Ipatievsky Vestnik № 1 (33), 2026

The books of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi are united by a common chronology: tradition unequivocally attributes these three books, the last of the Twelve minor prophets, to the era after the Babylonian captivity, that is, to the time of the restoration of the Temple, Jerusalem and the entire fabric of life of the Jewish people who returned from long slavery. This article provides a brief historical and spiritual analysis of the contents of these books.

The article is devoted to the religious symbol and defining its place in the theological system of the prominent Orthodox theologian of the twentieth century, Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann. The text demonstrates a three-part symbolic principle, moving from an ontological understanding of symbol to representations of Jesus Christ as an expression of symbol, and then to liturgy as a symbol. Analysis of the concept of «symbol» in the theology of Fr. A. Schmemann is important for understanding the meaning of the sacrament and the liturgical life of the Church.

The article proposes the rite of joining the Orthodox Church of Baptists and Evangelicals, adapted from the pre-revolutionary Book of Orders and significantly updated taking into account the current state of the doctrine and practice of this type of neo- Protestants. The introductory part outlines the main changes and additions in comparison with the Book of Orders, justifying the relevance of this work in the absence of any official guidelines on the accession of heretics to the Church. Recommendations for the priest on the application of the rite and preparatory work with the penitent are also offered. The text of the Baptist rite of accession itself, proposed for discussion, fully preserves the pre-revolutionary liturgical order, but questions and answers are given in it in Russian. Before the publication of the new Book of Orders by the hierarchy, it is possible to use such questions and answers during a penitential and confessional conversation before the act of joining.

The article suggests the rite of joining the Orthodox Church from Seventh-day Adventists for a church-wide discussion. The pre-revolutionary order of joining the Stundists (i. e. Baptists) is taken as the liturgical basis for it. The key feature of our rite is two large question and answer cycles with the renunciation of Adventist false teachings and the affirmation of the teachings of the Orthodox Church distorted by Adventists. The introductory part of the article outlines the main changes and additions in comparison with the Book of Ranks of 1915. and the previously published rite of joining Baptists and Evangelicals, as well as the features of the rite necessary for practical application. For the convenience of discussion with affiliated Adventists, questions and answers are given in Russian, while the rest of the rites are unchanged from the Book of Orders. Before the publication of the new Book of Orders by the hierarchy, it is possible to use such questions and answers during a penitential and confessional conversation before the act of joining.

The article describes the events related to the adoption of measures to protect the miraculous Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God in 1908–1911. It is noted that the need for such measures was prescribed by the situation in the Russian Empire at that time, when shrines were often subjected to malicious acts with the aim of stealing and even destroying them. The role of Bishop Tikhon (Vasilevsky) of Kostroma and Galich, who initiated the consideration of issues of ensuring the safety of the icon, is indicated. Archival documents are published in the appendices, including the secret circular decree of the Holy Synod No. 25 of September 18th, 1910.

This article offers an analytical examination of the administrative and teaching activity of Archimandrite Sophony (Sokolsky), who would later become the first Archbishop of Turkestan, during his period of service as rector of four theological seminaries — Kamianets-P odolsk, Yaroslavl, Tver, and Mogilev — between 1839 and 1847. The study identifies his contribution to the institutional development of theological seminaries situated in the western borderlands of the Russian Empire and analyses the distinctive characteristics of his interaction, as rector, with diocesan bishops.

The article examines such an aspect of the archpastoral ministry of Vladyka Mikhail (Mudyugin) as his relationship with the clergy. The authors limited themselves to the chronological framework of 1968–1979. During this period, Bishop Mikhail (Mudyugin) headed an independent diocese, Astrakhan and Enotaevskaya, having previously had only the experience of a vicar bishop. The empirical basis for the article was the materials of the document management archive of the Astrakhan Diocesan Administration. The results of the analysis of the content of these materials made it possible to identify the following characteristics in the relationship between Vladyka Mikhail (Mudyugin) and the clergy. He always showed tact and gentleness towards subordinate clerics, however, he rather strictly demanded that they comply with disciplinary, canonical and statutory norms. A separate responsibility of the Astrakhan Archpastor was to raise the theological and educational level of the clergy. For this purpose, a nomination committee was established in the diocese. In addition, Vladyka Mikhail (Mudyugin) compiled and circularly sent texts to the parishes with theological explanations of difficult liturgical moments.

The article is devoted to the life and ministry of Archbishop John (Lavrinenko). His origin, education, circumstances of entering the path of monasticism and priesthood, life and ministry in exile, and obtaining Soviet citizenship are shown. The circumstances of his vocation to the episcopal ministry, his archpastoral activity during the Great Patriotic War, his new forced emigration, his return to the USSR, and the hierarch's activity in trying to develop church life, for which he was sent to retirement early at the request of the atheist authorities, are considered. His ministry in the Alma Ata diocese was short, and Archbishop John did not actually use his appointment to Kostroma. At the same time, he is inscribed in their history, and according to the Kostroma department — the last one to which he was appointed — he is referred to in the "Orthodox Encyclopedia" as Archbishop of Kostroma and Galich.

This article analyses the situation of the Orthodox clergy in the Kazakh SSR in 1958–1964, a period characterized by the intensification of the Soviet state's anti-religious policy under Nikita Khrushchev and the simultaneous preservation of stable religious practices among part of the republic's population. Based on departmental reports, materials from religious affairs commissioners, data on the clergy's interaction with representatives of the Council for Russian Orthodox Church Affairs, statistics from the parish network, and data from the personal files of ruling bishops, the study examines changes in the personnel structure of parishes, the dynamics of church closures, pressure on the clergy in the sphere of administrative control, and restrictions on catechetical activities and missionary initiatives. Particular attention is paid to regional specifics: the geographical isolation of communities and their economic vulnerability. It turns out that, despite harsh measures — from restrictions on parish registration to persecution for ‘illegal’ religious ceremonies — the clergy managed to maintain a basic level of religious life and partially adapt to the demands of the secular authorities. The archpastors' efforts to strengthen the Church's position in the eyes of the nomenclature were accompanied by conflicting sentiments among the clergy, some of whom were ready to serve the Church sacrificially, while others viewed the priesthood as nothing more than a means of maintaining their own financial stability. The author also concludes that Khrushchev's campaign in Kazakhstan was contradictory, combining active pressure on the Church with the impossibility of completely suppressing religious initiatives at the local level.

The article is dedicated to the memory of the outstanding Russian church scholar, publicist and preacher, the famous hierarch of the Orthodox Russian Church, Archbishop of Tver and Kashin Savva (Tikhomirov) (1819–1896), on the 130th anniversary of his blessed death. The author publishes for the first time a document from his private collection, namely, the diploma of the Master of Theology of the Moscow Theological Academy of hieromonk Savva (Tikhomirov), written in Latin. The document is the original diploma of the Master of Theology of hieromonk Savva (Tikhomirov), issued in 1851 and contains not only information about the successful confirmation of the academic degree of Master of Theology, but also the original autographs in Latin of representatives of the professorial and teaching corporation of the Moscow Theological Academy as of 1851. The document also contains a brief biographical information about each of them. The number of signatories of the document is crowned by the autograph of saint Philaret (Drozdov) (1783–1867), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. The data of the diploma are provided with the necessary academic comments. The described document is a unique example of a personal diploma of the master of theology of the MThA, probably existing in a single copy, which makes it a genuine rarity. The article continues a series of publications in the academic journal of the Church Research Center of the Kostroma Metropolitanate of the Russian Orthodox Church «Ipatievsky Vestnik», dedicated to the introduction into academic circulation of descriptions of original documents on the completion of theological schools in the Russian Empire by their outstanding graduates.

The article discusses the issue of the methodology of making bibliographic references to authors who are representatives of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church. This problem exists due to the fact that there are currently no uniform standards for the design of references to clergy publications in the academic literature. The study compares the relevant rules of secular science and the traditional approach adopted in church academic and educational institutions when writing theological texts. The author studies the requirements of GOST in detail, analyzes the existing church method, and offers his solutions for the future GOST based on bibliographic references, as well as for publishing houses and libraries. The material is provided with four tables. The author's conclusions are based on long-term practice of working with the rules of bibliographic design, which is summarized in two of his books: 1) Written works at the theological seminary. Kostroma, 2018 (ISBN 9785903956159) and 2) Rules for the registration of written works in theological educational institutions. Kostroma, 2024 (ISBN 9785605067610).

The review is dedicated to the popular academic publication dedicated to the memory of the former rector of the Kyiv Theological Schools, professor, archpriest Nikolai Petrovich Zabuga (1951–2014), which was published in 2025 by the Kiev publishing house "Lira- K". Exploring the issue of church humor, the author — an Orthodox priest, scholar and graduate of the Kyiv Theological Schools, archpriest — professor D. S. Martyshin not only supplements the works dedicated to the memory of archpriest Nikolai Zabuga with special details, reproduces his manner of speaking and his vocabulary, but also reflects on the nature of humor, which, being an integral part of human life, is often perceived falsely, and as a rule — in the circles of religious fanatics. Using as an example the intellectual, aristocratically refined humor of Professor Archpriest Nikolai Zabuga, the author refutes the assertions of the rigorists that humor is a phenomenon of a vicious and anti-spiritual order, and, therefore, is unacceptable for Orthodox Christians.