Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this article is to research in more detail the restoration of the Old Believers parishes and their recognition during the interwar Lithuania (excluding Vilnius region) from 1918 to 1923, as well as to analyse the legalization of the Old Believers' Church of Lithuania and the problems of practical establishment of religious autonomy in this period.The main focus is on three new problems: the situation of the Old Believers' parishes in the country at the beginning of 1918, taking into account the mass migration to the depths of Russia from 1914 to 1915; the restoration of Old Believers parishes and the legalization (registration) of their religious activities from 1918 to 1922, during their mass repatriation to Lithuania; and focus on some problems of the practical consolidation of Old Believers' Church of Lithuania autonomy from 1923 to 1926. The research is based mostly on new archival data, as well as on the analysis and interpretation of Lithuanian and partly foreign historiography on this topic.The study suggests that due to the mass migration of Old Believers to the East between 1914 and 1915, the future Lithuanian territory retained a much thinner congregation network and in turn had fewer parishes members by the beginning of 1918. Therefore, the mass repatriation of the Old Believers from Soviet Russia from the spring of 1918 to 1922 to a large extent explains why the recovery of many of their parishes in Lithuania has been rather slow.After the establishment of the central institutions of the Church in May 1922, the Lithuanian Old Believers' Church was legal-ized on the basis of "Provisional regulations concerning the relationship between the organization of Old Believers in Lithuania and the Lithuanian government" on the May 20, 1923. Therefore, for the first time in history in 1923 the Lithuanian Old Believers Church was legally recognized in a certain state and formally received equal rights with other recognized denominations. At that time, Lithuania was the first country in Central and Eastern Europe to officially recognize the Old Believers (Pomorian) Church.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and interpret tolerance practices in historical and contemporary Lithuania, drawing more consistently on the concepts and conceptions of tolerance and insights from current theoretical debates on tolerance. Moreover, we intend to actualize the re-flections on the variants of tolerance in the old Lithuania and especially in the Lithuanian democracy and partly in Lithuanian historiography of the beginning of the 21st century. It is crucial to under-stand the status of tolerance in present-day Lithuania, how it works in late modernity, with special reference to the situation of ethnic minorities.The article notes that the biggest problem we face today is that tolerance is not enough to overcome our moral problems. In particular, pervasive tolerance as a joyful acceptance of differences and open-ness to everything is not enough. In the author's opinion, citizenship of juristic state, like tolerance, is not a sufficient basis for generality. We have to talk about true integration of society, without identi-fying it in rhetoric with assimilation or merely "minority integration", as is still the case in Lithuanian public space and often in the works of historians. It means being more aware that you are part of the same world, of a particular community with common affinities, a common history.

The purpose of this article is to research in more detail the restoration of the Old Believers parishes and their recognition during the interwar Lithuania (excluding Vilnius region) from 1918 to 1923, as well as to analyse the legalization of the Old Believers' Church of Lithuania and the problems of practical establishment of religious autonomy in this period.The main focus is on three new problems: the situation of the Old Believers' parishes in the countryat the beginning of 1918, taking into account the mass migration to the depths of Russia from 1914 to 1915; the restoration of Old Believers parishes and the legalization (registration) of their religious activities from 1918 to 1922, during their mass repatriation to Lithuania; and focus on some problems of the practical consolidation of Old Believers' Church of Lithuania autonomy from 1923 to 1926. The research is based mostly on new archival data, as well as on the analysis and interpretation of Lithuanian and partly foreign historiography on this topic.The study suggests that due to the mass migration of Old Believers to the East between 1914 and 1915, the future Lithuanian territory retained a much thinner congregation network and in turn had fewer parishes members by the beginning of 1918. Therefore, the mass repatriation of the Old Believers from Soviet Russia from the spring of 1918 to 1922 to a large extent explains why the recovery of many of their parishes in Lithuania has been rather slow.After the establishment of the central institutions of the Church in May 1922, the Lithuanian Old Believers' Church was legalized on the basis of "Provisional regulations concerning the relationship between the organization of Old Believers in Lithuania and the Lithuanian government" on the May 20, 1923. Therefore, for the first time in history in 1923 the Lithuanian Old Believers Church was legally recognized in a certain state and formally received equal rights with other recognized denominations. At that time, Lithuania was the first country in Central and Eastern Europe to officially recognize the Old Believers (Pomorian) Church. ; Šio straipsnio tikslas– nuodugniau panagrinėti sentikių parapijų atsikūrimą ir jų pripažinimą tarpukario Lietuvos ribose (be Vilniaus krašto) 1918–1923m., taip pat paanalizuoti LSB įteisinimą ir religinės autonomijos praktinio įtvirtinimo problemas 1923–1926m. Tyrimas paremtas daugiausia naujais archyvų duomenimis, taip pat šios temos Lietuvos ir iš dalies užsienio istoriografijos analize bei interpretacija. Atliktas tyrimas leidžia teigti, kad keliomis bangomis vykusi sentikių masinė repatriacija iš Sovietų Rusijos 1918m. pavasarį–1922m. nemaža dalimi paaiškina, kodėl tada Lietuvoje gana lėtai vyko ir užsitęsė daugelio jų parapijų atsikūrimas, o dėl to vėlavo ir daugelio jų oficialus pripažinimas VRM. 1922m. sukūrus SCT, LSB buvo įteisinta, remiantis vyriausybės 1923m. gegužės 20d. patvirtintomis Laikinomis taisyklėmis. Tačiau, nepaisant lygiateisiškumo retorikos, 1923–1926m. valdžia praktikoje pažeisdavo LSB savarankiškumą, filtravo SCT narius, prižiūrėjo ir vis daugiau siekė kontroliuoti Tarybos veiklą. Vyriausybė ir VRM ėmėsi riboti religines ir socialines Bažnyčios ir nemažos dalies sentikių dvasininkų teises.

The purpose of this article is to research in more detail the restoration of the Old Believers parishes and their recognition during the interwar Lithuania (excluding Vilnius region) from 1918 to 1923, as well as to analyse the legalization of the Old Believers' Church of Lithuania and the problems of practical establishment of religious autonomy in this period.The main focus is on three new problems: the situation of the Old Believers' parishes in the country at the beginning of 1918, taking into account the mass migration to the depths of Russia from 1914 to 1915; the restoration of Old Believers parishes and the legalization (registration) of their religious activities from 1918 to 1922, during their mass repatriation to Lithuania; and focus on some problems of the practical consolidation of Old Believers' Church of Lithuania autonomy from 1923 to 1926. The research is based mostly on new archival data, as well as on the analysis and interpretation of Lithuanian and partly foreign historiography on this topic.The study suggests that due to the mass migration of Old Believers to the East between 1914 and 1915, the future Lithuanian territory retained a much thinner congregation network and in turn had fewer parishes members by the beginning of 1918. Therefore, the mass repatriation of the Old Believers from Soviet Russia from the spring of 1918 to 1922 to a large extent explains why the recovery of many of their parishes in Lithuania has been rather slow.After the establishment of the central institutions of the Church in May 1922, the Lithuanian Old Believers' Church was legal-ized on the basis of "Provisional regulations concerning the relationship between the organization of Old Believers in Lithuania and the Lithuanian government" on the May 20, 1923. Therefore, for the first time in history in 1923 the Lithuanian Old Believers Church was legally recognized in a certain state and formally received equal rights with other recognized denominations. At that time, Lithuania was the first country in Central and Eastern Europe to officially recognize the Old Believers (Pomorian) Church.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and interpret tolerance practices in historical and contemporary Lithuania, drawing more consistently on the concepts and conceptions of tolerance and insights from current theoretical debates on tolerance. Moreover, we intend to actualize the re-flections on the variants of tolerance in the old Lithuania and especially in the Lithuanian democracy and partly in Lithuanian historiography of the beginning of the 21st century. It is crucial to under-stand the status of tolerance in present-day Lithuania, how it works in late modernity, with special reference to the situation of ethnic minorities.The article notes that the biggest problem we face today is that tolerance is not enough to overcome our moral problems. In particular, pervasive tolerance as a joyful acceptance of differences and open-ness to everything is not enough. In the author's opinion, citizenship of juristic state, like tolerance, is not a sufficient basis for generality. We have to talk about true integration of society, without identi-fying it in rhetoric with assimilation or merely "minority integration", as is still the case in Lithuanian public space and often in the works of historians. It means being more aware that you are part of the same world, of a particular community with common affinities, a common history.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and interpret tolerance practices in historical and contemporary Lithuania, drawing more consistently on the concepts and conceptions of tolerance and insights from current theoretical debates on tolerance. Moreover, we intend to actualize the re-flections on the variants of tolerance in the old Lithuania and especially in the Lithuanian democracy and partly in Lithuanian historiography of the beginning of the 21st century. It is crucial to under-stand the status of tolerance in present-day Lithuania, how it works in late modernity, with special reference to the situation of ethnic minorities.The article notes that the biggest problem we face today is that tolerance is not enough to overcome our moral problems. In particular, pervasive tolerance as a joyful acceptance of differences and open-ness to everything is not enough. In the author's opinion, citizenship of juristic state, like tolerance, is not a sufficient basis for generality. We have to talk about true integration of society, without identi-fying it in rhetoric with assimilation or merely "minority integration", as is still the case in Lithuanian public space and often in the works of historians. It means being more aware that you are part of the same world, of a particular community with common affinities, a common history.

The purpose of this article is to research in more detail the restoration of the Old Believers parishes and their recognition during the interwar Lithuania (excluding Vilnius region) from 1918 to 1923, as well as to analyse the legalization of the Old Believers' Church of Lithuania and the problems of practical establishment of religious autonomy in this period.The main focus is on three new problems: the situation of the Old Believers' parishes in the country at the beginning of 1918, taking into account the mass migration to the depths of Russia from 1914 to 1915; the restoration of Old Believers parishes and the legalization (registration) of their religious activities from 1918 to 1922, during their mass repatriation to Lithuania; and focus on some problems of the practical consolidation of Old Believers' Church of Lithuania autonomy from 1923 to 1926. The research is based mostly on new archival data, as well as on the analysis and interpretation of Lithuanian and partly foreign historiography on this topic.The study suggests that due to the mass migration of Old Believers to the East between 1914 and 1915, the future Lithuanian territory retained a much thinner congregation network and in turn had fewer parishes members by the beginning of 1918. Therefore, the mass repatriation of the Old Believers from Soviet Russia from the spring of 1918 to 1922 to a large extent explains why the recovery of many of their parishes in Lithuania has been rather slow.After the establishment of the central institutions of the Church in May 1922, the Lithuanian Old Believers' Church was legal-ized on the basis of "Provisional regulations concerning the relationship between the organization of Old Believers in Lithuania and the Lithuanian government" on the May 20, 1923. Therefore, for the first time in history in 1923 the Lithuanian Old Believers Church was legally recognized in a certain state and formally received equal rights with other recognized denominations. At that time, Lithuania was the first country in Central and Eastern Europe to officially recognize the Old Believers (Pomorian) Church.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and interpret tolerance practices in historical and contemporary Lithuania, drawing more consistently on the concepts and conceptions of tolerance and insights from current theoretical debates on tolerance. Moreover, we intend to actualize the re-flections on the variants of tolerance in the old Lithuania and especially in the Lithuanian democracy and partly in Lithuanian historiography of the beginning of the 21st century. It is crucial to under-stand the status of tolerance in present-day Lithuania, how it works in late modernity, with special reference to the situation of ethnic minorities.The article notes that the biggest problem we face today is that tolerance is not enough to overcome our moral problems. In particular, pervasive tolerance as a joyful acceptance of differences and open-ness to everything is not enough. In the author's opinion, citizenship of juristic state, like tolerance, is not a sufficient basis for generality. We have to talk about true integration of society, without identi-fying it in rhetoric with assimilation or merely "minority integration", as is still the case in Lithuanian public space and often in the works of historians. It means being more aware that you are part of the same world, of a particular community with common affinities, a common history.

The purpose of this article is to research in more detail the restoration of the Old Believers parishes and their recognition during the interwar Lithuania (excluding Vilnius region) from 1918 to 1923, as well as to analyse the legalization of the Old Believers' Church of Lithuania and the problems of practical establishment of religious autonomy in this period.The main focus is on three new problems: the situation of the Old Believers' parishes in the country at the beginning of 1918, taking into account the mass migration to the depths of Russia from 1914 to 1915; the restoration of Old Believers parishes and the legalization (registration) of their religious activities from 1918 to 1922, during their mass repatriation to Lithuania; and focus on some problems of the practical consolidation of Old Believers' Church of Lithuania autonomy from 1923 to 1926. The research is based mostly on new archival data, as well as on the analysis and interpretation of Lithuanian and partly foreign historiography on this topic.The study suggests that due to the mass migration of Old Believers to the East between 1914 and 1915, the future Lithuanian territory retained a much thinner congregation network and in turn had fewer parishes members by the beginning of 1918. Therefore, the mass repatriation of the Old Believers from Soviet Russia from the spring of 1918 to 1922 to a large extent explains why the recovery of many of their parishes in Lithuania has been rather slow.After the establishment of the central institutions of the Church in May 1922, the Lithuanian Old Believers' Church was legal-ized on the basis of "Provisional regulations concerning the relationship between the organization of Old Believers in Lithuania and the Lithuanian government" on the May 20, 1923. Therefore, for the first time in history in 1923 the Lithuanian Old Believers Church was legally recognized in a certain state and formally received equal rights with other recognized denominations. At that time, Lithuania was the first country in Central and Eastern Europe to officially recognize the Old Believers (Pomorian) Church.

The book is not only useful and informative. It can also be regarded as one of the first steps in applying and developing the 'new imperial history' theoretical approach in research into the government's religious policy and the evolution of Orthodox and Old Believers' religious education in the Baltic region in this period. The development of Orthodoxy in the Baltic countries, and to a lesser extent, the Old Believer faith, from 1840 until 1940, is described more in terms of the changing historical situation being affected by numerous factors, which was actually much more complex and also multi-dimensional. In any case, the history of Orthodoxy in our region does not fit the standard image of being a tool in the tsarist government's policy of Russification, remembering that up until 1905, the Old Believer faith was still a target of this unfavourable tsarist policy. These communities obeyed, implemented or searched for alternatives, or disagreed to various degrees, and opposed the government's political orders, and yet also managed to thrive, religiously and culturally. The Orthodox and Old Believer communities became an inseparable part of the history of the entire, and at the same time differing, modern, multi-ethnic and culturally varied Baltic countries. Now, thanks also to the efforts of this collection of articles and their authors, they are becoming increasingly less standard, multi-faceted and living participants in forming the 'new' historical narrative on the Baltic countries. In this narrative, alongside the ethnocentric approaches (imperial and national), an orientation towards practices and discourses, case studies, and a reflection of perspectives and narratives is also becoming more apparent.

The book is not only useful and informative. It can also be regarded as one of the first steps in applying and developing the 'new imperial history' theoretical approach in research into the government's religious policy and the evolution of Orthodox and Old Believers' religious education in the Baltic region in this period. The development of Orthodoxy in the Baltic countries, and to a lesser extent, the Old Believer faith, from 1840 until 1940, is described more in terms of the changing historical situation being affected by numerous factors, which was actually much more complex and also multi-dimensional. In any case, the history of Orthodoxy in our region does not fit the standard image of being a tool in the tsarist government's policy of Russification, remembering that up until 1905, the Old Believer faith was still a target of this unfavourable tsarist policy. These communities obeyed, implemented or searched for alternatives, or disagreed to various degrees, and opposed the government's political orders, and yet also managed to thrive, religiously and culturally. The Orthodox and Old Believer communities became an inseparable part of the history of the entire, and at the same time differing, modern, multi-ethnic and culturally varied Baltic countries. Now, thanks also to the efforts of this collection of articles and their authors, they are becoming increasingly less standard, multi-faceted and living participants in forming the 'new' historical narrative on the Baltic countries. In this narrative, alongside the ethnocentric approaches (imperial and national), an orientation towards practices and discourses, case studies, and a reflection of perspectives and narratives is also becoming more apparent.