How the Russian Orthodox Church Views the Russian World

The cultural concept of a “Russian world” (Russian: “russkiy mir”) plays an increasingly important role today, and is not limited to political discourse. The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), which officially joined the “Russian World” foundation in 2009, has frequently referred to Russkiy mir in recent discourse. The term “Russian world” refers to a culture that differentiates itself from Western culture and is superior to it. Despite ROC usage of the term, understanding of Russkiy mir is diffuse. There are still some semantic constants which occur repeatedly. The most significant of these are a) the historical aspect, b) religion or religious origin, c) values, and d) supranational character. The Russkiy mir concept has gained even more significance during the latest event in Ukraine

What 1990 Meant for My Country...

When I started thinking about what to write in this essay, my first thought was: I am probably from the country that was affected most of all by the events of 1998-1990. I am German, and I live in Germany, the country through which the East-West-divide went, most visibly through Berlin in form of the wall. But after a short time, I thought of the countries on which I concentrate most in my research—Russia and Ukraine, on the one hand, and Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the other hand. Thirty years ago, they all belonged to larger countries, which do not exist anymore, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I do not want to enter a competition regarding which country was more affected, and whether the split of a larger country into smaller ones has a larger effect than the unification of two countries into one. What is important, however, is to note that in both cases of break-ups, war was involved: for the years 1991-1995 in former Yugoslavia, and on a lesser level, in different regions for different periods of time, in the former Soviet Union, most significantly in the war still going on in Eastern Ukraine

The Statistics of Lotteries

This project begins with the analysis of several existing lotteries in the state of Minnesota. The raw data of these lotteries are used to calculate the expected values of certain random variables in an effort to describe and compare the lotteries mathematically. Next, the different criteria that contribute to a successful lottery are described and brought together. Finally, via mathematical modeling and computer simulation, a new lottery proposal is presented with the claim that it is superior to existing lotteries from an administrative standpoint

Gondwanan Origin of Major Monocot Groups Inferred from Dispersal-Vicariance Analysis

Historical biogeography of major monocot groups was investigated by biogeographical analysis of a dated phylogeny including 79 of the 81 monocot families using the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group II (APG II) classification. Five major areas were used to describe the family distributions: Eurasia, North America, South America, Africa including Madagascar, and Australasia including New Guinea, New Caledonia, and New Zealand. In order to investigate the possible correspondence with continental breakup, the tree with its terminal distributions was fitted to the geological area cladogram ((Eurasia, North America), (Africa, (South America, Australasia)) and to alternative area cladograms using the TreeFitter program. The results indicated that monocot evolution is related to the comparatively late (Eocene) connection (via Antarctica) and break up of South America and Australasia, but not to the much older connections and separations of the other areas. The family phylogeny and distributions were also subjected to dispersal-vicariance analysis using the DIVA program. A prevalence of Australasia and South America among the DIVA optimizations inside core monocots (i.e., monocots excluding Acorus and Alismatales), and especially so in Liliales, Asparagales, and at deep nodes in the core monocot and commelinid phylogeny, points to a South Gondwanan origin for those major groups; South Gondwana comprises South America (at least southern South America), Antarctica, and Australasia. Africa and the Northern Hemisphere were presumably not parts of the ancestral area for core monocots and commelinids

Concept of Autocephalia in Orthodoxy and Current Conflict between Constantinople and Moscow

Tijekom 2018. i 2019. godine crkvene su se prilike u ukrajinskom ravoslavlju bitno promijenile. Uz znatnu pomoć tadašnje ukrajinske vlade, Carigradska patrijaršija jednostrano je proglasila tek stvorenu “Pravoslavnu Crkvu Ukrajine” (PCU) autokefalnom, tj. samostalnom. Ruska Pravoslavna Crkva pak smatra Ukrajinu svojim “kanonskim teritorijem” i ne priznaje PCU valjanom, nego je naziva šizmatičnom organizacijom. Reagirajući na proglašenje autokefalnosti PCU, ruska je Crkva prekinula euharistijsko zajedništvo s Carigradom. Postoji čak opasnost šizme koja bi obuhvatila cijelo pravoslavlje, u ovisnosti o tome kako će reagirati druge pravoslavne crkve. Aktualna rasprava posljedica je činjenice da u pravoslavlju ne postoji konsenzus o tome kako jedna Crkva može postati autokefalnom. U pozadini stoje ekleziološki problemi koji nisu riješeni. Pitanje autokefalnosti pravoslavna je tematika, ali i za Katoličku Crkvu i teologiju, posebno u njezinom trenutačnom položaju, važno je razmišljati o odnosu između sinodalnosti i prvenstva.During 2018 and 2019, church circumstances in Ukrainian Orthodoxy changed significantly. With considerable assistance of that-time Ukrainian government, the Patriarchate of Constantinople unilaterally declared the newly created “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” (OCU) an autocephalous, i.e. independent. The Russian Orthodox Church, however, regards Ukraine as its “canonical territory” and does not recognize the OCU as valid, but calls it a schismatic organization. In response to the proclamation of the OCU\u27s autocephaly, the Russian Church terminated the Eucharistic communion with Constantinople. There is even a danger of schism that would span all Orthodoxy, depending on how other Orthodox churches would react. The current debate is due to the fact that in Orthodoxy there is no consensus on how one Church can become autocephalous. Accordingly, there are ecclesiological problems in the background that have not been resolved. The issue of autocephaly is an Orthodox issue, but for the Catholic Church and theology, especially in its current position, it is important to think about the relationship between synodality and primacy

Der neue Patriarch der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche, Kirill I.

Der neue Patriarch der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche, Kirill I., kommt aus der »Schule« des Leningrader Metropoliten Nikodim, eines der bedeutendsten Kirchenführer der russischen Orthodoxie im 20. Jahrhundert. Die Prägung durch Metropolit Nikodim bedeutet auch, dass der neue Patriarch grundsätzlich für einen Dialog der Kirche mit der »Welt« off en ist; eine solche Off enheit hat er auch schon bewiesen. Allerdings hat Kirill hat seit den 1990er Jahren deutlicher einen russischen Patriotismus an den Tag gelegt. Er war einer der Initiatoren der »Russischen Nationalkonzile«, die seit 1993 unter dem Patronat der Kirche organisiert wurden. Nach seiner Inthronisation steht er vor großen Problemen, die er lösen muss, sowohl im Innern der Kirche wie in ihren Beziehungen nach außen