This article examines Dmitry Khomyakov’s interpretation of the triad "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality", with a particular focus on his understanding of sobornost’ and the Orthodox tradition. The study reconstructs Khomyakov’s views by addressing three key questions: the meaning he assigns to the concept of Orthodoxy; his assessment of its influence on the state, mentality, and history of Russia; and the practical implications he draws from his conceptual framework within the historical context of his time. The analysis employs comparative- historical and historical- typological methods, as well as the genealogy of ideas — particularly in relation to sobornost’. The principal sources are Khomyakov’s own writings, published in their most complete form in a 2011 collected edition. The findings show that Khomyakov upheld the Orthodox tradition and the doctrine of sobornost’, using the latter to formulate an original historiosophical framework that integrated politics, society, family, nationality, art, and science. A distinctive feature of this framework is its emphasis on individuality, expressed as a pronounced personalism.

This article analyses publications on the legacy of St Cyprian of Carthage in the Russian diaspora during the early 1930s. The works of German Lutheran and Reformed theologians — Otto Ritschl, Richard Sohm, and Gustav Koch — well known to Russian authors, provide important contextual background. The main argument is that while these theologians increasingly evaluate St Cyprian’s ideas and personality positively, the Russian diaspora’s attitude remains critically distant. This critique culminates in the work of Nikolay Afanasyev, who characterised the ancient saint as the creator of a ‘universal ecclesiology’, contrasting it with what Afanasyev deemed the original and true ‘Eucharistic’ ecclesiology. However, a critical re-examination of Afanasyev’s approach suggests that his Eucharistic ecclesiology represents more of a modern construct than a genuine return to early Christian roots.

This article examines the engagement of the Russian philosopher Semyon Frank with the thought of the English theologian John Henry Newman. While both thinkers pursued a philosophical account of religious faith, their approaches diverged significantly. Newman centred his theology on the notion of assent — the acceptance of dogmatic truths through religious imagination and non-abstract, personal knowledge. Frank, by contrast, emphasised mystical religious experience as supra- rational and supersensual, yet carrying its own distinctive certainty. This contrast reflects the broader divergence between Western and Eastern Christian theological traditions, which may be traced, in part, to Aristotelian and Platonic intellectual lineages respectively. Although Frank did not associate Newman with the modernist currents he criticised, his early writings engaged critically with the "new religious consciousness" of Dmitry Merezhkovsky. Despite their differing epistemological frameworks, both Newman and Frank advanced a form of Christian philosophical apologetics that sought to reconcile faith with intellectual integrity in the modern world.

This article explores the role of Hans Küng (1928–2021) as a leading figure among reform- minded theologians at the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). As the youngest peritus — a theological expert invited to advise the bishops — Küng played a significant role in shaping key conciliar documents, particularly those concerning ecclesiology and ecumenism. The article traces the development of his theological position, from active engagement in Council debates to his later radical critique of papal infallibility, which ultimately led to the withdrawal of his licence to teach Catholic theology. It places particular emphasis on Küng’s contested legacy: while he inspired theological renewal after the Council, his increasingly radical stance provoked lasting conflict with the Church hierarchy. The article argues that Küng’s trajectory exemplifies the Council’s central tension — the fragile balance between reformist ambition and institutional constraint.

This article examines "Radical Orthodoxy" as a major development in contemporary theological thought, which emerged in English- language academic discourse in the late 1990s. The study analyses the movement’s core principles and intellectual programme, explores the reasons for its appeal, and situates it within the broader post- secular turn. Drawing on primary sources — including the work of John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward — alongside recent scholarship, the article employs methods from intellectual history and comparative analysis. It identifies six key concepts in Radical Orthodoxy (participation; rejection of secular dualism; being as gift; knowledge as anticipation; the social dimension of salvation; the analogy of being), together with its socio- political commitments (critique of secularisation, Christian socialism, social responsibility, and the interrelation of theology and politics). The author presents the movement as combining a polemic against both modernism and postmodernism with an effort to set out a comprehensive theological worldview rooted in tradition. The article’s innovation lies in highlighting parallels between Radical Orthodoxy and earlier forms of Christian modernism as contrasting responses to the intellectual challenges of their respective eras. The author argues that the movement’s popularity reflects a wider cultural search for integrated worldviews that unite faith, reason, and social practice.

This article examines the phenomenon of "Golgotha Christianity", focusing on its formulation, "invention", and limited historical existence in the early twentieth century. The movement is analysed through the work of Archimandrite and later Bishop Mikhail (Pavel Semenov, 1874–1915), a notable figure in the religious- modernist landscape of the late Russian Empire. Advocating freedom of creativity and a certain extraritual and extrajurisdictional stance, Semenov, while serving as an Old Believer bishop, together with like-minded contemporaries such as Jonah Brikhnichev and Valentin Sventsitsky, sought to attract those dissatisfied with the Synodal Church by promoting a "new teaching" that claimed to return to the principles of early Christianity. Several meetings took place, remembered by contemporaries and later commentators as the "Golgotha Christians" movement. The authors argue that "Golgotha Christianity" existed primarily as a theoretical construct and never developed into a stable organisation or a sustained practice. In contrast to other neo-Christian movements of the period, such as the "Free" or "Social" Christians, the origins of which contemporaries often ascribed to Semenov, "Golgotha Christianity" generated more discursive resonance than practical results. This case sheds light on the specific features and limits of "Christian modernism" in late imperial Russia.

This study investigates the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s distinctive interpretation of original sin, with particular reference to Haimanot Abew 52:16-18. Contrary to Western Christian doctrines, which often regard original sin as inherited guilt from Adam, the Ethiopian Orthodox tradition emphasises personal moral responsibility and the cultivation of virtue. According to Haimanot Abew, sin is not an inherited defect but arises from the neglect of virtue by the mind. Baptism, therefore, is understood not as the removal of original sin but as a sacrament of spiritual rebirth, divine adoption, and initiation into communion with the Holy Trinity. This theological stance is reflected in the Church’s practice of infant baptism, which welcomes infants into the Church community and prepares them for future spiritual development rather than cleansing inherited guilt.

The study draws on biblical texts such as Ezekiel 18:20, Romans 5:12-14, and Sirach 15:16, underscoring the Church’s emphasis on free will, moral agency, and divine justice. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s Christology and soteriology affirm that Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection restore humanity’s original potential for communion with God, focusing on transformation through grace rather than inherited corruption. Patristic sources — including St John Chrysostom and Ethiopian theologians such as Abä Giyorgis — are also examined to contextualise the Church’s understanding of original and actual sin. By tracing the historical development of these doctrines, the study highlights the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s unique theological contribution to Christian thought on sin, salvation, and sacramental theology.

This article investigates the historical practice of fire insurance for immovable property organised by the Russian Orthodox Church on principles of reciprocity during the pre-revolutionary period. This subject remains underexplored in Russian historiography and merits closer examination. Focusing on the Kadnikov district of the Vologda diocese between 1910 and 1917, the study draws on archival insurance documents and materials from the Vologda Diocesan Gazette. It considers the organisation of mutual insurance at the district level, methods for valuing church property, the calculation of insurance premiums, recorded fire incidents, and the relationship between contributions and compensation for losses. The author also analyses cases where compensatory funds were used to finance rebuilding efforts. The data enables a comparative assessment of insurance outcomes for parishes and monasteries in Kadnikov relative to other districts within the Vologda diocese and the wider Russian Empire. The study concludes that mutual insurance was less advantageous for Kadnikov’s ecclesiastical institutions, as premiums significantly exceeded fire damage compensations during the period under review.

This article examines the activities of the clergy of the Kursk Diocese during the First World War, drawing primarily on materials from the Kursk Diocesan Gazette. It focuses on the spiritual and moral support offered to the provincial population and military personnel between 1914 and 1916. The study details the initial responses of the Kursk clergy following the outbreak of war and explores the impact of conscription on diocesan staffing. Confronted with wartime challenges, the clergy adapted to evolving circumstances, including efforts to counter misinformation that incited public panic. The article also investigates the methods employed by priests to support those mobilised to defend the homeland and their families. Drawing on wartime correspondence from military chaplains, it highlights the distinctive characteristics of pastoral service on the front lines.

This article analyses the relationship between Bavaria and the Holy See from 1802 to 1925, tracing developments from the secularisation of Bavaria to the entry into force of the Second Bavarian Concordat. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Bavaria played a leading role in the history of concordats between the Holy See and the German states. Particular attention is given to the Concordat of 5 June 1817, concluded between Pope Pius VII and King Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria, and the Concordat of 29 March 1924, signed by Pius XI and the Bavarian state. The study examines the political and ecclesiastical circumstances that shaped these agreements and assesses their significance for Bavaria, Germany, and the Catholic Church. Owing to the Bavarian government’s assertion of supremacy in religious affairs, the 1817 Concordat was constrained by the Religious Edict of 1818, which subordinated the Church to the state; consequently, church–state relations until 1918 depended heavily on the position of the monarch and his ministers. The 1924 Concordat, grounded in the Weimar Constitution of 1919, proved advantageous to both parties: it affirmed Bavaria’s autonomy vis-à-vis the central government in Berlin and secured for the Catholic Church a substantial role in education and in episcopal appointments. Remaining in force to the present day, it has made a lasting contribution to the development of German church–state law and served as a model for regulating relations between the Catholic Church and German states in the twentieth century.

This article examines the history of the first stone Orthodox church in Port Arthur, constructed in 1898 at the headquarters of the Kwantung Troops in the Old Town. Drawing on a range of archival documents, including the unique Book of Accounting of Church Funds of the Headquarters Church, the study reconstructs the establishment, administration, and clergy of the church. The author analyses the names and movements of the four serving priests — Andrei Bykov, Evgeny Alfeyev, Ivan Nikolsky, and Nikolai Glagolev — to illuminate the organisational and spiritual life of the military parish. The article situates the church within the broader context of Orthodox religious practice on the imperial frontier in North-East China, highlighting its role in shaping the social and religious landscape of Port Arthur at the turn of the twentieth century.