| Dexinger, «Limits» Dexinger, Ferdinand. «Limits of Tolerance in Judaism: The Samaritan Example.» Pages 88–114 in vo1. 2 of Meyer and Sanders, Self-Definition. Dexinger, «Taheb-Vorstellung» Dexinger, Ferdinand. «Die Taheb-Vorstellung als politische Utopie.» Numen 37 (1990): 1–23. Dey, World Dey, Lala Kalyan Kumar. The Intermediary World and Patterns of Perfection in Philo and Hebrews. SBLDS 25. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1975. De Zwaan, «Language» De Zwaan, J. «The Use of the Greek Language in Acts.» Pages 30–65 in vo1. 2 of The Beginnings of Christianity. Dibelius, «Initiation» Dibelius, Martin. «The Isis Initiation in Apuleius and Related Initiatory Rites.» Pages 61–121 in Conflict at Colossae: A Problem in the Interpretation of Early Christianity Illustrated by Selected Modern Studies. Edited and translated by Fred O. Francis and Wayne A. Meeks. SBLSBS 4. Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1973. Dibelius, James Dibelius, Martin. James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven. Translated by Michael A. Williams. Edited by Helmut Koester. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Dibelius, Jesus Dibelius, Martin. Jesus. Translated by Charles B. Hedrick and Frederick C. Grant. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949. Dibelius, Paul Dibelius, Martin. Pau1. Edited and completed by Werner Georg Kümme1. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953. Dibelius, Studies Dibelius, Martin. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Heinrich Greeven. London: SCM, 1956. Dibelius, Tradition Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospe1. Translated from the 2d German ed. by Bertram Lee Woolf. Greenwood, S.C.: Attic Press, 1971. Dibelius and Conzelmanm, Epistles Dibelius, Martin, and Conzelmann, Hans. The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Translated by Philip Buttolph and Adela Yarbro. Edited by Helmut Koester. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972. Diel and Solotareff, Symbolism Diel, Paul, and Jeannine Solotareff. Symbolism in the Gospel of John. Translated by Nelly Marans. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. |
| 282 On the whole, Duns Scotus was followed by the majority of theologians of the Franciscan order, and also by not a few outside it, as, for instance, by Dionysius Carthusianus, by Gabriel Biel, by John Wessel, and, in the time of the Council of Trent, by Giacomo Nachianti, Bishop of Chiozza (Jacobus Naclantus), and also by some of the early Reformers, for instance, by Andreas Osiander. 283 This opinion was strongly opposed by others, and not only by the strict Thomists, and the whole problem was much discussed both by Roman Catholic and by Protestant theologians in the XVIIth century. 284 Among the Roman Catholic champions of the absolute decree of the Incarnation one should mention especially François de Sales and Malebranche. Malebranche strongly insisted on the metaphycical necessity of the Incarnation, quite apart from the Fall, for otherwise, he contended, there would have been no adequate reason or purpose for the act of Creation itself. 285 The controversy is still going on among Roman Catholic theologians, sometimes with excessive heat and vigor, and the question is not settled. 286 Among the Anglicans, in the last century, Bishop Wescott strongly pleaded for the ‘absolute motive’, in his admirable essay on «The Gospel of Creation.» 287 The late Father Sergii Bulgakov was strongly in favor of the opinion that the Incarnation should be regarded as an absolute decree of God, prior to the catastrophe of the Fall. 288 III In the course of this age-long discussion a constant appeal has been made to the testimony of the Fathers. Strangely enough, the most important item has been overlooked in this anthology of quotations. Since the question of the motive of the Incarnation was never formally raised in the Patristic age, most of the texts used in the later discussions could not provide any direct guidance. 289 St. Maximus the Confessor (580–662) seems to be the only Father who was directly concerned with the problem, although not in the same setting as the later theologians in the West. |
| Metropolitan Alexander whom you mentioned and who was also suspended from serving by the Synod in Kiev had only one church. A conflict occurred in his community, and the majority of this church’s clergy avoided concelebrating with the hierarch who had fallen away. The principled decision of the hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to refuse to take part in the false council convened by you was caused not by some mythical “pressure from Moscow,” what would be impossible anyway in this political situation, but by the unity of the archpastors with their clergy and faithful. This unity cannot be jeopardized either by the gross interference of the Ukrainian authorities in the internal life of the Church or by the pressure on the Church exerted by the state and greatly increased in the recent months. This unity cannot be revoked with a stroke of the pen. In your letter you are trying to reinterpret the meaning of the complex of documents signed in 1686 by your predecessor, Patriarch Dionysius IV, and the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople. The matter of these historical documents caused no disagreements between our two Churches for hundreds of years. And now you say that you “revoke” the Patriarchal and Synodal Letter, because “outward circumstances have changed.” I suggested holding talks on this issue with the participation of authoritative historians, theologians and experts in the ecclesiastical canon law. You refused, alleging lack of time. I can only express my regret that your decisions, devastating for the unity of the Church, depend so much on “outward,” that is political, circumstances, about which you have no scruples of openly telling me. In your letter you once again repeat rather disputable assertions that the Church of Constantinople has the “exceptional responsibility to grant autocephaly” and to consider appeals from other Local Churches in accordance with the “spiritual meaning” of Canons 9 and 17 of the Council of Chalcedon. Yet, your interpretation of your alleged rights has never had church-wide acceptance. A considerable number of objections stated by authoritative commentators of the canon law speak against your understanding of the rights of the Throne of Constantinople to consider appeals. Thus, an outstanding Byzantine canonist, John Zonaras, writes, “The [Patriarch] of Constantinople is recognized as judge not over all the metropolitans but only those who are subordinate to him. For neither metropolitans of Syria, nor those of Palestine or Phoenicia or Egypt are summoned to his judgement against their will, but those of Syria are to be judged by the Patriarch of Antioch, those of Palestine by that of Jerusalem, while the Egyptian ones are judged by that of Alexandria who ordains them and to whom they are subordinate.” Neither do the present-day Local Orthodox Church recognize that you have such a privilege. |
| Wherein one ought to admire the saints. Wherefore we never ought to admire those who affect these things, for these powers, but rather to look whether they are perfect in driving out all sins, and amending their ways, for this is granted to each man not for the faith of some other, or for a variety of reasons, but for his own earnestness, by the action of God " s grace. For this is practical knowledge which is termed by another name by the Apostle; viz., love, and is by the authority of the Apostle preferred to all tongues of menand of angels, and to full assurance of faith which can even remove mountains, and to all knowledge, and prophecy, and to the distribution of all one " s goods, and finally to the glory of martyrdom itself. For when he had enumerated all kinds of gifts and had said: To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge, to another faith, to another the gift of healing, to another the working of miracles, etc.: 1Corinthians 12:8–10 when he was going to speak about love notice how in a few words he put it before all gifts: And yet, he says, I show unto you a still more excellent way. 1Corinthians 12:31 By which it is clearly shown that the height of perfection and blessedness does not consist in the performance of those wonderful works but in the purity of love. And this not without good reason. For all those things are to pass away and be destroyed, but love is to abide forever. And so we have never found that those works and signs were affected by our fathers: nay, rather when they did possess them by the grace of the Holy Spirit they would never use them, unless perhaps extreme and unavoidable necessity drove them to do so. Chapter 3. Of a dead man raised to life by Abbot Macarius. As also we remember that a dead man was raised to life by Abbot Macarius who was the first to find a home in the desertof Scete. For when a certain heretic who followed the error of Eunomius was trying by dialectic subtlety to destroy the simplicity of the Catholic faith, and had already deceived a large number of men, the blessed Macarius was asked by some Catholics, who were terribly disturbed by the horror of such an upset, to set free the simple folk of all Egypt from the peril of infidelity, and came for this purpose. |
| Dororheus of Gaza. “Insmictiones.” In Patrologiae Cursus Completus; Series Graeca, vol. 88. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1860. Ephrem the Syrian. “Hymni de Paradiso.” In Des Heiligen Epbraem des Syrers Hymnen de Paradiso und Contra Julianum. Edited by E. Beck. Corpus Scrtptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 174. Louvain, Belgium: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1957. 1 6 ---. “In Genesim Commentarii.” In Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum. Edited by R. M. Tonneau. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, vol. 152. Louvain, Belgium: Secretariat du Corpus SCO, 1955. ---. Sancti patris nostri Ephraem Syri et Jacobi episcopi Edesseni interpretationum in Genesim collectanea, 1. Edited by J. A. Assemani. Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia. Tomus I. Rome, 1737. Fulgentius of Ruspa. “De fide ad Petrum seu de regula fidei.” In Opera. Edited by J. Fraipont. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 91a. Tumhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1968. Gregory of Nazianzus. “De filio [oration 29].” In Gregor von Nazianz. Die funf theologischen Reden. Edited by J. Barbel. Dusseldorf, Germany: Patmos-Verlag, 1963. ---. “De substantiis mente praeditis [carm. 7].” In Carmina dogmática. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus; Series Graeca, vol. 37. Paris: Migne. ---. “De theologia [oration 28].” In Gregor von Nazianz. Die funf theologischen Reden. Edited by J. Barbel. Dusseldorf, Germany: Patmos-Verlag, 1963. ---. “In Sanctum Pascha [oration 45].” In Patrologiae Cursus Completus; Series Graeca. vol. 36. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1862. Gregory of Nyssa. “De creatione hominis sermo alter [Sp.].” In Gregorii Nysseni opera, suppl. Edited by H. Hoerner. Leiden: Brill, 1972. ---. “De creatione hominis sermo primus [Sp.].” In Gregorii Nysseni opera, suppl. Edited by H. Hoerner. Leiden: Brill, 1972. ---. “De opificio hominis.“ In Patrologiae Cursus Completus; Series Graeca, vol. 44. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1865. |
| As to the demons, these false and deceitful mediators, who, though their uncleanness of spirit frequently reveals their misery and malignity, yet, by virtue of the levity of their aerial bodies and the nature of the places they inhabit, do contrive to turn us aside and hinder our spiritual progress; they do not help us towards God, but rather prevent us from reaching Him. Since even in the bodily way, which is erroneous and misleading, and in which righteousness does not walk – for we must rise to God not by bodily ascent, but by incorporeal or spiritual conformity to Him – in this bodily way, I say, which the friends of the demons arrange according to the weight of the various elements, the aerial demons being set between the ethereal gods and earthy men, they imagine the gods to have this privilege, that by this local interval they are preserved from the pollution of human contact. Thus they believe that the demons are contaminated by men rather than men cleansed by the demons, and that the gods themselves should be polluted unless their local superiority preserved them. Who is so wretched a creature as to expect purification by a way in which men are contaminating, demonscontaminated, and gods contaminable? Who would not rather choose that way whereby we escape the contamination of the demons, and are cleansed from pollution by the incontaminable God, so as to be associated with the uncontaminated angels? Chapter 19.– That Even Among Their Own Worshippers the Name Demon Has Never a Good Signification. But as some of these demonolators, as I may call them, and among them Labeo, allege that those whom they call demonsare by others called angels, I must, if I would not seem to dispute merely about words, say something about the good angels. The Platonists do not deny their existence, but prefer to call them good demons. But we, following Scripture, according to which we are Christians, have learned that some of the angels are good, some bad, but never have we read in Scripture of good demons; but wherever this or any cognate term occurs, it is applied only to wicked spirits. And this usage has become so universal, that, even among those who are called pagans, and who maintain that demons as well as gods should be worshipped, there is scarcely a man, no matter how well read and learned, who would dare to say by way of praise to his slave, You have a demon, or who could doubt that the man to whom he said this would consider it a curse? Why, then, are we to subject ourselves to the necessity of explaining away what we have said when we have given offense by using the word demon, with which every one, or almost every one, connects a bad meaning, while we can so easily evade this necessity by using the word angel? Chapter 20.– Of the Kind of Knowledge Which Puffs Up the Demons. |
| Таким же образом закрыты и входы в еще две небольшие, также посвященные Невинным Младенцам, погребальные пещеры, расположенные под престолом у южной стены капеллы Иосифа Обручника. На север от капеллы Невинных Младенцев узкий проход ведет к системе лестниц, выводящих в церковь Екатерины. На запад от капеллы открывается проход в пещеру-усыпальницу Павлы, Евстохии и Евсевия из Кремоны, еще дальше на запад – пещера-усыпальница Блаженного Иеронима. Все могилы пусты, остались лишь саркофаги. Евсевий из Кремоны был похоронен направо от входа (с северной стороны) в первой от капеллы Невинных Младенцев пещере, могилы св. Павлы и Евстохии – слева от входа. Над их саркофагами на стене – современная мозаика. К югу от могил вход в маленькую келью времен Константина с древней водяной цистерной под ней. Надгробие Блаженного Иеронима – справа от входа во второй пещере. Место могилы Павлы и Евстохии стало определяться в этой пещере только в средние века, на основании указания Иеронима, согласно которому, Павла с дочерью были похоронены под церковью неподалеку от Вертепа Рождества. В прошлом надгробье Павлы несло надпись: «Здесь покоится дочь Сципиона и Блесиллы, наследницы эллинов, гордый отпрыск рода Агамемнона. Имя ее Павла, мать Евстохии, избранница Римского Сената, идя за Христом, она предпочла Риму бедность и поля вифлеемские». Павла умерла в 404 г. 57-ми лет от роду, ее дочь Евстохия продолжила дело матери, пережив ту на пятнадцать лет, и умерла в 419 г. Иероним умер в 420 г. Евсевий из Кремоны был учеником Иеронима, он покинул Италию и поселился в Вифлееме, чтобы жить подле своего учителя. В последние годы жизни Иеронима Евсевий сменил его в должности настоятеля мужского монастыря в городе. Он умер в 422 или 423 г. Проход из капеллы Невинных Младенцев в усыпальницы Павлы и Иеронима был пробит в 1556 г. Из пещеры-усыпальницы Иеронима узкий проход ведет в северном направлении в большую пещеру – капеллу Блаженного Иеронима, которая единственная из всего комплекса находится за пределами базилики Рождества, под южной галереей клуатра церкви св. |
| Но первоначальное назначение описанного подземелья было, конечно, иное. Пиеротти (Jerusalem explored, 120), впервые открывший проход, основательно отождествил его с тем подземным проходом при крепости Антония, который у Иосифа Флавия («Antiquitates Iudaicæ», XIII, 11, 2; «Bellum Judaicum», 1, 3:3) называется στρτωνος πργος, Стратоновою башнею, в темноте которой был убит Антигон, младший брат Аристовула, по проискам царицы Александры, и которая, кажется, была единственным выходом из Антонии в город («Antiquitates Iudaicæ», 1, 3:6). Полковник Вильсон своим авторитетом специалиста военного дела удостоверяет, что рассматриваемый проход назначался для прохода войск в крепость и первоначально имел вид закрытого моста чрез северный крепостной ров Антонии («The Recovery of Jerusalem», 13). К этому нужно прибавить, что название башни, πργος, не предполагает непременно высокого здания с зубцами, и может относиться и к данному проходу, если он был построен с военными целями. Полное же название στρτωνος πργος в данном случае нужно переводить башня-улица (от strata, талмуд. улица). Действительно, этот проход напоминает крытые, темные восточные улицы. Служа входом в крепость, проход разделялся на две части, как почти все входные приворотные галереи храма, для входящих и выходящих. Недостаток света в этой галерее или улице-башне также не представляет особенного исключения: и другие входы храма, так называемый тройной, двойной, ворота Пророка, также были темные. Что касается направления Стратоновой башни или описанного древнего входа крепости Антония не прямо на север, а с отклонением на запад, то может быть им указывается направление военной римской дороги, соединявшей Иерусалимскую крепость с другою, важнейшею в Палестине, Кесарийскою крепостью. Это тем более вероятно, что самое название Стратонова башня перенесено в Иерусалим из Кесарии, где башня этого имени была известна гораздо раньше 241 . Наконец, Иосиф Флавий («Bellum Judaicum», V, 7:3) невдалеке от северной границы храма, за ее чертою, помещает памятник царя Александра Ианнея (в русском переводе ошибочно: град Александра). |
| While the patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa has continued to be a Greek, in 2013there were several native African bishops, including the dynamic Metropolitan Ieronymos (Muzeeyi) of Mwanza, Tanzania (b. 1963). Poland The Orthodox Church in Poland received autocephaly from the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1924. This was recognized by the Church of Russia in 1948. When the Soviet Union annexed eastern Poland after WWII, the Polish Orthodox Church lost about 80% of its membership. After political freedom came to Poland in 1991, ending its status as a satellite state of the Soviet Union, the new government granted the Orthodox Church equal legal status with the predominant Roman Catholic Church. This law also allowed the Orthodox to reclaim properties previously seized by the Roman Church. Since 1998 the Polish Church has been led by Metropolitan Sava (Hrycuniak) (b. 1938). In 2013the membership of the Polish Church was estimated at about 600,000, spread across seven archdioceses, including one in South America centered in Rio de Janeiro. The Czech Republic and Slovakia By 1925, there were two dioceses of Orthodox Christians in Czechoslovakia, both under the authority of the Serbian Orthodox Church. In 1942, during WWII, the especially effective and beloved bishop of the Czech diocese, Bishop Gorazd (Pavlik) (1879–1942), a former Roman Catholic priest, was executed by the German Nazi occupiers, along with hundreds of clergy and laity, and the Czech Orthodox Church was outlawed. Bishop Gorazd was glorified as a New Martyr by the Church in Serbia in 1961. After WWII, the restored Czech diocese, along with the Diocese of Presov in Slovakia, came under the authority of the Church of Russia. In 1951, the Orthodox Church in Czechoslovakia was granted autocephaly by the Church of Russia. This was not recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but after the fall of Communism and the establishment in 1993of the separate nations of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia was recognized as autocephalous by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This happened in 1998, as a unilateral action taken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate solely on its own accord (i.e., without reference to the previous autocephaly granted by the Church of Russia). |
| 13 . Augustinus. De Genesi ad litteram inperfectus liber//Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vol. 28.1/Ed. by J. Zycha. Vienna; Leipzig, 1894. 14 . Augustinus. De Genesi contra Manichaeos//Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vol. 91/Ed. by D. Weber. Vienna, 1998. 15 . Augustinus. De libero arbitrio//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 29/Ed. by W. M. Green. Turnhout, 1970. 16 . Augustinus. De Trinitate//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 50/Ed. by W. J. Mountain. Turnhout, 1970. 17 . Augustinus. De vera religione//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 32/Ed. by J. Martin. Turnhout, 1982. 18 . Augustinus. Enarrationes in Psalmos//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 3840/Eds. by E. Dekkers, J. Fraipont. Turnhout, 1956. 19 . Augustinus. Enchiridion ad Laurentium de fide et spe et caritate//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 46/Ed. by E. Evans. Turnhout, 1969. 20 . Augustinus. In Iohannis Evangelium Tractatus CXXIV//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 36/Ed. by R. Willems. Turnhout, 1990. 21 . Augustinus. Retractationes//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 57/Ed. by A. Mutzenbecher. Turnhout, 1984. 22 . Beda Venerabilis. De natura rerum//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 123A/Ed. by C. W. Jones. Turnhout, 1975. P. 189234. 23 . Boethius. De consolatione philosophiae//Corpus Christianorum Series Latina. Vol. 94/Ed. by L. Bieler. Turnhout, 1984. 24 . Booth E. Heidegger and Saint Augustine on Time//New Blackfriars. 2004. Vol. 85. No. 998. P. 399425. 25 . Carter J. W. St. Augustine on Time, Time Numbers, and Enduring Objects//Vivarium. 2011. Vol. 49. No. 4. P. 301323. 26 . Gregorius Nyssenus. Apologia in Hexaemeron//PG. Vol. 44. Col. 61–124 . 27 . Guitton J. Le temps et l’eternité chez Plotin et saint Augustin. Paris, 1959. 28 . Hernandez W. A. St. Augustine on Time//International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 2016. Vol. 6. No. 6. P. 3740. 29 . Knuuttila S. Time and creation in Augustine//The Cambridge companion to Augustine. Cambridge, 2001. P. 103115. |
|
|
