| The way primacy on the universal level is exercised in the East continues to be a matter of consideration among the Orthodox. The pre-conciliar process has revealed certain differences among the autocephalous Churches in their understanding of what this primacy should entail. One of the concerns on the pre-conciliar agenda is that of autocephaly. Who has the right of granting autocephaly? History reveals diverse examples of how autocephaly has been achieved. In most cases it was proclaimed by a particular Church, and only later, sometimes after a long delay, was it recognized by Constantinople and other local Churches. For instance, the Russian Church became de facto autocephalous in 1448 when the Metropolitan of Moscow was elected without the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople (who at that time was in union with Rome). Yet it was only during the period 1589-1593 that the Eastern Patriarchs recognized its autocephaly. This was done by means of two letters signed, not by the Ecumenical Patriarch alone, but also by other Patriarchs of the East. In these letters the Patriarchal rank of the primate of the Russian Church was recognized and the Patriarch of Moscow was placed fifth after the four Patriarchs of the East. The delay between a proclaimed autocephaly and its recognition by Constantinople has varied from fewer than twenty to more than seventy years. The Church of Greece, for example, proclaimed autocephaly in 1833 but was not recognized as such by Constantinople until 1850. The Church of Serbia restored its autocephaly in 1832 but was recognized in 1879. The Church of Romania declared it in 1865 but was recognized in 1885. The Church of Bulgaria proclaimed autocephaly in 1872 but it was only in 1945 that the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized it by issuing a Tomos. The Church of Albania declared it in 1922 but was recognized in 1937. The Church of Georgia is a special case. It was granted autocephaly in 466 from the Patriarchate of Antioch but its autocephaly was abolished by the Russian tsar in 1811 only to be restored in 1918. It was recognized by the Patriarch of Moscow in 1945 whereas the Patriarch of Constantinople officially recognized it as late as 1989, when a Tomos of autocephaly was granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch to the Catholicos-Patriarch of Georgia. |
| See also: H. Chadwick, ‘Messalianerne – en evangelisk bevegelse i det 4. århundre’, Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 3/1979, 161–172. E. A. David, Das Bild vom neuen Menschen (Salzburg and Munich, 1968). F. Dörr, Diadochus von Photike und die Messalianer (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1937). H. Dörries, Symeon von Mesopotamien (Leipzig, 1941). H. Dörries, Die Theologie des Makarios/Symeon (Göttingen, 1978). A. Guillaumont, Les ‘Kephalaia Gnostica’ d’Évagre le Pontique et l’histoire de l’origénisme chez les Grecs et chez les Syriens (Paris, 1962). I. Hausherr, ‘L’erreur fondamentale et la logique de la Messalianisme’, Orientalis Christiana Periodica I (1935), 328–360. I. Hausherr, Hesychasme et prière (Rome, 1966). Introduction to his edition of the Liber Graduum in Patrologia Syriaca III (Paris, 1926) by M. Kmosko. W. Jaeger, Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature: Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius (Leiden, 1954). R. Staats, Gregor von Nyssa und die Messalianer (Berlin, 1968). Chapter VII. Augustine : Confessiones, ed. by M. Skutella, rev. by H. Juergens and W. Schaub (Stuttgart, 1969). La Trinité, vol. 1: intr. by E. Hendrikx, tr. and notes by M. Mellet and Th. Camelot; vol. 2: tr. by P. Agaësse, and notes with J. Moingt (Paris, 1955). Confessions, tr. by F. J. Sheed (London, 1944). Books VIII–X, XIV and XV of De Trinitate translated in: Augustine: Later Writings, tr. with intro. and notes by John Burnaby (London, 1955). See also: P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (London, 1967). J. Burnaby, Amor Dei (London, 1938). C. Butler, Western Mysticism (London, 1922). F. Cayré, La Contemplation augustinienne (Paris, 1954). P. Henry, La Vision d’Ostie (Paris, 1938). R. Holte, Béatitude et sagesse (Paris, 1962). Chapter VIII. Denys the Areopagite . The Greek text in Migne PG 3 is all there is, apart from: La Hiérarchie céleste, intr. by R. Roques, text by G. Heil, tr. and notes by M. de Gandillac (SC 58, 2nd edn., Paris, 1970). The only complete translation into English (which I have not used) is: |
| But now, by the greater and more admirable grace of the Saviour, the punishment of sin is turned to the service of righteousness. For then it was proclaimed to man, If you sin, you shall die; now it is said to the martyr, Die, that you sin not. Then it was said, If you trangress the commandments, you shall die; now it is said, If you decline death, you transgress the commandment. That which was formerly set as an object of terror, that men might not sin, is now to be undergone if we would not sin. Thus, by the unutterable mercy of God, even the very punishment of wickedness has become the armor of virtue, and the penalty of the sinner becomes the reward of the righteous. For then death was incurred by sinning, now righteousness is fulfilled by dying. In the case of the holy martyrs it is so; for to them the persecutor proposes the alternative, apostasy or death. For the righteous prefer by believing to suffer what the first transgressors suffered by not believing. For unless they had sinned, they would not have died; but the martyrs sin if they do not die. The one died because they sinned, the others do not sin because they die. By the guilt of the first, punishment was incurred; by the punishment of the second, guilt is prevented. Not that death, which was before an evil, has become something good, but only that God has granted to faith this grace, that death, which is the admitted opposite to life, should become the instrument by which life is reached. Chapter 5.– As the Wicked Make an Ill Use of the Law, Which is Good, So the Good Make a Good Use of Death, Which is an Ill. The apostle, wishing to show how hurtful a thing sin is, when grace does not aid us, has not hesitated to say that the strength of sin is that very law by which sin is prohibited. The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.1Corinthians 15:56 Most certainly true; for prohibition increases the desire of illicit action, if righteousness is not so loved that the desire of sin is conquered by that love. |
| ---. “Epistulae festales.” In Opera omnia. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus; Series Graeca, vol. 26. Paris: Migne, 1865. Augustine of Hippo. “Confessionum libri tredecim.” In Aurelii Augustini opera. Edited by Lucas Verheijen. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 27. Tumhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1981. ---. “Contra Julianum Pelagianum.” In Opera omnia. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vol. 44. Paris: Migne, 1865. ---. “De civitate Dei.” In Aurelii Augustini opera. Edited by Bernardus Dombart and Alphonsus Kalb. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vols. 47, 48. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1955. ---. “De diversis quaestionibus octoginta tribus.” In Aurelii Auguttini opera. Edited by Almut Mutzenbecher. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 44a. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1975. ---. “De doctrina christiana.” In Aurelii Augustini opera, pp. 1–167. Edited by J. Martin. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 32. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1962. ---. “De fide et symbolo.” In Sancti Aureli Augustini opera. Edited by Joseph Zycha. Corpus Scriptorum 1 5 8 Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 41. Vienna, Austria: F. Tempsky, 1900. ---. “De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber.” In Sancti Aureli Augustini opera. Edited by Joseph Zycha. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol 28, pt. 1. Vienna, Austria: F. Tempsky, 1894. ---. “De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim.” In Sancti Aureli Augustini opera. Edited by Joseph Zycha. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 28, pt. 1. Vienna, Austria: F. Tempsky, 1894. ---. “De Genesi contra Manichaeos.” In Opera omnia. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vol, 34. Paris: Migne, 1865. ---. “De natura et gratia.” In Sancti Aureli Augustini opera. Edited by Carl Franz Urba. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 60. Vienna. Austria: F. Tempsky, 1913. |
| New York, 1895–1889 (second series). St Germanus of Constantaninople, The Boundaries of Life. trans. & ed. by C. Garton & L.G. Westernik. Buffalo, n.d. (Anthusa Monograph, 7). (St) Gregorii Nysseni opera (9 vols.). ed. by W. Jaeger. Leiden, 1960–1972. (St) Gregory of Nyssa and Macarius: Two Rediscovered Works of Ancient Christian Literature, ed. by W. Jaeger. Leiden, 1954. St Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Saint Macrina. trans. with Intro. by K. Corrigan. Saskatoon, 1987. ------ The Catechetical Oration, ed. by J.H. Srawley. Cambridge (Eng.), 1956 (Greek text). ------ The Life of Moses, trans. with Intro, by A.J. Malherbe & E.Ferguson. New York, 1987. ------ Song of Songs, trans. with Intro, by C. McCambley. Brookline. 1987. St John Climacus. The Ladder of Divine Ascent. Boston, 1991. Sources Chretienne. ed. by J. Daniélou. Paris, 1955. 2. Secondary sources: books Armstrong, A.H., ed., The Cambridge History of Late Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy. Cambridge (Eng.), 1967. St Augustine and Christian Platonism. Villanova (Pa.), 1967. ------- Hellenic and Christian Studies. Hampshire (Eng.), 1990. Aulén, G., Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Main Types of the Idea of the Atonement, trans. by A.G. Herbert. London, 1931. Azkoul, M., The Influence of the Augustine of Hippo on the Orthodox Church. Lewiston (NY), 1991. Baker, D., ed., The Orthodox Churches and the West. Oxford, 1967. Balas, S.D., Мετουσα θεο: Man’s Participation in God’s Perfections According to St Gregory of Nyssa. Rome, 1966. Balthasar, Hans Urs von. Présence et Pensée: Essai sur la Philosophie Religieuse de Grégoire de Nysse. Paris, 1951. Bigg, C., The Christian Platonists of Alexandria. Oxford, 1893. Boman, T., Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, trans. by J.L. Moreau. Philadelphia, 1961. Bouyer, L., Liturgical Piety. Notre Dame [Ind], 1955. ------- The Spirituality of the New Testament and the Fathers, trans. by M.R. Ryan. New York, 1963. Bréhier, E., Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie. |
| -. Writings from the Philokalia On Prayer of the Heart. Translated from the Russian text Dobrotolubiye, by E. Kadloubovsky and G.E.H. Palmer, with a new foreword and the original introduction and biographical notes. London: Faber and Faber, 1951. 420 p. Photius I, Saint, Patriarch of Constantinople, ca. 820-ca. 891. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Translation by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Astoria, NY: Studion Publishers, 1983. 213 p. English and Greek. Translation of Mystagogia Spiritus Sancti. Rousseau, Philip. Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. xvi, 217 p. (The Transformation of the classical heritage; 6.) Bibliography: p. 193–212. Scupoli, Lorenzo, 1530–1610. Unseen Warfare: The Spiritual Combat and Path to Paradise of Lorenzo Scupoli. Edited by Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain and revised by Theophan the Recluse; translated by E. Kadloubovsky and G.E.H. Palmer; introduction by H. A. Hodges. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1987. 280 p. Sergiev, Ioann Ilich (Fr. Joh n of Kronstadt). Spiritual Counsels of Father Joh n of Kronstadt: Select Passages from My Life in Christ. Edited and introduced by W. Jardine Grisbrooke. Cambridge, England: Clarke; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1981. xxxi, 230 p. Sherrard, Philip. Athos, the Holy Mountain. Photographs by Takis Zervoulakos. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1985. 176 p. -. Athos: the Mountain of Silence. With color photographs by Paul du Marchie v. Voorthuysen. NY: Oxford University Press, 1960. vii, 110 p. Bibliography: p. 107–108. Simonopetra, Mount Athos. Stelios Papadopoulos, ed. Athens: ETBA, Hellenic Industrial Development Bank SA, 1991. 395 p. Translated from the Greek. Sofronii, Archimandrite. His Life Is Mine. Translated from the Russian by Rosemary Edmonds. London: Mowbrays, 1977. 128 p. -. The Monk of Mount Athos: Staretz Silouan, 1866–1938. Translated from the Russian by Rosemary Edmonds. Revised ed. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975. 124 p. “A revised edition, with additional material, of The Undistorted Image which was published in 1958 and based on a translation and adaptation of the original (1948) Russian text, Staretz Silouan, published Paris, 1952.” |
| It was therefore truly said that man is cleansed only by a Principle, although the Platonists erred in speaking in the plural of principles. But Porphyry, being under the dominion of these envious powers, whose influence he was at once ashamed of and afraid to throw off, refused to recognize that Christ is the Principle by whose incarnation we are purified. Indeed he despised Him, because of the flesh itself which He assumed, that He might offer a sacrifice for our purification – a great mystery, unintelligible to Porphyry " s pride, which that true and benignant Redeemer brought low by His humility, manifesting Himself to mortals by the mortality which He assumed, and which the malignant and deceitful mediators are proud of wanting, promising, as the boon of immortals, a deceptive assistance to wretched men. Thus the good and true Mediator showed that it is sin which is evil, and not the substance or nature of flesh; for this, together with the human soul, could without sin be both assumed and retained, and laid down in death, and changed to something better by resurrection. He showed also that death itself, although the punishment of sin, was submitted to by Him for our sakes without sin, and must not be evaded by sin on our part, but rather, if opportunity serves, be borne for righteousness» sake. For he was able to expiate sins by dying, because He both died, and not for sin of His own. But He has not been recognized by Porphyry as the Principle, otherwise he would have recognized Him as the Purifier. The Principle is neither the flesh nor the human soul in Christ but the Word by which all things were made. The flesh, therefore, does not by its own virtue purify, but by virtue of the Word by which it was assumed, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. John 1:14 For speaking mystically of eating His flesh, when those who did not understand Him were offended and went away, saying, This is an hard saying, who can hear it? He answered to the rest who remained, It is the Spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing. John 6:60–64 The Principle, therefore, having assumed a human soul and flesh, cleanses the soul and flesh of believers. |
| Furuli’s conclusion is far from being the “most natural” explanation of the short overlaps between the reigns of some NeoBabylonian rulers. Nor have scholars rejected it because it “would have destroyed Ptolemy’s chronology,” as if the king list popularly but erroneously named “Ptolemy’s Canon” were the only or best evidence we have about the NeoBabylonian reigns. The best evidence is provided by much earlier documents, including the cuneiform tablets, many of which are contemporary with the NeoBabylonian period itself. The principal reason why modern scholars so highly regard the abovementioned king list, more correctly known as the “Royal Canon,” used by Claudius Ptolemy and other ancient astronomers, is the fact that it agrees with the chronology established by earlier sources, including the cuneiform documents contemporary with the NeoBabylonian and Persian periods. These earlier sources include the lengths of NeoBabylonian reigns attested by Berossus’ Babyloniaca, the Uruk king list, and NeoBabylonian royal inscriptions; by prosopographical evidence provided by contemporary cuneiform documents, chronological interlocking joints provided by a number of contemporary tablets, synchronisms with the chronology of the contemporary 26 th Egyptian dynasty, numerous NeoBabylonian absolute dates established by at least ten astronomical cuneiform tablets, and also the Biblical information about the length of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar. (2 Kings 24:12 aware of this enormous burden of evidence see no reason to accept Furuli’s farfetched explanation of the brief overlaps of a few days, weeks, or months between some of the reigns of the NeoBabylonian rulers. In fact, most of the “odd dates” quoted by Furuli are not odd at all. Fresh collations have shown that most of them either contain scribal errors or have been misread by modern scholars, or have turned out to be modern copying, transcription, or printing errors. Furuli cautions against accepting dates uncritically, pointing out on page 54 that “dates that fall outside the traditional schemes must be ver clear in order to be accepted.” That is why it is necessary to have supposedly “oddly dated” tablets collated afresh. Furuli quotes three examples from scholarly works of tablets that were found to have been misread by modern scholars. |
| And although he calls them gods, nevertheless, when he says that they were made by such men as we certainly ought not to be, he shows, whether he will or not, that they are not to be worshipped by those who do not resemble these image-makers, that is, by prudent, faithful, and religious men, at the same time also making it manifest that the very men who made them involved themselves in the worship of those as gods who were not gods. For true is the saying of the prophet, If a man make gods, lo, they are no gods. Jeremiah 16:20 Such gods, therefore, acknowledged by such worshippers and made by such men, did Hermes call gods made by men, that is to say, demons, through some art of I know not what description, bound by the chains of their own lusts to images. But, nevertheless, he did not agree with that opinion of the Platonic Apuleius, of which we have already shown the incongruity and absurdity, namely, that they were interpreters and intercessors between the gods whom God made, and men whom the same God made, bringing to God the prayers of men, and from God the gifts given in answer to these prayers. For it is exceedingly stupid to believe that gods whom men have made have more influence with gods whom God has made than men themselves have, whom the very same God has made. And consider, too, that it is a demon which, bound by a man to an image by means of an impious art, has been made a god, but a god to such a man only, not to every man. What kind of god, therefore, is that which no man would make but one erring, incredulous, and averse to the true God? Moreover, if the demons which are worshipped in the temples, being introduced by some kind of strange art into images, that is, into visible representations of themselves, by those men who by this art made gods when they were straying away from, and were averse to the worship and service of the gods – if, I say, those demons are neither mediators nor interpreters between men and the gods, both on account of their own most wicked and base manners, and because men, though erring, incredulous, and averse from the worship and service of the gods, are nevertheless beyond doubt better than the demons whom they themselves have evoked, then it remains to be affirmed that what power they possess they possess as demons, doing harm by bestowing pretended benefits – harm all the greater for the deception – or else openly and undisguisedly doing evil to men. |
| ‘Bellingshausen’ is the Soviet-Russian Antarctic station on the King George (Waterloo) Island. It is named after Faddey Bellingshausen (1778-1852), a Russian seafarer, admiral and the discoverer of Antarctica. It was founded by the Soviet Antarctic Expedition on February 22, 1968. It is the northernmost, that is, the closest to the equator, Russian Antarctic station. As of 2015, there are eight year-round and five seasonal specialists working at it. The Chilean Antarctic expedition ‘Frei’ (Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva) is located in the immediate vicinity of the Bellingshausen Station. The idea to build a permanent church in Antarctica was put forward in the 1990s by the head of the Russian Antarctic Expedition (RAE), Valery Lukin and the captain of the Metelitsa women’s team, Valentina Kuznetsova. It was supported by His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II. The Church in Antarctica Foundation was established at the same time. The church was designed by Svetlana Rybak and constructed by Alexander Schmidt. It was built of cedar and larch logs by a team of carpenters from Gorno-Altaysk at the Kyzyl-Ozek village. The building was let ‘settle down’ for a year; then it was disassembled and transported by trucks to Kaliningrad and from it to Antarctica, where it was re-assembled by an 8-member team of within 60 days. The wooden carved iconostasis was made by masters from Dmitrov near Moscow. A small residential house was built close by for the clergy. The seat of the future church was blessed in January 2002. The church itself was consecrated and dedicated to the Holy Trinity on February 15, 2004, by the abbot of the St. Sergius Monastery of the Holy Trinity Bishop Feognost of Sergiev Posad together with clergy and in the presence of pilgrims and benefactors. The church of the Holy Trinity is the only church acting on permanent basis in Antarctica. Hieromonk Kallistrat (Romanenko), now Bishop of Gorno-Altaysk and Chemal, who was at that time a monk of the St. Sergius of the Trinity, was the first rector of the Antarctic church. He spent over a year on the island and left for Russia in March 2005. |
|
|
