Перейти к основному содержимому

Academic Periodical

The Quarterly Journal of St. Philaret’s Institute

Issue 33 (winter 2020)

SFI Journal. Issue 33

SFI Journal. Issue 33

The Quarterly Journal of St. Philaret’s Institute. 2020. Iss. 33. 248 p.

Table of Contents

Liturgical Studies

Fr Alexander Sukharev, Ph.D. in Theology, Cleric of the Novodevichy Convent (Moscow)
“Vom Geist der Liturgie” of Romano Guardini – the most significant book of the liturgical movement in Germany
pp. 9–27
DOI: 10.25803/SFI.2020.33.54104
The article is a brief summary of “Vom Geist der Liturgie” – the most significant book of the liturgical movement in Germany written by a priest, theologian and philosopher Romano Guardini. The article presents a history of the text, its key ideas, composition and style. While writing a book, which at first was addressed to the educated priests and laity from the circle of Maria Laach’ abbot Ildefons Herwegen, the author sought to describe liturgy not as a set of regulations but rather as of an objective form of prayer coming from the source of Christian tradition, thus encouraging the readers to the conscious participation in the liturgical prayer. In the concluding part it is argued that the questions raised in Guardini’s book are still important: anthropological crisis, awakening of spiritual experience, liturgical education, capability of a modern man to perform a liturgical act.
Keywords: liturgical movement, Romano Guardini, “Vom Geist der Liturgie”, Maria Laach, “Liturgiewissenschaft”, the category of opposition, liturgical act.
pp. 37–45
DOI: 10.25803/SFI.2020.33.54172
This essay examines R. F. Taft’s role in the papal decision to recognize the Addai and Mari Anaphora a true eucharistic prayer, but even more so the pros and cons of this decision. The main obstacle was the position that exactly the Lord’s words “This is my body” and “This is my blood” are the sacramental “form” of the Eucharist. Yet, R. F. Taft showed that the (Roman) Catholic teaching does not mean that the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ takes place exactly when these words are pronounced. It is more in line with tradition to hold that the transformation of the eucharistic gifts takes place because Christ himself pronounced these words on Holy Thursday and because, during the anaphora, prayers of thanksgiving, epiclesis and offering express the faith that the gifts are really transformed into Christ present in the sacrament.
Keywords: Liturgy, Eucharist, sanctification, Christian unity, Assyrian church.
Maxim Zelnikov, Ph.D. in Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Associate Professor, lecturer, St Philaret’s Institute (Moscow)
On the history of the Liturgical practice of orthodox church in the XX century: the use of holy objects and substances
pp. 46–72
DOI: 10.25803/SFI.2020.33.54179
The article focuses on the research of possible outer and inner reasons of certain peculiarities of eucharistic worship concerning usage of bread, wine, holy vessels and vestments in Russian orthodox church in XX century in time of persecutions. Expecting future deprivation, the All Russian Local Council of 1917–1918 allowed to celebrate eucharist using rye bread, berry juice, simplified and cheap vessels and vestments at emergency. We investigate why after the Council in the absence of wheat bread and grape wine some clergymen refused celebrating eucharist while others used for eucharistic worship bread of any content, juices or even water, crockery instead of chalice and non-standard vestments. We show that under the ideological influence of the Council there appeared the following tendencies in the practice of XX century confessors of faith: 1) vanishing in liturgical actions features symbolizing “symphony” of church and state; 2) weakening of scholastic requirements to the content of eucharistic substances; 3) deviation from “Antiochene” symbolism of eucharist as salvation history to “Alexandrine” interpretation of this sacrament as real co-participation of believers in the Last Supper.
Keywords: new martyrs and confessors of XX century, eucharist, theology, liturgical practice, holy objects, the content of eucharistic substance.


Stefano Parenti, Doctor of Eastern Christian Studies, Professor, Pontifical Liturgical Institute, Pontifical Athenaeum of St Anselm (Rome)
The Cathedral Rite of Constantinople: Evolution of a Local Tradition
pp. 73–99
DOI: 10.25803/SFI.2020.33.54183
This article studies the evolution of the Liturgy of the Hours at Constantinople after the ninth century, when not only monastic churches of the city, but also secular churches followed the liturgical rite referred to as “hagiopolitis”. Only the Cathedral was left using the rite appropriately called “ekklisiastis”. The article also analyzes particular forms of “bi-ritualism” between these two liturgical systems, with the tendency to conserve the “ekklisiastes” rite during the most important times of the liturgical year. Contrary to what was previously believed on the subject, the eleventh century was not the zenith of the cathedral tradition of Constantinople, but rather an age of decadence and abandonement.
Keywords: worship, rite, Constantinople, typos, Lectionary, Euchologion, Psalter, Praxapostolos.

Theological Studies

Alexander Kopirovsky, Ph.D. in Education, Associate Professor, Head of the Theology Department, St Philaret’s Institute (Moscow)
Viktoriya Syagayeva, Independent researcher (Moscow)
N. V. Pokrovsky’s Concept of the Emergence of the Christian Basilica in the Context of Contemporary Research
pp. 100–117
DOI: 10.25803/SFI.2020.33.54185
The article considers the emergence of the Christian basilica, contributing to the discussion originating in the late XV century. It outlines the principle approaches to resolving the discussion. The article contains detailed analysis of the late XIX century debate between professors N. V. Pokrovsky and N. F. Krasno seltsev summarising previous and partly anticipating future discussions on the subject. 
The article concludes that the points of view expressed by the two opponents (Pokrovsky associated the basilica forms with a house (ikos) remodelled to host worship services while Krasnoseltsev viewed these architectural forms as influenced by the Jerusalem Temple) should not be regarded as opposite but as highlighting various aspects and chronological stages of a single process. The article suggests an alternative sequencing of the stages noting, in particular, 
simultaneous occurrence of certain stages. The basis for this alternative sequencing is found in the absence of a discernible transition from private and public Christian basilicas to imperial basilicas, established as fully-fledged temples from the age of Emperor Constantine onwards.
In conclusion, the article reviews Pokrovsky’s concept in the context of the ongoing ecclesiastical architecture crisis resulting from the focus being placed exclusively on sacro-symbolic temple forms, as described in H. Sedlmayr’s works. The concept, which suggests seeking a new temple appearance primarily by adapting the home interior to small community worship is deemed substantially more productive for the purpose of overcoming the crisis than imitating period 
architecture or creating arbitrary forms.
Keywords: Christian basilica, emergence, Pokrovsky, Krasnoseltsev, house (ikos), Jerusalem Temple, Constantine’s basilicas, contemporary ecclesiastical architecture.

Church History

Ekaterina Paschenko, Independent researcher (Moscow)
Church-State Relations in the Byzantine Empire According to the Scriptores post Theophanem (IX–X centuries)
pp. 118–143
DOI: 10.25803/SFI.2020.33.54186
This article considers Byzantine church-state relations during the second period of iconoclasm and the beginning of the Macedonian Dynasty, based on materials from the Scriptores post Theophanem. During this period, government authorities twice changed the official position on the veneration of icons, first in support of the iconoclasts, and later in support of the iconodules. 
The ideal model of church-state relations, which the Scriptores post Theophanem presupposes, largely corresponds to the symphonic relationship between church and state described in the Isagoge. In reality, those in power, striving to preserve unity within the empire, dictated their own will concerning questions of faith, insensitively meddling in internal church affairs. Sources do not show a significant difference between the ways in which the state handled the church during the periods of iconoclasm and iconodulism. Moreover, according to the Scriptores post Theophanem, persecution of those outside the faith was more cruel and widespread during the iconodule period. 
Early in the rule of the Macedonian Dynasty, the difficulties in the church-state interrelationship pointed out in this work led not to a restoration of symphony between church and state, but to a strengthening of the emperor’s power and a weakening of the patriarch’s power.
Keywords: Byzantium, church-state relations, symphony, iconoclasm, Scriptores post Theophanem, Theophanes Continuatus, Leo V, Patriarch Photius, Empress Theodora, Emperor Basil I, Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, Macedonian Dynasty.
Archpriest Maxim Kokarev, Rector, Samara Orthodox Theological Seminary (Samara)
Overseeing the preaching ministry in the Russian Church in the late Synodal period (as exemplified by the Samara Diocese)
pp. 144–161
DOI: 10.25803/SFI.2020.33.54187
The article is devoted to the studying of such a specific function of the diocesan authority as the management in the field of preaching in the Russian Church of the end of the Synodal period. The censor functions of various parts of the diocesan administration are considered herein according the materials of the Samara Diocese. 
The situation with the preaching in the Samara Diocese of the late XIX – early XX centuries was extremely unsatisfactory, which is not least explained by the cumbersome bureaucratic system of censoring sermons that existed then. The system of governance in the establishment of preaching was even more bureaucratic in the diocese than required by the Charter of spiritual consistories. The censoring of “next-in-turn” sermons, associated with the passage of several instances (a rural dean, a special county censor), took a long time, while being not a very effective means. Often the requirements of the diocesan authorities were obviously impossible to implement. 
The considered sources allow us to state the growing wave of discontent of the clergy towards the diocesan censorship in the early twentieth century. Despite the very heavy fines, a number of priests essentially ignored the orders of the consistory. Awareness of the problem was among the ranks priests and the ruling bishops. However, the centralized system of church management and the lack of skill to take initiative delayed the resolution of this issue. In the end, the situation changed only in 1910, when the appointment of two mandatory sermons was 
canceled by a decree of the consistory. The “next-in-turn” preaching was preserved only in the cathedrals, where all the priests of the provincial capital delivered homilies. Thus, the practice was approximated closer to those provisions that are spelled out in the Charter of spiritual consistories. 
The polemics of the early twentieth century revealed the problems of preaching and fetched to the preparation for active discussions on this question in the precouncil instances and after that at the Local Council of 1917–1918.
Keywords: history of the Russian Orthodox Church, Synodal period, diocesan censorship, consistory, county censor, rural dean, diocesan congress.
The Second Restoration of the Patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church (1943). Materials from a Roundtable Discussion of the Church History Department of St Philaret’s Institute
pp. 162–186
DOI: 10.25803/SFI.2020.33.54188
The second restoration of the Patriarchate was one of the key events in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church in the XX century. The facts surrounding this event have already been fairly well studied, though a discussion of the motives and driving forces, possible alternative courses for the developments of events and, most importantly, the fruits of this joint church-state project, are still very relevant. The participants of our roundtable discussion in honour of 
the 75th anniversary of the restoration of the patriarchate discussed a number of particular questions. Did the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate of the ROC really have a choice in the autumn of 1943, when Stalin declared his desire to restore the status and structure of the church in the USSR as quickly as possible? Who needed a church renaissance more – the Moscow Patriarchate or Stalin himself? The key issue our roundtable participants found themselves dealing with was the question of what was gained and what was lost by the two 
parties as a result of this “union”. What price was paid for the restoration of the patriarchate in the Russian church? What compromises did Soviet authorities and the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate – and, as a result, all bishops and clergymen – have to make? Our roundtable participants come to the conclusion that internal church unity was lost in favour of the external appearance of wellbeing, after 1943. As a result, lack of trust arose between various church diocese, clergymen and laity – all of whom became progressively alienated from each other. The church’s “ecclesial model” changed entirely, and a systemic crisis lay within the very foundation of the new model.
Keywords: Second restoration of the patriarchate, Stalin’s “new course” for policy on religion, Patriarch Sergius of Moscow, Council for Russian Ortho dox Church Affairs, Archiepiscopal Council of 8 September, 1943, 1927 Declaration on Recognition of the Soviet Regime, Project for Orthodox Unity.

Reviews and Abstracts

Kirill Aleksandrov, Ph.D. in History, Associate Professor, St Philaret’s Institute (Moscow, Saint Petersburg)
Disputes over the Ruin
pp. 187–216
Book Review: Zubov B. A. Russia. 1917. The Catastrophe : Lectures on Russian Revolution. Moscow : Ripol Classic Publishing House : Pangloss, 2019. 317, [3] p.
Irina Mochalova, Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor, Department of the History of Philosophy, Institute of Philosophy, Saint Petersburg State University (Saint Petersburg)
To Translate Means to Understand (on the Release of the New Russian Translation of Plato’s dialogue “Sophist”)
pp. 217–222
Book Review: Plato. The Statesman / Translation, analysis, comments, annexes by I. A. Protopopova. St Petersburg : Plato philosophical Society, 2019. 261 p.
Irina Protopopova, Ph.D. in Cultural Studies, Associate Professor, Head of the Platonov Research Center, Russian State Humanitarian University; Editor in Chief, Journal “Platonic Investigations” (Moscow)
Book Review: Plato. The Statesman / Translation, analysis, comments by R. V. Svetlov. St Petersburg : Plato philosophical Society, 2019. 212 p.
pp. 223–225
Natalya Likvinceva, Ph.D. in Philosophy, Senior Researcher, Alexander Solzhenitsyn House for the Russian Diaspora (Moscow)
Book Review: Ermishin O. T. Philosophy of the Russian Abroad of the XX Century. Мoscow; St Petersburg : Summer garden (“Letniy Sad”), 2019. 303, [1] p.
pp. 226–229
Yulia Balakshina, Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor, Academic Secretary, St Philaret’s Institute; Associate Professor, Herzen State Pedagogical University (Moscow, Saint Petersburg)
Review of the All-Russian Research and Training Conference “In the Name not of Utility but Truth: Remembering and Forgetting in Today’s Russia” (Voronezh, 7–8 November 2019)
pp. 230–233
Konstantin Obozny, Ph.D. in History, Head of the Department of Church History, St Philaret’s Institute (Moscow; Pskov)
Review of the Conference “The Changes in the Confessional Situation in Eastern Europe and the Baltic Region in relation to the Political Military Processes in 1939–1941” (Мoscow, 28 November 2019)
pp. 234–240
SFI Invoice Details

INN (Taxpayer Identification Number): 7701165500
KPP (Tax Registration Reason Code): 770101001
OKTMO Code (Russian National Classification of Municipal Territories): 45375000
‘Sberbank of Russia’ Public Company
Operating account: 40703810838120100621
Offsetting account: 30101810400000000225
BIC (Bank Identification Code): 044525225


Government Accreditation Certificate, AA no. 2015 d. 16/06/2016
Federal Education and Science Supervision Authority License no. 2990 d. 22/10/2021
Department for Religious Education and Catechesis of Moscow Patriarchate License no. 09-5635-5 dd. 21/01/2009