Category: Christianity

  • Ballistic missile hits St. Andrew the Cathedral church in Zaporizhia

    On January 18, during a morning attack, two Russian ballistic missiles hit the city’s St. Andrew the First-Called UOC cathedral in the Ukrainian city of Zaporizhia. The dome of the church collapsed.

    Fr. Konstantin Kostyukovich said that at the time of the attack, there was a duty officer in the church, who is there twenty-four hours a day, and a parishioner who always comes early. “Fortunately, neither of them were injured, but you can see what the explosion did,” he said.

    During the Soviet period, this church was a cinema. In 1995, the reconstruction of the abandoned cinema into an Orthodox church began. The diocesan bishop there is Metropolitan Luka (Kovalenko) of Zaporizhia, who is among the most zealous supporters of Patriarch Kirill in the UOC.

    The Zaporozhye Diocese appealed to citizens to donate funds: “We ask everyone who is able to do so to provide assistance and transfer funds to the cathedral’s account. Those who have the strength and opportunity to come and help eliminate the consequences.” Metropolitan Luke’s statement only says that “the tragedy is a test of our faith, … because we know that at the end of time faith will weaken.” In his statement, he does not mention “Russia” or the adjective “Russian.” Ukrainian historian and theologian Sergiy Shumylo commented that the stricken cathedral is one of the few in Ukraine where Metropolitan Luke continues to refer to Moscow Patriarch Kirill as “our lord and father” during services—a formula indicating jurisdictional subordination to Moscow. “The blessed missiles do not choose whether to fall on the fans of Russkiy Mir (Russian World) waiting for them with bread and salt, or on ordinary Ukrainians. This is the price of loyalty to Moscow, but I doubt that even this tragedy will change his position,” he says.

    Since the Russian army’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 until the beginning of 2024, 530 religious buildings have been damaged, with 9% of them completely destroyed and 16% irreversibly damaged. The largest number of religious buildings was damaged in the Donetsk region – 102. In the Kyiv region, 81 were damaged, in Luhansk – 62, in Kharkiv – 61, in Kherson – 56, in Zaporizhia – 32. Approximately half are churches of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. A third of the affected churches are Protestant. Cases of shelling of Jewish, Muslim and Hindu religious buildings have also been registered. On July 23, 2023, again with a missile attack from the Russian Federation, the Transfiguration Cathedral of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Odessa was practically destroyed.

    In most cases, the destruction is the result of indiscriminate fire, but sometimes also of targeted strikes.

    Photo: The temple icon of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called. The Cathedral Church of St. Apostle Andrew the First-Called in Zaporozhye.

  • Romanian Church Encourages Organ Donation

    The Romanian Orthodox Church encourages Christians to donate their organs when it is necessary to save the life of another person. This is clear from a text recently published on the official website of the Romanian Patriarchate.

    A living person can donate a part of the liver, bone marrow or a kidney to a terminally ill person. The Church encourages this donation when it is an act of love for the sick person, is not a “subject of transactions”, is carried out voluntarily and with the full mental clarity of the donor, with a clearly expressed written consent. The Church blesses people who can possibly make such sacrifices, but also understands those who cannot do so, respecting the freedom of decision of each person.

    Until now, the Church had been involved in the public debate on the use of organs of a deceased person for transplantation. According to the Church’s position, organ donation is an act of self-giving for one’s neighbor and can be encouraged, but excluding the possibility of abuse. “Although it is claimed that donation is an expression of love, it in no way creates a moral obligation to donate; the act of donation is a complete and unquestionable manifestation of free will. Only the donor’s conscious consent reveals his love and spirit of sacrifice, trust and interest in his neighbor.” Consent may be given by relatives, but only after “the law has provided clear rules regarding consent in order to avoid doubts about the sale of organs by relatives.”

    Furthermore, in order to prevent abuses, such as are possible when it comes to life-saving and expensive operations, the church’s position states: “Death as the effective cessation of life implies: 1) cardiac arrest; 2) lack of spontaneous breathing; 3) brain death. These three conditions must be fulfilled simultaneously and completely in order to avoid regrettable errors.” And further: “Death as the separation of the soul from the body remains a mystery. No one will be able to say with certainty that this separation coincides with brain death; can coincide with, precede or follow brain death. Being created in the image of God, man is valuable to the extent that his original image is reflected in him. As long as he fulfills the commandment of love and remains in God, who is love, he is a member of the Church of Christ. From this point of view, donating an organ, tissue and even a drop of blood out of love for his neighbor means the self-giving and sacrifice of the whole person in the same mystical Body of Christ, which excludes the view of the human body as a mere means of physically healing someone or as a storehouse for spare organs”.

    The Church cannot agree with the transplantation of embryonic tissues, which carries a risk of affecting the health of the fetus, nor with the use of the organs of acephalic or hydrocephalic newborns for transplantation. In the same way, we cannot agree with the tendency for some to become organ donors on condition that they are euthanized.

    It also calls for the rejection of “any transactions with human organs and any exploitation of critical situations and vulnerabilities of potential donors (those deprived of mental or physical freedom and other vulnerable social groups)”.

    Regarding doctors involved in the transplantation process, it says: “The gift of knowledge and discovery comes from God; man has the responsibility to use this knowledge not against his neighbor and the world, but to maintain the dignified presence of the person in creation and to realize the meaning of existence. In this context, the doctor must be aware that he is an instrument and collaborator of God in eliminating the manifestation of evil in the world as suffering.”

    Illustrative photo: Orthodox icon of Virgin Mary The Healer

  • Archbishop George of Cyprus on the management of church property: I think there should be more order

    Two years after his election as head of the Cyprus Archdiocese, Archbishop George spoke in an interview with the newspaper “Phileleuteros” about the problems he has encountered in the management of church property.

    He intends to combat the vicious practices in the management of church property, which are damaging to the church. “Some people enter agricultural plots of the diocese and declare that they are cultivating them, even receiving state subsidies.” This has been discontinued, and whoever wants to use church land will have to pay. No compromises will be made for anyone. An assessment has been made of the condition of the agricultural lands of the archdiocese, which, according to him, have not been managed in the best way for the Church. “A certain order has been introduced on this issue since this year, which continues to concern us.”

    The Cyprus Archdiocese lost over 100 million euros during the banking crisis, the Archbishop said, and this has affected the financial stability of the church. The Archbishop spoke about the ongoing investigation, which began during the time of the late Archbishop Chrysostomos II, into the misappropriation of archdiocese property. The property of the largest church in the Cypriot capital, Nicosia, “Holy Mother of God Appearing (Phaneromeni)”, which owns more than a hundred properties, is also a problem. The Archbishop said that in this case, legal cases have been filed against tenants who pay inadequately low rent and refuse a reasonable review of unprofitable rents. “I think there should be more order, although everyone sees things from their own perspective,” he said. The Archbishop specified that this is not about some “lonely elderly woman living in a house”, but about commercial premises. No compromise was made for anyone, including relatives of Archbishop Chrysostomos I of Cyprus (1977-2007).

    “Furthermore, I have given instructions that the properties of the archdiocese be evaluated or even improved, where necessary, with a view to renting them out, considering that we do not wish to alienate church property.”

    He noted that the Church of Cyprus also contributes a significant amount to the defense of Cyprus. Recently, the Cyprus Archdiocese allocated 1.2 million euros for the renovation of the dormitories of the Naval Cadet School in Greece. The Holy Synod has also decided to allocate a certain amount each year for the defense of Cyprus, but the Archbishop did not name the specific amount.

    In addition, only the Archdiocese allocates 1 million euros annually for scholarships and other social needs, the other Cypriot metropolitanates also have their own social programs. The Archbishop specified that all these funds do not come from the church treasury, where the income is not even enough for the maintenance of the temples, but from the Church’s shares in various business sectors. Currently, the Church of Cyprus is investing in photovoltaics. It also became clear that the Church of Cyprus used a state subsidy to build student dormitories. He also believes that the salaries of the Archdiocese’s employees are too disproportionate. There are people who receive up to 300,000 euros per year, 8,000 euros in salary and additional income through their participation in various boards of directors of the organizations or companies of the Archdiocese, and others who receive 12-13,000 euros per year. “I do not deny that everyone should receive remuneration according to their qualities and work, but we are not a private company, but a church,” he noted. “A supplement of 1,000 euros per month is enough to cover participation in each board and to feel useful to the church. The amount saved in allowances is significant and can be used to increase the salaries of other employees.

    When asked if he is not worried about opposition, Archbishop Georgi replies: “I am worried, but I am more worried about what I feel inside and when I ask myself the question of what I should do, my inner voice tells me that it will not forgive me if I pretend that nothing is happening.”

  • Wounded Ukrainian soldiers made a pilgrimage to Mount Athos

    A total of twenty-two Ukrainian soldiers made a pilgrimage to Mount Athos. In search of physical and mental peace, the soldiers set off by bus from the Ukrainian city of Lviv and traveled more than 1,000 km to Mount Athos in the hope of escaping their intrusive memories of the battlefield. According to a Reuters report, during their five-day stay, the soldiers – some with amputated legs and arms, others with scars on their heads – made a pilgrimage to twelve monasteries. All the monasteries visited were Greek (although the Russian one has been inhabited and run mainly by Ukrainian monks for years, and in the Serbian and Bulgarian ones they would not have had a language barrier). Their visit to Mount Athos is part of a psychological support program organized by the Ukrainian authorities.

    “Many soldiers are suffering from the events of the past three years. Many of them have various illnesses – they are wounded and need rehabilitation,” says Father Mykhailo Pasyrsky, a Ukrainian Orthodox priest who is accompanying the men on their journey.

    Twenty-two-year-old Ivan Kovalik is one of the soldiers who lost both of his legs while on the front lines until September 2023. “Of course, coming here helped me a lot because I got rid of stress,” he says of his visit to Mount Athos, which he plans to repeat. “When I visited Mount Athos, I felt God’s grace, God’s blessing, God’s greatness,” says Orest Kavetsky, an employee of the Lviv administration who is helping organize the trip. According to him, these five days on Mount Athos in terms of their impact on the soldiers’ psyche correspond to a year of rehabilitation in medical centers.

    Participation in military operations, especially on the scale and in the bloodshed in Ukraine, creates severe trauma for soldiers, who then have problems in their resocialization. The unnatural violence and killings deeply wound the psyche. Specialized care is required to overcome post-war stress, so that these young people can return to peaceful life, albeit with varying degrees of physical disability.

    Illustrative Photo by Serafeim Barakos: https://www.pexels.com/photo/external-view-of-agiou-pavlou-monastery-mount-athos-chalkidiki-greece-20190447/

  • Supreme Court of Cassation of the Republic of Bulgaria upon the appeal of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-style Church”

    DECISION № 214

    Sofia, 16.12.2024

    IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE

    SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION of the Republic of Bulgaria, Commercial Chamber, Second Department, in a court session on the twenty-first of November two thousand and twenty-four, composed of:

    CHAIRMAN: BOYAN BALEVSKI

    MEMBERS: ANNA BAEVA

    ANNA NAENOVA

    under the secretary Ivona Moikina, having heard the report of Judge Anna Baeva, case number 563 on the inventory for 2022.3. and in order to pronounce, took into account the following:

    The proceedings are under Art. 290 of the Civil Procedure Code.

    It was established upon a cassation appeal of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-style Church”, represented by F. D. S., through attorney N. D. by the Supreme Administrative Court, against decision No. 2 of 07.02.2023 on appeal No. 5/2022 of the Sofia Court of Appeal, which confirmed decision No. 65 of 01.11.2022 on appeal No. 25/22 on the inventory of the Sofia City Court, TO, which refused to enter the same religious institution, established at a constituent assembly on 13.06.2022, in the public register under Art. 18 of the Law on Religions at the court.

    The cassation applicant maintains that the appealed decision is unlawful and unfounded. It challenges the appellate court’s conclusion that a condition for the registration of the religious institution is recognition by the local Eastern Orthodox Church under canon law, by presenting considerations for its contradiction both with the specific instructions of the ECHR on the present case, but also with the repeated interpretation of the ECHR of the positive obligations of the Bulgarian state to guarantee regional pluralism – that the state, represented by the court, should remain neutral and impartial in exercising its regulatory powers and in its relations with different religions, denominations and groups within them, by ensuring that the disputing groups within them are equal and respected. It maintains that recognition by a local church as a condition for registration is not provided for in the law, but was invented by the appellate court, and deprives all citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria who do not wish to be under the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Orthodox Church for one or another religious reason of the right to self-determination as Eastern Orthodox, thus violating their right to free choice of religion and self-government. It finds that Article 37, paragraph 2 of the Constitution and Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Civil Code exhaustively list the grounds on which the right to religion may be restricted, and they cannot be interpreted broadly. It points out that the “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-Style Church” has never been a structural division of the BOC – BP and could not have been separated as such, but emerged as an independent religious community at the will of individual individuals, Orthodox Christians, who have no formal commitments to the structures, nor claims to the property of the BOC – BP. Therefore, it requests that the appealed decision be annulled and that the requested entry be granted.

    By Resolution No. 2279 of 16.08.2024. under Case No. 563/2023. of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the TC has admitted a cassation appeal of the appeal decision on the issue of what are the prerequisites for registration of an Eastern Orthodox denomination in Bulgaria and whether a condition for such registration is the recognition of the community as a religious institution by other local Orthodox churches. Cassation review is allowed on the basis of Art. 280, para. 1, item 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to verify whether the resolution of the issue given by the appellate court corresponds to decision No. 5 of 11.07.1992 under case number No. 11/1992 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria.

    The Supreme Court of Cassation, Chamber of Commerce, Second Department, having assessed the data in the case in view of the stated grounds of cassation and in accordance with its powers under Art. 290, para. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, adopts the following:

    The Court of Appeal, in order to confirm the decision of the registry court appealed before it, by which the entry of the religious institution “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-style Church” in the register under Art. 18 of the Law on Religions, has set forth considerations based on the general constitutional regulation contained in Articles 13 and 37 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria on freedom of religion and on the inviolability of this principle, as well as on the limits of the exercise of this right, outlined by the prohibition on the use of religious communities and institutions and religious beliefs for political purposes (Article 13, paragraph 4 of the Constitution), as well as against national security, public order, public health and morality or against the rights and freedoms of other citizens.

    He also analyzed the special legislative framework contained in the Law on Religious Denominations, comparing the legal definitions contained in §1, items 1, 2 and 3 of the PZR of the law, respectively, of the general concept of religion as a set of religious beliefs and principles, the religious community and its religious institution, as well as the concepts of religious community and religious institution, in connection with Art. 5 and Art. 6 of the law. Based on this, he concluded that every individual is free to profess and practice any religious belief, regardless of whether it is registered or recognized by the state, as long as it does not violate the restrictions under Art. 13, para. 4 and Art. 37, para. 2 of the CRB. He pointed out that under the same conditions, a religious belief may also be professed and practiced by a group of individuals, without the need for this religious community to register as a religious institution, and that the registration by which it acquires the status of a legal entity is conditioned by compliance with the minimum requirements established in the Law on Religious Denominations, including regarding its name (in view of the prohibition under Article 15, Paragraph 2, that it repeats that of an already registered one), as well as regarding the compliance of the content of the statute adopted at the constituent assembly with the requirements of Article 17 of the law. He found the appellant’s complaint that an expert opinion of the Directorate of Religious Denominations of the Council of Ministers and the opinion of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church-Bulgarian Orthodox Church attached to it were accepted as evidence in the registration proceedings to be unfounded, on the grounds that the norm of Article 16 of the Law on Religious Denominations expressly provides for the possibility for the court to request such an opinion in connection with the registration of religious communities. It accepted that the law did not prohibit the existence of more than one exponent of the Eastern Orthodox faith, and that the court of first instance had not denied this possibility, but had indicated the necessary facts establishing recognition by other local Orthodox churches under canon law, evidence of which the applicant had not presented. Next, the appellate court set out considerations in connection with compliance with the requirements of Article 17 of the Law on Denominations with regard to the statute of the religious institution submitted to the registration court, holding that it did not constitute valid evidence in the case, since it was not signed and not certified, and that it did not contain data on when and by whom it was adopted. In connection with the requisites of the content of the statute prescribed by the same provision, he indicated that it lacks an indication of the seat of the religious institution applied for registration and a specific and clear statement of the liturgical practice, with which he further justified the final result – confirmation of the decision of the registration court, which refused registration.

    On the relevant legal issue:

    Interpretation of Art. 13, paras. 1 and 2 and Art. 37 of the Constitution in connection with the relationships between religious communities and institutions, on the one hand, and the state, on the other, in the implementation of the constitutionally proclaimed right to religion was made by decision No. 5 of 11.07.1992 under case number No. 11/1992 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bulgaria. Based on the analysis of the aforementioned texts, the Constitutional Court has accepted that the right to religion, as well as the rights of thought and belief, is an absolutely fundamental personal right, directly related to the intimate spiritual peace of the human person, and therefore represents a value of the highest order, which determines not only the possible powers in its exercise, but also outlines the overall legal regime governing this sphere.

    He pointed out that the right to religion encompasses the following more important powers: the right to freely choose one’s religion and the possibility of freely exercising one’s religion through the press, speech, through the creation of religious communities and associations, their activities within the community and outside it as manifestations of society. He explained that the religious community includes all persons who profess a common religious belief, and religious institutions are the elements of the organizational form and structure through which the relevant community carries out its activities within the community and outside it – in society. He pointed out that the right to religion is an absolutely personal, inviolable fundamental human right, which, however, is not limitless from the point of view of its actual exercise, but he emphasized that the limits for this are strictly and comprehensively established in the Constitution and it is inadmissible to expand them either by law or by interpretation. The role of the state in relation to the right to religious belief and the communities and institutions through which it is exercised is explained by way of interpretation, stating that the state is obliged to ensure conditions for the free and unhindered exercise of the personal right to religious belief of every Bulgarian citizen in every respect. It is accepted that the state, through its bodies and institutions, cannot interfere and administer the internal organizational life of religious communities and institutions, and the rights of the state to interfere in the activities of religious communities and institutions are limited to taking the necessary measures only and exclusively in cases where the hypotheses of Art. 13, para. 4 and Art. 37, para. 2 of the Constitution are present, and such an assessment is also made in the event of registration of church communities or institutions.

    For these reasons, the Constitutional Court has accepted that the right to religion cannot be restricted in any way except in the cases of Art. 13, para. 4 and Art. 37, para. 2 of the Constitution, namely when religious communities and institutions are used for political purposes or when freedom of conscience and religion is directed against national security, public order, public health and morality or against the rights and freedoms of other citizens. It has accepted that the specified restrictive grounds are exhaustively listed and cannot be expanded or supplemented by law or by interpretation, and only the specific mechanisms for their implementation can be determined by law. It has accepted that religious communities and institutions are separated from the state and state interference and state administration of the internal organizational life of religious communities and institutions, as well as their public manifestation, is inadmissible, except in the cases already mentioned in Art. 13, para. 4 and Art. 37, para. 2 of the Constitution.

    The interpretation given by the Constitutional Court requires a conclusion that in view of the principle of the secular state, when ruling on a request for registration of a religious institution, the court referred to cannot take into account canon law, but should assess the existence of the prerequisites provided for in the current positive law (the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and the Law on Religions). The present panel, taking into account the reasons for the appeal decision, finds that with regard to the relevant legal issue on which cassation control is allowed, the permission given by the appeal court is in contradiction with the interpretation of the provisions of Art. 13 and Art. 37 of the Constitution adopted in Decision No. 5 of 11.07.1992 under Case No. 11/1992 of the Constitutional Court. Contrary to the Constitutional Court’s acceptance that the restrictive grounds specified in Art. 13, para. 4 and Art. 37, para. 2 of the Constitution are exhaustively listed and cannot be expanded or supplemented by law or by interpretation, the Court of Appeal, sharing the opinion of the court of first instance, took into account the presence of evidence establishing recognition of the religious community by other local Orthodox churches under canon law as a prerequisite for granting the requested entry.

    On the merits of the cassation appeal:

    The minutes of the founding assembly of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-Style Church” of 13.06.2022 presented in the case establish that on the specified date the four founders present made a decision to establish a religious denomination with the specified name and with headquarters in [settlement], Buxton district, [street] for the adoption of its statutes, as well as for the election of its governing bodies. The presented statutes meet the requirements of Art. 17 of the Denominations Act, including, contrary to the conclusion of the appellate court, containing the name and headquarters of the religious denomination – “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-Style Church” with headquarters in [settlement] /Art. 1/, as well as a statement of religious belief /Art. 2/ and liturgical practice /Art. 8/ of the statutes. In connection with the assessment of compliance with the requirement of Art. 17, item 2 of the Religious Act, it should be noted that the statute does not need to contain a detailed statement of the text of the services themselves and the calendar of holidays, and in this case the reference made in Art. 8 to the “Jerusalem liturgical statute and the patristic eortology (church calendar) in its authentic form for both the movable holidays related to the Orthodox Paschalia and the Menaion cycle of the immovable holidays”, and indicating the places of the services, is sufficient.

    A notification letter from the “Information Service” was also submitted regarding the uniqueness of the name “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-Style Church”.

    The present panel, taking into account the evidence presented, finds that the requirements provided for in the Law on Religions for registering the religious institution with the name “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-Style Church” are met. In this case, the restrictions on the right to religion under Art. 13, para. 4 and Art. 37, para. 2 of the Constitution and Art. 7, para. 1 and para. 2 of the Religious Freedom Act, related to public/national security, public order, health, morality or the rights and freedoms of other persons and to the use of religious communities and institutions for political purposes, and upon assessment of proportionality – if they are necessary in a democratic society (Art. 9 in conjunction with Art. 11 of the CPRHR), which are exhaustively regulated in the current positive law, are not present. The statute adopted by the founders meets the content requirements provided for in Art. 17 of the Religious Freedom Act. The condition of Art. 15, para. 2 of the Religious Freedom Act that the name of the religious community should not repeat the name of an already registered religious institution is also met. The word “old-style” included in the name sufficiently distinguishes the newly established religious institution, and also expresses the differences of the religious community with regard to religious holidays, the observance of which, according to Art. 6, para. 1, item 9 of the Religious Act, is included in the right to religion.

    There is also no obstacle to the requested registration arising from Art. 13, para. 3 of the Constitution and Art. 10, paras. 1 and para. 2 of the Religious Act, which provide that the traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria is Eastern Orthodoxy and its exponent is the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate”, which is a legal entity by virtue of the law. As adopted in decision No. 12 of 15.07.2003. under case number No. 3/2003. of the Constitutional Court, the recognition of the status of a legal entity of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate” does not violate the right of persons to freely associate – both that of Eastern Orthodox Christians and of non-Orthodox Christians and those who profess another faith, with only a difference being provided for in terms of the condition and procedure for acquiring legal personality, without affecting either the freedom of choice of religion or the right to exercise it in community.

    The conclusion of the appellate court that the absence of evidence establishing recognition of the religious community by other local Orthodox churches under canon law constitutes grounds for refusing to register it is also incorrect. This conclusion contradicts the decision No. 5 of 11.07.1992 under case number No. 11/1992. of the Constitutional Court interpretation that outside the cases of Art. 13, para. 4 and Art. 37, para. 2 of the Constitution, which are exhaustively listed and cannot be expanded or supplemented by law or by interpretation, the state cannot restrict the right to religion and cannot interfere in the internal organizational life of religious communities and institutions, as well as in their public manifestation. At the same time, in the reasons for decision No. 12 of 15.07.2003. under case No. 3/2003. of the Constitutional Court it is stated that the provision of Art. 10, para. 1 of the Constitution reflects the traditional character of the Eastern Orthodox religion proclaimed in Art. 13, para. 3 of the Constitution and generally known historical facts related to the main features of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church”, with which it identifies itself. The reasons for the decision lead to the conclusion that from the aforementioned provisions, confirming the status of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate”, it cannot be deduced that its recognition by the BOC is a condition for the registration of another Eastern Orthodox religious institution – BP and the other local Eastern Orthodox churches.

    This conclusion is also supported by the provision of Art. 10, Para. 3 of the Law on Religious Affairs, according to which Para. 1 and Para. 2 cannot be grounds for granting privileges or any advantages by law.

    The conclusion that the prerequisites for registration of the religious institution are present also corresponds to Art. 9 and Art. 11 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as to the decision of 20.04.2021 of the ECHR in the case “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-Style Church and Others v. Bulgaria” (application 56751/2013), issued on the occasion of a previous refusal to register the same religious institution, which found a violation of Art. 9 in conjunction with Art. 11 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This decision accepted that it concerns a small Orthodox community of “old-style” believers, who are not part of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate” due to doctrinal differences – regarding the calendar applicable to the services of fixed holidays (non-adoption of the new Julian calendar), without having a formal connection with the structure, nor claims to the property of this church. It was explicitly emphasized that the state, represented by the court, must remain neutral and impartial in exercising its regulatory powers and in its relations with different religions, which would be achieved through registration. This decision and the interpretation given therein of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure should be taken into account in the present proceedings, initiated on a new application for registration of the religious institution, insofar as the procedure regulated in Art. 303, para. 1, item 7 of the Civil Procedure Code is inapplicable with respect to the decision issued in the previous registration proceedings.

    The decision of the ECHR is not in contradiction with the constitutional traditions existing in the country, the accepted values ​​and needs of society. There are no objective circumstances on the basis of which it can be assumed that the registration of the cassationist would affect the rights of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate” and its members. It is indisputable that this religious institution, having existed for centuries, has participated in the strengthening of the Bulgarian national spirit and statehood, that it currently unites the majority of Orthodox Christians in the country, that it is united, authoritative and enjoys the exceptional respect of the institutions and society. At the same time, the requested registration is for a small religious community that has existed for 30 years and has no claims to the internal organization and property of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate”.

    For the reasons stated, the present panel finds that the appealed appellate decision is incorrect and should be annulled, and a decision should be issued allowing the requested registration.

    Thus motivated, the Supreme Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, on the basis of Art. 293, para. 1 in connection with para. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code

    DECIDES:

    CANCELS decision No. 2 of 07.02.2023 on appeal No. 5/2022 of the Sofia Court of Appeal, which confirmed decision No. 65 of 01.11.2022 on appeal No. 25/22 on the inventory of the Sofia City Court, TO, which refused entry in the public register under Art. 18 of the Law on Religious Denominations at the Court of a religious institution with the name “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-Style Church”, established at a founding council on 13.06.2022, instead of which DECIDES:

    ENTRIES in the register of religious denominations at the Sofia City Court a religious institution with the name “Bulgarian Orthodox Old-Style Church”;

    Headquarters and management address: [settlement], [neighborhood], [street];

    Governing bodies: Primate; Synod of Bishops; Church Council; Church Court;

    Primate: His Holiness Metropolitan F. D. S. with Personal Identification Number [PIN]

    Synod of Bishops: His Holiness Metropolitan F. D. S. with Personal Identification Number [PIN], Bishop of Sozopol S. (B. Ch. O.) with Personal Identification Number [PIN], temporary member – Archbishop of Moldova and Chisinau G. (V. K.), citizen of Ukraine, with passport FE427792, issued on 26.04.2016 by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine;

    Church Council: Bishop of Sozopol S. (B. Ch. O.) with Personal Identification Number [PIN], Priest K. H. D. with Personal Identification Number [PIN], Priest I. K. M. with Personal Identification Number [PIN], S. T. T. with Personal Identification Number [PIN], I. N. G. with Personal Identification Number [PIN] – secretary.

    The religious institution is represented by T. Metropolitan F. D. S. with Personal Identification Number [PIN] – head.

    The decision is final and subject to registration.

    CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS:

  • Bulgarian Orthodox Old Style Church registered in Bulgaria

    The Supreme Court of Cassation has allowed the entry of the Bulgarian Orthodox Old Style Church (BOOC) into the register of religious denominations at the Sofia City Court, overturning the decision of the Sofia City Court, later confirmed by the appellate magistrates.

    Thus, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is no longer the only one that can be called “Orthodox” by law in Bulgaria.

    According to the supreme judges, there are no objective circumstances on the basis of which it can be assumed that the registration of the BOOC would affect the rights of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate” and its members.

    “It is undeniable that this religious institution, having existed for centuries, has participated in strengthening the Bulgarian national spirit and statehood, that it currently unites the majority of Orthodox Christians in the country, that it is united, authoritative and enjoys the exceptional respect of the institutions and society. At the same time, the requested registration is for a small religious community that has existed for 30 years and has no claims to the internal organization and property of the “Bulgarian Orthodox Church – Bulgarian Patriarchate”,” the supreme magistrates wrote in their decision.

    The Primate of the now legal Bulgarian Orthodox Old Style Church is the Triaditza Metropolitan Photius, and the Synod includes the Bishop of Sozopol Seraphim and the Archbishop of Chisinau and Moldova Georgi, who is a temporary member.

    The Old Style Church has 18 churches in the country, and its cathedral church “Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos” is located in the capital’s “Bukston” district. Theirs is also the nunnery in the “Knyazhevo” district, where 60 nuns serve.

    In fact, the separation of the priests of the old-style church from the Bulgarian Orthodox Church took place in December 1968, when the Synod of the Bulgarian Patriarchate published a “Message to the clergy and all the children of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church”, in which it announced the upcoming reform of the church calendar – the adoption of the so-called new Julian calendar. In it, the fixed holidays (Christmas, Epiphany, Annunciation, Assumption of the Virgin Mary, etc.) coincide with the Gregorian calendar, and for the movable (Lord’s) – Resurrection of Christ and those related to it, the Julian calendar is used.

    However, the change was rejected by the then archimandrites Seraphim (Aleksiev), Sergiy (Yazadzhiev), Panteleimon (Staritsky), hieromonk Seraphim (Dmitrievsky), abbess Seraphim (Liven) and the entire sisterhood of the monastery “Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos” in the “Knyazhevo” district. They stated in a letter to the Bulgarian Patriarch Kirill that they could not accept the reform in conscience, as it contradicted the liturgical Statute, the liturgical and canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church.

    Since 1989, attempts have been made to formalize the Old Style Church, but without success.

    Photo: Metropolitan Photius of Triaditza, Primate // Bulgarian Orthodox Old Style Church

  • Romanian Patriarchate distances itself from Archbishop Teodosii of Tomi

    The Romanian Orthodox Church has distanced itself from the position and actions of Archbishop Teodosii of Tomi (Constanța), who openly campaigned in his diocese for Calin Georgescu as “God’s messenger.” The Archbishop does not hide that he is an admirer of Vladimir Putin, D. Medvedev and Donald Trump, “who speak of peace” and “Christian values.” The high cleric has attracted the attention of the Romanian and Western media with his undisguised campaigning in his diocese for Georgescu.

    The position of the Romanian Patriarchate states: “The Romanian Patriarchate categorically distances itself from the statements of His Eminence Father Teodosii, Archbishop of Tomi, in an interview given to the publication “Le Figaro” regarding Mr. Calin Georgescu and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The next working session of the Holy Synod will consider the case of His Eminence Theodosius for the repeated violation of the decisions of the Holy Synod regarding the election campaigns.”

    In an interview with the French publication published on December 6, Archbishop Theodosius said of the former candidate for president of Romania, Calin Georgescu, that “he is more of a man of God than a politician. He is the one sent by God.” “He is a believer. The grandson and great-grandson of a priest who defends Christian values ​​and is interested in the everyday life of Romanians.” And he described Vladimir Putin as “a man of peace and a builder of churches,” “whom we should not be afraid of.” When asked by French journalists how this opinion of his corresponded to the war against Ukraine launched on the orders of the Russian dictator, the senior cleric evaded the answer, blaming the war on “the bad guys.” According to him, Georgescu, who sympathizes with Putin, “will resolve these contradictions.”

    In his defense, the archbishop said that he had not violated anything, the interview should have been published after the elections, not before them. The definition of “messenger of God” was of a general nature, not political, it was made because of the personal qualities of the candidate. And about Putin, he “spoke in principle that he was a founder of churches, not specifically”. In 2006, Archbishop Theodosius admitted that he had been recruited by the “Securitate” in 1987, when he was an assistant at the Institute of Theology in Bucharest. “I think I was vulnerable because I had applied for a scholarship to study abroad,” the archbishop said, noting that he had only reported on issues “of great national interest”.

  • Russian bank cards are given to clerics of the Patriarchate of Alexandria

    Russian bank cards are given to the African clerics of the Patriarchate of Alexandria who switch to the Moscow Patriarchate in the so-called “African Exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church”. This was told by the Ukrainian theologian Archimandrite Kirill (Govorun), who attended an international conference in Sweden dedicated to the crises in world Orthodoxy. The first session was dedicated to Ukraine and Georgia, and the second to Africa. A participant from Africa gave a report on how the “African Exarchate” was formed. According to him, the Russian state needs a church structure in Africa to facilitate the resolution of political and business issues with local authorities: “In Africa, people in religious clothes have great authority and the door of every office opens for them. The Kremlin opens some of these doors with the help of people in cassocks”. At the same time, the priests of the Russian Orthodox Church acted as recruiters of local men for the war with Ukraine: “These people also indirectly or directly recruit local people to go to Russia. The locals trust them because ‘people in cassocks don’t give bad advice.’ So they go and then some end up at the front.”

    A participant in the conference told the story of an Orthodox seminarian who went to Russia to enter a seminary, but there they took his passport and began to prepare him for the front: “He found out in time what they were preparing for him and managed to escape.”

    It also became clear that African clergy who leave the Patriarchate of Alexandria and switch to the Russian Orthodox Church are issued a bank card, which, however, is not in their name: “Those who switch from the Patriarchate of Alexandria to the Moscow Patriarchate are given a bank card, on which they receive 200 euros every month. However, the card is not issued in their name, but to Russian organizations. One cleric even had a card with Prigozhin’s name on it. This makes these people highly dependent and, moreover, allows for the misuse of funds allocated for Africans. Adherents of local religious cults or confessions that are not even Christian, register with the Orthodox clergy in order to receive a bank card. Meanwhile, more principled Orthodox Christians, disappointed with such missionary methods, switch to other confessions.”

    Ultimately, this inevitably leads to disillusionment with Orthodoxy and destroys the fruits of the Orthodox mission on the African continent.

  • Belgium Archbishop Luc Terlinden, A Christmas Message of Hope and Transformation

    As Christmas 2024 approaches, Archbishop Luc Terlinden embodies a spirit of hope and renewal that resonates deeply with Belgium’s Catholic community. With a background rooted in humility and action, Terlinden’s reflections and leadership signal a transformative vision for the Church, steeped in mercy, inclusivity, and faith.

    A Leader of Renewal

    Appointed Archbishop of Mechelen-Brussels in 2023, Luc Terlinden was an unexpected yet welcomed choice, rising from a simple priesthood to the helm of Belgium’s Catholic Church. Guided by his motto, Fratelli tutti (“All brothers”), his ministry has focused on fostering fraternity, modernizing Church practices, and addressing societal challenges head-on.

    In his Christmas reflections, Terlinden draws inspiration from the birth of Jesus in humble surroundings, emphasizing that Christ’s incarnation represents God’s enduring presence amid humanity’s struggles. For the archbishop, Christmas is a profound reminder that faith and hope transcend adversity, just as Easter follows the crucifixion.

    Addressing Challenges with Compassion

    In a recent interview, Terlinden highlighted the Church’s ongoing mission to support the marginalized, particularly victims of abuse. Building on two decades of reform within the Belgian Church, he has championed further dialogue and concrete actions, acknowledging the pain of the past while striving for accountability and healing. His commitment to zero tolerance for abuse underscores a broader vision of justice and reconciliation.

    A Vision of Inclusion and Dialogue

    Terlinden also advocates for a more inclusive Church, emphasizing the essential role of women in leadership. He envisions a Church modeled on family dynamics—less hierarchical, more participatory, and attentive to all voices. His push for interfaith dialogue, especially amid global conflicts, has positioned him as a bridge-builder. Notably, he has proposed joint peace initiatives with leaders of other faiths, such as a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, symbolizing unity across religious divides.

    Christmas as a Call to Action

    The archbishop’s Christmas message extends beyond spiritual reflection to encourage active engagement. He urges believers to be witnesses of God’s love by addressing modern societal challenges such as poverty, climate change, and political polarization. Drawing from his personal encounters, such as the vibrant Hope Happening youth festival, he highlights the power of collective action to foster solidarity and renewal within the Church and society.

    A Symbol of Hope

    In harmony with Pope Francis’ global message of hope and the opening of the Jubilee Holy Doors this Christmas Eve, Archbishop Terlinden’s leadership exemplifies a Church in transformation. His call to celebrate Christ’s birth as a source of hope and his commitment to a synodal, inclusive, and mission-oriented Church inspire believers to look forward with renewed faith.

    As Belgium and the world prepare to mark Christmas 2024, Terlinden’s vision invites all to embrace the season not only as a time of celebration but as a catalyst for compassion, unity, and change.

  • Addressing Anti-Christian Hatred: COMECE’s Call for an EU Coordinator Gains Momentum

    On December 4, 2024, the European Parliament hosted the 27th edition of the European Prayer Breakfast, where the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) made a compelling case for the appointment of an EU Coordinator dedicated to combating anti-Christian hatred. The conference, themed “Safeguarding Religious Freedom in Europe – Current Challenges and Future Prospects,” underscored the urgency of addressing rising anti-Christian sentiments across Europe.

    Alessandro Calcagno, COMECE’s adviser on fundamental rights and Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), articulated the pressing need for equal protection of religious freedoms, emphasizing that all dimensions of this fundamental right should be safeguarded. “Freedom of religion is too often seen as a ‘problematic’ right,” Calcagno remarked. He stressed that the collective dimension of religious freedom must be prioritized alongside individual rights, warning against the dangers of reducing tolerance to a mere substitute for genuine protection.

    Calcagno highlighted the ongoing challenges faced by religious communities, particularly regarding the visibility of religious symbols and expressions. He asserted that as long as these expressions are viewed as potentially offensive or coercive, true freedom of religion remains unattainable. The conference emphasized the importance of mainstreaming religious freedom protections in EU policies, including the safeguarding of places of worship and data protection measures.

    A pivotal moment came when Calcagno called for the establishment of an EU Coordinator specifically to combat anti-Christian hatred, reinforcing that this is not about creating a hierarchy of victimhood but ensuring equitable access to protective measures. “The time is mature for this step,” he stated, acknowledging the existing coordinators for Jewish and Muslim communities while advocating for similar support for Christians.

    The discussion also touched on the vital role of religious literacy in fostering understanding and respect among different faiths. Calcagno urged public authorities and institutions to engage with religious education to develop informed policies that effectively address discrimination based on religion.

    The conference concluded with a call to action, urging policymakers to leverage Article 17.3 of the TFEU to translate discussions into concrete policy initiatives rather than remaining at the level of abstract principles. The event was moderated by MEP Paulius Saudargas from Lithuania and featured prominent speakers, including Dr. Katharina von Schnurbein, the EU Coordinator on combating antisemitism, and Anja Hoffmann, Executive Director of The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe.

    As the European Prayer Breakfast drew to a close, H.E. Mgr. Mariano Crociata, President of COMECE, offered a prayer, invoking blessings for the participants and the vital work ahead in safeguarding religious freedom across Europe. The call for an EU Coordinator to combat anti-Christian hatred signals a significant step towards ensuring that all religious communities in Europe receive the protection and respect they deserve.