/

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

St. Tikhon’s University Review I :88

THEOLOGY

Gratsianskiy Mikhail

Pope Siricius (384–399) and roman ecclesiology during the period after the end of Arian controversy

Gratsianskiy Mikhail (2020) "Pope Siricius (384–399) and roman ecclesiology during the period after the end of Arian controversy ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 11-29 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202088.11-29
This article studies the literary heritage of Pope Siricius (384–399) with the aim of studying his views on the role and place of the Roman Church as to other churches. The article examines extant letters of the pope and analyses all the places in them which pertain to Siricius’ ecclesiological views. These are primarily expressed in his idea about the role of Apostle Peter as the founder of the “apostolic see” of Rome, the place of the Roman see as a guarantor of the Nicene canons and their translator for the churches of the Western Roman Empire, as well as the pope’s vision of the limits of power of the Roman bishop. Based on the analysis of Siricius’ letters, the article comes to the conclusion that the idea of the imperious position of the Roman see in regard to the Churches outside the Roman ecclesiastical area was alien for this pope. In relations with churches outside the suburbicarian provinces, the pope strictly adhered to the conciliar principle, addressing them by conciliar letters, in which auctoritas sedis apostolicae was expressed. In relation to the bishops of his area, he acted as primate and communicated with them on the basis of the principles stipulated by the 34th canon of the Holy Apostles. Siricius regarded the Roman see as having special authority, but this authority was expressed in the broadcast to other Churches of the canons adopted both in Rome and in the East. Siricius did not regard Rome as “the center of communion”. The Roman see, although it was considered to be founded by the apostle Peter, did not have special prerogatives of power. Siricius did not call St Peter fi rst bishop of Rome, he rather considered himself successor of his own predecessor Damasus (366–384) and only in the figurative sense “heir to the administration” (administrationis haeres) of St Peter. The connection of the Roman see with St Peter resulted in moral obligations of the Roman pontiff, rather than his prerogatives of power.
Pope Siricius, Pope Damasus, Roman ecclesiology, Roman primacy, Roman Petrinology, Nicaean Canons, decretals, letter to Himerius of Tarragona
  1. Berger A. (1953) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Philadelphia.
  2. Caspar Erich (1933) Geschichte des Papsttums von den Anfängen bis zur Höhe der Weltherrschaft, vol. 1. Tübingen.
  3. Chavasse A. (ed.) (1973) Sancti Leonis Magni Romani pontificis Tractatus septem et nonaginta (Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina 138–138°). Turnholti.
  4. D’Avray D. (2018) “Half a Century of Research on the First Papal Decretals (to c. 440)”. Bulletin of Medieval Canon Law, 35, pp. 332–374.
  5. De Senneville-Grare G. (1994) “Sirice”, in Ph. Levillain (ed.) Dictionnaire historique de la papauté. Paris, рp. 1587–1588.
  6. Dozhdev D. (1996) Rimskoe chastnoe pravo [Roman private law]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Dunn G. D. (2011) “Canonical Legislation on the Ordination of Bishops: Innocent I’s Letter to Victricius of Rouen”, in J. Leemans, P. Van Nuff elen, S. W. J. Keough, C. Nicolaye (eds) Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity. Göttingen, рp. 145–166.
  8. Dunn G. D. (2015) “Collectio Corbeiensis, Collectio Pithouensis, and the Earliest Collections of Papal Letters”, in B. Neil, P. Allen (eds) Collecting Early Christian Letters. From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity. Cambridge, рp. 175–189.
  9. Duval Y.-M. (2005) La décrétale Ad Gallos Episcopos: son texte et son auteur. Texte critique, traduction française et commentaire. Leiden; Boston.
  10. Ferreiro A. (2015) “Pope Siricius and Himerius of Tarragona (385): Provincial Papal Intervention in the Fourth Century”, in G. D. Dunn (ed.) The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity. Farnham, рp. 73–85.
  11. Gaudemet J. (1985). Les sources du droit de l’église en Occident du IIe au VIIe siècle. Paris.
  12. Gratsianskiy M. (2016) “‘Akakianskaia’ ili vse zhe ‘felikianskaia’ skhizma? Problema obosnovannosti odnogo istoriografi cheskogo klishe” [‘Acacian’ or rather ‘Felician’ schism? The problem of acceptability of a historiographic cliché]. Vizantiiskii Vremennik, 100, pp. 44–63 (in Russian).
  13. Gratsianskiy M. (2016) “Papa Gelasii I (492–496) i ego ekkleziologicheskie vozzreniia” [Pope Gelasius I (492–496) and his ecclesiological views”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia 1: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia, 3 (65), pp. 25–41 (in Russian).
  14. Gratsianskiy M. (2019) “Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri: Obosnovanie iskliuchitel’nykh vlastnykh prerogativ rimskogo episkopa papoi L’vom Velikim” [‘Haeres Petri sive vicarius Petri’. Arguments of Pope Leo the Great for the exceptional prerogatives of power for the bishop of Rome”]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia II: Istoriia. Istoriia Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi, 89, pp. 27–48 (in Russian).
  15. Hornung Chr. (2011) Directa ad decessorem. Ein kirchenhistorisch-philologischer Kommentar zur ersten Dekretale des Siricius von Rom. Münster.
  16. Hornung Chr. (2011) “Haeres Petri: Kontinuität und Wandel in der Bischofsnachfolge des Siricius von Rom”, in J. Leemans, P. Van Nuff elen, S. W. J. Keough, C. Nicolaye (eds) Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity. Göttingen, рp. 375–388.
  17. Hornung Chr. (2015) “Siricius and the Rise of the Papacy”, in G. D. Dunn (ed.) The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity. Farnham, рp. 57–72.
  18. Jasper D., Fuhrmann H. (2001) Papal Letters in the Early Middle Ages. Washington DC.
  19. Jones A. H. M. (1964) The Later Roman Empire, 284–602, vol. 1. Oxford.
  20. Kaiser W. (2007) Authentizität und Geltung spätantiker Kaisergesetze. Studien zu den Sacra privilegia concilii Vizaceni. München.
  21. Kelly J. N. D. (1986) “Siricius”, in J. N. D. Kelly. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford; New York, рp. 35–36.
  22. Moreau D. (2008) “Non impar conciliorum extat auctoritas: L’origine de l’introduction des lettres pontificales dans le droit canonique”, In J. Desmulliez, C. Höet-van Cauwenberghe, J.-C. Jolivet (eds) L’étude des correspondances dans le monde romain: de l’antiquité classique à l’antiquité tardive. Permanences et mutations. Actes du XXXe Colloque international de Lille, 20–22 novembre 2008. Lille, pp. 487–506.
  23. Pietri Ch. (1976) Roma Christiana. Recherches sur l’Eglise de Rome, son organisation, sa politique, son idéologie de Miltiade à Sixte III (311–440), vol. 2. Rome.
  24. Schmidt K. D. (1936) “Papa Petrus ipse”. Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 54, pp. 267–275.
  25. Speigl J. (1984) “Die Päpste in der Reichskirche des 4. und frühen 5. Jahrhunderts. Von Silvester I. bis Sixtus III”, in M. Greschat (ed.) Das Papsttum, vol. l. [Gestalten der Kirchengeschichte. Bd. 11]. Stuttgart, рp. 43–55.
  26. Stein E. (1959) Histoire du Bas-Empire, vol. 1. Paris; Brussels; Amsterdam.
  27. Ullmann W. (1960) “Leo I and the Theme of Papal Primacy”. Journal of Theological Studies, 11, pp. 25–51.
  28. Ullmann W. (1981) Gelasius I. (492–496). Das Papsttum an der Wende der Spätantike zum Mittelalter. Stuttgart.
  29. Wojtowytsch M. (1981) Papsttum und Konzile von den Anfängen bis zu Leo I. (440–461). Studien zur Entstehung der Überordnung des Papstes über Konzile. Stuttgart.
  30. Zakharov G. (2019) Vneshniaia kommunikatsiia i bogoslovskaia traditsiia Rimskoi Tserkvi v epokhu arianskikh sporov [External communication and theological tradition of the Roman Church at the epoch of the Arian controversy”]. Moscow (in Russian).
  31. Zechiel-Eckes K. (2013) Die Erste Dekretale. Der Brief Papst Siricius’ an Bischof Himerius von Tarragona von Jahr 385 (JK 255). Aus dem Nachlass mit Ergänzungen von D. Jasper [Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Studien und Texte. Bd. 55]. Hannover.

Gratsianskiy Mikhail


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in History;
Academic Degree: PhD in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 4a Likhov per., Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Leading Researcher;
ORCID: 0000-0002-6981-3216;
Email: gratsianskiy@mail.ru.

*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.

Pylaev Maxim

The absoluteness of Christianity in E. Trelch’s works in connection with the metaphysical and non-metaphysical justification of historicism

Pylaev Maxim (2020) "The absoluteness of Christianity in E. Trelch’s works in connection with the metaphysical and non-metaphysical justification of historicism ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 30-42 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202088.30-42
This article is intended to answer the question of the possible coherence of the principles of historicism developed by the Neo-Kantian tradition (V. Windelband, G. Rickert) in their refl ection in philosophical theology of E. Trelch and in the conception of absoluteness of Christianity. The article studies the metamorphoses of historical thinking in the post-Hegel philosophy of history of the 19th century in their determining infl uence on the liberal theology of Trelch. The article also discusses the possibility of building a non-metaphysical philosophy of history and its relationship with Christian theology. The metaphysical substantiation of historicism in the context of the concept of absoluteness of Christianity uses the example of the projects of G. Hegel and F. Schleiermacher. A characteristic feature of the metaphysical form of historicism is its inextricable connection with dialectics. According to Hegel, historical life has a logical structure; substance (spirit) realises itself in history. According to Schleiermacher, the absolute reveals itself in historical forms of religious consciousness. Comparative historical religious studies allow Trelch to give a new answer to the question of the absoluteness of Christianity. Absoluteness loses its metaphysical nature and is determined by the uniqueness and specifi city of any historical event. Trelch preserves the transcendent in history not in form of a metaphysical absolute, but in form of religious values. Developing the concept of Rickert’s historicism, Trelch highlights three aspects of a historical setting. This is a method of historical criticism, correlation and analogy. Trelch, following Rickert, actualises the meaning of a historical event through feeling. Thus, for Trelch, the religious feeling combines the possibility of cognition of the transcendental with the help of the religious a priori and the ability to empirically explicate this knowledge. Trelch adopts the personality-oriented concept of Windelband’s history and extrapolates it to Christianity as the bearer of the values of personalism. A comparative and historical study of religion reveals, according to Trelch, the absoluteness (uniqueness) of Christianity in ethical personalism. Trelch sees the historical uniqueness of Christianity in the humanism of the Sermon on the Mount. This implies sacrifi cial love for one’s fellow men, including love for enemies. Relativism of the principles of historicism presupposes various forms of non-historical substantiation of historicism. Thus, it acts as a source of various concepts of the absoluteness of Christianity.
Neocantianism, liberal theology, absoluteness of Christianity, historicism, Trelch, Rickert, Windelband
  1. Altizer T. (2010) The Gospel of Christian Atheism. Moscow (Russian translation).
  2. Dilthey W. (1966) Leben Schleiermachers. Bd. II. Berlin.
  3. Ern V. (2000) Bor’ba za Logos. G. Skovoroda. Zhizn’ i ucheniie [Struggle for the Logos. G. Skovoroda. Life and Teaching]. Minsk; Moscow (in Russian).
  4. Hegel G. (1935) Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Geschichte. Moscow; Leningrad (Russian translation).
  5. Morozova E., Pylaiev M. (2018) “Transtsendental’no-fi losofskiie predposylki teologii i religiovedeniia F. Schleiermahera” [Transcendental-philosophical background of theology and religious studies of F. Schleiermaher]. Studia Religiosa Rossica, 1, pp. 84‒101 (in Russian).
  6. Rickert H. (1998) Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft. Moscow (Russian translation).
  7. Spiess E. (1927) Die Religionstheorie von Ernst Troeltsch. Paderborn.
  8. Tillich P. (1998) Systematische Theologie. Bd. 1. St Petersburg (Russian translation)
  9. Tillich P. (2000) Systematische Theologie. Bd. 3. Moscow.; St Petersburg (Russian translation).
  10. Troeltsch E. (1969) Die Absolutheit des Christentums und die Religionsgeschichte. München; Hamburg.
  11. Troeltsch E. (1994) Der Historismus und seine Probleme. Moscow (Russian translation).
  12. Troeltsch E. (2011) “Über historische und dogmatische Methode in der Theologie”, in Sravnitel’noie bogosloviie: nemetskii protestantizm XX veka [Comparative theology: German Protestantism of the 20th century]. Moscow. Pp. 21‒45 (Russian translation).
  13. Troeltsch E. (2017) “Der Platz des Christentums unter den Weltreligionen”, in Handbuch Theologie der Religionen. Freiburg; Basel; Wien.
  14. Ukolov K. (2008) “Problemy religioznogo apriori v zapadnoi religioznoi fi losofi i (E. Triolch, P. Tillikh)” [The problem of the religious a priori in western religious philosophy (E. Troeltsch, P. Tillich)]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I. Bogosloviie. Filosofiia, 3, pp. 45‒59 (in Russian).
  15. Windelband W. (1994) “Das Heilige”, in Filosofiia kul’tury: izbrannoie [Philosophy of culture: Selected works]. Moscow. Pp. 317‒339 (Russian translation).
  16. Windelband W. (1994) “Kritische oder genetische Methode?”, in Filosofiia kul’tury: izbrannoe [Philosophy of culture: Selected works]. Moscow. Pp. 260‒288 (Russian translation).

Pylaev Maxim


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Russian State University for the Humanities, 6 Miusskaya Sq., Moscow 125993, GSP-3, Russian Federation;
Post: Professor;
ORCID: 0000-0003-0110-8366;
Email: maximpylajew@mail.ru.

*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.

PHILOSOPHY

Dobrokhotov Aleksandr

L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev

Dobrokhotov Aleksandr (2020) "L. M. Lopatin’s egology in the context of polemics with V. S. Soloviev ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 45-59 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202088.45-59
This article deals with the philosophical controversy of L. Lopatin and Vl. Soloviev. According to Soloviev, Descartes mixed the pure subject of thought and the empirical subject, which created a “bastard”, a spiritual substance that coincides with a pure mind and with the individual being. In fact, says Soloviev, “I am always conscious of myself as the subject of mental states or emotions, and never as their substance. Thus, on the basis of existing reality there is no reason to ascribe to the subject of consciousness as such a diff erent reality than phenomenological”. Lopatin quite convincingly defends Descartes and criticises Soloviev’s “phenomenism”. Specifi cally, he notes that Soloviev’s dichotomy of the “empirical person” and “pure subject of thought” is not comprehensive. He suggests a third way of understanding Self as subjective consciousness that is “present in all stages of spiritual growth”. Important aspects of Lopatin’s egology are revealed in a dispute with E. N. Trubetskoy. Trubetskoy distinguishes “hypostasis” and “substance” as a kind of dynamic Self and static Self. This reasoning gives Lopatin the opportunity to once again formulate his concept of Self and show its closeness to Soloviev’s basic views. In contrast to the dispute with Soloviev, the dispute with Trubetskoy sets up a trinitarian context for egology, which extracts thinking about oneself out of the Cartesian “landscape” and opens up horizons for patristics. These discussions became the crossroads of the future paths of Russian personalism.
egology, spiritual substance, hypostasis, person, Russian personalism
  1. Antonov K. (2013) “L. M. Lopatin: problema very i razuma v kontekste filosofi i religii” [L. M. Lopatin: Problem of faith and reason in context of philosophy of religion], in Lev Mikhailovich Lopatin. Moscow. Pp. 181–196 (in Russian).
  2. Bekker M. (2003) “‘Ia’ u Solovieva i Dekarta” [“I” in Soloviev’s and Descartes’ Thought], in Minuvshee i neprekhodiashchee v zhizni i tvorchestve V. S. Solovieva [The past and eternal in life and work of V. S. Soloviev]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  3. Bezanson A. (2002) Izvrashchenie dobra: Soloviev i Oruell [Perversion of the good: Soloviev and Orwell]. Мoscow (in Russian).
  4. Borisova I. (1996) “Primechaniia” [“Commentary”], in L. M. Lopatin. Aksiomy filosofii. Izbrannye stat’i [Axioms of philosophy. Selected articles]. Moscow. Pp. 464–547 (in Russian).
  5. Ehlen P. (1999) “‘Impersonalismus’ und die ‘werdende Vernunft der Wahrheit’ in Solov’evs Spätphilosophie”. Studies in East European Thought, 51, 3, pp. 155–175.
  6. Ermishin O. (1999) “L. M. Lopatin protiv V. S. Solovieva (k istorii odnogo spora)” [L. M. Lopatin versus V. S. Soloviev (to the history of one controversy)], in Istoriia filosofii, 4. Moscow. Pp. 44–57 (in Russian).
  7. Frank S. (1996) Russkoe mirovozzrenie [Russian worldview]. St Petersburg (in Russian).
  8. Gaidenko P. (2001) Vladimir Soloviev i filosofiia Serebrianogo veka [Vladimir Soloviev and philosophy of the Silver Age]. Moscow (in Russian).
  9. Lopatin L. (1995) “Dekart kak osnovatel` novogo fi losofskogo i nauchnogo mirosozertsaniia” [Descartes as founder of new philosophical and scientifi c worldview], in L. M. Lopatin. Aksiomy filosofii. Izbrannye stat’i [Axioms of philosophy. Selected articles]. Moscow. Pp. 17–38 (in Russian).
  10. Lopatin L. (1996) “Vopros o real`nom edinstve soznaniia” [Problem of real wholeness of consciousness”], in L M. Lopatin. Aksiomy filosofii. Izbrannye stat’i [Axioms of philosophy. Selected articles]. Moscow. Pp. 203–238 (in Russian).
  11. Losev A. (1990) Vladimir Soloviev i ego vremia [Vladimir Soloviev and his time]. Moscow (in Russian).
  12. Molchanov V. (2009) “Ia-Forma v filosofii prizrachnogo soznaniia Vladimira Solovieva” [I-Form in Soloviev’s philosophy of ghost consciousness], in Issledovaniia po istorii russkoi mysli: Ezhegodnik za 2006–2007 god [Studies in history of Russian thought: 2006–2007]. Moscow. Pp. 240–309 (in Russian).
  13. Molchanov V. (2013) “L. M. Lopatin: opyt, prichinnost’ i ‘nashe’ ia. Problemy i terminy” [L. M. Lopatin: Experience, causality and ‘our’ self. Problems and terminology], in Lev Mikhailovich Lopatin. Moscow. Pp. 157–180 (in Russian).
  14. Motroshilova N. (1997) “Razmezhevanie s Dekartom v russkoi fi losofi i Serebrianogo veka (Vl. Soloviev i S. Frank)” [Separation from Descartes in Russian philosophy of the Silver Age (Vl. Soloviev and S. Frank)], in Bessmertie filosofskikh idei Dekarta [Immortality of Descartes’ philosophical ideas]. Moscow. Pp. 143–159 (in Russian).
  15. Motroshilova N. (1999) “Obshchefi losofskie idei russkoi mysli” [Shared philosophical context of Russian thought”], in Istoriia filosofii: Zapad-Rossiia-Vostok. 3. Filosofiia XIX–XX v. [History of philosophy: West — Russia — East. 3. Philosophy of the 19th — 20th centuries]. Moscow. Pp. 257–284 (in Russian).
  16. Nosov A. (1995) “Istoriia i sud`ba ‘Mirosozertsaniia Vl. S. Solovieva’” [History and fate of ‘Vl. Soloviev’s worldview’], in E. N. Trubetskoi. Mirosozertsanie Vl. S. Solovieva [Vl. S. Soloviev’s worldview], vol. 2. Moscow. Pp. 585‒593 (in Russian).
  17. Oittinen V. (2003) “Solov’ёvs Letzte Philosophie—Eine Annäherung an Kant?”. Studies in East European Thought, 55, 2, pp. 97–114.
  18. Polovinkin S. (2005) “Vl. Soloviev i L. M. Lopatin: eshche odin primer druzhby-vrazhdy” [Vl. Soloviev and L. M. Lopatin: One more example of friendship and antagonism], in Vl. Soloviev i kul’tura Serebrianogo veka [Vl. Soloviev and Culture of the Silver Age]. Moscow. Pp. 371‒377 (in Russian).
  19. Polovinkin S. (2013) “Spor o substantsiiakh i o svobode mezhdu V. S. Solovievym i L. M. Lopatinym” [Discussion on substances and freedom between V. S. Soloviev and L. M. Lopatin], in Lev Mikhailovich Lopatin. Moscow. Pp. 80–123 (in Russian).
  20. Polovinkin S. (2013) “Spor o substantsiiakh mezhdu L. M. Lopatinym i kn. E. N. Trubetskim po povodu istolkovaniia naslediia V. S. Solovieva” [Discussion on substances between L. M. Lopatin and E. N. Trubetskoy in connection to interpretation of Vl. Soloviev’s heritage], in Lev Mikhailovich Lopatin. Moscow. Pp. 124–138 (in Russian).
  21. Rezvykh T. (2016) “Evoliutciia poniatiia vremeni v russkom leibnitseanstve: A. A. Kozlov, L. M. Lopatin i S. A. Askol’dov” [Evolution of the notion of time in Russian Leibnizianism: A. A. Kozlov, L. M. Lopatin and S. A. Askol’dov]. Filosofskie nauki, 12, pp. 59‒72 (in Russian).
  22. Rezvykh T. (2019) “Vil’gel’m Shtern: Personalizm, organizm, teleologiia” [Wilhelm Stern: Personalism, organism, teleology]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seriia I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 85, pp. 73‒87 (in Russian).
  23. Rozhdenie personalizma iz dukha Novogo vremeni: Sbornik statei po genealogii bogoslovskogo personalizma v Rossii (2018) [The birth of personalism from the spirit of the Modern Age: Papers on genesis of theological personalism in Russia]. Moscow (in Russian).
  24. Shpet G. (1994) “Soznanie i ego sobstvennik” [Consciousness and its Owner], in G. G. Shpet. Filosofskie etiudy [Philosophical essays]. Moscow. Pp. 20–116 (in Russian).
  25. Soloviev V. (1988) “Opravdanie dobra” [Justifi cation of the good”], in V. S. Soloviev. Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh [Works in two volumes], vol. 1. Moscow. Pp. 47–580 (in Russian).
  26. Soloviev V. (1988) “Teoreticheskaia filosofiia” [Theoretical philosophy], in V. S. Soloviev. Sochineniia v dvukh tomakh [Works in two volumes], vol. 1. Moscow. Pp. 757–831 (in Russian).
  27. Soloviev V. S. (1997) “Lichnost”. “Individual’nost`”. “Men-de-Biran”. “Osob’” [Person. Individuality. Maine de Biran. Individual], in Filosofskii slovar Vladimira Solovieva [Vladimir Soloviev’s philosophical dictionary]. Rostov-na-Donu (in Russian).
  28. Swiderski E. (2000) “Vladimir Solov’ëv’s ‘virtue epistemology’”. Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal, 1‒2, pp. 164‒179 (Russian translation).
  29. Swiderski E. (1999) “Vladimir Solov’ёv’s ‘Virtue Epistemology’”. Studies in East European Thought, 51, 3, pp. 199–218.
  30. Trubetskoi E. (1995) Mirosozertsanie Vl. S. Solovieva [Vl. S. Soloviev’s worldview]. Moscow (in Russian).
  31. Trubetskoi S. (1994) Sochineniia [Works]. Moscow (in Russian).
  32. Wenzler L. (1978) Die Freiheit und das Böse nach Vladimir Solov‘ev. Freiburg; München.

Dobrokhotov Aleksandr


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of work: National Research University Higher School of Economics; 21/4 Staraya Basmannaya, Moscow 105066, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5818-2455;
Email: gumaniora@gmail.com.

*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.

Koltsov Alexander

“Religious experience” as a subject of philosophy of religion in Adolf Reinach’s project

Koltsov Alexander (2020) "“Religious experience” as a subject of philosophy of religion in Adolf Reinach’s project ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 60-79 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202088.60-79
This article focuses on a project of application of phenomenological approach to philosophy of religion which survives in Adolf Reinach’s (1883‒1917) notes. The study shows how the methodology of Reinach’s programme determines a specific character of the project both in terms of realistic phenomenology and positive evidence of religious experience. As a result, the notion of “experience” (Erlebnis) becomes a key term of the project. The article examines three main connotations of this notion, i.e. 1) apology of a phenomenon as something irreducible and particular, 2) hermeneutical interpretation of essence as a meaning, 3) application of the term Erlebnis, produced by philosophy of life, in order to stress immediate character of religious experience. The article discovers the origin of these theses in Reinach’s earlier works. After this, two directions of their development in the notes are reconstructed. The first direction deals with cognitive signifi cance of experience as intentional acts. The second direction describes inner dynamics of correlation between noesis and noema and is in this way “psychological”. In connection with the fi rst direction, religious experience is analysed in the context of discussion about “knowledge” and “feeling”; afterwards, its specifi city is identifi ed as intentionality of a unique character. The second direction makes it possible to diff erentiate the religious act from other types of experience being a foundation of positive sciences; it also revises subjectobject scheme of describing religious relationship. Besides, some new aspects of philosophical application of the notion of experience are pointed out. The result of the study is the conclusion that the “Fragments” off er a specifi c strategy of combining philosophical and theological discourses which should be understood in the context of multiple projects of philosophical theology as a unique religious and philosophical synthesis.
Erlebnis, religious experience, realistic phenomenology, Reinach, philosophical theology
  1. Beckmann B. (2003) Phänomenologie des religiösen Erlebnisses: Religionsphilosophische Überlegungen im Anschluss an Adolf Reinach und Edith Stein. Würzburg.
  2. Dobrokhotov A. (2007) “Filosofi ia i khristianstvo“ [Philosophy and Christianity], in Izbrannoe [Selected works]. Moscow. Pp. 75–88 (in Russian).
  3. Koltsov A. (2019) “Filosofskaia fenomenologiia religii (М. Sheler, А. Reinach, E. Stein) v kontekste religiosnosti moderna” [Philosophical phenomenology of religion (M. Sheler, A. Reinach, E. Stein) in the context of religiosity of Modern]. Voprosy filosofii, 9, pp. 64–74 (in Russian).
  4. Konacheva S. (2010) Bytie. Sviaschennoe. Bog. Kheidegger i filosofskaia teologia XX veka [Being. Sacred. God. Heidegger and philosophical theology of the 20th century]. Moscow (in Russain).
  5. Kurennoi V. (ed) (2001) Adolf Reinach. Gesammelte Schriften. Moscow (Russian translation).
  6. Pylaev M. (2011) Kategoriia “sviaschennoe” v fenomenologii religii, teologii i filosofii XX veka [Category of “the Sacred” in phenomenology of religion, theology and philosophy of the 20th century]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Pylaev M. (2016) “Filosofi ia i teologiia v “neoortodoksii” Karla Barta” [Philosophy and theology in Karl Barth’s “Neoorthodoxy”]. Vestnik PSTGU. Seria I: Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 6 (68), p. 26–40 (in Russian).
  8. Reinach A. (1989) “Aufzeichnungen“, in K. Schuhmann (ed.) Sämtliche Werke: Textkritische Ausgabe in 2 Bänden, vol. 1. München. Pp. 589–611.
  9. Reinach A. (1989) “Einleitung in die Philosophie“, in K. Schuhmann (ed.) Sämtliche Werke: Textkritische Ausgabe in 2 Bänden, vol. 1. München. Pp. 369–513.
  10. Reinach A. (1989) “Über Phänomenologie“, in K. Schuhmann (ed.) Sämtliche Werke: Textkritische Ausgabe in 2 Bänden, vol. 1. München. Pp. 531–550.
  11. Reinach A. (1989) “William James und der Pragmatismus“, in K. Schuhmann (ed.) Sämtliche Werke: Textkritische Ausgabe in 2 Bänden, vol. 1. München. Pp. 45–50.
  12. Scheler M. (1921) Vom Ewigen im Menschen. Leipzig.
  13. Schuhmann K. (ed.) (1989) Reinach A. Sämtliche Werke: textkritische Ausgabe in 2 Bänden. Bd. 2. Kommentar und Textkritik. München.
  14. Silva S. B. (2017) “Martin Heidegger e o “Absoluto”. A apropriação fenomenológica dos fragmentos sobre filosofia da religião (1916‒1917) de Adolf Reinach”. O Que Nos Faz Pensar, 26, 40, pp. 353–380.
  15. Stein E. (2014) “Was ist Philosophie? Ein Gespräch zwischen Edmund Husserl und Thomas von Aquin“, in B. Beckmann-Zöller, H. R. Sepp (eds) ‘Freiheit und Gnade’ und weitere Beiträge zu Phänomenologie und Ontologie (1917 bis 1937) (Edith Stein Gesamtausgabe 9). Freiburg. Pp. 91–118.
  16. Vendrell F. Í. (2008) Die Emotionen: Gefühle in Der Realistischen Phänomenologie. Berlin.
  17. Vendrell F. Í. (2013) “Die Grammatik der Gefühle. Einführung in eine Phänomenologie der Emotionen“. Praktische Theologie, 2, p. 72–78.
  18. Vendrell F. Í. (2015) “The Emotions in Early Phenomenology”. Studia Phaenomenologica, 15, pp. 329–354.

Koltsov Alexander


Student status: Graduate student;
Place of study: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0003-0791-2371;
Email: avk-23@yandex.ru.

RELIGIOUS STUDIES

Vorontsova Elena; Sundukova Daria

An old believers’ skete in the soviet village: (in)visible presence

Vorontsova Elena, Sundukova Daria (2020) "An old believers’ skete in the soviet village: (in)visible presence ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 83-102 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202088.83-102
Unlike the sketes of Siberian Bespopovtsy, the Belokrinitsky sketes which existed in the European part of Russia in the 20th century remain practically unexplored. Moreover, there are cases when such communities functioned during the Soviet period. This paper presents an attempt to reconstruct the history of a Belokrinitsky skete which existed from the 1930s to 1990s in Shoda village near Kostroma. In the beginning, the local religious community was in opposition to the main group within the Belоkrinitskaya hierarchy and did not recognise the so called “Okruznoe poslanie”, but later they joined the Russian Orthodox Old Believers’ Church and became an important spiritual centre of Yaroslavl-Kostroma Diocese. The article discusses diff erent versions of the origin of the skete refl ected in narratives of the present day Old Believers, provides biographical information about some of its monks and nuns. The focus is on how the local farmers’ community manage to practise traditional forms of asсetic life in new realities of the Soviet period when the government was intended to close all monasteries and sketes. The authors try to demonstrate that a non-cenobitic skete, consisting of separate cells, сan be a normal part of everyday life in a Soviet village (as it was before the Russian revolution) and does not need any special mechanism of adaptation. Remote location of Shoda and family relations between the nuns played an essential role in this arrangement. It is noted that apart from nuns, in the village community existed a group of unmarried women who lived a secluded lifestyly, performed religious rites consistently, owned icons, religious books, and enjoyed a reputation for being literate. The article also discusses topics of “neokruzhniki”, “keleynitsi”, as well as interactions between Old Believers and state authorities, horizontal and vertical connections between various Belokrinitsky communities. The article is mainly based on fi eld interviews and documents from Old Believers’ family archives.
village of Shoda, сonvent, neokruzhniki, Old Believers, skete, Belokrinitskaya hierarchy
  1. Bochenkov V. (2019) Staroobriadchestvo sovetskoi epokhi. Episkopy Russkoi pravoslavnoi staroobriadcheskoi Tserkvi, sovetskii period (1918‒1991 gg.): Biobibliografi cheskii slovar’ [Old Believers in the Soviet period. Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church: biobibliographical dictionary]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Dukhovnaia literatura staroverov Vostoka Rossii XVIII‒XX vv. (1999) [Eastern Russian Old Believers’ spiritual literature of the 18th — 20th centuries]. Novosibirsk (in Russian).
  3. Dushchak E. E. (2007) Iz “Vavilona” v “Belovod’e”: adaptatsionnye vozmozhnosti taezhnykh obshchin staroverov-strannikov [From “Babylon” to “Belovodye”: adaptive capabilities of communities of Old Believers in Taiga]. Tomsk (in Russian).
  4. Dushchak E. E. (2019) “Sibirskie staroobriadcheskie skity i ikh pastva na rubezhe 1920‒ 1930-kh gg.” [Sibirian Old Believer sketes and their сongregation at the turn of the 1920s — 1930s]. Novye issledovaniia Tuvy, 1, available at https://nit.tuva.asia/nit/article/view/828 (11.11.2019).
  5. Kabanov A. (2010) Staroobriadtsy vladimirskikh i kostromskikh zemel’ [The Old Believers of Vladimir and Kostroma regions]. Ivanovo (in Russian).
  6. Korovushkina-Piart I. (2001) “Staroobriadchestvo Urala v gody stalinskoi ‘revoliutsii sverkhu’: repressii, protest i vyzhivanie” [Ural Old Believers during the Stalin’s “revolution from above”: repression, protest and survival]. Problemy istorii Rossii, 4, pp. 206–217 (in Russian).
  7. Kozhurin K. (2017) Povsednevnaia zhizn’ staroobriadtsev [Everyday life of Old Believers]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Mikhailov S. (2014) “Skit v selenii Rakhmanovo” [Skete in the village of Rakhmanovo], in Staroobriadcheskie inocheskie poseleniia v zapadnoi Meshchere v 18‒20 vv. [Monastery-like settlements of Old Believers in western Meshchera]. Moscow. Pp. 96–108 (in Russian).
  9. Mudrik A. (2015) “Sotsializatsiia u staroobriadtsev: mekhanizmy i sredstva” [Socialisation among Old Believers: Mechanisms and means]. Sibirskii pedagogicheskii zhurnal, 3, pp. 8–14 (in Russian).
  10. Mukhina Z. (2013) “Starye devy v russkoi krest’ianskoi srede (vtoraia polovina XIX — nachalo XX v.)” [Spinsters among Russian peasants]. Zhenshchina v rossiiskom obshchestve, 4 (69), pp. 50–57 (in Russian).
  11. Perekrestov R. (2019) Pervyi Klintsovskii uchitel’. (O nachal’nom obrazovanii v staroobriadcheskikh slobodakh v XVIII v.) [The first teacher in Klintsovsk (on primary education in Old Believers’ villages of the 18th century], available at http://rpsc-klintsy.cerkov.ru/2017/08/23/pervyjklincovskþ -uchitel/ (11.01.2019) (in Russian).
  12. Polozova I. (2020) Cheremshanskie sviatyni [Sacred objects of Cheremshansk], available at https://историк.рф/special_posts/черемшанские-святыни/ (15.01.2020) (in Russian).
  13. Pril’ L. (2006) “Proveriaia proshloe: novye istochniki ob izdanii antibol’shevistskikh listovok v Novo-Arkhangel’skom skitu” [Checking the past: New sources on publishing anti-Bolshevik leafl ets in Novo-Archangelsky skete”]. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Istoriia, filologiia, 5, 3, pp. 140–152 (in Russian).
  14. Pril’ L. (2008) “Zhiznennoe prostranstvo staroverov Srednego Priob’ia: zhenskie strategii osvoeniia” [Living space of the Middle Ob’ Old Believers: female strategies of development], in T. Shheglova, I. Oktiabr’skaia (eds) Etnografiia Altaia i sopredel’nykh territorii: Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii [Ethnography of Altai and adjacent territories: Papers from an international conference], vol. 7. Barnaul. Pp. 479–484 (in Russian).
  15. Russkie krest’iane. Zhizn’. Byt. Nravy (2004) [Russian peasants. Life. Customs. Characters], vol. 6. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  16. Sitnov V. (2016) Vokhna drevnepravoslavnaia: kraevedcheskie materialy k istorii bytovan| a staroobriadchestva na Pavloposadskoi zemle [Old Believers’ Volhna: Materials for the history of Old Believers in the vicinity of Pavlovsky Posad]. Pavlovsky Posad (in Russian).
  17. Storozhenko A. (2019) “Staroobriadcheskie monastyri ‘eniseiskogo meridiana’ v XX veke: istoki, traditsii i sovremennoe sostoianie” [Old Believers’ Monasteries of Enisei region in the 20th century: origins, traditions, and current state”], in Novye issledovaniia Tuvy, 1, available at https://nit.tuva.asia/nit/article/view/826 (11.11.2019).
  18. Uralo-Sibirskii paterik: teksty i kommentarii (2014) [Patericon of the Urals and Siberia], book 1. Moscow (in Russian).
  19. Vakhshtain V., Konstantinovskii D., Kurakin D. (eds) (2008) “Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia v obrazovanii: ot metaformy k interpretatsii” [Sociological studies in education: from metaform to interpretation]. Voprosy obrazovaniia, 4, pp.17–30 (in Russian).
  20. Zontikov N. (2008) N. A. Nekrasov i Kostromskoi krai: stranitsy istorii [N. A. Nekrasov and Kostroma region: pages of history]. Kostroma (in Russian).
  21. Zontikov N. (2015) Staroobriadcheskii episkop Gerontii (Lakomkin): krestnyi put’ sviatitelia [Old Believers‘ bishop Gerontii (Lakomkin): Bishop’s Via Dolorosa]. Kostroma (in Russian).

Vorontsova Elena


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-1292-4580;
Email: lendail@yandex.ru.

*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.


Sundukova Daria


Place of work: Lomonosov Moscow State University, 27/4 Lomonosovsky Prosp., Moscow GSP-1, Russian Federation;
Post: Teaching and Learning Specialist;
ORCID: 0000-0003-2158-9590;
Email: dariasund@gmail.com.
Russian foundation for basic research 18-39-00087/19.
Prilutskii Alexander; Lebedev Vladimir

Contemporary movement of priests who do not pray for the patriarch: an attempt of semiotic and religious analysis

Prilutskii Alexander, Lebedev Vladimir (2020) "Contemporary movement of priests who do not pray for the patriarch: an attempt of semiotic and religious analysis ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 103-120 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202088.103-120
This article analyses from the perspective of semiotics and religious studies the milieu of the movement of “non-mentioning priests”, a fundamentalist movement in the present-day Orthodoxy, the adherents of which regard the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchate and other canonic Orthodox local churches as “graceless”. The grounds for this are accusations of “Sergianism”, ecumenism, adoption of documents that contain biometrics, church modernism. The movement includes laity and clergy of the fi rst two ranks of priesthood. A semiotic marker of this movement is not pronouncing the patriarch’s and local bishop’s names during church service. The article is a fi rst attempt of studying the discourse of the non-mentioning; it draws on the content- and intention-analysis. The sources of the study are original texts and materials published by representatives of this movement in the Internet. The article shows that this movement should be regarded as the presentday Orthodox fundamentalism because its programme contains many elements of a typically fundamentalist agenda. Using a semiotic inventory, the followers of this movement generate complex semiotic fi ctions designed to prove the canonic character of the movement and the lawfulness of the relevant theological claims. In particular, the ideologists of this movement make use of references to historical precedents which are semioticised as symbols or metaphors. Consequently, there appear signs whose sphere of denotation is purposefully made extremely indefi nite. The article also analyses the semiotic drift in the relevant discourse, the extreme points of which are symbol and metaphor. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of exchatological myths, popular in the movement, and of their semiotic design. On semiotic level, the formation of an eschatological mythology is corresponded by the semiotic drift, the poles of which are the symbol and metaphor. Besides, the semiotic drift is an instrument of apologetics. Semiotic chains are also used; they allow one to place in the eschatological context those concepts and phenomena which are initially neutral in terms of eschatology. In its conclusion, the article discusses prospects of further development of the movement in question.
fundamentalism, modern Orthodoxy, semiotics of religion, semiotic fi ction, semiotic drift, anti-ecumenism, anti-globalism, religious persecution
  1. Beglov A. (2008) V poiskakh “bezgreshnykh katkomb”. Tserkovnoe podpol’e v SSSR [In search of “sinless catcombs”. Church underground in the USSR]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Golovushkin D. (2018) “Sovremennyi pravoslavnyi fundamentalizm ili psevdofundamentalizm?” [Contemporary Orthodox fundamentalism or pseudo-fundamentalism?]. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Politologiia. Religiovedenie, 25, pp. 92‒102 (in Russian).
  3. Gubman B. (2010) “Razum i vera: perspektiva postmetafi zicheskogo myshleniia” [Intellect and faith: perspective of post-metaphysical thinking]. Novoe v psikhologo-pedagogicheskikh issledovaniiakh, 3, pp. 40‒50 (in Russian).
  4. Kostiuk K. (2000) “Pravoslavnyi fundamentalism” [Orthodox fundamentalism]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniia, 5, pp. 133‒154 (in Russian).
  5. Lebedev V., Prilutskii A., Svetlov R. (2018) “K voprosu o kul’te ‘sv. Grigoriia Novogo’ (G. E. Rasputina) v marginal’nom pravoslavii” [On the Cult of “St. Gregory the New” (G. Rasputin) in the marginal Orthodoxy]. Vestnik slavianskikh kul’tur, 47, pp. 27‒39 (in Russian).
  6. Mol’ A. (2005) Sotsiodinamika kul’tury [Sociodynamics of culture]. Moscow (in Russian).
  7. Radetskaia V. (2010) “Antiekumenizm v sovremennom pravoslavii” [Anti-ecumenism in modern Orthodoxy]. Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, 11, 3, pp. 39‒42 (in Russian).
  8. Riazanov D. (2014) “Religioznyi ekstremizm, religiozno-politicheskii ekstremizm i religioznyi fundamentalizm: obshchee, osobennoe, edinichnoe” [Religious extremism, religious political extremism and religious fundamentalism: general, specifi c, individual]. Izvestiia Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Politologiia. Religiovedenie, 7, pp. 177‒184 (in Russian).
  9. Sergun E. (2012) “Sootnoshenie poniatii ‘religioznyi ekstremizm’ i ‘religioznyi fundamentalizm’” [The correlation of the concepts of “religious extremism” and “religious fundamentalism”]. Pravovaia kul’tura, 2 (13), pp. 99‒103 (in Russian).
  10. Shatalova-Davydova E. (2018) “Tendentsiia razvitiia obshchestvenno-religiozno-politicheskoi deiatel’nosti RPC: pravoslavnyi fundamentalism” [Tendency of development of the socioreligious and political activities of the Russian Orthodox Church: Orthodox fundamentalism], in Dialog mirovozzrenii: zhiznennyi put’ lichnosti, obshchestva, gosudarstva Materialy XIV mezhdunarodnogo simpoziuma [Dialogue of worldviews: life path of an individual, society, state. Materials of the 14th international symposium]. Pp. 57‒58 (in Russian).
  11. Vasil’eva O. (2008) “Obraz novomuchennikov i istorii Rossii” [The image of the new martyrs and the history of Russia”]. Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov’ v Rossii i za rubezhom, 26, 3‒4, pp. 21‒88 (in Russian).
  12. Vedmetskaia L. (2019) “Protestnaia kul’tura Frantsii i sovremennyi mir” [French protest culture and the modern world”]. Vestnik RFO, 1‒2, pp. 52‒57 (in Russian).
  13. Vorontsov A., Golovushkin D., Prilutskii A. (2017) “Sotsiosemioticheskaia spetsifika sovremennogo mifa ob Ivane Groznom” [Social and semiotic specificity of the modern myth of Ivan the Terrible]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 8, pp. 12‒19 (in Russian).

Prilutskii Alexander


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Student status: Graduate student;
Academic Rank: Professor;
Place of study: Russian State Pedagogical University; 48 Naberezhnaya reki Moiki, 191186, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-7013-9935;
Email: alpril@mail.ru.

*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.


Lebedev Vladimir


Academic Degree: Doctor of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: Tver’ State University; 33 Zhelyabova Str., Tver’ 170100, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-4840-3135;
Email: Semion.religare@yandex.ru.

*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.

Pnteleeva Anna

The priest and the patient: practices of interaction within the hospital space

Pnteleeva Anna (2020) "The priest and the patient: practices of interaction within the hospital space ", Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 121-132 (in Russian).

DOI of the paper: 10.15382/sturI202088.121-132
This article presents results of a fi eld study carried out at Sklifosofsky Institute. Using the obtained results, it analyses the role of a hospital priest both within the space of the hospital, in the system of hospital interaction and in a broader perspective; its aim is to identify reasons for a social tension emerging around the discussion about the lawfulness and necessity of the priest’s presence at hospital. The article employs theoretical framework developed by I. Goff mann and M. Foucault, describes the specificity of interaction of the priest and the patient conditioned by the heterotopic space, examines practices and strategies of interaction in conditions of hospital (these are non-characteristic of the participants), distribution of symbolic power in these relations. Despite the fact that offi cial legal documents declare the right of the priest to conduct religious rites in the territory of hospital, the presence of priests or availability of chapels and churches can provoke mixed reactions in some patients and visitors. This study attempts to give an integrated idea of how the interaction between the priest, patient, visitors, nurses, hospital personnel takes place and to answer the question why mixed reactions arise. Observations have shown that the sourse of mixed reactions is the co-presence of participants of the interaction in the heterotopic space unusual to all of them, which weakens the hierarchic system and disrupts the distribution of symbolic power among the participants. The participants are forced to interact with each other face to face. This face-to-face interaction imposes certain restrictions on them and inspires certain expectations which under these circumstances can only be supported by the voluntary desire to save the face of each participant. The priest is, on the one hand, in a privileged position because his status is maintained by the assistant nurses. On the other hand, his position is vulnerable because the space of heterotopia weakens his right to a special status.
prayer service, heterotopia, Orthodoxy, priest, religion, healthcare, symbolic power
  1. Ambarczumov I., svyashh. (2008) “Bol`nichny`j khram: istoriya prodolzhaetsya” [“Hospital temple: the story continues”]. Voda zhivaya, vol. 4, available at: www.pravmir.ru/bolnichnyjxram-istoriya-prodolzhaetsya/ (17.11.2019) (in Russian).
  2. Boriskin A. (2012) “Osobennosti pravoslavnogo pasty`rskogo sluzheniya v detskoĭ bol`nitse” [“Features of Orthodox pastoral ministry in a children’s hospital”]. Khristianskoe chtenie, no. 1, pp. 185–200 (in Russian).
  3. Conroy Natalia (2019) “Mezhdu teologiei i zabotoi: obzor issledovanii bol’nichnogo sluzheniya” [“Between theology and care: what does it mean to be a hospital chaplain?”]. Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial’ni politiki, vol. 17, issue 3, pp. 375–390 (in Russian).
  4. Emelyanov Nikolaj N. (2019) “Zhatvy` mnogo, a delatele`j malo”: problema vzaimodeystviya svyashennikov i miryan v sovremenno`j Rossii [“The Harvest Truly is Plentiful, but the Laborers are Few”: The problem of Cooperation between Clergy and Laity in Contemporary Russia]. Moscow: Izd-vo PSTGU (in Russian).
  5. Foucault Michel (1966) The order of things: an archaeology of the human sciences. Moscow (Russian translation).
  6. Foucault Michel (1984) Of other spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias. Moscow (Russian translation).
  7. Goff man Erving (1965) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Moscow (Russian translation).
  8. Goff man Erving (1967) Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Moscow (Russian translation).
  9. Kantaryuk Ekaterina A. (2016) “Bol’nichnye khramy v pravoslavnoi kul’ture sovremennoi Rossii (semiotiko-khudozhestvennye smysly)” [“Hospital churches in the orthodox culture of the modern russia (semiotic and artistic meanings)”]. Obshhestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul`tura, vol. 5, pp. 45–46 (in Russian).
  10. Kantaryuk Ekaterina A. (2016) “Bol’nichnye khramy pravoslavnoi Rossii: k semantike gosudarstvennogo popecheniya” [“Hospital churches of the orthodox Russia: semantics of public care”]. Obshchestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul’tura, vol. 7, pp. 51–53 (in Russian).
  11. Kantaryuk Ekaterina A. (2016) “Sotsial’noe i sakral’noe v ekzistentsial’nom prostranstve bol’nichnogo khrama” [“Social and sacred in the existential space of hospital churches”]. Obshhestvo: filosofiya, istoriya, kul`tura, vol. 8, pp. 39–41 (in Russian).
  12. Krihtova Tatiana (2019) “«Gospod’ na pervom etazhe»: pravoslavnye chasovni v prostranstve meditsinskikh uchrezhdenii” [“«The Lord is on the ground fl oor»: Orthodox chapels in the space of medical institutions”]. INTER, vol. 17, pp. 61–75 (in Russian).
  13. Panteleimon (Shatov), еpiskop. (2019) Bol`nichny`j svyashhennik [Hospital priest]. Moscow: Nikeya (in Russian).
  14. Vakhshtajn Victor (2011) Sociologiya povsednevnosti i teorii frejmov [Sociology of everyday life and theories of frames]. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatel`stvo Evropejskogo Universiteta (in Russian).
  15. Voronova Lyudmila (2019) Interview, available at: www.miloserdie.ru/article/sestra-miloserdiyakapitan-dalnego-plavaniya (17.11.2019) (in Russian).

Pnteleeva Anna


Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov per., Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-8559-8878;
Email: panteleeva.a.v@gmail.com.
This article was prepared as part of the project “Religious Leadership in Late Antiquity - Early Middle Ages” of the Ecclesiastical Institutions Research Laboratory (EIRL), STOU with the support of the Development Fund of STOU.

BOOK REVIEWS

Nyebolszin Antal Gergely

Rev. of The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity. Essays in Memory of Hans Kvalbein. Ed. by D. E. Aune and R. Hvalvik. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. VIII+349 p. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament; 404)

Nyebolszin Antal Gergely (2020) Rev. of The Church and Its Mission in the New Testament and Early Christianity. Essays in Memory of Hans Kvalbein. Ed. by D. E. Aune and R. Hvalvik. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. VIII+349 p. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament; 404), Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 135-138 (in Russian).

PDF

Nyebolszin Antal Gergely


Academic Degree: Doctor of Theology;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for the Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-0037-8674;
Email: gyula@mail.ru.
Veviurko Il'ia

Jewish and christian art in sacred spaces of late antiquity — Rev. of Hezser C. Bild und Kontext. Jüdische und christliche Ikonographie der Spätantike. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. 213 s.

Veviurko Il'ia (2020) "Jewish and christian art in sacred spaces of late antiquity". Rev. of Hezser C. Bild und Kontext. Jüdische und christliche Ikonographie der Spätantike. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. 213 s., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 139-144 (in Russian).

PDF

Veviurko Il'ia


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Place of work: St. Tikhon's Orthodox University; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0002-1225-7474;
Email: vevurka@mail.ru.

*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.

Mikhaylov Petr

Mystery of Tradition at the Council of Trent — Rev. of Mathias Mütel. Mit den Kirchenvätern gegen Martin Luther? Die Debatten um Tradition und auctoritas patrum auf dem Konzil von Trient. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2017 — 357 s.

Mikhaylov Petr (2020) "Mystery of Tradition at the Council of Trent". Rev. of Mathias Mütel. Mit den Kirchenvätern gegen Martin Luther? Die Debatten um Tradition und auctoritas patrum auf dem Konzil von Trient. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2017. — 357 s., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 145-149 (in Russian).

PDF

Mikhaylov Petr


Academic Degree: Candidate of Sciences* in Philosophy;
Academic Rank: Associate Professor;
Place of work: St. Tikhon’s Orthodox University for Humanities; 6/1 Likhov pereulok, 127051 Moscow, Russian Federation;
ORCID: 0000-0003-3492-5055;
Email: locuspetri@rambler.ru.

*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.

Chentsova Daria

Christian rethinking of metaphysics: Semyon Frank and Emerich Coreth — Rev. of Oksana Nazarova. Das Problem der Wiedergeburt und Neubegründung der Metaphysik am Beispiel der christlichen philosophischen Traditionen. Die russische religiöse Philosophie (Simon L. Frank) und die deutschsprachige neuscholastische Philosophie (Emerich Coreth). München: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2017. 396 s.

Chentsova Daria (2020) "Christian rethinking of metaphysics: Semyon Frank and Emerich Coreth". Rev. of Oksana Nazarova. Das Problem der Wiedergeburt und Neubegründung der Metaphysik am Beispiel der christlichen philosophischen Traditionen. Die russische religiöse Philosophie (Simon L. Frank) und die deutschsprachige neuscholastische Philosophie (Emerich Coreth). München: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2017. 396 s., Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta. Seriia I : Bogoslovie. Filosofiia. Religiovedenie, 2020, Iss. 88, pp. 149-154 (in Russian).

PDF

Chentsova Daria


Academic Degree: Master of Ttheology;
Place of work: Saint Tikhon's Orthodox University; 6/1 Likhov sidestreet, Moscow, 127051, Russian Federation;
Post: Lecturer;
ORCID: 0000-0001-9121-9435;
Email: CIAYCA@yandex.ru.