scholarly journals George Radin on Bishop Dr. Nicholai Velimirovich and the Serbian Orthodox Church in America

Author(s):  
Nemanja Andrijašević

Abstract: George Radin (Đorđe Radin, 1896–1981) was one of the numerous Serbian emigrants in the USA in the period right before WW2. He studied at the most eminent American Universities and had become an attorney, then a lawyer and finally an expert in international law. He managed to achieve great success and expertise in the field of American foreign politics and diplomacy. In the period between the two World Wars, he met Bishop Dr. Nicholai Velimirovich who made a strong impression on him. He was the Bishop’s guide across the USA during his two visits there: in 1920 and in 1927. During his first visit to the continent, the Bishop had organized the life of the Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC), considering that at the time SOC didn’t have its residing bishop there. Radin was, according to his own testimony, one of the organizers of the Bishop’s arrival to America at the beginning of 1946. He had been of the opinion that this significant Bishop should live in one of the Protestant Churches and hold lectures at the Universities, thus serving SOC and its members. In other words, it was his conviction that the Bishop should have organized the church life in the same way he did in his previous two visits to the USA. However, the situation between the two World Wars was far more complicated. The Serbian Church had by that time appointed its ruling bishop in America and Canada — Dionisiye Milivoyevich (Dionisije Milivojević, 1898–1979), who parted ways with Bishop Nicholai soon after his arrival to the USA. Immense damage had been done to the SOC by the utter lack of cooperation between these two bishops. Bishop Nicholai found a “Solomon’s solution” for this by deciding to live and work in Saint Tikhon’s Orthodox Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania. It was in this holy place that he reposed in 1956. Until the end of his life, Radin was of the opinion that a fundamental mistake had been made by the secession of the opportunity that through abiding in the Protestant communities Bishop Nicholai might do more for the SOC and the Serbs, especially through his acquaintances and contacts with the representatives of other Christian confessions, primarily Protestants. He mentioned this in his correspondence with Sliјepchevich (Đoko Slijepčević, 1908–1993). Also, Radin made all the efforts in his power to help overcome the current schism in the SOC. He wrote about his opinions, ideas and steps taken in that direction to the bishops of the Serbian Church, as well as the Patriarch German Djorich himself. Even though the Patriarch of the SOC also made efforts to help overcome the schism, at one point he told Radin that this unfortunate and extremely difficult issue is an internal matter of the SOC, and thus should be dealt with internally. In the appendix of this work, there are excerpts from the letters found in the Radin — Slijepchevich correspondence. They illustrate the enormous mutual trust and respect that these two acquaintances had for each other, having met by the mediation of Bishop Nicholai. The excerpts also present the opinions of the respectful lawyer and law expert — Radin who, in his own way, tried to contribute to the benefit of the SOC. They also convey his judgment on the importance of Bishop Nicholai as well as his discernment about the missed opportunity that the above mentioned bishop should have been presented with in order to contribute more to the SOC, its faithful people and all the Serbs in general — on the American continent, as well as in the whole world. It is clear that he remained hindered in that respect — among other factors — by the will of Bishop Dionisiye. Only a few years after the death of Bishop Nicholai, the most complicated problem of the SOC in diaspora unraveled — the schism. Radin directed all his attention and efforts towards the solution of this problem, in the ways he considered to be the most acceptable. In all this he had agreement with and support of Slijepchevich, with whom he had researched the best ways of achieving reconciliation. Fragments of his letters imply that the majority of his emigrant life he devoted to taking care of Bishop Nicholai, as well as fighting against schism and finding the possibilities of its overcoming.

2020 ◽  
pp. 88-96
Author(s):  
ILSHAT A. MUKHAMETZARIPOV ◽  

The article reveals the current situation around religious courts, arbitrations and mediation institutions in the states of North America, analyzes their structure, main functions and activities. Catholic and Orthodox church courts, courts and mediation institutions in Protestant churches and denominations, rabbinical and Sharia courts, conflict resolution bodies of Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists are active in the United States. Generally, US authorities do not interfere in their activities if there are no violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens, but sometimes at the state level (Arizona, Wyoming, Indiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas) the use of religious norms in arbitration courts is prohibited. A similar situation has occurred in Canada, where official religious courts operate legally, but in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the activity of religious courts in the field of family relations was limited (in many respects due to fears of the formation of a parallel “Sharia justice”) The opinions of North American researchers on this issue are divided: some consider the activities of religious courts as a violation of the principle of secularism and think it necessary to ban their activities, others regard them as the realization of religious freedoms and advocate their preservation in the legislative framework...


Author(s):  
Sergey M. Zinchuk

The author describes in the article some important components and features of Church life in the period initiated by Nikita Khrushchev and known as the parish reform, which, among other things, was aimed at undermining the fi nancial base of the Russian Orthodox Church (hereinafter referred to as the Church) in the USSR. It is noted that Stalin's post-war system of state-Church relations had a serious defect in the form of ineffective legal consolidation: in addition, after the end of the World War II, the question if the Soviet power praised Orthodoxy and other religions stood no longer disappeared. All this allowed Stalin's successors carrying out a number of serious measures aimed at weakening the Church. Khrushchev's religious policy differed from the persecution of the 1920s-1930s, because it included measures aimed at indirect destruction of Orthodoxy, primarily through administrative pressure on the clergy and laity. The parish reform, aimed at depriving deans of fi nancial powers and handing them over to churchwardens, appointed, in fact, by local authorities, which allowed to ruin churches and monasteries with compliance with the formalities of the regime's toleration, can be considered to be a typical manifestation of that trend.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 989-1004
Author(s):  
Р. G. Rogozny ◽  

The article explores the opening of religious relics in the first years of Soviet power and the reaction to this opening by “popular оrthodoxy”. Holy relics — the bones and imperishable remains of holy people — are revered in both the Orthodox and Catholic churches. In 1918–1920, the Bolsheviks, knowing popular belief in the incorruption of Holy relics, organized the opening of Church relics, and instead of imperishable relics found only bones. Government officials, priests, and doctors were appointed to the Commission responsible for opening relics of saints. Thus, the Soviet authorities tried to discredit the Church. The organizers of the company for opening relics were those who before the Revolution were linked to the Orthodox Church. These were either former priests or people who served in the Synod. The opening of the relics was a great shock for the faithful and a great success for the new authorities. Instead of imperishable relics, the tombs were found at best with rotted bones. The results of this campaign were published in the press and were actively used by Soviet power later.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 373-388
Author(s):  
Helena Pociechina

Until today, the Russian of Old Believers’ prints and manuscripts has not been subject to research in linguistic studies. The written language under investigation here, as seen in hand-written notebooks or books printed illegally, is based on the urban variant of the Russian colloquial language. Old Church Slavonic elements are prominent in the analyzed texts, which might be the result of teaching the skills of reading and writing from Old Church Slavonic primers (azbukas) and from the Church Slavonic Psalter and Horologion (Book of Hours). This feature of the analyzed texts refers not only to paraliturgical scripts (used to pray at home) but also to polemic and didactic writings, as well as texts aimed to be read aloud or sung, such as spiritual poems. Fragments of texts in Old Church Slavonic are mainly quotations or reminiscences from the Holy Scripture and writings of the Church Fathers, taken from early polemic texts. The fragments also refer to the everyday reality of the Orthodox Church life. The paper presents analyses of texts such as: “Wiecznaja Pravda” by Avvakum Komissarov, Sinodik, Skitskoje pokajanije, Czin ispowiedaniju, as well as calendars and spiritual guides.


1986 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 401-420
Author(s):  
Arthur F. Glasser

Conceding that the “church growth” concept and methodology have come under fire, the author shares an insider's reflections on how the movement has fared since Donald McGavran originated it three decades ago. The history of the movement and the relation between the Institute for Church Growth and the School of World Missions at Fuller Theological Seminary are traced. Dialogue and controversy with the WCC in the sixties, and growing influence within the Lausanne movement in the seventies, are sketched. The impact and consequences of church growth for world missions and for church life in the USA are noted. Finally, in a series of “random thoughts,” Glasser appraises both the strengths and weaknesses of the church growth concept, affirms that it is being corrected and enlarged, and claims for it an enduring place in the church's evolving missionary strategy of the eighties.


2020 ◽  
pp. 168-178
Author(s):  
Питирим Творогов

Основной целью исследования является описание трудов свт. Феофана по учреждению церковного периодического издания «владимирские епархиальные ведомости». Для этого в первую очередь излагается история учреждения и развития «епархиальных ведомостей» в русской православной Церкви в целом, а затем рассматривается подробный план конкретного издания владимирской епархии, каким он виделся зачинателю этого важного дела, раскрывается его роль в жизни епархиального духовенства и паствы, показывается духовно-просветительское значение этого печатного органа. в итоге автор делает вывод, что целью трудов епископа было вовлечение местного духовенства в активную церковную жизнь совместно с паствой. в наше время выпуски данного журнала являются ценнейшим источником сведений об истории владимирской епархии. The main purpose of the study is to describe the writings of St. Theophanes on the establishment of the church periodical «Vladimir diocesan sheets». Primarily I discuss the history and account of the emergence and development of the «Diocesan Vedomosti» that is described in the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole, and then display a detailed plan of the specific publication of the Vladimir diocese, which he saw as the initiator of this important matter. Its role in the life of the diocesan clergy and flock is revealed. The spiritual and educational significance of this printed organ is shown. As a result, the author concludes that the goal of the bishop’s work was to involve the local clergy in active church life together with the flock. Nowadays, the issues of this journal are a valuable source of information about the history of the Vladimir diocese.


2001 ◽  
pp. 67-78
Author(s):  
Nadiya Stokolos

Restoration of religious life, the formation of an autocephalous Orthodox church in the occupied German troops, Ukraine faced a number of foreign-policy and domestic problems. First of all, it is about the approach of different personalities and groups of Orthodox hierarchs to their solution. At that time, there were two irreconcilable, antagonistic concepts - Metropolitan of Warsaw Dionysius (Valledinsky) and Archbishop of Kholmsky and Podlyassky Hilarion (Ogienko). It should be noted at the outset that both these hierarchs were in Poland, which was declared by the General Governorate of Hitler and actually bordered by the Germans occupied by Ukrainian lands, most of which were included in the "Reichscommissariat Ukraine". It was in these occupational administrative formations, under the direct guidance of Hitler and his close circle, that the whole range of Ukrainian problems - political, economic, national, cultural, and church - was solved. Ukrainian Orthodox circles and their leaders have long hoped for the invaders' good will to solve Ukrainian problems and, for the most part, tried to act on the basis of their own concepts of governance of church life. All of them, as time showed, were, to a greater or lesser extent, peculiar "ideas - fixed", since they contradicted the principled vision of the solution of the church issue in Ukraine by the German invaders.


Author(s):  
Dragan Novakovic

The process of adoption of the Constitution of the Serbian Orthodox Church, after its unification and elevation to the rank of Patriarchate, has been analyzed. During ten years of work it was necessary to overcome and solve numerous and complex problems that had the internal church character or came from the political sphere. Among the first to dominate were different theoretical and canonical standpoints about the body with power to prepare the text of the Constitution and the institution with the full legitimate authority for its adoption. There was also a dissatisfaction of the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina unwilling to relinquish historically acquired rights to directly elect representatives of the ecclesiastical self-governing bodies and accept increasingly emphasized efforts to transfer all church affairs to the Episcopate. Other issue was directly related to the current political events and its main driver was the unwillingness of the ruling Serbian elite to accept the Constitution which would result in a greater autonomy of the Church and elimination of state control mechanisms. After a lengthy discussion a text was adopted as a compromise, which enabled the consolidation of church unity, the establishment of the planned organization and the assumption of jurisdiction from all the bodies and institutions envisaged in the Constitution, but also gave the state a significant influence on some important areas of church life.


Balcanica ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 143-190
Author(s):  
Slobodan Markovich

Nikolai Velimirovich was one of the most influential bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the twentieth century. His stay in Britain in 1908/9 influenced his theological views and made him a proponent of an Anglican-Orthodox church reunion. As a known proponent of close relations between different Christian churches, he was sent by the Serbian Prime Minister Pasic to the United States (1915) and Britain (1915-1919) to work on promoting Serbia and the cause of Yugoslav unity. His activities in both countries were very successful. In Britain he closely collaborated with the Serbian Relief Fund and ?British friends of Serbia? (R. W. Seton-Watson, Henry Wickham Steed and Sir Arthur Evans). Other Serbian intellectuals in London, particularly the brothers Bogdan and Pavle Popovic, were in occasional collision with the members of the Yugoslav Committee over the nature of the future Yugoslav state. In contrast, Velimirovich remained committed to the cause of Yugoslav unity throughout the war with only rare moments of doubt. Unlike most other Serbs and Yugoslavs in London Father Nikolai never grew unsympathetic to the Serbian Prime Minister Pasic, although he did not share all of his views. In London he befriended the churchmen of the Church of England who propagated ecclesiastical reunion and were active in the Anglican and Eastern Association. These contacts allowed him to preach at St. Margaret?s Church, Westminster and other prominent Anglican churches. He became such a well-known and respected preacher that, in July 1917, he had the honour of being the first Orthodox clergyman to preach at St. Paul?s Cathedral. He was given the same honour in December 1919. By the end of the war he had very close relations with the highest prelates of the Church of England, the Catholic cardinal of Westminster, and with prominent clergymen of the Church of Scotland and other Protestant churches in Britain. Based on Velimirovich?s correspondence preserved in Belgrade and London archives, and on very wide coverage of his activities in The Times, in local British newspapers, and particularly in the Anglican journal The Church Times, this paper describes and analyses his wide-ranging activities in Britain. The Church of England supported him wholeheartedly in most of his activities and made him a celebrity in Britain during the Great War. It was thanks to this Church that some dozen of his pamphlets and booklets were published in London during the Great War. What made his relations with the Church of England so close was his commitment to the question of reunion of Orthodox churches with the Anglican Church. He suggested the reunion for the first time in 1909 and remained committed to it throughout the Great War. Analysing the activities of Father Nikolai, the paper also offers a survey of the very wide-ranging forms of help that the Church of England provided both to the Serbian Orthodox Church and to Serbs in by the end of the Great War he became a symbol of Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement. general during the Great War. Most of these activities were channelled through him. Thus, by the end of the Great War he became a symbol of Anglican-Orthodox rapprochement.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-17
Author(s):  
Andrii Kobetiak

The article analyzes the process of system formation of the structure of Ecumenical Orthodoxy at the current stage. Church life is a dynamic process. The Church is constantly moving forward and has to respond to social demands and problems. It is determined that the institution of autocephaly went through a difficult path of formation, however, even today there is no clear regulated mechanism for the acquisition of autocephalous status by the new Local Church. It has been proven that a number of national churches, such as Montenegro, Macedonia and Belarus, have been defending their own church independence for a long time. However, due to external political-ecclesiastical pressure and the lack of an algorithm for the autocephalization process, they cannot acquire an independent status. In addition, it has been established that such "daughter" churches as Macedonian and Ukrainian are much older than their own kyriarchal patriarchates (Serbian and Moscow). The study found that an obvious violation of canonical rules is the presence of two jurisdictions (two canonical bishops) in the same territory. It has been proven that such a situation exists in a number of countries, such as the United States, where a number of churches in the diaspora of different jurisdictions operate in parallel. A similar situation has already formed in Ukraine. Two significant church organizations operate simultaneously. It has been proven that due to the pressure and reluctance of the mother churches to release the subsidiary churches from the field of influence and their own canonical territory, a similar situation could potentially occur in Montenegro, Macedonia and Belarus. As in Ukraine, some of the parishes will move to the newly created autocephalous church, for example, the Belarusian one, and some will remain loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church. However, it has been established that the coexistence of different mutually recognized Local Churches on the same territory contradicts a number of canons and traditions of the Orthodox Church. The article proves that the Conciliar fullness of the church does not justify such a status of churches, however, in general, the phenomenon of parallel jurisdictions is justified by the time and public demand of the population of different countries, as well as by the political situation. The Grand Council of Crete has not found a compromise solution for an authorized resolving of the problem of the diaspora and "parallel jurisdictions". The article establishes that institutional disputes between Local Churches related to borders and "canonical territory" and the proclamation of new Local Churches in autocephaly status can be resolved only by a conciliar way and with the participation of all Orthodox hierarchs. Existing approaches to solving the "temporary" problem of "parallel jurisdictions" have led to the incorporation of existing non-canonical entities into recognized churches. It has been proved that only the autocephalous system is a unanimously accepted version of the existence of Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Thuse, the striving of a number of national churches for their recognition and independence is just. Therefore, further scientific explorations of autocephalous topics and the canonical work of the holy fathers will complement the study.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document