Orthodox church port department

This web site was made in the second half of the 21st century and this is the first time in Serbia a 3D vision has been promoted, as well as a continual presence and traditional role of the Orthodox church port, which is a still rather unknown field of the church architecture in Serbia although its scientific explanation and definitions were provided in the first decade of the 21st century. Almost nothing is known about is holiness, about hierophanic and theophanic genius loci, about the difference between profane and sacred space, about is archetypal concept and program, about sacred interior and sacred outer space, about its typical sacred structure or 'triangular' holiness, about the fact that church architecture exponentiation represents the consequence of church institutional grading coming from hierarchy-diocesan status and hierarchy dignity.

This is why it can be concluded that after the second millennium of Christianity, a scientific research and synthesizing the results about the Orthodox Church port represent a unique rarity in theological, architectural and other scientific disciplines.

In this way, understanding the church building as a holy place, volume and ambient, and then the process of institutional and architectural exponentiation structure began in the end of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. However, its innovation and variation resulted in the current secularization is not the consequence of gathering conditions and opportunities in terms of contemporary civilization only. Various changes of original Christian church port began in ancient times and are closely connected to variation and multiplication of the Christian dogmatic principles, especially after the schism provoked by the heresy in the 11th century, known today as the Roman Catholic Filioque.

It affected the development and typology of its architectural forms. Thus, during the Modern period we experinced the first hints, and during the Postmodern period the concrete detraditionalization of all known forms of the Orthodox church port. It is particularly evident in unilateral temporal methods of inadequate classification and volumization of this primordial holy place and volume. The effects of this relationship reflect and unsustainable articulating and identifying the church port as a holy yard. дворишта. Therefore, it often happens that understanding and seeing the church port as a holy volume fails, just like the immanent refined attitude toward the location selection and its territorialization. In the church architectural history the revelation, cross-marking, volumenization and holiness embodiment of theophanic and hierophanic genius loci represents an inevitable antecedent.

As for the scientifically explained church port on the examples of the church heritage of the earlier stavropygial Arch-diocese Karlovac, the author of this text continues to carry out the research and analysis of the Orthodox Church port based on the church architectural heritage, as part of the 36032 project. Thus, this topic is regarded to be a new approach to evaluating church architectural heritage and planning and building of church units and forms.

In relation to the above written facts about church-ecclesiastical structures at Vracar as well as about other types of the Orthodox Church port in many towns and regions, the frequent secularization is usually the result of layman's explanation of this term in the foreign words dictionaries. Therefore, it is necessary to correct the understanding and interpretation of the term 'church port'. The following scientific definition should be written in all newly electronic issues and other written publications:

The Orthodox Church port is a holy cult place, volume, ambient and the whole. The people regard it as 'outer church' because its main west entrance and back south and north entrance are connected to the inner church directly (temple). It is the outer sacred space around the Orthodox temple. This is a ceremony-religious volume focuses on processing activities such as Shroud removal and Procession, but it also has a worship and church-ambient significance and purpose.

The essential message and need of this conclusion epilogue is to understand and know that:

  • there is a hierarchy–mitropolitan status and dignity of religious institutions,
  • this is why they have hierarchically graded and defined power,
  • each of them has its own church-architectural structure as a result of cause-effect pattern 'onto-spiritual predecessor – institution – function – form',
  • such graded religious institutions cannot be equated with each other, from the lowest parish to higher administrative districts, diocese and other…..to the Patriarchate as a supreme throne and church institution,
  • each church-institutionalized level, in accordance with the status and dignity, is given an immanent church architectural representative level.

In the same way, in this specific case, it is not acceptable to identify the Patriarch's Palace and the Palace of stavropygial Archbishopric or the Archbishopric at Vracar and Kalemegdan. In particular, it is unacceptable because of supreme dignity of the church-throne chairs as well as the church-throne institutional significance, that is – the Patriarchate that is a successor guardian and protector of the throne of Saint Sava.

Ph. D. sci Velimir Lj. Ćerimović