Journal articles on the topic 'Catholic church, relations, orthodox eastern church'

The majority of the Christian world today is affected by weakening adherence to principles of religious practice. The reverse is the case in the countries of predominantly Orthodox tradition. After the collapse of communism, all types of human freedom were revived, including the religious one. The consequence is the revival of the Orthodox Christianity. It is reflected in the influence of the Orthodox Church on the society. Today, the most respected institutions in Russia and Serbia are the Russian and Serbian Orthodox Church, respectively. Considering the decline of the Western Christianity, the revival of the Orthodox Church has raised hopes that the Western Christianity can be revived, too. Important Christian denominations, therefore, show great interest in including the Orthodox Church in the general Christian project. It is particularly evident in the Roman Catholic Church foreign policy. The Roman Catholic Church is attempting to restore relations with Orthodox churches. In this sense, the most important churches are the Russian and the Serbian Church. But, establishing relations with these two is for Vatican both a great challenge and a project of great significance.

Until the mid-twentieth century, the Catholic Church did not recognize the principle of religious freedom, and hence the freedom of conscience. That is why her attitude to other religions, especially Christian churches, was based on the ecclesial and soteriological exclusivism "Extra Ecclesiam Romanam nulla salus" - "Out of the Roman Church there is no salvation." The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) approved the "Decree on Religious Freedom", which opened the way for dialogue with other religions and ecumenism with Christian churches, especially the Orthodox.

The author of the article, on the basis of the theological teaching of John Paul II on the unity of Christian Churches, reveals the subject of the ecclesiastical vocation of the UGCC in the modern era of interchurch relations of Christianity. The object of research is the theological and ecumenical works (encyclicals, epistles, speeches) of John Paul II, Pope in 1978-2000. The immediate subject of research is his theological and historical reflection on the ecclesiastical nature of the UGCC and the mission of this Eastern Catholic Church for the entire universal Church of Christ. Taking into account the above, the purpose of this study is to highlight the theological and historical views of John Paul II regarding the ecclesial mission of the UGCC in the context of modern ecumenical dialogue between the Churches of East and West. Thanks to the critical-historical method and theological analysis of the teachings of John Paul II about the beginnings of the birth of the Kievan Church, its medieval activity in the historical search for the restoration of unity between the Christian East and West, and contemporary for her perspectives of the ecumenical movement in the process of research, a theological synthesis of judgments, ideas and proposals was formed. The main conclusions of the article are: 1) the ecumenical views of John Paul II on the unity of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches remain relevant for Christians of the 21st century and are programmatic for theologians working on new ways to restore unity between East and West; 2) an assessment of past historical attempts to restore the unity of the Church, in particular the Union of Brest (1596), should be based on the then ecclesial context and illuminated as local attempts to search for the unity of the Church, thanks to which the Church received a unique practical experience in implementing the ideas of unity between East and West; 3) the UGCC, which was born as a result of the Union of Brest and today is developing as one of the Eastern Catholic Churches, is a great treasure for Christianity, because it unites Catholic and Orthodox elements in its ecclesiology; 4) in search of new forms of unity between the Eastern and Western Churches, the UGCC receives its own ecclesiastical vocation, to open to the Western Church a world of Eastern tradition and to the Eastern Church a world of Catholic tradition.

The aim of the article is to try to find out the attitude of Christian denominations in Ukraine to the Russian-Ukrainian war in eastern Ukraine as a manifestation of their religious and national identity. External risks for modern Ukrainian society require in-depth scientific analysis of this issue, in particular in sphere of religious relations. Russia's military and ideological aggression has become a marker of the social identity and civilizational choice of Christian denominations. It clearly revealed the position of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate as a structural part of the Russian Orthodox Church and a powerful tool for implementing the policy and ideology of the "Russian world" in Ukraine. Factually, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate represents the interests of the Russian Orthodox Church as it adheres to its guidelines for Ukraine to be in the sphere of Russian geo-confessional interests. This is evidenced by the dominance of the Russian language in worship, sermons, educational institutions, publishing. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate has not even formally condemned the Russian intervention so far, nor has it recognized Russia as an aggressor. On the contrary, some priests of the Church openly promote Russian aggression and call for the violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity. The temples of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in Donbas serve as weapons depots for Russian troops, and Russian terrorists openly serve the Moscow Patriarchate. The attitude of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate / Orthodox Church of Ukraine, Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church and other Ukrainian Churches to Russian aggression determines their patriotic pro- Ukrainian position. This is most eloquently characterized by the institute of chaplaincy, which thіs Churches actively supply with their staff.

Much of the social science literature pertaining to the development of civil society in post-communist Eastern Europe focuses on the issue of religious pluralism, especially the relationship of religious minorities and new religious movements (NRMs) to the state and their established Orthodox churches. Their findings suggest that the equation of ethno-religious nationalism, cultural identity, and the state becomes a hindrance to religious pluralism and the development of civil society in these nation-states. As a result, social scientists depict these national churches, and in most cases rightly so, as being the caretakers and fomenters of ethno-religious nationalism in their particular states. A factor in this debate that is often overlooked, however, is the role of the local church in intra-ecclesial relations. Is the concept of the “local church,” which developed in the time of the Roman and Byzantine Empires, to be identified with the modern national church? If this is the case, these churches may be guilty of the sin of ethno-phyletism, which the Council of Constantinople condemned in 1872 in regards to the Bulgarian schism. Additionally, while the development of religious pluralism in post-communist society with the proliferation of Protestant Christian sects and NRMs challenges the religious hegemony of the national churches, even more problematic has been the issue of inter-territorial Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe. The existence of a plurality of national Orthodox churches in the same territory violates the ecclesiological principle of the “local church” as well as perpetuates the sin of ethno-phyletism. While some social scientists may laud the development of a multiplication of churches in the same territory, from an ecclesiastical standpoint such a multiplication denies the unity and identity of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, which it confesses to be. What social scientists have failed to discuss is this important self-understanding of the Orthodox churches, especially as it pertains to inter-Orthodox ecclesial relations. Only with this self-understanding of the church blended with the issue of ethno-nationalism can the problems pertaining to the relations and development of ethno-national churches be properly understood.

The new conceptual key, based on historical and dogmatic-canonical sources, examines the preconditions of the event, which is known in historiography as the "revival of the Orthodox Church" or "Orthodox hierarchy" in Ruthenia in 1620 within three components – the interest of the Moscow state in restoring / creating an alternative to the legitimate Ruthenian Union Church ununited Orthodox Church, the attitude of Polish authorities to the union process in Ruthenia and the peculiarities of the opposition of the ununited Orthodox Church supporters in Ruthenia itself to the unifying church movement. The Union (Unija) of the Ruthenian Church with the Catholic Church, laid down unique conditions for the іnternal strengthening of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita) and significantly complicated the possibility of Moscow's expansion into Europe. This was all the more significant because Moscow's military defeats lasted from the 1580s (Livonian War) to the 1630s. The situation of military-political isolation and humiliation of international status threatened Moscow to be supplemented by ideological and confessional isolation. Under these circumstances, the Moscow state relied on the possibility of internal weakening of the Commonwealth by maintaining and developing relations with the Ruthenian clergy and church fraternities that opposed the union with Rome and sought to restore the legitimacy of the ununited Orthodox Church in Ruthenia. Also in the first decades of the XVII century the ununited Orthodox clergy, representing the ancient Eastern patriarchates in the Ottoman Empire, became more active. With the loss of the schism of the church hierarchy, foreign clergy, especially the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Jerusalem, were able to influence the situation and interfere in the church life of Ruthenia. In particular, the efforts of the Metropolitan of Sofia Neophyte in 1612 in the Holy Dormition Kiev-Pechersk Monastery created an alternative center of church life and administration, which was at the local level in opposition to the legitimate Metropolitan of Kiev Ruthenian Union Church (Hypatius Potius, 1541–1613). As the foreign non-aligned Orthodox clergy of the Eastern Patriarchates were closely linked to Moscow in receiving financial assistance and mutual political cooperation, Muscovy gained an additional tool to influence Ruthenia and, indirectly, the Commonwealth. It was the foreign Orthodox hierarchs – Patriarch Theophanes III of Jerusalem, Metropolitan Neophyte of Sofia, Bishop Avrahamii of Stragon in 1620 who ordained new hierarchs for the ununited Orthodox Church in Ruthenia. Led by the secretly ordained Kyiv Metropolitan Yov Boretsky, the new hierarchy was already entirely focused on cooperation with Moscow, financially dependent on Moscow and dependent on ideological and political cooperation with schismatic Moscow.

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.

The article studies a little-known episode of an important stage in the history of the Republic of Venice – the formation of national church identity and the codification of the experience of state-confessional relations accumulated here over centuries. Two protagonists of this period – the Orthodox Metropolitan Gavriil Seviros and the Catholic monk Paolo Sarpi united in opposition to the Holy See and in an attempt to create an independent Venetian Church. Events had been developing against the background of a long confrontation between Venice and the Holy See, the so-called “War of the Interdict”, which began with the fact that Pope Paul V excommunicated the republic for its independent position in church matters. An unrealized project, which had as its model the Orthodox state and the Church, is a unique example of the assimilation of the Eastern tradition by one of the famous Western theologians – Paolo Sarpi. His cooperation with Metropolitan Gavriil in protecting the Greeks from the influence of Rome was clearly manifested during a trial of 1610, two documents of which are first published in Russian in the appendix to the article. Thanks to Gavriil’s authority, the See of the Metropolitan of Philadelphia became prestigious, his title as Patriarchal Exarch in Venice gave him access to the Doge’s palace, and his status as the head of the Orthodox of Dalmatia and the Ionian Islands was subsequently twice confirmed by the patriarchs of Constantinople.

The article dwells upon the Orthodox polemics on the relations with Catholics and the state power of Rzeczpospolita in the initial period after the Church Union of Brest in 1596. Two models of interfaith relations are distinguished, based on fundamentally diff erent assessments of the past experience under Catholic rule and the nature of the modern confl ict. The territorial divergence of these lines of controversy is determined, connected with the two main centers of public activity of the Orthodox population of the country. The highlighted dissimilarities were determined by signifi cant diff erences in the history of the entry into the Polish state of the aforementioned lands with a predominantly Eastern Christian popula-tion. The nature of the problems of the Orthodox population of these lands was largely determined by the diff erence in their historical experience and the confessional structure of their upper class. Already at the early stages of the debate (based on materials written before 1610), we can talk about the formation of two models of interfaith relations in the Orthodox milieu. One of them turned out to be associated mainly with the Vilna fraternal environment and was represented mainly by Orthodox fi gures in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the second — with the southeastern lands of the country, mainly with Lvov and the Ostrog circle.

The study is aimed at considering theoretical and empirical issues of intercultural communication in Eastern Siberia at the end of the 20–21 centuries in ethno-confessional and geopolitical aspects. To achieve this research task the author has considered theoreticalmethodological and structural-functional aspects of intercultural communication in the ethnoconfessional space of the East-Siberian region. The methodological correlation of the processes of intercultural communication and integration intentions of state policy in the ideological sphere of public relations has been analyzed. Their targets in macro-social communication processes are socio-political stability and minimization of deviations based on ethnic and confessional affiliation through the implementation of organizational and legal forms of state functions. The conclusions have been made about actualization and basic nature of the anthropocultural approach, when considering the functional relationship of state power and state policy in the field of religious space. On the basis of the missionary intentions of the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches, the object-subject and subjective parameters of the structure of legal communication have been determined, taking into account the geopolitical characteristics of state control over the unity of the sociocultural space. Interfaith communication problems between the Russian Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism in Russia have worsened due to the proselytizing activities of the Roman Catholic Church in the East Siberian and Far Eastern regions and the lack of an elaborate regulatory framework enabling the government to control ideological space

The religious processes in 10 countries of Eastern and Central Europe whose population 25 years after the collapse of the totalitarian system and the bankruptcy of the dominant ideology of national atheism were enabled to form their attitude to religion and choose their affiliation to any church or religious organization freely and consciously are studied in this article. These processes in 2016-2017 were explored by the American Pew Research Center that studies trends in the development of science, technology, religion and society. The Global Religious Futures project («The Future of Global Religion») is aimed at exploring religious changes in 10 countries with Orthodox and Catholic majority of the population that affect personal and social life and shape national, cultural and religious identity. The relationship between denominational identity and the religious identity of the Orthodox population in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe and the assessment of the current state of Orthodox religiosity is analyzed in this light. Their attitude to the idea "Russian world" in the context of the recognition of Russia as "defender of the Orthodox population" outside the Russian Federation is the determining factor in the religious, national and cultural identity of the Orthodox and Catholics in these countries. This aspect of the research enabled to determine the priority of the Orthodox patriarchal dominant in the attitude of the Orthodox Churches to the Moscow and Ecumenical Patriarchs. Cross-national and cross-confessional relations, ethnic and confessional diversity, national and religious homogeneity of a society and multiculturalism are of the huge importance for the identification of the nature of the religious changes in European countries with Orthodox and Catholics majorities. In this context in particular the position of the interviewed Ukrainian Orthodox is highlighted.

The reception of relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches by the Ukrainian national consciousness was largely formed by a romantic myth. It appeared in the works by Taras Shevchenko, in the documents of the the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius. According to this myth, the Church Union of Brest (1596) was the result of the colonial policy of the Polish government and the intrigues of the Jesuit priests. In fact, the influence of the royal administration on the religious life of the inhabitants of the Polish-Lithuanian state was extremely limited. „Henrician Articles” of 1573 forced the king to adhere to religious tolerance and to recognize the nobility’s right to free choice of religion. The Roman Catholic clergy, for the most part, did not want to grant Christians the Eastern rite of parity. The Society of Jesus, which formed a separate province in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1574, was guided not by political but by religious motives. Benedict Herbest (1531–1598) already in his work „Wypisanie drogi” („The Desribing of The Way”, 1566) discusses the prospect of restoring unity with the Orthodox Ruthenians. In the book „Wiary Kościołu Rzymskiego wywody” („The Arguments of the Roman Church’ Belief”) he explains Ruthenia’s departure from unity with Rome by lack of education and low religious consciousness. Piotr Skarga (1536–1612) wrote the book „O jedności Kościoła Bożego” („About the God’s Church’s Unity”, 1577), when he had not great authority in the Church and when he was little known in society. At the Brest synod in 1596 Skarga was not a participant and organizer, but only an observer and chronicler. Both Herbest and Skarga were only inflammatory polemicists who responded to the challenge of the Reform by calling for the consolidation of the Church in a single organism. The romantic myth is refuted by a closer acquaintance with their works and life experience.

In May 2004 eight former communist Central and Eastern European countries joined the European Union. Written constitutions in the region now contain guarantees on freedom of religion together with fundamental statements on Church-State relations. Since the fall of communism a net of bilateral agreements has been negotiated with the Holy See. Of the established members of the EU only Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain had concordats whilst France and Luxembourg were partly bound by such treaties. Amongst the new member states only the predominantly Orthodox Cyorus has no contractual relationship with the Vatican. A pragmatic reason for this may be that the new members went through a very rapid leagal transition marked by considerable uncertainties after the fall of communism. The Catholic Church did not seek privileges with the agrements, but rather legal certainty. The stadards of religious with the agreements, but rather legal certainty. The standards of religious freedom in the new member states are generally good compared with the resrt of Europe. None of the new member states adopted a state church model, and none of them followed a rigid separation model either. Most new member states to be particularly valued by those who experienced forced secularism during communist rule.

The relation ship of the state to the Church in the course of history has always been problematic. This is true especially in Eastern Europe. This article presents the most significant historical events which influenced the relations between the state and the churches in Russia from Russia’s baptism in 10th century till the October Revolution of 1917. The text reveals the gradual emergence of cesaropapism, imported from Byzance and aiming at the full subordination of the churches to the state authorities. Several historical periods can be traced to this development. The first period begins at the end of the first millennium when Russia of Kiev was baptized, and lasts till the 14th century when Russia of Moscow arose. This time is marked by the building up of the church organization and its laws which developed from the beginning in close connection with the state law. The second period embraces the church history in the Moscow Russia, i.e. under Russia tsars, from the 14th till the 17th century. The state authority and the church authority seem to have a certain tendency to be balanced. Later on, however, as the Russian state is strengthened, the tsar began to have a decisive voice as well in church and religions matters. In the third period (18th cent. - 1903) there exists a system of severe control and supervision over the churches in Russia by the absolutist monarchy. The Russian imperium devided all confessions into three categories: the orthodox one, dominant and looked upon as loyal to the state; foreign confessions, Christian including (catholic and protestant) or non-Christian were tolerated. But sects of the orthodox origin were persecuted. The law regarded these sects as dangerous and harmful and a betrayal of the orthodox faith, and prohibited public worship, the faithful were deprived of their civil rights. As late as the end of 19th century, the idea of religious tolerance and freedom was unknown in the Russian law. At the beginning of the 20th century, Russian confessional law made a great step forward when acts guaranteeing religious freedom appeared. This development during the years 1903-1917 is characteristic of the fourth period. For the first time in Russia’s history, freedom of conscience and freedom of confession were stated by the law. The intolerance which ruled in the 17th – 19th centuries was transformed into tolerance of all confessions; even of those which were earlier persecuted. Nevertheless, the Temporary Government of Russia supported the dominant position and privileges of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The changes in religious life of Ukrainian society of the 21st century are analysed in the article. Problems of church-state relations transformation, significance of religious-cultural heritage, confessional diversity and religious influence on society remain relevant not only in Ukraine, but in Europe as a whole. The peculiarity of Ukrainian religious life of the time period studied consists in its denominational diversity provided by law. Connection between religious affiliation and national identity in Ukrainian society, documented by researchers, is not only found in Orthodox midst, but also in Catholic, Islamic and Jewish religious communities. The Revolution of Dignity has become a turning point in the activity of church organizations. Many Prayerful Maidans, held during that time in various Ukrainian cities, are ecumenical in nature. The concept of Maidan theology has appeared and become widely used. It is introduced by the theologian Kyrylo Hovorun. This process has confirmed the necessity for church to start work in the direction of dialogue with society. Civic attitude of church leaders and social doctrine of the church have experienced significant changes because of military events in the Eastern Ukraine. Interconfessional consolidation of religious communities and believers on the principles of patriotism has taken place in the conditions of threat of the state security loss. The religious landscape of the country has been changed because of the territories loss and migration processes: a number of Protestant and Muslim communities is decreased on the occupied territories. The representatives of various denominations provide humanitarian aid to the wounded, displaced persons and the residents of the so-called Grey Zone. Military chaplaincy has become widespread and established by law. Receiving of the Tomos in 2018 and creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine has become a significant geopolitical event, assessed by the public opinion as an act of justice restoring, restitution of its historical heritage to Ukrainian church. Covid-19 pandemia has corrected the development of the country’s religious life, influencing both the level of common religiosity of the population and social stability in general. The significance of digital technologies in churches’ activity has increased during this time. Virtual liturgies and public prayers have hundreds of thousands of views (especially on holidays), social media vaccine discussions, video addresses of religious leaders to the flock in connection with key social events testify the population interest in church issues and importance of the religious factor in modern Ukrainian society.

AbstractThis article surveys the diasporic life and legacy of the Ethiopian ecclesiastic Täsfa Ṣeyon. After examining his origins in the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia and the circumstances of his arrival in mid-sixteenth-century Rome, the article outlines his contributions to the evolving Latin Catholic understanding of Ethiopia. Täsfa Ṣeyon was a librarian, copyist, teacher, translator, author, and community leader, as well as a prominent adviser to European humanist scholars and Church authorities concerned with orientalist philologia sacra as it pertained to Ethiopian Orthodox (täwaḥedo) Christianity. As such, he was a key extra-European agent in the Tridentine project of Ethiopianist and Eastern Christian knowledge production. The article also surveys the complex modern legacy of Täsfa Ṣeyon's career, documenting his posthumous influence in the fields of Ethiopianist Semitic studies and Ethiopian vernacular historiography.

In the first half of the 19th century, two religious and philosophical movements, diametrically opposite in their views, emerged in Russia, later called “Westernizers” and “Slavophiles”. Both worldviews, based on the foundations of the Western Christian and Eastern Christian under-standing of the structure of church and state, public relations, the influence of tradition on the his-torical choice of the state development vector, led to heated discussions between their founders, and subsequently their supporters. In support of the representatives of the philosophical and social thought of the “Westernizers” “Slavophiles” on theological issues, as well as the reviewing of particular articles, both Catholic and Orthodox clergymen were involved. We reveal the influence of the Orthodox theological thought of the 19th century on the religious philosophy development of one of the founders of “Slavophilism” in terms of posing and solving the problem of historical tradition. The relevance of the study is due to the increased interest in the issue of the spiritual life of society and church-state relations. The work contains for the first time introduced into scientific circulation a handwritten letter from hegumen Anthony (Bochkov) to I.V. Kireyevsky from the funds of the Russian State Library with author’s comments and explanations. The problems of religious and philosophical thought of this period are revealed, that is the influence of Roman (pagan) philosophy on the formation and development of Western theology, opposing the development paths of Russia and Europe, recognition of the negative influence of ritualism on the formation of a true Orthodox worldview, understanding of Peter I reforms as a “Russian reformation”. The analysis of the epistolary source made it possible to reveal the direct impact of the arguments of hegumen Anthony on the views of I.V. Kireyevsky, reflected in his works.

The article considers the process of formation and development of the medieval international order during the end of the active phase of the Mongol conquests in Eastern and Western Europe in the middle of the thirteenth century. The main source in the study of this issue was the evidence set out in the treatise "History of the Mongols, called by us Tatars" by the famous Catholic diplomat Plano Carpini, who in the 40's of the thirteenth century by order of Pope Innocent IV, he carried out a mission to the Mongol Empire.The article notes that this aspect is one of the least studied in modern Ukrainian historiographyAs a result of the study, the author came to the conclusion that the work analyzed in the article is an important source in the study of the international order, which developed in the middle of the thirteenth century and was based on the dominance of the Mongol Empire in Eurasia. It allows us to consider the peculiarities of the organization of this state, to show the characteristics of its relations with the captured peoples, to determine the order of relations between the Mongols and their vassals. At the same time, this treatise is a manifesto in which, under the pretext of the Mongol threat, it is concluded that it is necessary to unite the rulers of Europe (especially its Orthodox part) under the authority of the Pope. Consideration of the ideas set forth by Carpini, allows us to conclude that the Catholic Church, and in this period, tried to implement the project of its religious expansion in the lands of Eastern Europe and Kiyvan Rus.

The reviewed book is the eleventh in the series devoted to the “Culture of the First Polish Republic in dialogue with Europe. Hermeneutics of values”. This series is the aftermath of an interesting research project, whose aim is both to comprehensively present the cultural relations of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with Europe, as well as to recognize the ways and forms of mutual communication of literary, aesthetic, political and religious values. In addition, it aims to present in a broad comparative context the structure of Early Modern culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Apart from the introduction, the book contains the dissertations of 11 authors originating from various scientific centers in Poland and abroad (Toruń, Białystok, Vilnius, Venice, Padua, Cracow, Poznań, Rzeszów) and representing different research specialties: philology, history, and history of art. The general and primary goal of the text it is to analyze various aspects of the Ruthenian culture of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, both in its dynamic connection with the Polish-Latin culture and the processes occurring in Eastern European Orthodoxy after the fall of the Byzantine Empire and in connection with the strengthening of the Moscow state. The key issues developed in the volume relate essentially to: values of the Ruthenian culture, some of which coincide or are identical to those recognized by Western-Polish citizens of the Commonwealth, while depend on the centuries old tradition of Eastern-Christian culture.The articles focuses on the values displayed in the Orthodox and Uniate spheres and around the polemics between them, punching with axiological arguments. The most frequently and basic problems that were raised are: determinants of identity, faith (religion), language (languages), social status, origin; the policy of rulers, the problem of ecclesiastical jurisdiction; tradition and change in culture – biblical studies, patristics, liturgy, theology; printing, translations, education; apologetics and polemics, preaching, iconography; a renewal program for the clergy that was to become the vanguard of the renewal of the entire Eastern Church; Bazylian Uniate ( Greek- Catholic) clergy: the idea of cultural integration, education, translation and publishing.

The purpose of the article is to study the role of the Orthodox and Greek Catholic clergy in the formation of the Ukrainian national movement at the end of the 19th – in the fi rst decades of the 20th century and determine the infl uence of religious factors on the development of Ukrainian national identity. Th e scientifi c novelty of this topic lies in an attempt to compare the infl uence of the leading Eastern Christian faiths on the formation of Ukrainian national identity at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. Th is topic focuses on the importance of the religious sphere in forming the Ukrainian people’s national consciousness and political activity during the period of politicization of its national movement. Th e methodologi- cal principles. Based on the analysis of rich literature on the history of religion, the author of the article used the methods of historical analysis and synthesis, as well as the comparative method and the method of systemic analysis, to consider the interaction of Eastern Christian denomina- tions and determine their infl uence on the national movement in Ukraine. Conclusions. Th e author analyzed the cultural, social, and political traditions that infl uenced the formation of the Ukrainian national movement and the specifi cs of the impact of the clergy of the mentioned denominations on this process. Th e article draws attention to the fact that the infl uence on the development of the Ukrainian national movement depended on local conditions caused by the political, cultural, and social features of certain territories of Ukraine. An important factor in the success of nation-building processes was the support of the Ukrainian national project by the clergy of the dominant faiths. On the territory of Halychyna, the support of the Greek- Catholic clergy was of great importance for the crystallization of Ukrainian self-awareness among the population. In turn, in Dnipro Ukraine, the Orthodox Church remained a bastion of Slavophilism and Russian nationalism for a long time, and only at the beginning of the 20th century did autocephalous ideas, supported by a small group of the clergy, begin to appear in its midst. Although the Orthodox clergy only partially supported the Ukrainian cultural and later political movement, the very fact of the participation of some of its fi gures in Ukrainophilism strengthened the Ukrainian identity among the parishioners. Th e importance of both confessions for developing the Ukrainian national movement determines the particular importance of their dialogue in modern Ukraine based on partnership relations and ecumenism.

O artigo analisa algumas críticas negativas feitas ao pensamento teológico de Karl Rahner, após sua morte, que tentam desqualificar a sua importância para a ortodoxia católica e o seu distanciamento dos fundamentos do Concílio Vaticano II. Na discussão, enfocada sobretudo no ponto de vista da eclesiologia rahneriana, retoma importante entrevista do mesmo, no ano de sua morte, na qual aparece a sua preocupação com as chances futuras da Igreja, sobretudo na Europa Ocidental, a partir da qual abordam-se as relações entre Cristianismo e Igreja. As estratégias para a organização pastoral do mundo católico são a tônica desta reflexão. Para justificar suas posturas, o artigo termina com uma avaliação global de todo o conjunto teológico de Karl Rahner, redescobrindo nele os pilares mais fundamentais que justificam sua ortodoxia a serviço da fé cristã e católica, mas também a serviço da tomada de consciência de uma fé vivenciada e comprometida por parte da humanidade marcadamente secularizada.ABSTRACT: The article analyses negative criticisms against Rahner’s theological views after his death with the intention of discrediting him and his role in Catholic orthodoxy by distancing him from the fundamentals of Vatican Council II. In the discussion, primarily focused on Rahner’s ecclesiology, the article retakes a significant interview made the same year of Rahner’s death. In this interview his concern for the Church’s future chances, especially regarding Eastern Europe, embarking on relations between Christianity and Church. The strategies for world-wide organization of Catholic ministry predominate this reflection. Justifying its postures, the article concludes with a global evaluation of Rahner’s theology, rediscovering the fundamental pillars which justify his orthodoxy at the service of the Christian and Catholic faith, but also at the service of a conscientious living of a committed faith on behalf of a notably secularized humanity.

Szeklerland, at the south-easternmost part of historical Transylvania, an ethnic Hungarian enclave in the middle of Romania, lies on the borderline between cultures, on the crossroads of religious denominations where western Christianity meets eastern Orthodox Christianity. Șumuleu Ciuc (Csíksomlyó in Hungarian) is a major historical Roman Catholic – Marian – pilgrimage site of Szeklerland, which has grown into a national holy site of Hungarians from all over the world. This place was included into the official itinerary of Pope Francis’ 2019 visit in Romania. The aim of this article – as part of our interdisciplinary research project titled “Videmus Papam. Social, Economic Aspects of Pope Francis’ 2019 Visit to Șumuleu Ciuc in Szeklerland’s Regional and Wider Contexts” identifying, mapping, describing, and analyzing the socio-religious, socio-demographic, economic-touristic, and media-representation aspects of the papal visit – is to investigate the echoes of the papal visit, with special attention to the personality and the role of Pope Francis, the ethnic identity of Szekler-Hungarians, the significance of the Marian pilgrimage site, the historical importance of the special occasion, the inter-ethnic relations between majority Romanians and minority Hungarians, the role of the church in religious and secular discourses. The investigation focuses, based on key terms, om the public discourses around the papal visit unfolding from the digital media contents, opinions, public comments appearing in social media, but the data obtained from the online questionnaires and interviews performed during the research project offer important insights as well. The texts and auxiliary materials (photos, videos) have been processed through qualitative discourse analysis methods – corroborated with the work and results of the members of the research team.

This article speaks of the relation between man and the rest of the created world. This is a subject that is being taken up more and more frequently by ecologists, by philosophers and theologians. Man is in relation to the universe above all because of their common beginning. For everything, human beings included came into being "from nothing" (ex nihilo). Secondly: all of creation, even if to a different degree, is subject to the laws of limitations. Thirdly: all of the universe, which means also a man living in it, is called development and liberation from the burdening of evil, in order to participate in the freedom and glory of the children of God (cfr. R om 8:21). The subject of the relation of man with the rest of the created world was dear to the Fathers of the Church, especially in the East. The heritage of the Eastern Church Fathers has been taken up mainly by Orthodox theologians. But there are also Catholic theologians that take up the subject of the relation between man and the universe. Here one should name above all K. Rahner, H.U. von Balthasar and, among Polish theologians: W. Hryniewicz. Among the contemporary Orthodox theologians that speak of the relation between man and the universe, we find O. Clément. For him, relations with God the Creator and Savior are of importance. Upon these relations depend on other ones: with other people and with the universe. If one does not take this into consideration, one's knowledge of the man himself would be incomplete. Relations between man and the universe can be twofold: man can remain on the outside of the reality which shows itself to his eyes or he can be inserted into this reality, which he shall observe as an organic all-embracing unity. Visible nature, as O. Clément writes, is a book rich in content, which speaks of life on Earth and after death. It is only necessary to know how to make use of this book. Man created in the "image and likeness" of God is marked by divinity and participates in the divine intellect and, by means of his body, is in relation to the material world. He concentrates in himself what is spiritual and what is material. All of the created universe can participate in divine "energies" only through man, who is "priest and caretaker" of the universe. It is the duty of man to read the first revelation (that is the world) and to "realize the ontological glorification of all things". But man, because of original sin, has led to a true cosmic catastrophe, to a darkening of the modality of paradise and to the appearance of a new way of universal existence, marked by sin. The man also ceased to understand the true world, the way God created it and sustains it in His glory. Creation, just as Rs Creator, does not thrust itself upon man, who sees the universe through the prism of his fall which in such a manner obscures and covers it, that he becomes more and more obdurate to the action of God.

The Church of St. Stephan, in this paper, belonged to a medieval residential complex above the confluence of the River Piva and the River Tara, in the extreme northeast of the present-day Republic of Montenegro. The central part of the complex consisted of Soko-grad, a castle with the court of the prominent, aristocratic, Kosaca family, which, at the end of the 14th century, right until the Turkish conquests in the sixties and seventies of the 15th century, ruled the regions later known as Hercegovina. At the foot of the castle, on Scepan polje, is the suburb with the Church of St. Stephan the endowment of the grand duke, Sandalj Hranic (+1345). At the foot of the northern slope, beneath the castle, in the area of Zagradja, is another church erected by the grand duke's successor, Herzeg Stefan Vukcic Kosaca (+1465). After the Turkish conquest, the complex of the Soko castle with its suburb was destroyed and the churches became deserted and were never renewed. The ruins of St. Stephan were discovered, investigated and then conserved from 1971-973, however, the results of this research have not been published until now. In reviewing the results obtained in the course of the archaeological excavations, it is possible, in a considerable measure, to comprehend the position and former appearance of the Church of St. Stephan and establish roughly, the time when it came into being. This was the largest church erected in the regions governed by the powerful, Kosaca noble family, during the 15th century. The total length of the church exceeded 25 metres and its width was approximately ten metres. In the preserved body of the construction, of which the remaining walls rise to a height of four metres one may see three basic stages of building. A narthex was later erected beside the church, and subsequently a small parakklesion was added, on the northern side. The original church had a single nave, a cruciform base and a gently, horseshoe-shaped apsis, facing east, flanked by rectangular choirs. The interior of the church, with two pairs of small pilasters, was articulated in three bays of almost equal dimensions. The altar, encompassing the apsis and the eastern bay, was separated from the naos by a constructed altar partition-wall, the essential appearance of which can be assumed on the basis of whatever was found. The entire surface of the constructed iconostasis was covered with frescoes. The floor of the naos was a step lower than the floor of the altar. Flooring made of mortar, like in the altar area also existed in the choirs. As opposed to these spaces, in the central and western bays, the floor was made of large, hewn stone slabs. The finds discovered in the debris, offered an abundance of data about the upper, now collapsed, structures of the church, and about the stonemasonry that decorated this building. The church did not have a dome but all three bays were topped by a single vault of carved calcareous stone, reinforced by two arches, resting on the pilasters. We may assume that the roof structure was of the Gothic type, and ribbed at the base. Above the choirs were lower semi-spherical vaults, perpendicular in relation to the longitudinal axis of the church. They were covered by gabled roofs that ended in triangular frontons on the northern and southern fa?ade, like the main vault on the eastern side above the altar apsis. The roof of the church was made of lead. A belfry, of unique construction, existed on the western side of the original church. It stood about one meter in front of the western wall and was linked by a vaulted passage to the main body of the building. All these parts were structurally inter-connected, indicating that they were built at the same time. The position and appearance of the original church windows can almost certainly be determined according to the preserved traces on the remaining sections of the walls, and the finds of the relevant stonemasonry. In the interior of the naos, along the southern wall of the western bay was the grave of the donor of the church of St. Stephan, Grand Duke Sandalj Hranic. This was the traditional position where the donor was buried, according to the custom or rather, the rule that had been practiced for centuries in the countries of the Byzantine Orthodox Christian world, and particularly in the Serbian lands. The duke's grave, marked by a stele in the form of a massive low coffin on a pedestal, was prepared while the church was being built given that it would have been impossible to install this large monolith that weighed approximately 2.5 tons in the church, later. Generally speaking, the donor's grave in the church of St. Stephan, is eloquent testimony of the donor's aspirations and beliefs. Besides the undoubtedly local feature of a funerary monument in the form of a stele, all its other characteristics emulate earlier models from the region of the Serbian lands. In front of the original church, at a later stage, which apparently followed soon after, a spacious narthex with a rectangular base was added on. Pylons of the belfry substructure were fitted into its eastern wall, which seems to have made that wall much thicker than the other walls of the narthex. This later erected narthex was not vaulted, which we concluded after analysing the preserved walls and the finds in the debris. Apparently, it had a flat ceiling construction, supported by massive beams that rested on consoles along the length of the northern and southern walls. The side entrances when the narthex was built were of the same dimensions as its western portal. However later, before installing the stone doorposts, both these entrances were narrowed down on their western, lateral sides, while the southern portal, in a later phase, was completely walled up. In the course of exploration, no reliable data was discovered regarding the position of the windows in the narthex. One can only assume that monophoric windows existed on the lateral walls, one or two on each side, similar to the monophores in the western bay. Apart from the narthex, another, later construction was observed next to the original church. On its northern side, along the western bay and the lateral side of the choir, a parakklesion, that is, a small funerary chapel was added on, in the middle of which a large stele once stood, of which now only fragments exist. The entire interior of the church of St. Stephan was deco-rated with frescoes. Rather small fragments of the wall painting were discovered in the debris, not only of the original church but also of the narthex, as well as of the northern funerary chapel. It was observed that they were all of the same quality, painted on mortar of a uniform texture which suggests that all the painting was done as soon as the additional buildings were finished. On the discovered fragments, one can recognise the dark blue back-ground of the former compositions, and the borders painted in cynober. On several fragments, there were preserved sections of or whole letters from Serbian Cyrillic texts. On several fragments that may have originated from the aureoles or parts of robes, traces of gold leaf were visible, which would indicate the splendour and representativeness of the frescoes that decorated the endowment of the grand duke, Sandalj Hranic. With the shape of the foundation of a single-nave church, divided into three bays and with rectangular choir spaces, the church of St. Stephan continued the tradition of the early Rascia school of Serbian architecture (13th beginning of 14th century), which represented a significant novelty at the time when it appeared. In Serbia, in the last decades of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century, the predominant plan of the churches, the triconche, was based on the Holy Mount models. The decision by the donor, the grand duke Sandalj, to give his endowment the features of the earlier, Rascia heritage, in the times when the Serbian territories had been broken up and were exposed to pressure from external enemies, undoubtedly had a deeper significance. By relying on the earlier tradition, which is also reflected in the dedication of the church to St. Stephan, the patron saint of the state and of the Nemanjic dynasty, the donor expressed the aspiration to consolidate his authority more firmly in the regions that had previously formed part of the Serbian state. By erecting an endowment, and a funerary church that he wished to be his eternal resting-place, Sandalj was also demonstrating that he ranked among his predecessors, the Serbian rulers and nobility. One can see this from the choice of the traditional burial position, along the southern wall of the western bay, as well as from the tomb he had prepared for himself during his lifetime. Apart from the basic idea and plan of the church based on the Rascia tradition, the features of its architecture also exhibit other influences. Of crucial importance here was the choice of builders, who undoubtedly came from the coastal area, which is reflected both in the structural solutions, as well as in the decorative stonework. However, local master-craftsman undoubtedly took part in this achievement. One can see this particularly when observing the stonework which, besides some admittedly rather rare, better-carved pieces, consists of a great deal of carving by less experienced artisans. The assumptions about the origin of the architecture and the builders are substantiated by observing the preserved traces of the frescoes, which show that the decoration of St. Stephan's and the adjacent narthex was also entrusted to one of the coastal painters. Perhaps it was the well-known Dubrovnik painter Dzivan Ugrinovic, who is known to have been commissioned by the grand duke Sandalj in 1429. There is no direct or reliable record of the date when the endowment of the grand duke Sandalj Hranic or its later annexes were built. The stylistic analysis of the stonework makes it possible only roughly to attribute it to the first half of the 15th century. The year 1435 provides a slightly narrower span of time, which is the time of Sandalj's funeral, when it would appear that the church of St. Stephan was already finished. The data mentioned earlier regarding the engagement of builders from Dubrovnik and the possible later decoration, enables us to date it more exactly. Therefore, we may assume that the church itself was erected before the end of the second decade of the 15Lj century. The additional construction of the narthex may have followed soon after the completion of the church itself, as indicated by the stylistically uniform stonework. If we accept the possibility that the church was decorated at the end of the third decade of the 15S century, and that this was finished both in the church and the narthex at the same time the year 1429 would be the terminus ante quem for the completion of the additional construction. The Kosaca endowment, erected beside the Soko castle, offers new evidence about this prominent, noble or ruling family, and particularly about their religious affiliation. Historians, almost as a rule consider the Kosaca family to have been Bogumils, or people whose religious convictions were not particularly firm. Such views were based on the fact that Sandalj Hranic, the grand duke of Rusaga Bosanskog (of the Bosnian kingdom) and his successor, the duke and subsequently the herzeg, Stefan Vukcic, were tolerant towards the Bogumils and were often surrounded by people who upheld such religious beliefs, which was the political reality of the times in which they lived and functioned. On the other hand, the enemies of the Kosaca family made use of this to depict them to the Western and Eastern Christians as heretics, which was not without consequences. The distorted view of their religious conviction not only accompanied them during their lifetime but persists even today, not only in historiography but in present-day politics, as well, particularly after the recent wars in ex-Yugoslavia. The origin of the Kosaca family is connected with the region of the Upper Drina, that is to say, the region that had always been a part of the Nemanjic state, where there were no Bogumils, nor could there be. As owners of part of what had always been the Serbian lands, which went to Bosnia after the tragic division between Ban Tvrtko and Prince Lazar, the consequences of which are still felt today, the Kosaca very soon became independent rulers of this territory, forming a specific territory that later came to be known as Herzegovina. Another element that also bears weight in this respect is the fact that, in contrast to central Bosnia where the Bogumil heresy was influential, the population in the Kosaca lands was Orthodox Christian, with a certain number of Catholics in the western parts. The fact that the regions they ruled were nominally within the Bosnian kingdom, where the ruling class were predominantly Bogumils for a long time did not have any fundamental bearing on their religious affiliation. Significant records have been preserved of their unconcealed Orthodox Christian orientation. Without going into the details of this complex circle of problems, which requires a separate study, especially after the more recent discoveries and facts that have come to light, we shall dwell only on some facts. During the rule of Grand Duke Sandalj and his successor, Herzeg Stefan, which lasted almost seventy years, a whole series of Orthodox Christian churches were erected. During the first half of the 15th century, a kind of renaissance of the Rascia school of architecture came about in this area. In the words of V.J. Djuric, the endowments of the Kosaca family 'are different from the average buildings of their time by virtue of their size sometimes the unusual solutions, and the great beauty of form and proportions'. The wealth of the family and the continual relations with aitists from the southern Adriatic coastal cities imbued their architecture with buoyancy and significance. The western stylistic features of the churches of the Kosaca, and the Gothic language of the stonemasons, reveal the centres where these master craftsmen had learned their trade. With the erection of the endowment in the 'ruling seat' beneath Mt. Soko and the churches intended as their final resting-places, the Kosaca distinguished themselves as the last continuers of the Nemanjic tradition of earlier centuries, in the time that preceded the final Turkish conquest of the Serbian lands. The memory of their work is preserved in the church of St. Stephan and the nearby church at Zagradja, as well as in the rains of the Soko castle, which still lies waiting to be researched.

The majority of Croats in Montenegro are the native population traditionally living in the Bay of Kotor, the town of Budva and Bar and its surroundings. A minority of them are immigrants or their descendants. As early as during the Austro–Hungarian rule over the Montenegrin coast, and especially during the Yugoslav period, they inhabited the area of today’s Montenegro, mostly its inland towns. This paper primarily aims to present and analyse the size of the Croatian population in Montenegro in general and at the level of its administrative units. To do so, it uses data from the censuses conducted from 1948 to 2011, which recorded national affiliation, among other things. In the context of those censuses, one can argue that, during their conduct, it was possible to declare oneself as a Croat, and that a major share of the population avoided declaring themselves as such although they could, based on their ethnic characteristics. Accordingly, the second aim of the paper was to attempt to determine, in the context of the 2011 census, which is a source of plenty of relevant data, not only the number of declared Croats but also those who were undeclared as such, but could certainly be considered to belong to the same linguistic, religious and cultural community as Croats. For this paper, that wider unit was termed the Slavic Catholic community (Slavic–Catholic), which is already recognised in language as the Central South Slavic area (Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro), among other things as a certain “opposite” of the Slavic–Orthodox and Slavic–Muslim communities of the same spatial scope. To better understand the position of Croats in Montenegro, and especially their reluctance to declare Croatian national affiliation, which is more and more evident over time, an integral part of the paper is an appropriate presentation of historical circumstances that have framed their past and present identity positioning. The first data on the presence of Croats in today’s Montenegrin area refers to the period of Slavic settlement of South-east Europe, which took place until the beginning of the 7th century. According to the work of the Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus (945–959), “On the Governance of the Empire”, during their settlement, Croats occupied the former Roman province of Dalmatia (which, according to the author, “started from the surroundings of Durrës and Bar and stretched to the Istrian mountains and to the river Danube in width”), as well as Pannonia and Illyricum. According to the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja, probably written by the (Arch)Bishop of Bar Gregory in the period 1177–1189, upon settlement the Slavs had founded a state, the backbone of which was on the coast, between Istria and today’s northern Albania. According to the Chronicle, that coastal belt was divided into White and Red Croatia, which stretched from Duvanjsko Polje further south. Besides, Byzantine 11th- and 12th-century writers mention Croats and Croatia in the context of the area of today’s Montenegro. However, from the beginning of the 9th century, that is, the point in time from which one can continuously follow the political development in the Adriatic–Dinaric belt, or the area of the former Roman Dalmatia, it is certain that four smaller Slavic principalities existed between the rivers Cetina and Bojana: Neretva, Zahumlje, Travunia and Duklja. In the mid 11th century, Duklja, Travunia and Zahumlje were united into a state at the initiative of the rulers of Duklja. The expanded state of Duklja, ruled by the Vojislavljević dynasty, gained international acknowledgement since the papacy recognised it as a separate kingdom and a strong lever for maintaining its own identity, manifested in the existence of a state religious centre in the form of the Catholic metropolis of Bar. Such circumstances could have suggested the emergence of a much wider state unit, located approximately between the rivers Neretva and Drim on the one side and the Adriatic and the river Tara on the other, which would have implied the formation of an ethnic body. However, events unfolded in a different direction. Since the mid 12th century the state of Duklja had been losing ever more power, completely falling under the ruler of neighbouring Orthodox Serbia at the end of the same century. During that time the Schism of 1054 acquired full significance. The 1204 establishment of the Latin Empire, with its seat in Constantinople, led to a strong polarisation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. In such conditions, upon establishment of its own church in 1219, the Serbian dynasty of Nemanjić began to carry out mass Orthodoxisation of the Zahumlje and Duklja areas to ensure their loyalty. Primarily exposed to religious conversion were Slavic Catholic people, who, at that time, shared many similarities with the neighbouring Orthodox in the entire area of the Adriatic–Dinaric belt in terms of external manifestations of their Christian identity, significantly marked by the tradition of Cyril and Methodius. Coastal, communal centres in the area of today’s Montenegro, Kotor, Budva and Bar, at the time still largely Romanesque, but eventually Slavicised, and their “belonging” or gravitating Slavic population, as well as the Albanian population located next to gradually Albanianised Ulcinj, along the river Bojana and in Malesia, were left Catholics. The territorial relations between Catholics and Orthodox established at the time have largely remained relevant until modern times. In the area of today’s Montenegro, the Slavic Catholic population was in principle reduced to a distinct minority concentrated in and around the coastal communes. As the Serbian state weakened from the mid 14th century, those communes gradually merged with the western states, and ultimately with the Venetian Republic. They remained under its rule until the end of the 18th century. After that, they were mainly part of the Austrian Kingdom of Dalmatia until 1918. Under those conditions, sharing the social climate with the population of the eastern Adriatic coast, who spoke the same language and shared the same religion, from the mid 19th century the Slavic Catholic population of today’s Montenegrin coast became involved in the processes leading to the constitution of the Croatian nation. The political and social development of the Orthodox population in Montenegro took a different course. By integrating into the de facto Serbian Orthodox Church, they began acquiring Serbian ethnic characteristics. However, given the disintegration of the Serbian state on a part of today’s Montenegrin territory, a new state emerged in the form of Zeta, centred in sub-Lovćen Montenegro and ruled by the Balšić dynasty and the Crnojević dynasty. During the Ottoman rule, which began in the late 15th century, sub-Lovćen Montenegro retained a certain autonomy, which became the basis for the formation of the Montenegrin state close to its current borders in the late 17th century. While the Montenegrin population “remained” in the identity sphere of proto-national Serbs due to Orthodoxy, imbued with the cult of the Nemanjić dynasty, its peculiar development enabled them to acquire own ethnic consciousness. The dichotomy between the Montenegrin and Serbian sense of identity has not been overcome to this day, which is becoming increasingly clear in the division of the Orthodox population between the national Montenegrins and the national Serbs. With the disintegration of Austro–Hungary and the emergence of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, that is, Yugoslavia, the Slavic Catholic population in the area of today’s Montenegro found itself permanently separated from the political, or at least administrative framework defined by the Catholic majority, after almost five hundred years. Instead, it became a distinct minority group in an environment that was continuously exposed to strong Serbian influences, even after Montenegro gained independence. Over time, following the processes of migration towards the coast, it also became a minority in settlements where it once represented the only or majority population. Under those conditions, strongly marked by latent or real contradictions in the relations between Croats and Serbs and often radical manifestations of Serbian identity in their environment, for the Slavic Catholic population in Montenegro, the declaration of Croatian identity became a kind of burden that not everyone was ready or able to bear. In that context, among other things, it is worth looking at the data presented, which points to a decline in the share of Croats in Montenegro. Equally, attention should be paid to the data from the 2011 census, which indicates a kind of mass declaration of “alternative” forms of ethnicity on the part of the Slavic–Catholic population. According to the first census, the one of 1921, which covered the population of all parts of today’s Montenegro, 313,432 inhabitants lived on its soil, of which between 11,380 and 12,145 were Croats and other members of the Slavic–Catholic community. According to that census, which took no account of the national determinant, but recorded the religious and linguistic ones, the share of members of that community in the total population inhabiting the area of today’s Montenegro was between 3.6% and 3.9%. The censuses after 1945, which, as pointed out, covered the national determinant and were conducted in socialist Yugoslavia (1945–1991), Federal Republic of Yugoslavia / the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro (1991–2006) and in independent Montenegro (since 2006) recorded the following shares of Croats in Montenegro: 6,808 (in 1948), 9,814 (in 1953), 10,664 (in 1961), 9,192 (in 1971), 6,904 (in 1981), 6,244 (in 1991), 6,811 (in 2003), and 6,021 (in 2011). It is evident from the first censuses that part of the Slavic–Catholics in Montenegro did not declare themselves as Croats. This is primarily the case in Bar and its surroundings, where the declaration of Montenegrin nationality has permanently prevailed. Since 1971, a large number of people formerly declared as Croats began to declare themselves as “Yugoslavs”. Following the disintegration of Yugoslavia, in the 2003 and 2011 censuses, that type of declaration lost significance. However, no “return” to the declaration of Croatian national affiliation occurred, but rather the adoption of Montenegrin identity, rejection of the declaration of nationality, declaration of regional affiliation, etc. The analysis conducted in the context of the 2011 census shows that only a small part of the total Slavic–Catholic community in Montenegro declared themselves as Croats. Basically, only 5,931 people did so, if the total share of Croats (6,021) is reduced by 90 Orthodox who are probably registered as Croats for family reasons. At the same time, 29 Bosnians, 5,667 Montenegrins, 68 Yugoslavs, three Muslims, 569 nationally undeclared persons, 376 regionally declared persons, 112 Serbs and one Serb Montenegrin declared their affiliation with Catholicism. According to the insight into the share of the native Slavic Catholic population in Montenegro in 1921 and the share of Croats in the 1953–1971 censuses, it can be stated with a high level of certainty that those 6,825 respondents belonged to the Slavic Catholic population. The total share of the Slavic Catholic population in Montenegro in 2011 was larger than the sum of Croats (5,931) and the mentioned 6,825 persons, which amounted to 12,756, given that it should be increased by a certain number of respondents, primarily among Bosnians, Montenegrins, Yugoslavs, nationally undeclared and regionally declared who declared themselves as agnostics, atheists, unidentified Christians or refused to declare their religion. Primarily based on a comparison of the share of such persons within the municipalities of Boka Kotorska (Herceg Novi, Kotor, Tivat), where it is extremely high, with their shares in other Montenegrin municipalities, it could be argued that in 2011, the total share of Croats and other members of the Slavic–Catholic community amounted to approximately 15,000 or 2.4% of the population of Montenegro.

This article provides a brief account of the historical origins and canonical status of the three modern Orthodox and Greek-Catholic churches of Ukraine: the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate, and the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church. It contains four parts. The first briefly recounts the origins of Byzantine Christianity and the fused form of state and church governance that developed in Constantinople from the 4th to the 15th centuries. The second examines the Great Schism of 1054, which cleaved Eastern and Western Christianity, sending Eastern Orthodox Christianity down the path of territory- or nation-based churches constituted by eucharistic ecclesiology; this would ultimately give rise to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate in the Slavic lands that would become Ukraine. The third part considers two modern schisms, the Little Schism of 1596, which produced the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, and the Final Schism of 2018–2019, which brought into existence the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Drawing upon eucharistic ecclesiology, the final part offers brief concluding reflections concerning the ongoing implications of these three schisms for Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine.

Before talking about the vision of Orikhov's essence of the relationship between the church and the state, one must first determine what the church is about - Catholic or Orthodox. After all, the thinker lived in Poland when there were still strong, even parity positions of both denominations. He himself was brought up in a family where his father was Catholic and his mother was Orthodox. This was reflected in his mentality: he repeatedly publicly stated the benefits of certain tenets of the Orthodox faith. But most of all he settled on the problem of relations between the Catholic Church and the state.

After World War II, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics sought to liquidate the Greek Catholic Church. In 1946, a non-constitutional synod was held in Lviv which liquidated the Greek Catholic Church and incorporated it into the Russian Orthodox Church. Similarly, Romanian communist authorities liquidated the Greek Catholic Church in 1948 and the same took place in the Czech Republic two years later. In the Polish People’s Republic, the authorities did not even try to make the liquidation bear the marks of legality. The communist authorities considered that resettlement of the hierarchs and most of the clergy as well as the Greek Catholic followers to the Soviet Ukraine and the rest of them to the west and north of Poland solved the problem. However, the priests and their followers made every effort to re-establish the Greek Catholic Church in Poland. Greek Catholic clergy tried to find their faithful in the place of settlement and, if possible, start their pastoral service in the native rite. This is how regular services in Chrzanów began. Taking advantage of the kindness of some Roman Catholic priests, Greek Catholic liturgies began to take place in Cyganek, Bytów and Kwasów. The faithful, who were deprived of priests, also began to organize their own religious life. They met in larger groups in private homes, where they prayed and sang religious songs. They tried to celebrate the holidays according to the Julian calendar and in accordance with the native tradition. Because of that, the communist authorities decided to make the Greek Catholics convert to the Orthodox Catholic Church. Therefore, Orthodox Catholic institutions were opened for the Greek Catholics on the basis of the Greek Catholic Church in Poland. Despite initial success, the initiative ended in failure. Most of the Orthodox Catholic institutions collapsed after Greek Catholic liturgy had been resumed as the faithful returned to their church.

It is only in worship, with a keen sense of the transcendence of the inexpressible mystery ‘which surpasses knowledge’ (Eph. 3:19), that we will be able to see our divergences in their proper setting and ‘to lay … no greater burden than these necessary things’ (Acts 15:28), so as to reestablish communion…. It seems to me, in fact, that the question we must ask ourselves is not so much whether we can reestablish full communion, but rather whether we still have the right to remain separated. We must ask ourselves this question in the very name of our faithfulness to Christ's will for his Church, for which constant prayer must make us both increasingly open and ready in the course of the Theological Dialogue.1

The central difference between the Orthodox teaching and the Catholic one regarding the Church comes from the conception regarding its foundation. In the Catholic conception, the visible Church was founded before the Pentecost, on the testimony of Saint Peter the Apostle, and at Pentecost only the invisible Church would have been added. The entire conception about the hierarchy, in the Roman Catholic Church, is strictly juridical. In reality, as the Orthodox theology testifies, the essence of the ecclesial hierarchy is charismatic, not juridical. This is what the great difference to the Catholic teaching consists in. The Eastern theology makes no abstraction of jurisdiction and canon law, yet, jurisdiction depends on grace, not grace on jurisdiction, contrary to what some Western Church theologians would suggest in certain works such as those belonging to the Western Theology.

In June 2018 the Texan philosopher and distinguished bioethicist Tristram Engelhardt, Jr. crossed the great divide to meet his maker, as he would probably put it. His work remains till now the most systematic effort to fully revise Bioethics based on the doctrines of the Orthodox Christian theology, while it is also apreciseaccount ofEthics and Bioethics in the “after God” era. Engelhardt was anexcellent master of ancient Greek, medieval, western and eastern philosophy, and after heconverted from the Roman Catholic to the Eastern Orthodox Church – officially the Orthodox Catholic Church – he indulged in the works of the Holy Fathers andbecame greatly influenced by them. This is clearlymanifest in his views and continuous reference to Fathers and Ecclesiastical Writers. His conversion crucially influenced not only his bioethical views, but also his entire philosophical system. This magnificent journey obviously turned the Texan philosopher into a true Theologist – not in the academic sense, but in the one the Orthodox Catholic Church accepts, according to which “a Theologist is a person of God, from God, before God and speaks to praise God”. Engelhardt was not the first to deal with bioethical issues under the spectrum of Orthodox Theology, but he was the first to unravel both secular and Western-Church Bioethics and suggest a totally different version of Bioethicsbased on the principles of Orthodox ethics, the ceremonial and esoteric life of the Orthodox Church, having previously made himself a true communicant of both the paternal tradition and dogmatic teaching.

In 1944, the Soviet Army recaptured Galicia and Transcarpathia from the Germans, and the last stronghold of Ukrainian Greek Catholicism fell under Soviet control. Following the arrests of all Uniate bishops and of the “recalcitrant” clergy, the Lviv Sobor of March 1946 nullified the 1596 Union of Brest, which first established the Greek Catholic Church, and forcibly “reunified” the Uniates with the state-controlled Russian Orthodox Church. The post-World War II period saw the gradual suppression of the Uniate Church throughout Carpatho-Ukraine, Poland, and Eastern Slovakia, and marked the beginning of more than four decades of struggle for Eastern Rite Ukrainian Catholics in the USSR to maintain their banned Church against the overpowering alliance of the Soviet regime and the Russian Orthodox Church. Despite the enforced “reunification,” the Greek Catholic Church has remained the most important cultural and institutional preserve of national identity in Western Ukraine. The following is an examination of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church's attempts to assert its right to legal existence since the beginning of political and social revitalization under Mikhail Gorbachev.

The article deals with the development of the Ukrainian Orthodox movement on the North American continent during the interwar period. It began with the mass conversion of Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy and led to the establishing of two separate church communities in Canada and the United States. The first UOC-USA parishes were founded in 1919, mostly by former Ukrainian Catholics from Galicia or Orthodox from Transcarpathia and Bukovyna. In 1924 Archbishop Ioan Teodorovych of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox church, formed in Kyiv, was dispatched to serve as a hierarch for the new churches in the United States and Canada. The UOC-USA grew quickly, and by 1932 it included 32 parishes and 25 priests. Large numbers of Ukrainians who had formerly belonged to the Russian Orthodox church and the Ukrainian Catholic church joined the newly formed Ukrainian Orthodox church in Canada. After 1924 the UOCC insisted on retaining its administrative independence under Rev Semen Sawchuk as church administrator and president of the consistory. By the end of 1928 the church had approximately 64,000 followers, organized in 152 parishes served by 21 priests. The church, priests, and faithful refused to join the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA because they questioned the canonicity of Archbishop Ioan Teodorovych's episcopal consecration. Rev Yosyf Zhuk (a Catholic priest from Galicia) was selected as the church's bishop in 1931 and he was succeeded by Bishop Bohdan Shpylka (consecrated in 1937) under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople. Some priests and faithful, however, questioned the canonicity of Ioan Teodorovych’s episcopal ordination and formed the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople. The Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese was founded in 1938 when a group of 37 Ruthenian Eastern Catholic parishes, under the leadership of Fr. Orestes Chornock, were received into the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The object of the study is the Uniate church, founded by the Brest Union in 1596. Then the Orthodox bishops of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth decided to unite with the Pope, provided that Eastern traditions were preserved. However, after the Brest Union, the practice of the Latin Church quickly began to blur the Eastern traditions of the Uniate Church, and the phenomenon of latinization appeared. The subject of the study is the processes and causes of latinization and Delatinization of the Uniate Church. The founding and development of the Uniate Church had strong political factors, since the article also considered its latinization from both religious and political aspects. The author pays special attention to the motives of the delatinization of the Uniate Church over the past 100 years, associated with the spread of the Catholic faith among Orthodox peoples. At the methodological level, the author combines the historical and political background to analyze the materials related to the research topic. The main conclusion of the study is that due to the contradiction between Roman Catholic teaching and Eastern traditions, the union with Rome is doomed to lead to the latinizaition of the Uniate Church. In addition, the latinization of the Uniate Church has a strong political influence. The author's special research contribution to the topic is that he noticed a contradiction in the Uniate Church. Russian Uniate Church is a tool used by the West to spread Catholicism in the Russian land and separate the people from the Russian Orthodox tradition. Latinization lead to the fact that the Uniate church lose its appeal to Orthodox people and affected its spread. However, without latinization, the Uniate Church would not be able to separate its believers from Orthodoxy and the Russian tradition, and would not be able to perform its political functions.

The Romanian-Orthodox Church after the fall of Ceausescu The way in which the Romanian-Orthodox Church took position towards the Communist State has had a very negative influence on its prestige. Some ecclesiastical leaders try to forget the past, but others confess openly the faults they have made. Half-hearted is the attitude of the Romanian-Orthodox Church towards ecclesiastical leaders who have collaborated with the regime of Ceausescu. The many conflicts in relation to the Greek-Catholic Church of Romania lead to tensions with Rome (to which the Greek-Catholic Church is united). The relationship of the Church with the government, especially with the Front for National Salvation (FSN) - which has become now a political party -, is too strong. The Church is still to much an instrument of political purposes. Th ecumenical relations do stagnate, because of the competition-struggle with the other Churches, especially with the Greek-Catholic Church. A very important development is the integration of the Orthodox Theological Institutes in the State Universities. Also female students are now allowed to study at the Orthodox Theological Faculties. The reintroduction of religious education in the primary schools causes quite a lot of problems, because good legislation is missing and the methods for religious education are out of date.

The paper examines the impact of signifi cant historical events associated with the Ukrainian National Revolution of the 17th century to changes in the legal sphere, which were the origins of legal norms that have a long-term eff ect. In Ukraine, the jump in interest in the history of socio-cultural and state-legal institutions in our country and on the European continent is largely due to the events of the late XX –early XXI century, formation of Ukraine as an independent state. The problem became even more relevant in connection with the events in Ukraine in 2013-2014, as well as the temporary loss of Crimea and the occupation of some eastern territories, the desire to rewrite the history of development and achievements of our country. In the history of Ukraine and many other European countries highlights the events of the midseventeenth century in terms of their then signifi cance and long-term impact on the development of social and legal institutions in the future: the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which was the source of modern international law; The English Revolution led by O. Cromwell; Ukrainian National Revolution led by B. Khmelnytsky. The aim of the paper is to study the impact of signifi cant historical events related to the B. Khmelnytsky Revolution on changes in the legal sphere, which were a source of legal norms that had long-term eff ect, as well as to compare the consequences of large-scale historical events in Ukraine and Europe to the development of the legal doctrine of the New Time. At the beginning of the XVII century in the Ukrainian-Russian lands there was a situation that can be called “revolutionary”. Legal sources related to the rule of Polish magnates, the Polish nobility and the Catholic Church in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist. “Cossack law” became widespread, which meant the system of customary law, which was formed in the Zaporozhian Sich and was integrated into public relations during the Ukrainian National Revolution. Zaporozhian customary law was perceived not only as local, but also as purely national. Deep religiosity was one of the hallmarks of the Cossacks, and the protection of the Orthodox faith of ancestors and the church was the basis of their lives. The National Revolution in Ukraine in 1648–1676 was related to large-scale sociopolitica movements in a number of Central and Western European countries. Its signifi cance lay in the restoration of state life, the formation of the Ukrainian state idea, and the development of national consciousness. As a result of the turbulent events of the Ukrainian National Revolution, the development of legal institutions took a diff erent path than the development of legal institutions in European countries associated with the end of the Thirty Years’ War and the adoption of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Unlike the transformations in European countries, the events in Ukraine have not become a direct source in the legal sphere; in this regard there are not yet suffi cient conditions for signifi cant changes. Considering the further historical development of Ukraine, these events were only a necessary impetus for such changes in the future. Key words: Ukrainian National Revolution, necessary and suffi cient conditions for changes in the legal sphere, the origins of law.

The social teachings of Christian churches answer a number of important questions of public life. Such issues include dignity, freedom, and human rights. The task of Church social teaching is to assess modern socially significant problems, state-church relations, and church-social issues and to formulate the official position of the Church on the challenges of modernity based on centuries-old Christian teachings and church traditions. The subject of this research is a comparative analysis of Catholic and Orthodox social teachings on the issue of granting a Christian personal rights and freedoms. The research methodology is based on a comparative analysis of church documents in cultural-historical and socio-political contexts. The work examines the history and development of legal doctrine in the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches. Particular attention is paid to an examination of official church documents, including papal encyclicals, documents of the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church, documents of social issues adopted at the Councils of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church. Based on the historical and ideological context of the two positions in relation to human rights, the work reveals the general provisions and differences in the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of this issue. The article argues that, despite the existing differences, these teachings are united by a common desire to bring a moral dimension and an orientation towards Christian values into public and political life.

The issue of primacy divides Roman Catholic (RCC) and Serbian Orthodox Church (SOC) in theological field. Painful historical heritage from Second World War is also the great obstacle. Yugoslav atheistic state supported development of inter-church relations in acceptable proportion that would increase national relations in Yugoslav federation. Its fear was related to possible 'common front' against ideological system. Regional inter-church relations were initiated by Vatican and Pope Paul II, while SOC accepted it particularly in the social field. Both agreed on common responsibility for the evangelization an atheistic society. The variety of institutional forms of cooperation was also agreed, Common Commission for dialogue of SOC Council and Yugoslav Bishop Conference, and Theological Faculties Conferences in Post World War II Vatican period. In post-conflict Balkan Societies, RCC and SOC agreed to continue common activities for post-conflict rehabilitation and evangelizational purposes.

The article focuses on the liberal attitude of a Georgian Orthodox saint toward the Roman Catholic Church after Great schism in 1054. The views in favour of Roman Catholics were expressed by George the Hagiorite in a speech delivered by him before the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Doukas in 1065. He declared that “no heresy has ever been introduced" into the Roman Church. It is also well-known that St. George has translated the Athanasius’ Creed of Faith which clearly contains a filioque clause. No comment had been made to inform readers that the filioque was unacceptable for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Saint George had a loyal attitude towards Roman Catholic practice as well.

The theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. Eighth session: Balamand, Lebanon, 17th-24th June 1993 The eighth session of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches has taken place from 17th to 24th June 1993 at Balamand (Lebanon). Three years earlier, at Freising 1990, under the influence of the events in Eastern and Central Europe, the committee decided to deal the next time with the problem of uniatism. For this purpose consultations had taken place between the Orthodox Churches and between these Churches and the Catholic Church and a document has been prepared by mixed sub-commissions and by the committee of coordination at Ariccia in 1991. After a delay of one year the dialogue could resume in June 1993 with the discussion of the sole subject of uniatism. From the orthodox side 9 Churches were represented by 13 persons and from the Catholic Church 24 persons attended. The representatives of both sides discussed the document of Ariccia and established the final text, the document of Balamand. In this document the orthodox recognise the existence of the Catholic Churches of oriental rite and the catholics see them no longer as a model or method for the future unity we seek for. The continuation of the dialogue has to wait for some time to see how the document will be accepted by the Churches, particularly by those Orthodox Churches which were absent from the session. The next meeting could take place at Baltimore (USA), but a date is not yet fixed.

The Ecumenical Commitment of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church has been at the centre of its ecclesiology and theological thought especially in relation to its sister-church the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch since the Second Vatican Council. The Antiochene context has provided a unique and creative context for a renewed ecumenical engagement as viewed through the developing relations between the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and the Melkite Greek Catholic Church. This paper sets out in detail how these relations have developed over the last decades, however, with the caveat that the author, Patriarch Gregorios III who has been deeply involved in these discussions, notes that the significant proposals mentioned in the final part of this article remain to be received within the wider ecclesial communities.

Abstract Marking the eightieth anniversary of the founding of the celebrated series of patristic texts, Sources chrétiennes, the article considers the place and role of the series in the patristic renewal that occurred in the Roman Catholic Church in the twentieth century, and the many connections and resonances between that renewal and the patristic renewal that occurred contemporaneously in the Orthodox Church. Key writings of pioneers of that renewal on the respective sides, especially Henri de Lubac, Jean Daniélou, and Georges Florovsky, are studied, and the article ends with some reflections on the significance of the patristic heritage for current Roman Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue.

The Historical Society of Nestor the Chronicler was one of the organizations in the second half of 19th – the first half of 20th century which researched the culture of Ukraine. Members of the society published their studies in various periodicals. Beginning from the year 1888 their annual journal "Chteniya v Istoricheskom obshchestve Nestora Letopistsa" appeared regularly. The purpose of this article are to identify topics from the cultural history of the 10th -16th century which were of interest for the members of the society, as well as studies published by them on the journal pages. The other purpose is to systematize interpretations of problems of cultural history raised by the members, and to define the role which was given to the medieval culture in the development of this region by the above- mentioned researchers. It was found, as a result of the study, that beginning from the second half of the 19th century the scholars increasingly turned to the topics predeceasing the Cossack period for emphasising the cultural originality of lands of Southern Ruthenia (Rus'). Researchers turned to the study of monuments of literature to discover local traditions and possible foreign influences. The identified borrowings were often interpreted that they had reflected the existing diversity of the language and culture. Yet there were also some attempts to prove a close connection with the culture of Northern Ruthenia (so called: "Great Russian" culture) on the basis of the established facts. On occasion of the 900th anniversary of the baptism of Ruthenia the researcher intensified their studies on the history of religions. The most attention was paid to the adoption of the Eastern Christianity by Eastern Slavs and the development of Orthodoxy in the area they inhabited. However, researchers were also interested in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, Judaism, Protestantism and their influence on the culture of the region. The members of the society discovered and analysed landmarks from the Middle Ages and from the beginning of Early Modern times. Artworks from this period survived worst of all. The researchers studied sacral buildings, the interior decoration of temples, icons, as well as what were left from the secular architecture, including castles and fortifications. They also tried to identify distinctive elements of artistic development and possible foreign influences. In addition, cultural relations of Ruthenia with other countries were studied. The special attention was paid to the marriage unions, to the connection between economic and cultural interactions and to the religious factor of the relations between various states. The image of the culture of Middle Edges as an important period of Ukraine's cultural history was being created by publishing research results on the pages of the journal.

Uniatism and its origins The author of this article deals with the problem of ‘uniatism’ in a very broad sense: the origins and the use of this term are discussed, as well as uniatism as a historical phenomenon. In the past ‘uniatism’ was used by the Roman Catholic Church as a method for reuniting the Eastern Churches. The Orthodox Churches saw it, therefore, as a threat and a handicap in the ecumenical relationship. However, some Orthodox Churches have also tried to ‘bring back’ the Eastern Catholic Communities to their ‘Mother Chruch’. All this is the result of “opposite and exclusive ecclesiologies” which contradict the counciliar ecclesiology of the Ancient Chruch. In our century the attitudes have evolved: the Eastern Communities within the Roman Church are no longer considered as mere ‘rites’, but they received a new canonical statue. On the other hand, the Orthodox Churches had to recognize the existence of the Eastern Churches united to Rome. In 1987, Pope John Paul II and the ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Dimitrios I, condemned ‘proselytism’ in a common declaration. In 1993, the International Commission for Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches issued a joint document in Balamand (Lebanon), in which it repeated this condemnation. Although its use of the term ‘uniatism’ may be confusing, the agreement in itself is an important step forward to solving the problem of the division of the Churches. In order to reach full communion, they have to rediscover the traditional ecclesiology and to regard each other as ‘Sister Churches’.

The last decade of the last century and the first years of the XXI century. proved to be quite significant both in the realm of Catholic-Orthodox dialogue in the context of the ecumenical concept, as well as in the interest of theological discussion on this subject in extracurricular Catholic circles, represented by the venerable profession of Catholic universities and the Jesuit and allied Jesuits. It should be noted immediately that in these discussions, the voices of Orthodox authorities, with the exception of some clergy of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchates, play a rather modest role. The Moscow Patriarchate occasionally makes ironic replies regarding some of the statements made by Vatican diplomats and, most recently, the pontiff himself. Ukrainian Orthodoxy, divided and focused on intra-Ukrainian church problems, does not respond to the innovations that emerge from Catholic-Orthodox dialogue.

Metropolitan Dionysius on the Nationality Question in the Orthodox Church in Interwar PolandMetropolitan Dionysius took over management of the Orthodox Church in Poland in 1923, and he continued in this role throughout the difficult period of the Second Polish Republic. At that time the Orthodox Church was identified with the Russian invader, and seen as a symbol of the partitions as well as of the religious and ethnic oppression of Poles. At the same time it was the largest religious association in Poland, apart from the Roman Catholic Church. During this period, the Orthodox Church embraced several different nationalities among the faithful (including Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and others). This posed a significant problem in both the Church’s internal relations and in its relations with the Polish state. Some political minority groups tried to make the Orthodox religion an element of national separatism. On the other hand, for the state authorities, the Orthodox Church was an institution which carried out its policy and objectives for the benefit of a particular ethnic minority. Throughout the period Metropolitan Dionysius had to guide the Church in such a way as to meet the needs of ethnically diverse believers, in spite of the basically unfriendly or even hostile attitude of the Polish state towards the Orthodox Church. He had to reconcile the sympathies of the faithful of Ukrainian, Russian, Belarusian and Polish origins, and to deal with the various political forces existing within the Orthodox Church, which sought to shape its institutional form and to give it a specific political function.

In the history of the Christian Church in general, and Ukraine in particular, Orthodox-Catholic relations occupy an extremely important place. The dramatic, as a fact of church and religious life, they attracted the attention of a large number of scholars of different fields of knowledge and research interests. Arsena Rychynsky, a well-known Ukrainian religious scholar whose views on the problem of unity of the Christian Church, overwhelmingly, are scientifically valid, meaningfully original and prognostically relevant. Under such a review, we would like to update some of the researcher's provisions, which directly or indirectly correlate with the uniqueness in her Ukrainian expression. To this end, we recall that, by the exact definition of I. Lysyak-Rudnytsky, Ukraine is quite rightly considered a classic country of the unified tradition. Located on the border of the two worlds, by which we understand the Orthodox East and the Catholic West, it has become the subject of influence of both the Greek (Orthodox) and Roman (Catholic) Churches, which, after all, has caused acute religious and religious events in Rus-Ukraine. inter-confessional controversy and repeated attempts at Orthodox-Catholic reconciliation, and even unification.

The work aims to identify the main achievements of historical science and prospects for further scientific research in the field of Orthodox-Catholic relations in the Right Bank Ukraine in the second half of the XIX – early XX centuries. The research methodology is based on the principles of historicism, objectivity, integrity, and systematics. The methods of analysis and synthesis, generalization, comparison are used in the work. The scientific novelty is that the main achievements of modern Ukrainian historical science and prospects for further scientific research in the field of Orthodox-Catholic relations in the Right Bank Ukraine in the second half of the nineteenth – the early twentieth century were determined. Conclusions. In the second half of the XIX – early XX century two opposite missionary processes occurred in Right-Bank Ukraine. On the one hand, the Russian authorities and Orthodox missionaries tried weakening the position of the Roman Catholic Church and persuade as many Catholics as possible to convert to Orthodoxy, and on the other hand, Catholic priests resisted these attempts and converted Orthodox people to the Latin faith. These processes are partially investigated in modern Ukrainian historiography, but some important aspects of this topic require further research. It is necessary: 1) to analyze the relations between the Orthodox and Catholic clergy in this period; 2) to study the activities of mixed Orthodox-Catholic church fraternities; 3) to investigate the relations of the Catholic clergy of Volhynia with the Czech Catholics who expressed a desire to convert to the Orthodox religion; 4) to conduct a comparative analysis of Orthodox and Catholic education, moral behavior of the Orthodox and Catholic clergy in the region; 5) to compile tables of conversions from Orthodoxy to Catholicism and vice versa and identify their reasons. This will make it possible to recreate a holistic picture of Orthodox-Catholic relations and determine their specificity in each of the three provinces of Right-Bank Ukraine.