Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Home Blog Page 1059

Jan Figel: Religious minorities face many types of social and religious discrimination in Pakistan[Interview]

0
ⒸFaithAndFreedomSummitNGO Coallition All rights reserved.

About blasphemy laws; violence against religious minorities; kidnapping, forced conversion and marriages of non-Muslim girls

HRWF (19.02.2022) – On the eve of the 8th Meeting of the Istanbul Process against religious intolerance, stigmatisation, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief hosted by Pakistan, EU Special Representative for Human Rights Eamon Gilmore delivered some welcoming remarks on behalf of the EU on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18.

Human Rights Without Frontiers interviewed former EU Special Envoy Jan Figel to share his views about the situation of religious freedom in Pakistan as during his mandate he had vigorously and successfully stood up for the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian sentenced to death by hanging on alleged blasphemy charges. After years spent on the death row, she was acquitted in 2018 by the Supreme Court on the grounds of insufficient evidence. She now lives in Canada.

HRWF: Pakistan is a beneficiary of the GSP+ scheme, which grants a privileged access for its products to the EU market, but members of the European Parliament and civil society organizations in Europe are pressing Brussels to suspend this status due to egregious violations of human rights in Pakistan. What is their main area of concern?

Jan Figel: Pakistan has been benefitting from trade preferences under the GSP+ program since 2014. The overall economic incentives from this unilateral trade advantage for the country are considerable, reaching billions of Euros. But almost every year the European Parliament adopts a critical resolution or statement on various crimes, human rights violations or judicial abuses. The GSP+ status came with the obligation for Pakistan to ratify and implement 27 international conventions, including commitments to guarantee human rights and religious freedom. This is a frequent and vast problem in Pakistan. The latest GSP+ assessment of Pakistan in 2020 by the Commission expressed a variety of serious concerns on the human rights situation in the country, notably the lack of progress in limiting the scope and implementation of the death penalty.

One of the most striking issues has been the continued use of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan since 1986 after they were adopted by the former military regime. Regrettably, civilian governments have not had enough goodwill, or courage, afterwards to get rid of these stringent provisions that are frequently misused against a neighbour or an opponent to settle personal scores. Almost 1900 persons have been charged in total so far, with the highest numbers in recent years. In 2019 the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief Ahmed Shaheed mentioned the case of Asia Bibi in his annual Report as one of the examples of a revival of anti-blasphemy and anti-apostasy laws and the use of public order laws to limit any expression deemed offensive to religious communities.

As a Special Envoy for the Promotion of Freedom of Religion or Belief outside the EU (2016-2019) I followed the case of Asia Bibi very closely and was involved with Pakistani authorities, repeatedly and intensively. The EU showed here its positive influence; it was an excellent example of effective diplomacy and soft power. Regrettably, this important effort has not been continued, there is no Special Envoy for FoRB outside the EU anymore. Obviously, FoRB is not a priority today as it was under Juncker´s Commission.

HRWF: To what extent are religious minorities victims of human rights violations and discrimination in Pakistan?

Jan Figel: Religious minorities face many types of social and religious discrimination. Such discrimination is also observed at the official level in state and public employment as well as in private sector jobs. Minorities are disliked, ignored and sidelined. Even in schools, children face such challenges. My Pakistani friends quite often tell me about their painful experiences.

Discrimination of religious minorities became a usual, daily phenomenon in Pakistan, both officially and socially in the larger society. State condemnation of violence and discrimination of religious minorities especially against Hindus and Christians is, regrettably, only a lip service. We all know that slogans and hollow statements can never replace sincere commitments, continued efforts and justice for all. They are just meant to appease the international audience.

The most severe situation concerns Ahmadis, who claim their Islamic identity and belonging, but this is not recognized by the State.  Members of this community are openly and constitutionally discriminated against and they are frequently attacked by violent mobs. The government repeatedly showed its impotence to protect religious minorities who are regularly harassed: mainly Christians, Hindus, Shias, Ahmadis and Sikhs.

HRWF: Can you give some examples of recent incidents targeting religious minorities? 

Jan Figel: There are too many examples to share, unfortunately. Here are some of them. In 2020 Saleem Masih, a 22-year-old man in the city of Kasur, in Punjab province, was tortured to death by local landlords after they accused him of ‘polluting’ the water he bathed in. His only fault was that he was a Christian He was tortured to death for taking a dip in a village tube well in Pakistan.

Tabitha Gill, a Christian nurse in Karachi, was beaten in January 2021 by her Muslim colleagues who accused her of blasphemy.

Recently, Salma Tanveer, a Muslim woman and a mother of five children, was sentenced to death in September 2021 after spending nine years in prison.

Aneeqa Ateeq, a 26-year-old Muslim woman, was also sentenced to death in January 2022.

Some radical Muslims killed a Shia sect cleric Maulana Khan for alleged blasphemy in autumn 2020 in Karachi.

Blasphemy incidents affect Muslims and non-believers as well. It is critically high time to look closely at these issues and correct this whole unjust system.

A Sri Lankan factory manager was beaten to death and set ablaze by a mob over blasphemy accusations in Sialkot city, in Punjab, in December last.

Recently, in February, a crowd snatched a man accused of blasphemy at a police station in Khanewal, also in the Punjab Province. He was beaten and hanged. As journalist Waqar Gillani puts it, there is an unending tale of horror in Pakistan…

One must wonder where the rule of law is. On which side do the police stand?

Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was shot dead by an official bodyguard in 2011 because he criticized the blasphemy laws and demanded Asia Bibi to be pardoned.  Shortly after Taseer was gunned down, Shabaz Bhatti, the Federal Minister for Minorities and the only Christian in the Cabinet was shot dead.

Peace in society is the fruit of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied, I repeated during my missions to Pakistan in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and Ravalpindi. Justice needs more than labels, slogans or words – it needs action, decisions and perseverance.

HRWF: Is there some truth in the kidnapping and forced conversion stories of about 1000 Pakistani girls per year?

Jan Figel: Rights groups say that every year in Pakistan as many as 1,000 minority girls are forcibly converted to Islam, often after being abducted or tricked. According to Amarnath Motumal, the vice-chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an estimated 20 or more Hindu girls are abducted and forcefully converted every month, although exact figures are impossible to gather.

In a shocking decision, the Lahore High Court has recently ruled in favour of a Muslim perpetrator who forcibly abducted, converted to Islam and married an underage Christian girl called Maria Shahbaz. The 14-year-old girl was abducted in Faisalabad in April 2020.

So, it is a majority Muslim dominance issue. The formal law does not allow marriage before 18 years. Such child conversions and marriages are therefore illegal. Recently, Pakistan has tried to pass a law against forced conversions but later the Government gave in to the pressure of religious extremists and in September the bill was deferred.

Originally published by Willy Fautré, Human Rights Without Frontiers (HRWF) at their website.

The participation of Muslims in the Russian army during the Liberation of Bulgaria in 1877-1878

0

The national holiday of the Republic of Bulgaria on March 3 (national holiday since 1990). On March 3 [February 19, old style], 1878 was signed the San Stefano Peace Treaty between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, which ended the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 (tenth in a series of Russo-Turkish wars), which was called by the Bulgarians “Liberation war”, as it led to the liberation of Bulgarians from the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the Third Bulgarian kingdom. On the eve of the Bulgarian national holiday we open a forgotten page in the history of the Liberation of Bulgaria in the 19th century, related to the participation of Muslims from the Caucasus in the Russian army in liberating the fraternal Orthodox Bulgarian people from sultan’s oppression.

During the years of the Russo-Turkish War of Liberation from 1877-1878, the Russian army was mainly recruited from South Russia to the North Caucasus (South Caucasus is in Ottoman Turkey), including Cossacks (Don and Cuban), Chuvash, Ingush , Chechens, Kumits, even Circassians. The formation of the Tersko-Mountain Cavalry Regiment was successfully completed by November 25, 1876. During the formation of the regiment, the military leadership set itself the task of giving it the external attributes of a regular cavalry. A uniform form of clothing has been introduced for all staff. Circassian uniforms are supposed to be black, without trimmings, white beshmets, black tops with white tops, with soft Asian boots, and the epaulets are blue, with the letters T-G.

The regiment was created by the population of the Terek region in the Caucasus and consists mainly of Ingush and Ossetians, but there are also Russians, Georgians and Chechens. Two divisions were created for the regiment – Ossetian and Ingush, and each of them was exceptionally allowed to march with his own flag. On December 1, the individual flags of the divisions were awarded in a solemn atmosphere: for loyalty and devotion to Russia to the Ingush people in 1841, and to the Ossetian – in 1845. Interestingly, the Ingush flag was completely scarlet and very similar. today’s Turkish, while Ossetian is sky blue. Each flag is raised in line with all the honors awarded to the flags and standards of the army statute. In addition, each hundred has its own distinctive sign that serves as its flag.

On December 7, 1876, the Terek-Mountain Cavalry Irregular Regiment, consisting of troops “especially capable of the actions of the small war in mountainous countries”, set off on the Rostov-Vladikavkaz railway to Chisinau, where the headquarters of the Danube army, and arrives there on December 15. In addition to this regiment, the Cuban and Terek squadrons, the Vladikavkaz Cavalry Cossack Regiment, two hundred platoon members of the Kuban Cossack Army and the 2nd Kuban Cossack Regiment set out in the convoy of His Majesty from the Tersk and Kuban regions in the Danube Army.

On May 24, 1877, the Commander-in-Chief of the Caucasian Army ordered the commander of the troops from the Terek region to proceed with the formation of the 2nd Terek-Mountain Cavalry Irregular Regiment with a 400-strong composition: one hundred Kabardians, Balkars, Ossetians and Ingush. Adjutant Colonel Wittgenstein was appointed regiment commander. At the same time he was the commander of the Terek cavalry and irregular brigade, consisting of the Chechen and Kabardino-Kumik cavalry irregular regiments.

The composition of the Chechen regiment is also international. In it, along with the Chechens, the Russians Flor Ekimov, Vasily Frolov, Ivan Antipov, Trofim Kurkin also serve; the Germans Karl Taichmann, Wolf Dorfstein; Ingush Asav Kuriev, Tokh Bekov, Tomi Doltmurziev and others, Ossetians – Zaur Thostov, Peter Khutsistov, mountain Jews – Shamil Uruskhanov, Uruskhan Shamayev. Thus, in addition to the Don Cossacks, the Terek Cossacks took an active part in the Russo-Turkish War of the 1970s in the following Cossack troops:

Combined Caucasian Cossack Division

Cuban 2nd Regiment

Don-Cossack 30th Regiment

Vladikavkaz-Ossetian Cossack Regiment

Tersko-upper-mountain cavalry and regular regiment

Don-Cossack 1st cavalry battery

1st Don-Cossack Division

Don-Cossack 15th Regiment

Don-Cossack 16th Regiment

Don-Cossack 17th Regiment

Don-Cossack 18th Regiment

11th, 16th and 17th Horse Battery

2nd Don-Cossack Division

Don-Cossack 24th Regiment

Don-Cossack 36th Regiment

Don-Cossack 38th Regiment

Don-Cossack 39th Regiment

Don-Cossack 1st cavalry battery

Don-Cossack 21st, 23rd, 26th, 29th, 31st, 34th, 35th, 37th, 40th regiments

Leib Guards Ataman Regiment

Leib Guards Don-Cossack Regiment

Ural-Caucasian hundred

7th Plastun Division of the Cuban Army

3rd Gendarmerie Squadron

Don-Cossack battery 7th, 8th, 10th, 15th, 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th

Mountain battery 1st and 2nd

Siege artillery

Rapid-fire battery

As early as 1810, a treaty was signed in the Vladikavkaz fortress for the voluntary accession of Ingushetia to Russia. The significance of this event for the historical destiny of the Ingush people is difficult to assess. Becoming part of Russia forever saves the mountaineers from the age-old threat of their physical destruction by Shah’s Persia and the Ottoman Empire. Russia, standing at a much higher level of socio-economic and cultural development, has a beneficial effect on the whole way of life of the Ingush. The Russian government and its Caucasian administration attach great importance in their plans to combat the expansion of the Ottoman Empire and Shah’s Iran in the Caucasus to the organization of military units with representatives of the mountain peoples and their attraction to their country. In the 1980s, the tsarist government for the protection of the Caucasus began to create military detachments of mountaineers.

When the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829 began, General Paskevich, Commander-in-Chief of the Caucasus Army, wrote: . ” In this war, along with the militia from the Caucasus, with the mountaineers from Dagestan, the Chechen cavalry led by Bey-Bulat Taimiev also took part. At the beginning of this war, Paskevich summoned Bey-Bulat with 60 Chechens to Tiflis (Tbilisi). From Tiflis in the active army 33 people go to them. Chechen cavalry take part in the march of Russian troops to Erzurum (Arzrum).

 The Ingush, like other peoples of the Caucasus, took part in the Crimean War of 1853-1856. Together with Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Georgians, Chechens, Dagestanis, Kabardians and Ossetians, they actively fought against the Turks in the Caucasus. front. Among those awarded a memorable bronze medal at the end of the war were 325 Ingush, regular cavalry and 80 temporary militia officers who took part in the fighting “against the rebellious mountaineers and against the Turks at the Caucasus Battle Theater …”.

The fighting in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, as well as during the previous wars between Russia and the Ottoman Empire in the XIX century, unfolded on two fronts – the Balkans and the Caucasus (Asia Minor). Irregular (militia) units formed by representatives of the peoples of the North Caucasus are also fighting on these two fronts in the Russian army. From the first to the last day of the war, the Tersko-Mountain Cavalry Irregular Regiment, consisting of 400 Ossetians and Ingush, took part in the Balkan Front. On the Caucasian front, the 2nd and 3rd Dagestan, Chechen, Kabardino-Kumik cavalry and irregular regiments, numbering 600 sabers, took part in the fighting.

In the Terek region, “almost the entire population expressed a desire to join the militia.” In the first days of the call, volunteers were recruited more than necessary to create a regiment. 345 Ossetians and 324 Ingush expressed a desire to join the regiment in the first week of its formation. All in all, 504 people need to be recruited (480 horsemen, 8 cadets, 16 curators). According to the established temporary marching staff, it consists of 15 officers, 8 cadets, 16 curators, 480 horsemen, 5 trumpeters, 4 clerks, 1 doctor, 2 paramedics, and 1 Asian baker. The commander of the Vladikavkaz district, Colonel PF Ponkratov, was appointed commander of the Tersko-Mountain Regiment, cornet adjutant – cornet Zheleznyakov, and regimental cashier and quartermaster – cornet Kosobryukhov. Instead of the previously expected Staff Captain Bekmurzy Kubatiev, Captain Arslan-Murza Esiev became Commander of the Ossetian Division, and Lieutenant Colonel Banukho Bazorkin was entrusted with the command of the Ingush Division. Cornet Agu-Bekir Dudarov and Lieutenant Totradze Zembatov were appointed commanders of the Ossetian hundreds, and Lieutenant Botako Uzhahov and Major Banuho Dolgiev were appointed commanders of the Ingush hundreds.

The following were enlisted as subaltern officers (junior officers) in the regiment: in the 1st (Ossetian) division – ensigns (flag bearers) Miserbi Gutiev, Gidanov, Dzhambulat Cherekov, Getagas Thostov, Alexander Dzugaev, Genarduko Abisalov and Temu (Ingush) Division – Lieutenant Magi Nauruzov, Ensigns Doh Malsagov, Kerim Bogatyrev, Artagan Malsagov, Captain Nikolai Aldiev, Lieutenant Genarduko Esenov, Lieutenants Umar Sampiev and Gani Dzhemiev.

On September 24, 1877, the Ingush division was sent to the XIII Army Corps by the Active Army, which is part of the Eastern (Ruse) detachment. He was attached to the eighth cavalry division of the Sinankoi Corps Detachment. On October 12, together with the Cossacks of the 36th Don Regiment, he took part in repelling a Turkish attack near the villages of Nisovo, Ruse region and in reconnaissance battles behind the Beli Lom River. On October 18, he carried out a reconnaissance in the area of ​​the villages of Svalenik, Ljubljana and Sadina. In early November, Turkish troops intensified their activities in the Cherni Lom area. The Ingush division took part in the battles near the village of Katselovo and showed exceptional courage. From November 12 to 17, the division fought in the area of ​​Tserovets and Katselovo in aid of the Life Guards Ataman Cossack Regiment. front line and conduct reconnaissance.

However, many Caucasians are also fighting on the opposing side – both in the Caucasus itself and in the Caucasian diaspora. According to the Cuban historian ED Felitsin, 13,586 people emigrated from Kuban to Turkey from 1871 to 1883, including 11,417 Adyghe and 1,809 Abaza. In 1878, the most numerous were Abkhazian volunteers in the Ottoman army. . The Russo-Turkish war closed the door to their homeland forever through these emigrants from the Caucasus. A total of nearly 50,000 Abkhazians have been deported or emigrated due to collaboration with Turkish authorities. This vast expat community actively assisted the Hashemite dynasty in establishing the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The researcher from the Adygea Republican Institute for Humanitarian Studies Samir Hopko gives us a reference to the Russian headquarters for the Caucasian cavalry in the ranks of the Ottoman army of the Balkan Battle Theater: in Western Bulgaria – 9250 swords, in Eastern Bulgaria – 5000 swords, in the area of ​​Babadag – 1800 sabi. In his diary, General PD Zotov described in the division of Hassan Sabli Pasha – 800 Caucasians, in the division of Shefnet Pasha – 1000 Caucasians, in the division of Zefi Pasha – 2200 fighters of Caucasian nationalities. In general, the Caucasian cavalry far outnumbers the regular Turkish cavalry. For example, in October 1877 in the region of Pleven-Lovech operated 5,000 Caucasian cavalry and 40 squadrons of cavalry from the regular Turkish army (against 118 squadrons of Russian cavalry). There are also Caucasians among the senior officers in the Ottoman headquarters: Rauf Pasha, Deli Khosrev Pasha, Cherkez Hassan, Cherkez Osman Pasha, Shefket Pasha, Cherkez Ibrahim Pasha, Dilaver Karzeg Pasha, Cherkez Dilaver Pasha, Fuad Pasha, Suleiman Pasha, Mehme Pasha . According to Skobelev’s report, Osman Pasha’s army in Pleven numbered 28,000, of which 20,000 were regular infantry and 8,000 Caucasian cavalry (cf. Collection of Materials on the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, on the Balkan Peninsula, St. Petersburg, 1898, no. II, pp. 268).

According to Nemirovich-Danchenko, there are 1,000 Caucasian volunteers at the headquarters of Suleiman Pasha’s army. In Russian military reports, we find that Caucasians are much better armed than Turks and Russians. In the battle of Shipka, they were described as magnificent snipers. The Cossack colonel Dukmasov, Skobelev’s adjutant, pays special attention to the tactical maneuvers of the Caucasians in his memoirs. He was particularly impressed by the attack of two regiments of the Sultan’s Guard. We also find extensive information about the Caucasians in the letters of Count NP Ignatiev, a former Russian ambassador to Istanbul who was at the imperial headquarters during the war.

After the appointment of General Dondukov-Korsakov as Imperial Russian Commissioner in Bulgaria, the division was handed over to him. On May 24, the Ingush Division left the XIII Army Corps. Until August 28, 1878, the division held positions in the Rhodopes, after which it was included in the Burgas detachment. On October 5 he was loaded on ships and two days later arrived in Sevastopol. He left for Vladikavkaz, where he was disbanded on November 23, 1878.

Adjutant General Dondukov-Korsakov praised Ingush’s participation in the Russo-Turkish War. On September 2, 1878, he issued a special order in Plovdiv thanking the Tersko-Mountain Cavalry Regiment.

After the end of the work of the Berlin Congress (June-July 1878) it was decided to reduce the number of Russian troops temporarily stationed in Bulgaria. Among them is the Tersko-Mountain Regiment, which on August 28 was removed from a position in the Rhodope Mountains and included in the Burgas detachment. On October 5 the regiment was loaded on steamers in Burgas and two days later arrived in Sevastopol, after which they were warmly welcomed in Vladikavkaz, on October 23, 1878 it was disbanded and its cavalry dispersed to their homes.

Blown in glory, the Tersko-Mountain Cavalry Irregular Regiment returns to its homeland. The chests of many of the warriors are decorated with orders and medals, with St. George’s crosses for bravery. Many awards and thanks were received by the regimental commander Colonel PF Pankratov. The military leadership for bravery and composure in battle repeatedly distinguished him among other unit commanders, he was entrusted with the command of the united flying detachments, participants in the front line. The documents of the regimental headquarters preserved in the archives testify that PF Pankratov was a just and caring commander. Even in the conditions of the poorly organized quartermaster service of the active Danube Army, he finds the means and opportunities to ensure that his horsemen are warmly dressed and shod, emphasizing that this is the “first condition for health”.

In the above ranks are produced: the participant in the Crimean War, distinguished in the storming of the Turkish fortress of Silistra, Ensign Timurko Borov; Lieutenant Batako Uzhakhov. With the Order of St. Vladimir, 4th degree was awarded Captain Nikolai Aldiev. During the founding of the Ingush Division in the Lower Danube Detachment, he was the military commander of the city of Izmail, and from January 1878 he served as a division commander. On the eve of the recall of the Tersko-Mountain Regiment in the homeland, Captain Aldiev, by order of the headquarters of the active army, was sent to the Don Cossack Regiment №4 and continued his service in southern Bulgaria. Adjutant General Adjutant General AM Dondukov-Korsakov gave an excellent assessment of the Tersko-Mountain Regiment. In his order, issued on September 2, 1878 in the city of Philippopolis (Plovdiv), he said the following:

“In parting with you, brave horsemen of the Tersko-Gorski cavalry-irregular regiment, I consider it my heartfelt duty to express my sincere gratitude to you for your worthy service. The Ingush division was under the command of the XIII Corps for most of the past campaign under my command, and all the time he served in the front in the detachments and in all his deeds with examples of self-sacrifice, courage and all military valor. glory and respect from all your colleagues. The awards and flag received by the Ingush Division will testify upon returning home, how much is appreciated … the worthy service of the Ingush in the last campaign; your elders and your relatives will welcome you with pride when you return to the villages, having fulfilled their duty with dignity and proved the eternal devotion of the Ingush people to the Fatherland. For my part, I am happy and I will proudly remember that under my leadership there were such exemplary young men as the glorious Ingush Division. I consider it the most pleasant duty to pay a well-deserved tribute and the most sincere gratitude to the glorious regimental commander Colonel Pankratov, so brilliantly fulfilling all the orders given to him during the war, who was one of my most active combat collaborators in my command. of the XIII Corps. To the division commanders Major Esiev and to Captain Aldiev, to the commanders of hundreds, Ensign Thostov, Lieutenant Zembatov, Lieutenant Uzhahov and Ensign Malsagov, I express my sincere and warm gratitude for the valiant and diligent service. To my brave colleagues – all the ranks of the Tersko-Mountain Cavalry Irregular Regiment, for which I will forever cherish the most precious memory – with all my heart I wish you new glory, happiness and all the best. “

10 clever ways to make your perfume last longer

0

Isn’t it magical to enter a room and the scent of sandalwood, jasmine or bergamot announces your arrival? Which, we admit, is a little difficult to achieve if your perfume disappears after just a few hours. This is a common problem with pure fragrances. There are a few tricks to make your perfume last longer than usual.

1. Apply to the points with a strong pulse. In fact, there is a functional reason why we tend to apply the perfume on certain points with increased heart rate. The skin is thinnest at these points, which means it is closer to your blood and body heat. When the aroma warms up, the aromatization process begins.

2. Do not rub your wrists into each other. Once applied to key points, you can instinctively rub your wrists or elbows together to absorb the scent (especially if your skin is quite moist). But experts advise not to do it. This just makes the top notes burn a little faster. If you want to mix two scents together – or want to wipe off some of the juice – try patting your wrists instead of rubbing them.

3. Spray your heart. Since applying perfume to areas with thinner skin helps to radiate the aroma, why not apply it where your heart rate is strongest? The scent will travel upwards, your heart will act as a diffuser.

4. Spray after showering. Spray perfume immediately after a bath, as the scent opens after steaming the skin. When you come out of the shower, your skin and body temperature are high. Your skin is clean and free of sweat and excess oil, which can buffer the scent.

5. Keep your skin well hydrated. If you prefer an evening shower, but want your morning scent to last all day; you don’t have to jump in the shower to improve your perfume. Body oil, body lotion or moisturizing balm will also help keep the scent longer. Just apply the product of your choice on the areas you want to spray and spraying moisture should help the perfume leave a stronger mark.

6. Layer your fragrances. If you use an aromatic body oil or lotion, placing it under the perfume can improve the aroma and keep your skin hydrated, which makes both fragrances last longer.

7. Spray on clothes. When using perfume water, spray your clothes rather than your skin. The fabrics hold on to the aroma – and the memories associated with it.

8. Choose perfume water. You have probably seen one of the two placed on the labels of perfumes: eau de toilette and eau de parfum. EDPs have a higher concentration of fragrance, which makes them usually stronger and longer lasting.

9. Or use perfume oil. Roll-on perfume oils are generally much more concentrated, as you apply them directly to the pulse points instead of spraying them in the air.

10. Check the base notes. All your base notes will last longer. While the top notes of floral and citrus fruits are the ones you usually feel right away, but disappear the fastest.

The Patriarchate of Alexandria continues to ordain new bishops

0

After the aggravation of the ecclesiastical situation in Africa, which as a continent is under the jurisdiction of the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria, on the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee, February 13, 2022, another new bishop was ordained in Cairo, again African. This is Bishop Nectarius of Gulu and Northern Uganda.

The ordination of the new African bishop took place in the church “St. Nicholas ”in Hamzaoui, Cairo, by His Beatitude Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria together with Archbishop Damian of Sinai and with hierarchs of the Patriarchate and the Greek Orthodox Church. In his speech at the ordination, Ep. Nectarios expressed his gratitude to the archbishop and other hierarchs, clergy and laity of the Greek Church, who helped him establish himself as a theologian and clergyman of the Orthodox Church. He also duly thanked Patriarch Theodore of Alexandria, who gave him paternal attention and trust, placing him in responsible service among the people of his native Uganda. For his part, the patriarch highlighted the exemplary and successful work of Archimandrite Nectarios and already as a bishop wished him to always have two important things in his work: inspired vision and faith to fulfill the command of Jesus Christ, following his sacrifice.

The bishop (secular name Nicolae Cabuye) was born in Uganda in 1982 to a family of fifteen Roman Catholics. He graduated from the Rizari Seminary in Athens, then the Faculty of Theology there, specializing in ecclesiastical law. He also graduated in management training in the United States, and finally on November 1, 2013 he was ordained a monk by Archbishop Jerome II of Athens, who named him the former Metropolitan of Pendapolis of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, St. Nectarios of Aegina. For the next few years he was ordained hierodeacon and hieromonk in Athens, and eventually became a clergyman of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in Africa. Meanwhile, his entire family and many others around them converted to the Orthodox faith.

In recent weeks, this is the third newly ordained bishop for Africa and the second African of the three. Which comes to show that the current personnel policy of the predominantly Greek hierarchy of the patriarchate has had its weaknesses. It was they who gave rise to the Moscow Patriarchate to create a schism among African clergy by organizing its own exarchate in Africa.

“On the rivers of Babylon”: a commentary on Psalm 136

0

February 15/28, 2021 – Week of the Prodigal Son, the second preparatory to Great Lent. On the eve of this day, at the all-night vigil, the 136th psalm “On the Rivers of Babylon” is sung. Pravoslavie.Ru offers a theological and philological commentary on this hymn from Orthodox perspective.

The Great Forty Day is preceded by four preparatory weeks. During this period, the Lenten Triod offers many liturgical texts that prepare us for Great Lent. So, at matins on the Week of the Prodigal Son and then on the Week of Meat and Cheesefare, after singing the polyeleos psalms (134 and 135) “Praise the name of the Lord” and “Confess to the Lord”, Psalm 136 “On the rivers of Babylon” is also sung.

The Typicon, giving liturgical instructions at Matins on the Week of the Prodigal Son, instructs us to sing the third psalm to two polyeleic psalms: “On the rivers of Babylon” with red alleluia[1]. The Church Slavonic phrase “red alleluia” literally translates as “beautiful alleluia”[2]. It can be seen that the Typicon, in ordering to sing this psalm in this way, distinguishes it from the background of the previous two psalms.

The 136th psalm consists of nine verses. In the Church Slavonic texts of the Bible, it is titled with the words: “To David Jeremiah”[3]. In the Hebrew Bible, the psalm is not inscribed with the name of the author; in the Latin and Greek Bibles, the name of David is given[4].

There are various opinions related to the authorship of the 136th psalm. Strong nostalgia for the homeland, clearly expressed in it (verses 5-6), prompts us to think that the author was among those captives who, after the decree of the Persian king Cyrus in 538 BC, returned to destroyed Jerusalem.

The Church Slavonic text of the 136th psalm is as follows:

“David Jeremiah.

On the rivers of Babylon, there with gray hair and plakakh, always remember Zion to us. In the midst of his willows, our organs are obesih. As if there were questions about the captivity of us about the words of the song and leading us about the singing: sing to us from the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the song of the Lord in a foreign land? If I forget you, Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten. Cling my tongue to my larynx, if I do not remember you, if I do not offer Jerusalem, as if at the beginning of my joy. Remember, O Lord, sons of Edom, on the day of Jerusalem, who say: exhaust, exhaust to its foundations. Cursed daughter of Babylon, blessed is he who will repay you your recompense, even if you repaid us. Blessed is he who has and smashes your babies on a stone”[5].

Babylonian captivity

“On the rivers of Babylon” – the use of the plural in the phrase “by the rivers” (synodal translation) indicates various areas along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers with their tributaries and artificial canals, drawn by the Babylonians to irrigate their fields, where captive Jewish families were and lived[ 6].

The plural of the verbs “sedokhom and plakahom” refers to the communication of captives among themselves. Together they cry and empathize with each other, remembering Zion – in this case, the word is associated with Jerusalem or the Temple.

We are in captivity of sin – “on the rivers of Babylon”

“On verbiy… obesihom” – the Church Slavonic verb “obesity”, as well as the Greek “κρεμασθῆναι”, in the context of the 2nd verse is translated into Russian as “hung”.

“Our organs” – in the Greek text is the word ὄργανα. It was borrowed into the Church Slavonic text without translation. The word ὄργανα is translated into Russian as “instruments”, while reading the synodal translation, we can understand that we are talking about musical instruments: “we hung our harps”. Musical instruments hung from trees indicate that the Jews have put aside the fun.

The hymn “On the rivers of Babylon” from the first verses reveals the whole meaning of Great Lent. We are in the captivity of sin – “on the rivers of Babylon.” Like the Jews, we need to put aside the joy and think about our sins, remember Zion – the Kingdom of Heaven or Heavenly Jerusalem.

Zion songs

“As if there were questions about the captives of us about the words of the song and leading us about the song: sing to us from the songs of Zion”: if translated from Hebrew, this verse reads like this: “There those who captured us demanded from us the words of the song; and our oppressors are gladness: sing to us from the songs of Zion.”

“Questioner” – “ordered” or “demanded”. The captive Babylonians demanded that the Jews say to them a few words from the Divine songs and praises that they sang in Jerusalem[7].

“How can we sing the song of the Lord in a foreign land?” – so you can translate the fourth verse. “Why were they not allowed to sing in a foreign land? Because unclean ears should not have heard these mysterious hymns”[8] – St. John Chrysostom interprets this passage[9].

“Foreign land” is not just a country far from the holy city, it is an unclean pagan land (see: Ezek. 4: 13-14), which gave “unclean bread”.

St. John Chrysostom calls with special care to observe oneself and build a real life in such a way that one does not become captives, alien and excommunicated from the father’s city[10]. “We will all listen to this and learn from it. Just as when they were deprived of the city, then they began to look for it, so many of us will experience the same thing when on that day they will be deprived of the mountainous Jerusalem” [11], – this is how St. John comments on the 136th psalm.

Jerusalem – the beginning of joy

“If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten. Cling my tongue to my larynx, if I don’t remember you, if I don’t offer Jerusalem, as if at the beginning of my joy”: the fifth and sixth verses are built on the principle of an oath: “If I forget, let my right hand forget me; if I don’t remember, let my tongue stick to the palate.” The author of the psalm is ready to be punished for breaking his vows, that is, if he does not set Jerusalem as the beginning of his joy, may the Lord take away from him the opportunity to play the harp with his right hand, and forbid his tongue to sing the songs of Zion.

And the singing of this psalm in the preparatory period for Great Lent calls us to place Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Heaven, as the beginning of our joy.

Sons of Edom

The psalmist, turning to God, prays to the Lord to remember the evil deeds of the Edomites that they committed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC. (see: Obd. 1: 10–15): “Remember, Lord, sons of Edom, on the day of Jerusalem, saying: exhaust, exhaust to the foundations of it.”

The Idumeans, a kindred people to the Jews, have always been hostile to their brother and in all the sad events of his life they took an active and evil part (see: Am. 1: 11).

And the “day of Jerusalem” is the day when Jerusalem was completely destroyed, the city was deprived of defensive walls and towers, literally “undressed” (Is. 3: 17).

Daughter of Babylon

“Babylon’s accursed daughter, blessed is he who will reward you with your recompense, which you have rewarded us” – in the Russian translation of the psalm, the daughter of Babylon is called a devastator. The Greek text calls her “unfortunate” (ταλαίπωρος [12]), hence the word “cursed” – unhappy, miserable [13].

The unsightly expression “blessed is he who takes and breaks your babies against a stone,” according to some comments on the Psalter, points to the coarse and inhumane features of the Israeli religion. No matter how we treat the words of the psalm, the psalmist, apparently, does not wish death to all the innocent children of Babylon, but asks the Lord to remember quite specific destroyers what they did to Zion.

“Infants” – the image of the beginnings of petty allowances and annoyances that can grow to ineradicable passions

And in the spiritual life, many things can be compared with babies – this is an image of the beginnings of petty allowances and annoyances that can grow into deep, ineradicable passions and vices. Now they seem so small and defenseless that it is somehow even cruel to resist them [14]. But it is precisely at this initial stage that it is necessary to fight them – “blessed is he who breaks them against a stone.”

***

The 136th psalm, which is sung only three times a year during the all-night vigil during the preparatory weeks, shows us the great disappointment of the Jewish people, who lost their holy place – Jerusalem. The text also encourages us to think about the price of those great blessings that the Lord will give us.

Without any doubt, the sadness and tears of the Jewish captives should inspire us to cherish all the gifts sent from God.

Notes:

[1] Typicon, siest Ustav. M.: Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2002. S. 825.

 [2] Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. Issue. 8. M., 1981. S. 19–20.

 [3] Psalter. M., 2013. S. 367.

 [4] Explanatory Bible, or Commentaries on all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, edited by A.P. Lopukhin. M., 2009. S. 512.

 [5] Psalter. S. 367.

[6] Explanatory Bible, or Commentaries on all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, edited by A.P. Lopukhin. S. 513.

 [7] Razumovsky G., archpriest. Explanation of the Holy Book of Psalms. M., 2002. S. 822.

 [8] St. John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Psalms // St. John Chrysostom. Creations. T. 5. Book. 1. St. Petersburg, 1899, p. 451.

 [9] Ibid.

 [10] Razumovsky G., archpriest. Explanation of the Holy Book of Psalms. S. 822.

[11] St. John Chrysostom. Conversations on the Psalms // Creations. T. 5. Book. 1. S. 451.

 [12] Liddell H.G., Scott. R. Greek-English Lexicon. Oxford, 1996. P. 1753.

 [13] Dictionary of the Russian language of the XI-XVII centuries. Issue. 12. M., 1987. S. 320.

 [14] Lewis K. Reflection on the Psalms // Lewis K. Collected Works. T. 8. M., 2008. S. 334.

Authors: Professor Larisa Marsheva, Petr Gramatik, February 26, 2021, https://pravoslavie.ru/137624.html (in Russian).

Unique artifact – a microwritten copy of the American Constitution on а metal plate

0

The unique document/artifact found in Plovdiv (Bulgaria) – a micro-copy of the American Constitution engraved on a metal (aluminum) plate, which dates back to the era of the First Constitutional Period in the Ottoman Empire, about which you will find more detailed information below:

In 1865, the movement of progressive Turkish intellectuals “Yeni Osmanlar” /Young Ottomans/, later called “Young Turks”, was founded, whose ideas were later developed and implemented by Kemal Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey. In Paris, the core of the movement was supported by the wealthy emigrant and former minister Mustafa Fazli Pasha. Among its members are Ibrahim Shinazi, Namak Kemal (1840-1888), Zia Pasha (1829-1880) – the founders of modern Turkish literature. In Paris, Shinazi collaborated with Lamartine. In 1860, on October 22, he and Agia Effendi published the first private newspaper, Terjumani Ahval, and later in 1862, Tasfiri Esphar. Only in Istanbul between 1867 and 1878. The periodicals numbered 113. The newspapers explained concepts and new technical terms such as a constitution, a constitutional monarchy, a parliament, or even a republic. The republican idea is not alien to them. Namik Kemal’s close friend Mustafa Rashid wrote: “N. Kemal Kemal was not only against tyrannical power, but an enemy of the sultan, of monarchism. Members of the movement needed information from France and the United States on the latest developments in democracy in theoretical and practical-political terms – censorship in the Turkish Empire has intensified after the translation and publication in Turkey of the Communist Manifesto and the Declaration of Human Rights ”. Imperial censorship, especially the censors of the “red” (bloody) Sultan Abdul-Hamid II, even banned the publication of the chemical formula of water (H2O), as someone could read on it so much “Hamid II is a zero”. The opposition is forced to be very careful and work in secret. It is normal to be a Young Turk, a Freemason and a follower of Sufism for the period described. The Bektashi considered Freemasonry a secret society of initiates, similar to theirs (both persecuted by the sultan’s rule) and established close ties, especially between the Melami Order and the Young Turk Freemasons in the Balkans. Regiment Sadak Bay (1908, Monastir) reports that a large number of its officers in Macedonia are members of this dervish order. Also the founder of the Ottoman Society for Freedom in Thessaloniki (1906) Bursali Tahir is dedicated to the Order of Sufis Melami. The first lodge in Turkey was founded in 1721. Mahmud I in 1748 banned Freemasonry. In 1826, Mahmud II banned the Bektashi order and disbanded the janissary corps. In 1839, the Grand Vizier Mustafa Rashid Pasha carried out reforms and restored Freemasonry. The founder and first sovereign commander of the Scottish ritual in Turkey (1864) was Prince Abdulhalim Pasha, brother of the governor of Egypt and uncle of the successor governor Ismail Pasha. In 1869, the Supreme Soviet of Turkey was recognized by the American jurisdiction of the South. Turkish historian Abdul Kadim Zalum believes that Masons were Ali Pasha, Fuat Pasha, Midhat Pasha and Talaat Pasha.

Valuable American diplomatic documents can be found in the correspondence with the Congress, concerning the Masonic intervention in the coup d’etat in the Ottoman capital of 1876 (cf. No. 305 / 30.05.1876, – In: Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, transmitted to Congress with Annual Message of the President. December 4, 1876, Washington, 1876, pp. 568-569; No. 307 / 17.06.1876, – In: ibid., pp. 572-573; No. 310 / 10.08 .1876, – In: ibid., Pp. 578-582, No. 311 / 01.09.1876, – In: ibid., Pp. 583-584, No. 312 / 13.09.1876, – In: ibid., Pp. 584-586). In 1876, Midhat Pasha, with the help of the Liberal reformist Young Turkey, succeeded in removing Abdul-Aziz from the throne, and a few days later the sultan committed suicide. His nephew Murad V ascended the throne, and liberal journalists Zia Pasha and Namik Kemal became private secretaries of the new sultan.

In 1861, a Protestant line in Constantinople attempted direct intervention in the church struggles of the Bulgarian people (for the attitude of Protestants to the church struggle in addition to the notes in the Missionary Herald; for Long’s opinion, see Constantinople, XIII, 36). September 1, 1862, and the special studio of J. Clark), about which Manyo Stoyanov gives us important information. Just when the situation of the Bulgarians was most difficult, the bishop leaders were sent into exile, the Uniate movement, supported by the Turkish government, was advancing, and Russian representatives supported the Greek Patriarchate, the branch of the Evangelical Alliance sent an delegation to Constantinople. (the delegation consisted of Dr. Yul. Menlingen, Sultan’s doctor, Armenian Protestant pastor H. Sahadjian and Dr. El. Riggs), which met with Bulgarian leaders Todor Burmov, Nikola P. Tapchileshtov and Dr. Zah. Strumski and offered them to turn for help to the union, which in turn would insist on the governments of the Protestant states in Constantinople, in the first place before the British, to intercede before the High Gate to settle the Bulgarian-Greek dispute.

For the Bulgarians at that time, help, wherever it came from, was expensive “, as Burmov writes, and therefore the three Bulgarian leaders submitted a petition to the Evangelical Union, signed by 33 Bulgarians and two bishops, in which they set out their demands in the struggle and prayed for support. Based on this request, the Constantinople branch of the union wrote to the President in London K. Erdlis, who spoke on the issue with the British Foreign Secretary John Russell and the Turkish representative in London Musuris, and wrote to the English representative in Constantinople H. Bulver. Diplomatic representatives and other Protestant countries in Constantinople (the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) were also mentioned, who took an interest in the issue and some of them spoke to Ali Nasha, but nothing followed. The English representative Bulver expressed his sympathy for the Bulgarian people to the Bulgarian representatives, but stated that he was uncomfortable interfering in Turkey’s domestic policy. His colleagues – representatives of other Protestant countries – showed solidarity with him. Bulver and other diplomats may have realized that the missionaries’ hopes were in vain, especially after the collapse of the union. For example, Dr. St. Chomakov, who was in Constantinople at the time, suggested that the Bulgarian church be organized as Protestant only on two principles: 1) the Bible as the only rule of faith and morals and 2) complete separation. of the church by the state. Moreover, according to Clark’s study, a few days before Ilarion Makariopolski was sent into exile, Riggs had entered into written negotiations with him to form a union with the Protestants because he had been told that Hilarion in order to escape exile was ready to enter into a union with any church. To Riggs Hilarion’s proposal to sign a declaration that the Bulgarians agreed to accept the Bible together with the evangelical churches as the only obligatory rule for the faith and the church system, Hilarion replied (…): the new testament together with the rites and customs that have existed in our Bulgarian church since ancient times.” Clark claims this on the basis of Riggs’s diary, which we have not seen, and since there are no Bulgarian and other foreign sources, we can neither dispute nor confirm what he said). Plovdiv was the second target point of the Sobor missionaries in European Turkey. As a city and the center of a rich area with a vigilant Bulgarian population, according to the plans of the missionaries, it was to become a center of Protestantism in southern Bulgaria.

In the spring of 1859, American congressional missionaries William Meriam and James Clark arrived in the city. Their first job was to learn the local languages ​​- Clark started studying Bulgarian language and Meriam – Turkish language; he also intended to work among the Turks. One of the brightest phenomena of the Bulgarian Revival is the construction of a network of schools covering all lands inhabited by the Bulgarian nation. Protestants are vigorously involved in this process and raise the level of education, setting a model for Bulgarian schools to strive for and to gain experience from. The first Protestant school was opened by them in Plovdiv in 1860. Remarkably, this educational institution appeared three years before one of the most prestigious schools of the time – the Robert College in Constantinople, founded by Christopher Robert, an American industrialist and Cyrus Hamlin – American professor, theologian and missionary -in 1863 in Constantinople. The Protestant schools in Shumen (1862), Stara Zagora (1863), Bansko (1867), Samokov (1869), Ruse (1873), Troyan (1880) were not late either.

The contribution of American colleges, churches, schools and missions in teaching their graduates in particular, and enslaved Ottoman subjects in general, the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution, especially among the Bulgarian people, is indisputable.

At the moment, a huge bibliography on the subject has been collected from several years of personal research, as well as a detailed analysis of the Young Turks with the Masonic lodges in Paris and Geneva, based on Ottoman archives in Istanbul’s university and palace libraries. cantonal and university libraries in Switzerland. It can be said that there is information about parallel Masonic archival units with correspondence written on metal plates and reliable information about the use of microscopy in Masonic circles in the 19th century, to shed light on the large-scale periodicals of Ottoman immigration in Geneva, contacts between Geneva Freemasonry and Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the State Archives of Geneva and in the Musée Maçonnique Union-et-Travail de Genève, the toolkit for the technical production (as well as their subsequent reading) of similar unique tablets in the Patek Philippe Museum – Genève.

For completing the research on that artifact finding a scientific or an institutional academic, public or private support and assistance, are still needed and systematically sought, opinions and possible interest in working together on this project for scientific processing and conservation of the artifact with the exclusive “edition” of the American Constitution text.

EU delivers emergency civil protection assistance to Ukraine

0
EU delivers emergency civil protection assistance to Ukraine
Following a request from the Government of Ukraine for emergency assistance due to the threat of further escalation, the European Commission is coordinating the delivery of essential supplies to support the civilian population via the EU Civil Protection Mechanism. This is to support Ukraine`s preparedness efforts for all possible scenarios. Commissioner for Crisis Management, Janez Lenarčič said: “The EU stands in full solidarity with the Ukrainian people, also with concrete support. Once Ukraine asked for our assistance, we have been working around the clock to help the authorities. Immediate civil protection assistance is on its way. Already Slovenia, Romania, France Ireland and Austria have made the first offers and I expect more assistance in the coming days from other EU Member States.”

Reasons to eat salty foods and how to prevent it

0

Salt is a part of life. Without it, a number of processes in the body are unthinkable. Salt and mineral salts are actively involved in the work of the nervous and cardiovascular systems. They are responsible for transmitting nerve signals that drive muscles and the heart. But one of the biggest mistakes modern people make in their diet is overdoing it with salt.

Salty foods can be a real temptation. It is possible to eat salty as intrusively as to get hungry for sweets. But if you overdo it with salt, there is a reason for it. The hunger for salt is not accidental and it has its possible explanations.

Attention! The article is informative. If you are very hungry for salt, consult a doctor.

What are the possible reasons why you eat salty so much?

Dehydration

If you do not drink enough fluids and your body is dehydrated, even mild, it will try to encourage you to eat more salty foods. This is because it activates a natural mechanism for retaining the few remaining fluids in the body that it needs to perform basic functions. To control this urge, drink more fluids and reduce salt in your diet.

Electrolyte imbalance

When there is an imbalance of important electrolytes in the body, you may experience a strong unexplained hunger for salt. In this way, your body tries to restore the amount of salt it needs so that it does not lose the electrolyte balance needed for vital functions, such as maintaining muscles and the heart.

Pregnancy

During pregnancy, you often have strange cravings for foods that you haven’t had enough of before. If you are pregnant, it is likely that your pregnancy is at the root of a strong hunger for salt.

Stress

Eating under stress is a common problem. High levels of stress can provoke hunger, which is difficult to control and is focused on various foods, including very salty.

What can you do to control your cravings for salt?

Eat citrus fruits

Citrus fruits and their juice have the ability to suppress the desire for salty. They also dull the hunger for jam, which is an added bonus. The reason they are so effective is that they contain many minerals in their composition. Citrus acids suppress salt cravings and balance the body’s pH, which is directly related to the presence or absence of salts in the body.

Herbs

Excessive sprinkling of your dishes with more herbs and spices satisfies the senses and reduces the desire for additional salting of food. Instead of adding more salt to your recipes, make them even richer in flavors and aromas with the right spices.

Vinegar

Vinegar contains almost no calories. It also does not contain sodium. This makes it suitable for all diets. Acetic acid has the property to suppress the hunger for salt, to balance the pH in the body and to give a wonderful taste to dishes.

Garlic

Garlic is great because it has antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties. It fights bacteria and microbes in the body, stimulates the immune system thanks to its antioxidants. Garlic gives a spicy and aromatic taste to dishes, which reduces the desire for additional salting.

Carrots

Carrots are very rich in minerals. They are suitable for controlling blood sugar, cholesterol, contain very few calories, which makes them great for dieting. The fiber in them helps to prolong the feeling of satiety and reduces the desire for salt.

Sidney Riley and Alexander Gramatikov v/s Lenin

0

The ancient Christian city of Feodosia, sometimes called Theodosia, in today’s Simferopol and Crimean dioceses is a resort town in present-day southern Ukraine, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Feodosia, in Crimean Tatar: Kefe, is located on the Black Sea coast, 80 km. west of Kerch. It was the center during the Middle Ages of the principality of Theodore (or Gothia, Greek: Γοτθία) – a small principality in the southwestern part of the Crimean peninsula with the capital city of Mangup, which existed from 12 to 15 century. Under the name Kefe, the city became one of the main Ottoman ports in the Black Sea, remaining under Ottoman rule until 1783, when Crimea was conquered by the Russian Empire. In 1802 it was officially renamed Feodosia, a Russian adaptation of the Greek name Theodosia.

One of the oldest streets in the city is Gramatikovskaya – Voykova – Ukrainska. Emanuil Emanuilovich Gramatikov once lived there – a famous Theodosian businessman and the ancestor of the Crimean noble family Gramatikovi. He owned a fish processing plant, many lands, gardens, even post offices, housing and hotel buildings. In Dec. In 1829 the entrepreneur died of the plague. Because he had no children, he bequeathed all his property worth about 5 million rubles to Theodosia. During Emanuil Emanuilovich’s lifetime, the street on which he lived was nameless. But at the end of the 19th century, grateful Theodosians named it after the patron. With the advent of Soviet rule, Gramatikovskaya Street was renamed after the Russian revolutionary from Kerch, Peter Lazarovich Voikov, who died in 1927 from a White Guard bullet. The street kept this name for more than eighty years, but in the autumn of 2003 it changed its name to “Ukrainian”. On the same street was the home of the marine artist I.K. Aivazovski, who in his work, along with the landscape, repeatedly turned to the genre of portraiture. This side of the artist’s work is little studied and poorly described. The portraits of IK Aivazovski in their picturesque dignity are significantly inferior to the marine works of the maestro, but are undoubtedly of historical and memorial interest. In different years the artist painted self-portraits, portraits of relatives and friends, friends and acquaintances, sometimes by special order from certain institutes, organizations and societies, but most often for his own and his family’s memory. These works, mainly concentrated in the collection of the city art gallery, present us strict and businesslike male portraits, such as: “Portrait of A.I. Kaznacheev” 1847 (canvas, oil, 56×46), senator, leader of the nobility in the Tauride province; “Portrait of the poet-fable writer I.A. Krylov” 1894 (canvas, oil, 71×62); “Male Portrait” 1899 (canvas, oil, 47×47), “Portrait of the Artist’s Son-in-Law” 1894 (canvas, oil, 61×48), as well as a group portrait “I.K. Aivazovsky in a friendly circle” 1893 (canvas, oil, 56×81). The latter depicts sitting at the table: I.K. Aivazovsky (with his back to the viewer), to his left G.A. Durante, I.S. Gramatikov, M.H. Lampsi. Stands from left to right: I.V. Durante, K.P. Zioni, A.S. Gramatikov, N.S. Gramatikov. The portrayed are united by a common situation. Some biographical information about those depicted in this portrait can be found in the library of rarities (unique) “Tavrika” in Simferopol. Who were these neighbors of Aivazovsky, so he painted three of them in his unique group portrait?

An excerpt from an article by V. Geiman from the book “Theodosia in the Past”, published in 1918 on the Grammatikovi Charitable Capital, reads as follows: Theodosia, it is appropriate to remember these bright benefactors, because of the carelessly drawn up will, on which swords are now sharpened, spears are broken, and most often endless complaints, petitions and protocols are drawn. We mean Emanuil Gramatikov and his wife Smaragda, who left for charity all their property worth not less than five million rubles. The Gramatikovi family played the role of the leading family in Theodosia throughout the nineteenth century, and only in recent years has this family begun to disappear from the public arena in our city. ”

The ancestor of this family in Russia (in Theodosia) was Emanuil Emanuilovich Gramatikov, author of the said will.

His ancestors once moved to Thessaloniki from Serbia, but is of Bulgarian origin, because a branch of the genus, living until the 20s of the 20th century in Edirne and Aegean Thrace (present-day Northern Greece), due to his Bulgarian identity moved to the Kingdom of Bulgaria (to this day on the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria) with the biggest wave of refugees after the Mollov-Kafandaris agreement, and in some documents preserved in the Theodosian Quarantine Archive, Emanuil Gramatikov is called not “Greek”, not even “Serb”, but “Slav”.

He arrived in Russia in 1795, responding to an invitation to the inhabitants of what was then Ottoman Greece to colonize the southern Russian coast. Gramatikov arrives in Akhtiar (Sevastopol), where he begins heavy preparations for naval service. From Sevastopol he moved to Theodosia, where he served until 1809 as a translator at the customs, and then as a clerk in the office of the central quarantine office.

The quarantine cases also contain evidence that Gramatikov was accused of opening a fish processing plant, but apparently without significant consequences, because after the plague epidemic of 1811-1812 his cases were extremely successful and he established strong ties. in the field of supply for the fleet. Emanuil Gramatikov brought from Greece his two brothers, Stavro and Georgi, together with whom he expanded his business. , abandoning in droughts their possessions even at the whim of fate.

Gramatikov died suddenly, of the plague – his death on December 14. 1829 in Simferopol, where he was buried in the Greek church. His wife, Smaragda Dmitrievna, who according to the will was a lifelong user of all property, died in Theodosia on August 19, 1870 and was buried in the Christian cemetery. Her grave was searched several years ago and a massive marble monument has been erected there today. Here it is proposed to transfer the ashes of her husband, a petition for which was presented to His Eminence Dmitry, Archbishop of Tauride and Simferopol.

Representatives of the Gramatikovi family, as already mentioned, have been, for almost 90 years, taking the most active part in the public life of Theodosia. There are no children left after Emmanuel and Emerald. Georgi’s heirs by daughter adopted other surnames, and this name is maintained only by the descendants of Stavro. His sons, Alexander and Ivan, have long held a leading position in the family of Theodosia.

Ivan Stavrovich was the first justice of the peace of the Theodosian District, and was also elected to the First National Assembly on February 18. 1869 and until the dismissal, ie. until 1892, he was twice elected chairman of the World Congress.

Alexander Stavrovich was a member of the Zemstvo, and later from 1884 to 1910, and its permanent chairman, being the main inspirer of the zemstvo and county public life in general for 25 years. His memory is honored by the zemstvo by assigning his name to the zemstvo hospital in the village of Sedem Kladentsi (Sem – Kolodezei), placing his portrait in the hall of the zemstvo assembly, etc. For more than 20 years he was also the trustee of the Grammar Charitable Capital , running it along with another local veteran, Il. Paul. Tamara, also a descendant of a Greek settler and former mayor of Theodosia, Ivan Tamara (former mayor, 1820-1825). The last years of the rule of A. Gramatikov and I. Tamara provoked the beginning of this movement, which is reminded of in 1918 by the incessant newspaper columns, court offices and district administrations and other institutions.

The fertile ground for the creation of all sorts of lawsuits and lawsuits was prepared, unfortunately, by the testators themselves, who incompletely formulated their thoughts on the details of the management of their millions of capital, although this testament is a model of true Christian feat and testifies to the noble designs of these remarkable benefactors.

The will was drawn up in 1825, and was presented in court in 1830 and came into force for the implementation of the charitable plans of the Grammatikovi in 1870.

Thus, by handing over all their property, amounting to 18,000 tenths of land in Theodosia County, including homes and estates in Theodosia, post offices, etc., the testators admitted a significant ambiguity, which provoked later endless disputes.

As can be seen from the text of the will, the supreme supervision of capital affairs was entrusted to the “Greek honorary society”, namely, the rights and obligations of capital management and control of the actions of the two trustees, one of the Grammatikov’s family, the other, a church trustee (epitrope), both elected by the aforementioned society.

The complete impossibility of establishing the content of this term gives fertile ground for all kinds of discord. It is believed that the term “honorary society” was introduced from the Greek islands, where there was once a circular guarantee for the payment of taxes. In addition, at the time of drafting the will, 1825, such a term may have had its meaning, but since then, major reforms have been carried out in the Russian Empire, the liberation from serfdom, the introduction of urban institutions, courts, amended the whole system of public life. “Honorary Society” with today’s date will not be found in any nation, and even if the word was taken in its literal sense, we can hardly consider the same concepts given to this word in 1825 and today. Repeated attempts have been made to interpret this concept, which have not led to a successful result. The county and provincial zemstvos brought the case to the senate, pointing out the absence of an honorary society as a legal entity, the danger of homelessness of the bequeathed property, etc., and asked for the capital to be handed over to him. However, the Senate recognized the zemstvo as an ancillary institution, and the claim was dismissed. Recently, the zemstvo has taken steps before the Ministry to initiate a petition to the Supreme Authority to amend the corresponding item in the spiritual will for the order of capital management. And this petition was left unsatisfied.

Another character is the overall direction of the case with the issuance on August 4, 1915 of the Supreme Order for the transfer of all property to the Greek Church of the Assumption (Holy Introduction to the Virgin). The attempt of the trustees to take possession of the story / clergy was not supported by the notary and judicial institutions, which consider that the said order (order) does not give the right to establish property rights, but refers only to use, according to the conditions clarified in the will. ”, Ie with the help of the honorary society in question.

As a result of all the controversy, in the end, the prevailing view is that an honorary society should be understood as the parish community, which also elects the second trustee from among the church trustees. The controversy continued for some time, during which a group of parishioners found that only censors could participate in the affairs of capital, ie. people with qualifications – enjoying the right to participate in city elections.

Others have explained this controversial paragraph 7 of the instruction on ecclesiastical epitrops in the sense that urban elections should be understood not only as elections in the field of urban self-government, but also as professional, for example, guild urban elections. In previous times, disputes and doubts were resolved by the administration itself, with the ministry recognizing the right to participate only to censors and the provincial government recognizing all parishioners. On August 4, 1915, the administration resigned from its supervisory functions and the most direct supervision over the activities of the parish municipality passed to the diocesan authority in the province. At the same time, the district court, and then the chamber and the senate, recognized as lawful the decree of the society composed of all parishioners of the Greek Vvedenskaya church. Of course, in Soviet times all the capital bequeathed to Christian charity by the Gramatikovi family of Bulgarian origin was expropriated with the rest of the church property. Nowadays, the local population pays tribute to the Grammars philanthropists, because the good should not remain anonymous, but should be popularized for the sole purpose of serving as an example and initiating followers in the exercise of Christian love for God and neighbor.

Another extremely interesting thing is that the wife of Alexander Sergeyevich Gramatikov was Dagmar, niece of General, Bonch-Bruevich, brother of the manager of the affairs of the Sovnarkom V.D. Bonch-Bruevich. Dagmar provided her accommodation for Sydney Reilly’s “work.” During the Civil War, Alexander (Elena Gramatikova’s brother) and Aivazovsky’s son-in-law, Prince Mikeladze Iveriko Davidovich, together bought the schooner Salomet and for some time supplied weapons to Turkey from Wrangel’s Crimean troops from Turkey, exchanging them for grain with smugglers. on the Turkish coast.

Even more unusual is the fate of Alexander Nikolaevich Gramatikov, brother of Ekaterina Nikolaevna Gramatikova, who in her first marriage was married to Aivazovsky’s grandson – Mikhail Latry. His life is intertwined with Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin and Sidney Riley, the British spy who inspired Fleming to create the literary image of James Bond, Agent 007.

Soviet researchers and archivists made considerable efforts to search for, categorize, and publish letters and documents of VI Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Party and the first leader of the Soviet state. The fifth edition of his collected works contains more than 3,700 letters and telegrams, and the documents found after the publication of this edition are published in Lenin’s collection. The still undiscovered letters of Lenin, whose existence researchers know about, as well as Lenin’s documents stored in the former archives of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, but unpublished for various reasons, are scrupulously listed in the twelve-volume Biographical Chronicle. Several previously unknown letters have been found by Western scholars in European archives. Due to the above, the new Lenin document, not included in the catalogs, complements the characteristics of the Bolshevik leader. In July 1908, Lenin sent the following letter of recommendation: Gramatikov (“Black”) belongs to the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party and has worked in the ranks of party organizations. Geneva, July 7, 1908.”

The original of this two-page letter is kept in the Public Archives of Canada in the Andrei Zhuk Foundation (early 1968 in the Austrian capital), established in 1978. In the first decade of the 20th century, A. Zhuk was active. member of the Revolutionary Party of Ukraine (RPU) and the Ukrainian Social Democratic Workers’ Party (URSDRP). During the First World War, he was associated with the Austrian-based Union for the Liberation of Ukraine (SOU). After the revolution, Zhuk lived in Vienna and Lviv. He retained his interest in Ukrainian socialism and the cooperative movement. In the period between the two world wars he did an incredible amount to preserve the archives of the high school and the materials about Ukraine.

But who is Gramatikov, whose political credibility Lenin attests to in his letter? His name, as well as the leader’s letter, are not mentioned in any of the editions of Lenin’s Collected Works or in the Biographical Chronicle. It is not mentioned in the multi-volume History of the CPSU, in the seven editions of the Soviet Encyclopedia, in the various publications with letters from the Mensheviks, or in Soviet or Western research on the pre-revolutionary history of the Social Democratic Party. However, the name Gramatikov appears in the reports of the Paris branch of the “Ohranka” – the tsarist political police, whose archives are kept at the Hoover Institute for War, Peace and Revolution.

According to the report of the “Ohranka”, written 4 months before the writing of Lenin’s recommendation, Alexander Nikolayevich Gramatikov, “of the nobles”, was born in Sevastopol in 1871. In 1896, while studying at Moscow University, he was arrested for political activity . For two years he was forbidden to live in the two capitals, as well as in any university city. In 1899, Gramatikov was arrested again in Tver, after which he was released into his mother’s care due to an unrecorded “nervous disorder”. After some time he moved to Kharkov, where he resumed his studies at the university, as well as his political activities. According to police, in 1905 he was associated with the Bolshevik wing of the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ Party, was a member of the party committee in Kharkov and its military organization, actively distributed leaflets in connection with the anniversary of Bloody Sunday. From February 1902 to March 1906 he was detained four times, but each time he was soon released. It is quite probable that Zhuk, who at the same time was connected with the RUP and the USDRP in Kharkov, knew about Gramatikov’s work in the local Bolshevik organization. As in most revolutionary groups, agents of the tsarist political police also infiltrated the Kharkiv Social Democrats. The problem with which Gramatikov, despite frequent arrests, escaped punishment has aroused certain suspicions in Zhuk and other Ukrainian socialists. After the defeat of the 1905 revolution, when Gramatikov, Zhuk, and a number of other Russian intellectuals emigrated, these suspicions probably prompted the Social Democrats to warn Lenin about Gramatikov. Vladimir Ilyich, in his letter of July 7, 1908, stated that he had no reason to doubt the loyalty of his Bolshevik ally.

During this time Gramatikov lived in Brussels. On March 2, 1908, SE Visarionov, director of the political Police Department, asked the Paris branch of the “Ohranka” to confirm the agent’s report that Gramatikov (known as “Black”, “Ivan Petrovich”) lives in Belgium, where he studies the production and application of explosives. As far as no answer was concerned, similar notes were sent on October 25 and December 6, 1911. The last time the Gramatikov family appeared in the archives of the “Ohranka” was in December 1911, when its Paris branch informed Visarionov that the socialist-revolutionary Gushtin is currently living in Paris with Gramatikov. Gushtin, whose real name was NI Metalnikov, was handed over to an agent of the Russian police. Apparently he also gave the information that the party comrades were concerned about the fact that Gramatikov had abandoned revolutionary activity to study philosophy. It is possible that, as a result of their neighborhood, Gramatikov’s personal ties with the SRs and the police have been strengthened. In 1912 or 1913 he returned to St. Petersburg, where he entered the role of a lawyer with a good career and excellent contacts. He dined at the most luxurious restaurants and helped establish the Aviators’ Club, which organized the first air races in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Among his closest friends were Boris Suvorin, the son of the publisher of the conservative newspaper Novo Vreme, and Sidney Rzli, who stole from the St. Petersburg Naval Shipyard where he worked, and apparently not without his help, drawings of German warships for the British intelligence. Riley considered Gramatikov “not only a scientist and thinker, but also a man of character, whose loyalty was beyond suspicion.” According to other sources, Reilly was for some time an agent of the “Ohranka”, as well as Gramatikov himself. This connection would explain the ease with which Gramatikov escaped prison, despite his frequent arrests until 1907 and the metamorphosis of his life after 1911. The change of direction – from the party to the police – as a result of blackmail by the “Ohranka” did not was an unusual phenomenon in the last decade of tsarist Russia.

Gramatikov and Riley crossed paths again in the autumn of 1918, when the great British spy returned to Russia, trying to ignite resistance there against the new regime. Gramatikov, who believed that the government “is in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill released from a mental hospital”, used his previous connections, organized an interview with Riley with General M.D. Bonch-Bruevich, from whom he made his niece Dagmar , a ballerina at the Moscow Art Theater, to allow his friend to use her apartment as a “safe place” where he kept large sums of cash in various currencies. Dagmar introduced him to two charming ladies – actress Elisaveta Otten and CEC secretary Olga Strizhevska, who fell in love with Riley and provided him with passes and secret documents, as Inna Svechenovskaya writes in her book Sex and Soviet Espionage (p. 281). Gramatikov, with the help of Vyacheslav Orlovsky (Vladimir Orlov), who had previously been associated with the pre-revolutionary “security guard” and became a member of the Extraordinary Commission (EC), provided Riley with false documents in the name of Sidney Georgievich Relinsky, allowing him to travel freely. The Soviet side under the guise of a Chekist, as reported by Sayers Michael in his book The Secret War against Soviet Russia, p. 28. Penetrating the Kremlin and the General Staff of the Red Army, Riley was aware of all the activities of the Soviet government. The English spy boasted that the sealed orders to the Red Army “became known in London before they were read in Moscow.”

It is very likely that he connected Riley with the anti-Bolshevik elements in the SR party. Riley, in turn, nominates Gramatikov for the post of interior minister to head the police and finance in the supposed new Provisional Government, in which Boris Savinkov is to become prime minister and General Yudenich the military minister. Schubersky, head of one of Russia’s largest trading companies, was to become Minister of Roads and Communications. Yudenich, Shubersky and Gramatikov – the future interim government had to overcome the anarchy, almost inevitable after such a coup. The above is also supported by the modern English researcher Philip Knightley (Knightley F. Spies of the XX century / Translated with English, M., 1994. p. 62), who describes the main collaborators of the SIS in Russia: Sidney Riley, George Hill, Somerset Maugham, who also worked for the Americans, Paul Dukes, and Robert Bruce Lockhart, an agent of the British Diplomatic Service in Moscow, who, although not a SIS officer, took an active part in espionage in Russia.

Gramatikov and Riley apparently played no part in the assassination of the German ambassador Mirbach and in the SR uprisings in the provincial towns in July 1918. But in August they were at the center of the so-called Lockhart conspiracy against the Bolshevik regime. . With money received from the unofficial representative of the British mission Bruce Lockhart, Riley bribed some Latvian red units to help him capture during a scheduled meeting in Moscow of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (CEC) and the establishment of a military dictatorship of Savinkov. Residents of foreign intelligence services rightly judged that the fate of any conspiracy against the Soviets would largely depend on the position of the Latvians, who at the time were the most capable Red Army unit responsible for guarding the Kremlin. Two young Latvian commanders, who had arrived from Moscow, were brought to Petrograd. They contacted the naval attache at the British Embassy (which had not yet moved to Moscow), Captain Francis Alan Cromy. Their first meeting took place in the restaurant of the French Hotel. The commanders convinced Cromi that there was serious dissatisfaction among the Latvian riflemen with the authorities, that they were ready to go against the government if they had the support of army units. The commander of the 1st Division of the Latvian Riflemen, Eduard Berzin, was also involved in the operation. Lockhart gave them letters of recommendation to the commander of the British troops in Arkhangelsk, General Poole, and accompanying documents on British mission forms with stamps and his signature. (It was assumed that after the arrest of the Soviet government, the Latvian archers through Arkhangelsk on English ships would return to their homeland.)

The meeting of the Bolshevik leadership of the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow was postponed, and on August 28 Riley arrived in Petrograd to consult with Gramatikov on the implementation of the plans for an uprising in the former capital. But, as Gramatikov himself put it; “The fools struck too early.” On August 30, terrorists unrelated to the Reilly network killed M.S. Uritsky in Petrograd and seriously wounded Lenin in Moscow. Felix Dzerzhinsky, whose agents infiltrated Riley’s organization back in June and knew of his odious plans, quickly took advantage of these events as a pretext for Lockhart’s arrest, the search of the British mission in Petrograd and the beginning of the Red Terror. Most surprisingly, Riley and Gramatikov were able to burn their documents and flee the country.

The two conspirators last met in September 1925 in Paris, where Gramatikov spent his second emigration. This man, whom Lenin considered a loyal Bolshevik, again conspired against the Soviet government. Reilly, along with Gramatikov, White General A.P. Kutepov, expert on exposing provocateurs Vladimir Burtsev and British intelligence officer Ernst Boyce, are discussing the possibility of establishing contact with the alleged monarchical, anti-Bolshevik Moscow organization Trust. It was decided that Riley should go to Finland to investigate with the leaders of the Trust the possibility of another uprising. They did not know that the monarchical group had long been arrested by the OGPU. Riley was tricked into entering Soviet territory, and this time the “king of espionage” failed to return.

The fact that Lenin believed and supported a man like Gramatikov, who could really be associated with the tsarist “Ohranka” in pre-revolutionary times, and after 1917 developed a remarkable anti-Soviet career in alliance with his political opponents – the left, like Savinkov , to the right-wing monarchists, may surprise many. Subsequently, Lenin repeatedly proved to be a poor connoisseur of the human soul and the political leanings of his entourage, supporting Roman Malinowski in the Bolshevik Central Committee and defending him when obvious evidence of his affiliation with the “Ohranka”, and then praising that “wonderful Georgian” who became his successor.

Photo: cityscape painting of Ivan Konstantinovich Aivazovsky “Old Feodosia”, oil, canvas, 1839.

The old and the new calendar in the Orthodox Church family

0

The cornerstone or central argument in any apology for the old style is the reference to the decision of the First Ecumenical Council to celebrate Easter. The reference to this decision is almost always accompanied by an author’s interpretation, which in any case should reinforce in readers the suggestion that the new style grossly violates this rule and even this fact alone is enough to put us outside the Church. To this summary many apologists of the old style allow themselves to add additional arguments and interpretations, namely that the decree was created primarily to prohibit the celebration of Easter with non-believers, and the purpose of the new style was to join us with them. But is that really the case?

Perhaps many who were interested in the question were impressed that all the apologies of the old style refer to the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council, but they never quote this decision, but rely on the 7th Apostolic Rule! However, the rules of the Holy Apostles, although they reflect the aspirations of the age and some debates of the First Ecumenical Council, are not rules of the Council, but something completely different! It is too manipulative to put a sign of identity between the two, as many do in bad faith. Rule number 7 of the First Ecumenical Council treats a completely different problem from rule 7 of St. Apostles. It is worth clarifying here that the so-called “Apostolic Rules” are not the work of the apostles themselves, but they are seen as the bearer of the early tradition of the Church and from the first centuries they had great authority, which, of course, helped and the First Ecumenical Council. And if we are to be completely accurate, and in order to avoid further speculation about the canons of this council, it is necessary to say clearly that the First Ecumenical Council did not leave a single canon about the celebration of Easter! That is, every time apologists of the old style refer in their texts to some rule of the First Ecumenical Council, which obviously tries to clothe their accusations of the new style with the authority of this highest forum of the Church, they definitely lie to us. . What was discussed and decided at the council, but without being formulated in a rule or canon, is about the celebration of Easter by all churches in one day, and not, as was the practice until then, different churches to use their own calculations and to celebrate on different days. This is clear from the message that Emperor Constantine the Great sent to the bishops who were not present at the First Ecumenical Council.

The seventh rule of the Holy Apostles states: “A bishop, presbyter, or deacon who celebrates the holy day of the Passover before the vernal equinox with the Jews must be deposed.”

It is obvious that this rule has to do with the debates during the First Ecumenical Council, but to claim that it is a rule of the Ecumenical Council itself is, to put it mildly, incorrect. But the apologists of the old style are not at all ashamed to do so, moreover, referring to this rule, they try to interpret it in a way that is beneficial to their thesis, but far from the truth. Relying on Zonara’s definite misinterpretation: “.. The whole commandment of this rule boils down to the following: Christians should not celebrate the Passover with the Jews, ie. not on the same day with them; as their non-holiday celebration must precede and then celebrate our Easter.

A priest who fails to do so must be overthrown. The same is defined by the Council of Antioch in its first rule, mentioning that the definition of the Passover is the definition of the First Council of Nicaea. ” If we make a brief historical overview, we will be able to see for ourselves the wrong rubbing of Zonara and again the complete unfoundedness of the accusations of canonical violations of the so-called new style.

Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself took part in the Jewish celebrations during His earthly life, as evidenced in the Gospel (John 2: 13-25; 5: 1-47). His example after the Ascension was followed by the apostles (Acts 2: 1; 20:16). This example was adopted by the early Church, so the first Christians celebrated Easter on Nisan 14, the same day that the Jews celebrated their Passover. This practice has long existed in the Roman province of Asia, and for this reason Christians were called the Fourteenth. Many of the other churches underwent the first Passover reform, and they began celebrating on the first Sunday after Nisan 14. This reform was not a theological interpretation of the feast, but rather a precision of the historical fact of the Resurrection, since Christ is resurrected on the “first day after the Sabbath” (Matt. 28: 1), that is, on Sunday.

It is interesting to note that the difference became the subject of discussion between St. Polycarp of Smyrna and Bishop Anicet of Rome during St. Polycarp’s visit to Rome in 155. your own understanding of the holiday. However, this difference did not lead to a rift between the two churches (as some of the apostates are hasty today), but on the contrary, taking into account their differences, the two hierarchs celebrate the Holy Eucharist together, confirming their unity in Christ. With this joint celebration of the Holy Liturgy, the two church leaders clearly showed that the question of the date of the celebration of Easter is not dogmatic and cannot be a reason for church division!

Unfortunately, people from the height of the epic did not always stand on the Roman throne. Anyket. During his reign, Bishop Victor of Rome (189-198) threatened to excommunicate the people of Asia Minor if they did not harmonize their Easter practice with Rome. Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus, who headed the bishops of Asia Minor, wrote a letter to Ep. Victor, in which he explained that the Asia Minor tradition follows the apostolic practice and for them the practice of Rome is an innovation, but they do not judge them, nor do they want to abandon it. Ep. However, Victor was adamant and excommunicated the people of Asia Minor from the Eucharistic communion. This harsh reaction of the Roman bishop Victor provoked a protest reaction even among such supporters of the celebration of Easter on the first Sunday after Nisan 14 as St. Irenaeus of Lyons. St. Irenaeus sent a message to Ep. Victor, urging him to remain at peace with those celebrating Easter on Nisan 14. In it, among other things, St. Irenaeus of Lyons says that the termination of the Eucharistic communion on ceremonial matters is inadmissible.

Here is the time to emphasize a very important point in church history, namely that in the beginning the Church did not perform its own calculation of the Passover. She closely followed the Jewish calculation, and the only differences were whether to celebrate Nisan 14 or Nisan 14. But in the II-IV century, the Jews reformed their calendar. Because their calendar is lunar, compared to the solar calendar, an error accumulates that needs to be corrected periodically (in the lunar calendar, the days are 29 and 30 days, with 364 days a year, so Jews often had to add one leap year. – instead of 12 it contained 13 months and thus equated their year with that of the solar calendar). As a result of the Jewish reform of the calendar, it so happened that when calculating the holidays according to the new calendar, it happened to the Jews that Easter sometimes began to fall before the beginning of the vernal equinox. In the ancient world, the vernal equinox was considered by many to be the beginning (unofficially) of the new year. As a result of this reform, Christians also had to celebrate once before the vernal equinox, once after it, which forced Christians to compile their own Easter tables for the calculation of Easter so that they could always celebrate after the vernal equinox – thus began the Christian Easter. The creation of such an independent Passover meant that Christians would no longer comply with the Jewish date of Nisan 14, which ceased to properly reflect the day of Passover after the Jewish calendar reform. In Rome and Alexandria they began to create their own Easter tables. We will not dwell in detail on the principle underlying the creation of these Easter calculations, we will only note that there were churches such as Asia Minor, for example, which continued to celebrate according to the established practice of Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar. As a result of the changed church practice, when the Alexandrian and Roman churches established their own Passover, independent of the Jewish one, it sometimes came to the point that the difference in the celebration of Easter between Asia Minor and other churches reached 5 weeks.

It is precisely this difference that the First Ecumenical Council seeks to eliminate, and it is precisely this that is reflected in the 7 Apostolic Rule and Rule 1 of the Antioch Council. To unify the celebration of Passover throughout the Church and to make this celebration based on one’s own calculation of the Passover, which does not depend on the calculations of the Jews. Exactly and clearly, no prohibitions on joint celebration with the Jews, as the old-fashioned defenders try to convince us. And since there is no ban on celebrating Easter with the Jews, it is in vain that we are banned from celebrating with non-Orthodox people, especially since a canon containing the term non-Orthodox people does not exist anywhere. It’s all a matter of manipulation, math and a well-chosen audience. But in order not to be unfounded in our assertion that this rule does not forbid the celebration of Passover with the Jews, but only forbids it to be calculated according to their Passover tables, it is necessary to give a few examples.

the 7 Apostolic Rule in question appeared immediately or shortly after the First Ecumenical Council, but in any case before 341, because it is referred to in Rule 1 of the Council of Antioch. That is, in any case, according to the interpretation of the apologists of the old style, the Church forbade the joint celebration with non-Orthodox and Jews before 341. Yes, but convincing proof that the rule says what we say is the fact that Christian Easter continues to coincide many times with the Jewish and after 341. For example, the Christian Passover coincides with the Jewish Passover only two years after the Council of Antioch in 343. Subsequently, we celebrated the Passover with the Jews in 347, 367, 370, 374 and 394. In the next fifth century, we celebrated with the Jews nine more times, and so on. Christians and Jews last celebrated Easter together in 783, after which date, due to inaccuracies in the Julian calendar and new reforms in the Jewish Passover, joint celebration became impossible. Furthermore, since the rule in question forbids, according to the apologists of the old style, the celebration of Easter together with non-Orthodox, why were they silent when in 2007 Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants celebrated Easter together? According to them, the new style was created for this blasphemous purpose – to get closer to non-believers, while the old, perfect, enlightened style would never allow such a thing? It is good to keep in mind that the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant Easter will coincide again in the next 2010, will coincide in 2011 and in 2014 and in 2017, etc. Who is to blame for this? The new style? He cannot be, because pouring out their accusations against the New Style churches, the Old Style apologists somehow forget that the New Style churches remain faithful to this precept of Apostolic Rule 7, to celebrate Easter with the other sister churches. The calculation and celebration of Easter, as well as all movable holidays that depend on Easter in the new-style churches, remain unchanged and are calculated and celebrated in the same way and on the same day as the old-style churches. That is, in both the old and the new style, the Paschal is calculated as it was set in the ancient Church after the First Ecumenical Council. Then? Then there is only the possibility to agree with the only correct interpretation of rule 7 of the Holy Apostles and rule 1 of the Council of Antioch, namely that the words “who celebrates the holy day of Passover before the vernal equinox with the Jews” cannot in no way should they be understood as a prohibition on celebrating with Jews or anyone else, but only as an indication to break the long-standing ancient practice of making the Passover conditional on the Jewish calculation of the Passover.

So, why do you turn away from what is pleasing to the Most High?

ten, a hundred or a thousand years,

– in hell there is no search for the time of life.

(Sirach 41: 6-7)

In the first part of our article, we looked at one of the main arguments of the defenders of the old style, namely that the new style violates the canon of the First Ecumenical Council. However, the truth, as we have seen, is that the First Ecumenical Council did not draw up a canon for the celebration of Easter. As one of the most erudite defenders of the old style, the great Russian scientist Prof. VV Bolotov, is forced to admit, “no definite decisions (concerning Easter) have been issued by the First Ecumenical Council … What they at the council) could do is to reach an oral, unformed, friendly agreement decree that Easter should be celebrated according to the custom established in the Church of Alexandria. Perhaps it impresses readers that our article pays too much attention to the issue of what happened during the First Ecumenical Council. This is because it is the backbone of all apologies that dogmatize the calendar, which leads to numerous conclusions, which, although they have no canonical basis, have gained great popularity.

I am convinced that most of the defenders of the calendar mechanically repeat what they read here and there, but objectivity requires that the facts be always checked and verified. One of these hasty conclusions is that the Julian calendar satisfies all the requirements for Easter and the holidays associated with it, which is why it has become part of the Tradition! This statement is in itself absurd – the calendar cannot be part of the Tradition, it does not and cannot have a sotirological function. The calendar has an official function – it gives an indication of what to remember from the Church and what should be the internal logic of the annual service, but it does not sacred days and dates! By this logic we can declare the use of parchment as part of the Tradition, as it was used in the age of the councils. That is why these hierarchs of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church are completely right, who repeatedly respond to the accusations of the old calendarists that the Church celebrates events, not dates. This is the opinion of all canonical church pastors, whether they belong to a new-style or old-style local Church.

What does the Church actually celebrate – events or dates?

The most eloquent example of the fact that the Church has always celebrated events, not dates, is the feast of the Resurrection of Christ. In the brief historical retrospective made in the first part of the article, we saw that the early Church even until the fourth century celebrated the day of the Resurrection in different ways and on different days. Subsequently, the Church prescribed that this be done independently of the Jewish Passover and necessarily after the vernal equinox. The latter, because after the Jewish reform of the lunar calendar, the Passover for the Jews began to fall sometimes before the vernal equinox. What is important to note in this case is that the Resurrection was never associated with a celebration on a specific calendar day, but depended first on the Jewish Paschal calculations, and then on the calculations of the Alexandrian Church, which has been famous since ancient times. his skilled astronomers. Translated into plain language, the Resurrection of Christ could have fallen and falls both in March and in April, and sometimes even in May! Then we should ask, what does the Church celebrate – the event of the Resurrection of Christ or some specific date?

The situation is similar with all the moving holidays, which change in accordance with Easter the day on which they are celebrated, but, of course, the celebrated event cannot be changed. Here is the place to note that the generally accepted dates for the celebration of the events of the earthly life of Christ, the Mother of God, and most of the saints are very arbitrary. For example, the date of Christmas December 25 – January 7 (old style) is not historical. We do not know exactly when Christ was born, in the first years the Church did not even celebrate this holiday. Subsequently, the celebration took place in a very wide range. For example, churches in Africa believed that Christ was born on March 28, according to Clement of Alexandria (+215) it happened on April 18, in the East it was accepted on January 6, while in the West it was accepted on December 25. Subsequently, all churches adopted the practice of the Western Church to celebrate on December 25. However, this did not happen immediately, but in a rather long historical period. By the way, another argument against the unfounded claims of the old-fashioned apologists that the First Ecumenical Council somehow constituted the Julian calendar as something “sacred” and obligatory for the Ecumenical Church is the fact that the churches of Caesarea and Antioch agree to celebrate Christmas on the 25th. December only after 376, half a century after the First Ecumenical Council. The Church of Jerusalem did this more than a hundred years after the First Ecumenical Council, in the period 430-431. Interestingly, the Armenian Church, which until the end of the V century was an integral part of the Ecumenical Church, retains its ancient practice and continues to celebrate the Nativity of Christ on January 6 in the civil style, reciprocally on January 19 in the old style.

The holidays associated with the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary were formed in the period V-VI century, as a strong impetus for this gives the Fourth Ecumenical Council (431), which confirms the correctness of its veneration. All dates in the calendar on which we celebrate the events of the earthly life of the Blessed Virgin are also conditional. What clearer evidence is that the Church celebrates events that have been arbitrarily (astronomically) fixed on certain dates, following not the historicity of events but the internal logic of church preaching.

The situation with fixed holidays is no different. It is too late to fix them on certain dates. The synaxar cycle was formed in Byzantium only in the period of the IX-XII century, long after the last Ecumenical Council (787). However, even today in the various Local Orthodox Churches, which are one calendar, there is a discrepancy in the dates of celebration. We will not go into too much detail, but for clarity we will allow ourselves to give a few examples.

The Slavic churches celebrate the memory of St. Catherine on November 24, while the other churches follow the Sinai tradition and celebrate on November 25. The reason for the discrepancy in the celebration is no less curious and very indicative that the idea of ​​a metaphysical calendar is foreign to the Church. According to the life of the saint, her memory should be celebrated on November 24, the day of her martyrdom. In the Sinai Monastery “St. Ekaterina ”, however, the feast of the saint was united with the Tradition of the Introduction of the Mother of God (November 25), because according to the Tradition on that day her relics were discovered. This practice was adopted throughout the Church. However, the Russian Empress Catherine the Great did not want the feast of her saint to coincide or rather to be in the shadow of the larger feast of the Presentation of the Mother of God, so she returned it a day earlier. The change affected all Slavic churches, and the rest continue to celebrate the saint on November 25, and the divergence continues to this day, without disturbing anyone.

Often in the arsenal of arguments of the defenders of the old style can be found the statement that “the old calendar has been illuminated by its centuries-old use in the Church”, that is, it has become something sacred from prolonged sacred use! Such an argument also does not stand up to criticism. It is identical to the one once used by the defenders of the “trilingual heresy.” By this logic, we must reject the language reform of St. Patriarch Euthymius only because he undertook to edit liturgical books, “sanctified by several centuries of use.” In Russia, the Nikon reform marked the beginning of the schism of the Old Believers, who to this day continue to hold on to the two fingers (the two fingers) – enclosing the body with the sign of the cross, filled not with three but with two fingers. By the logic of those who use this argument, we should declare the Old Believers a canonical church and the Russian Orthodox Church a schismatic one, just because Christians crossed themselves with two fingers until the 5th-6th centuries. Moreover, the argument for the two fingers is much stronger, because the cross actually sanctifies and blesses, unlike the calendar, and that is how the fathers of the First Ecumenical Council were baptized. But we must repeat once again that the sacrament of the Church has nothing to do with human logic, no matter how true it may sound.