology are made clear. The second part deals with pastoral and liturgical aspects of the auricular confession as practised in the Church of England before the Reformation, shifts in the course of the reform, developments in the theological vision of the auricular confession in the process of making Anglicanism a distinct Christian tradition. Besides, Part Two includes an analysis of liturgical form of the auricular confession from the Book of Common Prayer 1662. This part ends with a brief history of revival of the auricular confession in the mid-19th century. Part Three examines the development of new liturgical forms of the auricular confession in the Church of England starting from the 1960s to the present time. The authors analyse the liturgical forms of the auricular confession from the Common Worship series, authorised in the Church of England as a lawful alternative to the 1662 Prayer Book. In Part Four, the authors deal with two signifi cant canonical concerns related to the auricular confession, the requirements for its minister and the seal of the confession. The conclusion outlines the current status of the auricular confession in the Church of England.

Anglicanism, Church of England, Anglican Communion, auricular confession, confession, penance, absolution, canon law, seal of confessional

1. Bainton R. H. (1969) Erasmus of Rotterdam. London.
2. Bowers R. H. (ed.) (1938) The Gast of Gy: A Middle English Prose Tract Preserved in Queen’s College, Oxford, Ms. 383. Leipzig.
3. Boyle L. E. (1955) “The «Oculus Sacerdotis» and Some Other Works of William of Pagula”. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 5 series, pp. 81–110.
4. Bradshaw P. (ed.) (2006) A Companion to Common Worship. Vol. 2. London.
5. Bramhall E. (2013) Penitence and the English Reformation. Liverpool.
6. Bray G. (1998) The Anglican Canons 1529–1947. Woodbridge.
7. Bray G. (ed.) (1994) Documents of the English Reformation. Cambridge.
8. Bray G. (ed.) (1998) The Anglican Canons 1529–1947. Woodbridge.
9. Bullard J. V. (ed.) (1934) Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical, 1604: Latin and English. London.
10. Bursell R. (1990) “The Seal of the Confessional”. Ecclesiastical Law Journal, vol. 2(7), pp. 84–109.
11. Carlson E. J. (2004) “Confession and Absolution in Caroline Cambridge: the 1637 Crisis in Context”. Studies in Church History, vol. 40, pp. 180–193.
12. Chadwick O. (1960) Mind of the Oxford Movement. Stanford.
13. Chadwick O. (1966) The Victorian Church. Vol. 1. London.
14. Chadwick O. (1977) The Victorian Church. Vol. 2. London.
15. Chernov V. (2003) Tserkov’ Anglii: Ocherk istorii v XX veke i sovremennoe ustroistvo [The Church of England: A study of its history in the 20th century and of its current structure]. Moscow.
16. Dallen J. (1986) The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance. Collegeville.
17. Doe N. (1998) Canon Law in the Anglican Communion. Oxford.
18. Dudley M., Rowell G. (eds) (1990) Confession and Absolution. London.
19. Duff y E. (1992) The Stripping of the Altars: Traditional Religion in England 1400-1580. London.
20. Duggan L. G. (1984) “Fear and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation”. Archiv für Reformationgeschichte, vol. 75, pp. 153–175.
21. Hylson-Smith K. (1993) High Churchmanship in the Church of England. Edinburgh.
22. Mortimer R. (1939) The Origins of Private Penance in the Western Church. Oxford.
23. Nicholls A. E. (1986) “The Etiquette of Pre-Reformation Confession in East Anglia”. Sixteenth Century Journal, vol. 17, pp. 145–163.
24. Pfander H. G. (1936) “Some Medieval Manuals of Religious Instruction in England and Observations on Chaucer’s Parson’s Tale”. Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 35, pp. 243–258.
25. Procter F., Frere W. (1961) The Book of Common Prayer with the Rationale of Its Offices. London.
26. Silk D. (1988) In Penitence and Faith. London.

Velikanov Pavel, 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.

Chernov Vasily

*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.

Archpriest Pavel Svetlov (1861–1941) is the most prominent representative of Orthodox apologetics in the late 19th — early 20th centuries. He was professor at the University of St. Vladimir in Kiev, a distinguished theologian and essay writer, the author of more than 100 published works and a large number of never-published manuscripts. Until now, his works have not yet become the topic of academic research. This article makes public for the fi rst time several unpublished essays of Pavel Svetlov from his personal archive (1916–1917) which pertain to his understanding of theomachy and atheism as “the religion of deifi ed man” (человекобожество). He believed that this phenomenon is an attempt to elevate and glorify human beings through the “abating” of God. He associated it with the “fashion” for “atheistic humanism” that embraced the European intellectual world. Pavel Svetlov criticised various atheistic conceptions for decades, from the time of his paper on philosophy of religion of L. Feuerbach in 1885. In his later works, he wrote that religiosity is rooted in human nature. Svetlov believed that “absolute” atheism is “almost impossible” for man, so in refusing Christ intelligentsia creates idols such as abstract concepts of ‘human’, ‘humanity’, ‘people’, ‘science’, ‘Communism’. In these manuscripts, as well as in his publications of 1916–1917, Svetlov analyses religious-philosophical quests and “divine creativity” (боготворчество) of the Russian intelligentsia in the early 20th century. He calls Nikolai Berdiaev and Leonid Andreev clear-cut representatives of ‘individualistic theomachy’.

Archpriest Pavel Svetlov, Orthodoxy, theology, Russian philosophy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Sergei Bulgakov, theomachy, atheism, ‘religion of deifi ed man’ (chelovekobozhestvo), “atheistic humanism”, “egoteism”, Ludwig A. von Feuerbach, “new religious consciousness”, Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Nikolai Berdyaev, Leonid Andreyev

1. Feuerbach L. (1955) “Vorlesungen über das Wesen der Religion”, in Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedeniia [Selected philosophical works], Moscow, pp. 490-894 (Russian translation).
2. Gaidenko P. (2001) Vladimir Soloviev i filosofiia Serebrianogo veka [Vladimir Soloviev and philosophy of the Silver Age]. Moscow (in Russian).
3. Glubokovskii N. (2002) Russkaia bogoslovskaia nauka v ee istoricheskom razvitii i noveishem sostoianii [Russian theology in its historical development and contemporary state]. Moscow (in Russian).
4. Speshnev N. (1953) “Pis’ma k K.E. Khoetskomu” [Letters to K.E. Khoetsky], in Filosofskie i obshchestvenno-politicheskie proizvedeniia petrashevtsev [Philosophical and political works of Petrashevtsy], Moscow, pp. 477–502 (in Russian).
5. Svetlov P. (1992–1993) “Aforizmy i mysli veruiushchego” [Sayings and thoughts of the believer]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii, vol. 10, pp. 61–64; vol. 7, pp. 113–118 (in Russian).
6. Svetlov P. (1997) Odigetika (Putevoditel’) ili Rukovoditel’ v zaniatiiakh Apologetikoiu v sviazi s obshchim rukovodstvom po Bogoslovskoi propedevtike [Odigetika (Guidance), or Guide to the study of apologetics in accordance with the general theological propedeutic]. Kiev (in Russian).

Bokov German

*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.

This article analyses the goals and motives of personal prayer of contemporary Orthodox priests. The analysis is based on interviews with 27 Orthodox priests of different age and working experience living in diff erent regions of Russia. Interviews were carried out in 2015–2018, their questions were related to the way of becoming a priest, daily practices and main tasks of the ministry. Personal prayer is a religious activity that is necessary for all Orthodox priests, but, unlike all their other actions (church service, conversations with parishioners, administrative activities), it is almost impossible for the researcher to observe and study from the outside. At the same time, for each person performing a prayer the purpose of reciting a prayer can be diff erent every time. The article describes four types of personal prayer of Orthodox priests that were mentioned in the interviews. We divided prayers according to its object: for God, for ourselves, for people, and for the world. In their stories about personal prayers, priests often defi ne them as a mandatory action. For the informants, prayer becomes, on the one hand, an action that determines their identity as priests (prayer is always successful, unlike other actions) and, on the other hand, the most basic action in their ministry, a minimum of communication with God, and a minimum of helping people, an element of communication and care which is available to the priest regardless of the kind and success of the actions that he performs at all other times.

priests, Orthodoxy, daily routine of priests, interview, praying, prayer, Heiler, religious experience, field research, religious action

1. Aleksin K. (2017) “Uskol’zaiushchii sviashchennik: transformatsiia normativnogo diskursa RPTs o presviterskom sluzhenii” [Elusive priest: Transformation of normative discourse of Russian Orthodox Church on the priest’s ministry]. Svet Khristov prosveshchaet vsekh: Al’manakh Sviato-Filaretovskogo pravoslavno-khristianskogo instituta, vol. 24, pp. 136–169 (in Russian).
2. Blizzard S. W., Blizzard H. B. (1985) The protestant parish minister: A behavioral science interpretation. Storrs, CT.
3. Finney J. R., Malony H. N. (1985) “An empirical study of contemplative prayer as an adjunct to psychotherapy”. Journal of Psychology and Theology, t. 13, vol. 4, pp. 284–290.
4. Heiler F. (1932) Prayer: A study in the history and psychology of religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Kiprian (Kern) (1957) Pravoslavnoe pastyrskoe sluzhenie [Orthodox pastoral ministry]. Paris (in Russian).
6. Konstantin (Zaitsev) (2002) Pastyrskoe bogoslovie [Pastoral theology]. Moscow (in Russian).
7. Krihtova T. (2018) “Metodologicheskie osobennosti polevogo izucheniia biudzheta vremeni pravoslavnykh sviashchennikov” [Methodological aspects of fi eld research of time management of Orthodox priests]. Religiovedcheskie issledovaniia, vol. 17, pp. 110–121 (in Russian).
8. Nastol’naia kniga sviashchennosluzhitelia. T. 8: Pastyrskoe bogoslovie (1988) [Handbook of the clergy. Vol. 8: Pastoral theology]. Moscow (in Russian).
9. Ob uchastii Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi v reabilitatsii narkozavisimykh [On the patricipation of Russian Orthodox Church in rehabilitation of drud-addicts], available at: http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/2674661.html (12.12.2016) (in Russian).
10. Pylaev M. (2008) “Fenomenologiia molitvy: primitivnaia molitva” [Phenomenology of prayer: The primitive prayer”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, vol. 22, pp. 45–59 (in Russian).
11. Samarina T. (2016) “Fenomenologiia religii F. Khailera” [F. Heiler’s phenomenology of religion]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Seriia 7: Filosofiia. Sotsiologiia i sotsial’nye tekhnologii, vol. 2 (32), pp. 22–33 (in Russian).

Krihtova Tatiana

The article deals with the problem of transformation of religious fundamentalism in the present-day world. The main attention is paid to the qualitative characteristics and comparative analysis of the so-called “second wave” fundamentalism (1970– 1990) and the “third wave” fundamentalism that conventionally has its starting point on September 11, 2001. The article was written in the context of the two competing discourses of “modernity”, each of them gives its own vision of fundamentalism, i.e. the idea of the postmodern coping with the “modernity” drawing upon the restructuring of F. Nietzsche’s ideas and socio-philosophical concept which is based on the conviction about the incompleteness of the “modern project” (J. Habermas, A. Giddens, J. Mensch). Choosing the fi rst option, we should speak about the “death/ resignation of fundamentalism”. In the second case, we would speak about the late modern fundamentalism. This dilemma could be solved only by the discovery of the “generic features” of fundamentalism, of the “fundamental structures” that made up fundamentalism. These discourses are about the “foundations” and principles of “returning” to the foundations that create “duality”/ambivalence of fundamentalism as well as the modernity itself. Using this criterion, the article shows that the “second wave” fundamentalism grows out of the dialectics of the so-called “organised modernity” and comes as its self-refl exive alternative. It is characterised by the desire to renew the religion and the society through going back to the “foundations”. That is why it does not desire to keep the religious tradition but to reshape and re-actualise it in the new social and cultural situation. That is why it is designated by the term “post-traditional fundamentalism”. The “third wave” fundamentalism is an internal dialectical moment of the late modern culture. Counteracting its challenges and problems it includes the important elements of the late modernity itself: the extreme subjectivity and criticism. That is why it overcomes the religious tradition and rejects the theological doctrinal foundation (Orthodoxy). Nevertheless, it does not abandon the discourse of the “foundations” and “returning”, although it reinvents them according to the specifi c situation guided by specifi c pragmatic goals. As a result, the “third wave” fundamentalism may be called a fundamentalism without tradition/Orthodoxy. This proves that it is too early to speak about the “death of fundamentalism”. Regardless of the fact that fundamentalism in the modern world is transforming radically, it still preserves the “generic features” of fundamentalism, although with the prefi x “post”.

modernity, fundamentalism, modernism, postmodernism, religious traditions, orthodoxy, secularization, post-secularization

1. Antonov K. (2014) “Politicheskoe izmerenie russkoi religioznoi fi losofi i” [“Political dimension of the Russian religious philosophy”]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, Tserkov v Rossii i za rubezhom, vol. 3 (32), pp. 265–294 (in Russian).
2. Armstrong K. (2017) The Battle for God. A History of Fundamentalism. Moscow (Russian translation).
3. Barr J. (1977) Fundamentalism. Philadelphia.
4. Berger P. (ed.) (2010) Between Relativism and Fundamentalism: Religious Recourses for a Middle Position. Grand Rapids.
5. Bilokobylskii O., Levitskii V. (eds) (2017) Vodorazdely sekuliarizatsii: Zapadnyi tsivilizatsionnyi proekt i global’nye al’ternativy [Watersheds of secularisation: Western civilisational project and global alternatives]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
6. Caplan L. (ed.) (1987) Studies in Religious Fundamentalism. Albany.
7. Ehrman B. D. (1991) “The Text of Mark in the Hands of the Orthodox”, in M. S. Burrows, P. Rorem (ed.) Biblical Hermeneutics in Historical Perspective, Michigan, pp. 19–31.
8. Furs V. (2004) Kriticheskaia teoriia «sovremennosti» [The critical theory of “modernity”], available at: https://magazines.gorky.media/logos/2004/1/kriticheskaya-teoriya-sovremennosti.html (20.07.2020) (in Russian).
9. Golovushkin D. (2015) “Religioznyi fundamentalizm / religioznyi modernizm: kontseptual’nye protivniki ili ambivalentnye fenomeny”? [“Religious fundamentalism / religious modernism: Conceptual adversaries or ambivalent phenomena?”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Svjato-Tihonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, vol. 1 (57), pp. 87–97 (in Russian).
10. Golovushkin D. (2018) “Sovremennyi pravoslavnyi fundamentalizm ili psevdofundamentalizm?” [“Contemporary Orthodox fundamentalism or pseudo-fundamentalism?”]. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Politologiia. Religiovedenie, vol. 25, pp. 92‒102 (in Russian).
11. Gurevich P. (1995) “Fundamentalizm i modernizm kak kulturnye orientatsii” [“Fundamentalism and modernism as cultural orientation”]. Obschestvennye nauki i sovremennost, vol. 4, pp. 154–162 (in Russian).
12. Habermas J. (2005) Politicheskie raboty [Political Works]. Moscow (Russian translation).
13. Habermas J. (2008) Der gespaltene Westen. Moscow (Russian translation).
14. Huntington S. (2017) The Clash of Civilizations. Moscow (Russian translation).
15. Iakovenko I. (2008) Poznanie Rossii: tsivilizatsionnyi analiz [Knowledge of Russia: Civilization analysis]. Moscow (in Russian).
16. Kepel G. (1993) The Revenge of God: The Resurgence of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in the Modern World. Penn State University Press.
17. Lebedev V., Priloutsky A. (2010) “K semiotike religioznogo modernizma: semantika i khronologicheskoe sootnesenie” [“On semiotics of religious modernism: Semantics and chronological attribution”]. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Filosofiia, vol. 3, pp. 37–46 (in Russian).
18. Marty M. E., Appleby R. S. (eds) (1991) The Fundamentalism Project. Vol. 1. Fundamentalisms Observed. Chicago.
19. Mensch J. (2001) Postfoundational phenomenology: Husserlian Refl ections on Presence and Embodiment. The Pennsylvania State University.
20. Merezhkovsky D. (1991) «Bol’naya Rossiya» [Sick Russia]. Leningrad (in Russian).
21. Momany C. P. (2007) Wesley’s General Rules: Paradigm for Postmodern Ethics, available at: http://www.bioeticaefecrista.med.br/textos/wesley%27s%20general%20rules.pdf (20.07.2020).
22. Prilutskii A. (2019) “«Obez’yan’i protsessy’»: Deiton vs Sankt-Peterburg” [“Monkey trials: Dayton vs St. Petersburg”]. Istoricheskaia i sotsial’no-obrazovatel’naia my’sl’, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 24–32 (in Russian).
23. Prilutskii A. (2019) “Teologicheskie i mifologicheskie kontsepty` religioznykh diskursov laminarnoi kul’tury`: opyt semioticheskogo analiza” [Theological and mythological concepts of religious discourses of laminar culture: Experience of semiotic analysis”]. Obshhestvo. Sreda. Razvitie, vol. 1, pp. 26–31 (in Russian).
24. Riesebrodt M. (2004) “Die fundamentalistische Erneuerung der Religionen”, in K. Kindelberger (ed.) Fundamentalismus. Politisierte Religionen, Potsdam, pp. 10–27.
25. Ruthven M. (2007) Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction. New York.
26. Smirnov M. (2020) “Novye formaty religii v publichnom prostranstve sovremennogo rossiiskogo obshhestva” [New formats of religion in public space of modern Russian society]. Tekhnologos, vol. 1, pp. 124–132 (in Russian).
27. Uzlaner D. (2013) Kartografiia postsekuliarnogo [Cartography of the postsecular], available at: http://magazines.russ.ru/oz/2013/1/16u.html / (20.07.2020) (in Russian).

Golovushkin Dmitriy

*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.

This article makes public the archive correspondence between S. L. Frank and Father Clement Lialine, a monk from the Catholic monastery Amay-Chevetogne. The preface to the publication traces the history of S. L. Frank’s relations with Clement Lialine which is refl ected in their correspondence of 1937–1948. The topics discussed in the letters concern the involvement of S. L. Frank in his cooperation with the journal Irénikon, his unrealised plans of lecture trips to Belgium, as well as the edition of English anthology of V.S. Soloviev’s works by S. L. Frank’s and his reasearch into the issue of the supposed conversion of V. S. Soloviev to Catholicism. Of particular interest is S. L. Frank’s and Fr. Clement’s position of Christian universalism expressed in the letters, i. e. the desire to consider both Orthodoxy and Catholicism not as two diff erent denominations, but as two cultural-historical branches of the “universal” church, which should stand together in “brotherhood”. Also of interest is response from the Greek Catholic priest Cyril Korolevsky (received to the inquiry of Lialine) concerning the canon regulations of joining the Catholic Church by the Orthodox. The foreword also shows the role of the Benedictine monastery of Amay-Chevetogne and the journal Irénikon as an ecumenical centre of Catholicism, including the links of the journal with Russian émigré philosophers. We also present a bibliography of the articles and reviews of S. L. Frank’s works printed in the journal Irénikon. The published correspondence allows one to supplement the knowledge about the church-related position of S. L. Frank, his attitude to Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism as the three “fraternal” branches of the “united” Christian faith, as well as the specifi c participation of Russian philosophers in the development of ecumenical dialogue in the mid- 20th century.

S. L. Frank, Clement Lialine, journal Irénikon, Christian universalism, ecumenism, religious philosophy, Russian philosophy in emigration, V. S. Soloviev

1. Alexander, hieromonk (1933) “Rim i irenisty (pis’mo v redaktsiiu)” [Roma and Irenists (Letter to the editors)]. Vestnik RSHD, no. 1, pp. 20–22 (in Russian).
2. Aliaev G., Rezvykh T. (2018) “«Problema teoditsei — istochnik russkogo revoliutsionnogo sotsializma». Parizhskii doklad Semena Franka 1938 goda” [“Theodicy problem — source of Russian revolutionary Socialism». S. Frank’s Paris Paper of 1938”]. Vestnik Russkoi Khristianskoi Gumanitarnoi Akademii, no. 19, vol. 2, pp. 20–25 (in Russian).
3. Aliaiev G., Rezvych T. (2016). “Perepiska S.L. Franka s V.B. El’ashevichem i F.O. El’ashevich” [Correspondence between S.L. Frank and V.B. Eliashevich and F.O. Eliashevich], in Kolerov M. (ed.) Studies in Russian intellectual History [13]: Yearbook for 2016–2017, Moscow, pp. 40–240 (in Russian).
4. Aliaiev G. (2015) “The Universalism of Catholicity (Sobornost): Metaphysical and Existential Foundations for Interdenominational Dialogue in Semyon Frank’s Philosophy”, in Mrowczynski-Van Allen A., Obolevitch T., Rojek P. (ed.) Apology of Culture. Religion and Culture in Russian Thought, Eugene, pp. 218–226.
5. Beauduin L. (1926) Dans quel esprit nous voudrions travailler. Irénikon, vol. I, No 2.
6. Berdiaev N. (1933) “Vselenskost’ i konfessionalizm” [Ecumenism and Confessionalism],in Khristianskoe vossoedinenie. Ekumenicheskaia problema v pravoslavnom soznanii [Christian Reunion. Ecumenical problem in Orthodox consciousness], Paris, pp. 63–81 (in Russian).
7. Boobbyer Ph. (2001). S. L. Frank: the life and work of a Russian philosopher. Moscow (Russian translation).
8. Florovsky G. (1951) “Solovyov Anthology, edited by S. L. Frank. Translated from the Russian by Nathalie Duddington. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1950”. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, vol. 5 (3).
9. Frank S. (1992) “S nami Bog. Tri razmyshleniia” [God with us. Three speculations], in Dukhovnye osnovy obschestva [Spiritual foundations of society], Moscow, pp. 217–404 (in Russian).
10. Lambrechts A. (2005) “Kontakty mezhdu Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkov’u i monastyr’om Amay-Chevetogne v 1926–2004 gg.” [Contacts between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Amay-Chevetogne Monastery in 1926–2004”]. Stranitsy: bogoslovie, kul’tura, obrazovanie, no. 3, vol. 9, pp. 349–365 (in Russian).
11. Rousseau O. (1958) “In memoriam: Dom Clément Lialine”. Irénikon, vol. XXXI, no 2.
12. Sapozhnikov S. (1993) “Potomstvo velikogo kniazia Konstantina Nikolaevicha (1827–1892) ot Anny Vasil’evny Kuznetsovoi” [The off spring of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich from Anna Vasilyevna Kuznetsova], in Istoricheskaia genealogiia, no. 2, Yekaterinburg, pp. 22–27 (in Russian).
13. Troitskii A. (2011) “Irénikon”, in Pravoslavnaia Entsiklopediia [Orthodox encyclopaedia], vol. XXVI, pp. 367–370 (in Russian).
14. Tsygankov A., Obolevich T. (2018) “«Germaniia uzhe stala dlia menia moei vtoroi rodinoi»: zhiznennyi i tvorcheskii put’ S. L. Franka v perepiske s F. Khailerom et circum” [“«Germany has already become my second motherland»: Frank’s biography and work in correspondence with F. Heiler et circum”]. Istoriko-filosofskii ezhegodnik, vol. 33, pp. 293–313 (in Russian).
15. Van Parys M. (2003) “Dom Clément Lialine, théologien de l’unité chrétienne”. Irénikon, no 76.

Nun Тереза (Obolevitch T.)

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.

Aliaiev Gennadii

*According to ISCED 2011, a post-doctoral degree called Doctor of Sciences (D.Sc.) is given to reflect second advanced research qualifications or higher doctorates.