| Fathers Speak, Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint Gregory of Nyssa. Selected Letters and Life-Records. Translated from the Greek and introduced by Georges A. Barrois; with a foreword by Joh n Meyendorff. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1986. 224, p. Germanos I, Saint, Patriarch of Constantinople, d. ca. 733. Germanos on Predestined Terms of Life. Greek text and English translation by Charles Garton and Leendert G. Westerink. Buffalo: Department of Classics, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1979. xxix, 82 p. (Arethusa monographs; 7.) Peri horon zoes in English and Greek. Text and translation on facing pages. Gregory Palamas, Saint, 1296–1359. The One Hundred and Fifty Chapters. Critical edition, translation [of Capita 150] and study by Robert E. Sinkewicz. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1988. x, 288 p. (Studies and texts; 83.) English and Greek. List of the 150 chapter headings inserted. Gregory, of Nyssa, ca. 335-ca. 394. The Biographical Works of Gregory of Nyssa: Proceedings of the Fifth International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa, Mainz, 6–10 September 1982. Andreas Spira, ed. Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1984. viii, 274 p. (Patristic monograph series; n. 12.) English, French, German, and Spanish. -. The Easter Sermons of Gregory of Nyssa: Translation and Commentary: Proceedings of the Fourth International Colloquium on Gregory of Nyssa, Cambridge, England, 11–15 September, 1978. Edited by Andreas Spira and Christoph Klock with an introduction by G. Christopher Stead. Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation; Winchendon, MA: Distributed by Greeno, Hadden, 1981. x, 384 p. (Patristic monograph series; n. 9.) -. From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa’s Mystical Writings. Selected and with an introduction by Jean Danielou; translated and edited by Herbert Musurillo. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1979. xiv, 298 p. Reprint of the 1961 ed. published by Scribner, NY. |
| And therefore that marriage, worthy of the happiness of Paradise, should have had desirable fruit without the shame of lust, had there been no sin. But how that could be, there is now no example to teach us. Nevertheless, it ought not to seem incredible that one member might serve the will without lust then, since so many serve it now. Do we now move our feet and hands when we will to do the things we would by means of these members? Do we meet with no resistance in them, but perceive that they are ready servants of the will, both in our own case and in that of others, and especially of artisans employed in mechanical operations, by which the weakness and clumsiness of nature become, through industrious exercise, wonderfully dexterous? And shall we not believe that, like as all those members obediently serve the will, so also should the members have discharged the function of generation, though lust, the award of disobedience, had been awanting? Did not Cicero, in discussing the difference of governments in his De Republica, adopt a simile from humannature, and say that we command our bodily members as children, they are so obedient; but that the vicious parts of the soul must be treated as slaves, and be coerced with a more stringent authority? And no doubt, in the order of nature, the soul is more excellent than the body; and yet the soul commands the body more easily than itself. Nevertheless this lust, of which we at present speak, is the more shameful on this account, because the soul is therein neither master of itself, so as not to lust at all, nor of the body, so as to keep the members under the control of the will; for if they were thus ruled, there should be no shame. But now the soul is ashamed that the body, which by nature is inferior and subject to it, should resist its authority. For in the resistance experienced by the soul in the other emotions there is less shame, because the resistance is from itself, and thus, when it is conquered by itself, itself is the conqueror, although the conquest is inordinate and vicious, because accomplished by those parts of the soul which ought to be subject to reason, yet, being accomplished by its own parts and energies, the conquest is, as I say, its own. For when the soul conquers itself to a due subordination, so that its unreasonable motions are controlled by reason, while it again is subject to God, this is a conquest virtuous and praiseworthy. Yet there is less shame when the soul is resisted by its own vicious parts than when its will and order are resisted by the body, which is distinct from and inferior to it, and dependent on it for life itself. |
| I do not think, indeed, that what some have thought or may think is rashly said or believed, that until the time of Antichristthe Church of Christ is not to suffer any persecutions besides those she has already suffered – that is, ten – and that the eleventh and last shall be inflicted by Antichrist. They reckon as the first that made by Nero, the second by Domitian, the third by Trajan, the fourth by Antoninus, the fifth by Severus, the sixth by Maximin, the seventh by Decius, the eighth by Valerian, the ninth by Aurelian, the tenth by Diocletian and Maximian. For as there were ten plagues in Egypt before the people of God could begin to go out, they think this is to be referred to as showing that the last persecution by Antichristmust be like the eleventh plague, in which the Egyptians, while following the Hebrews with hostility, perished in the Red Sea when the people of God passed through on dry land. Yet I do not think persecutions were prophetically signified by what was done in Egypt, however nicely and ingeniously those who think so may seem to have compared the two in detail, not by the prophetic Spirit, but by the conjecture of the human mind, which sometimes hits the truth, and sometimes is deceived. But what can those who think this say of the persecution in which the Lord Himself was crucified? In which number will they put it? And if they think the reckoning is to be made exclusive of this one, as if those must be counted which pertain to the body, and not that in which the Head Himself was set upon and slain, what can they make of that one which, after Christ ascended into heaven, took place in Jerusalem, when the blessed Stephen was stoned; when James the brother of John was slaughtered with the sword; when the Apostle Peter was imprisoned to be killed, and was set free by the angel; when the brethren were driven away and scattered from Jerusalem; when Saul, who afterward became the Apostle Paul, wasted the Church; and when he himself, publishing the glad tidings of the faith he had persecuted, suffered such things as he had inflicted, either from the Jews or from other nations, where he most fervently preached Christ everywhere? Why, then, do they think fit to start with Nero, when the Church in her growth had reached the times of Neroamid the most cruel persecutions; about which it would be too long to say anything? But if they think that only the persecutions made by kings ought to be reckoned, it was king Herod who also made a most grievous one after the ascension of the Lord. |
| «The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation» by Archimandrite Sergius (Stragorodsky) and its criticism by Confessor of the Faith Victor (Ostrovidov) and Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) P. Khondsinskiy «The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation», a well-known work by Archimandrite Sergius (Stragorodsky) that was defended by him as a master’s thesis at the Moscow Theological Academy in 1895, is still considered an etalon in Orthodox theology. Meanwhile, in the fi rst half of the 20th century, it was heavily criticized by at least two prominent members of the Church hierarchy of that time: Confessor of the Faith Victor (Ostrovidov) and Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev). This article does not only examine their arguments, but also provides the researcher’s personal understanding of the main theses of the work by Archimandrite Sergius. The researcher’s work in this case is complicated by a large number of patristic texts, which are given by Archimandrite Sergius and the abundance of which hampers the identifi cation of his own original ideas. Nevertheless, the carried out analysis reveals that the dissertation doesn’t contain not only patristic, but any kind of a clear doctrine of the Fall, or of man’s state after the Fall, or of redemption, or of man’s assimilation of redemption fruits. Besides, the theses illustrated in the dissertation by the texts of the Holy Fathers belong not so much to them as to the fi rst Slavophiles, Archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky), the teacher and the senior friend of Archimandrite Sergius, and fi nally to Immanuel Kant. Consequently, in his doctrine of freedom anticipating grace, Archimandrite Sergius comes dangerously close to Pelagianism. These fi ndings recognize the truth of complaints against the work of Archimandrite Sergius by Confessor of the Faith Viktor (Ostrovidov) and Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev). Keywords: Sergius (Stragorodsky), Victor (Ostrovidov), Seraphim (Sobolev), Orthodox doctrine of salvation, new theology, pure love, patristic literature, Pelagianism, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), redemption. |
| http://korma.hram.by/?page_id=12 http://korma.hram.by/?page_id=62 http://korma.hram.by/?page_id=60 и Стрешина: http://korma.hram.by/?page_id=24 http://korma.hram.by/?page_id=52 http://korma.hram.by/?page_id=57 Ангелина 24 апреля 2013, 18:56 К огромному сожалению, не нашла на этом замечательном сайте в месяцеслове жития и иконы святого праведного Иоанна Кормянского. И в списке святых с именем Иоанн... Уважаемая редакция сайта, исправьте, пожалуйста, это недоразумение! С уважением, р.Б. Ангелина, редактор интернет-сайта http://korma.hram.by/ Ангелина 17 ноября 2012, 16:52 Уважаемые админы! Исправьте, пожалуйста, ошибку: " Он был канонизирован Белорусским экзархатом Русской Православной Церкви в 2000 г. как местночтимый святой. " КАНОНИЗАЦИЯ ПРОТОИЕРЕЯ ИОАННА ГАШКЕВИЧА «За период с 1991 года по настоящее время (август 1997 года, - А.Д.) засвидетельствовано под клятвою на Святом Евангелии много чудесных явлений покойного о. Иоанна в видениях, и исцеления самих, получивших таковые, в чем являюсь и я свидетелем их показаний. (…) Святые мощи старца Иоанна, источая исцеления и врачуя болезни, продолжают привлекать жаждущих помощи Божией через его молитвенное предстательство». (Из рапорта настоятеля Свято-Покровского храма игумена Стефана (Нещерета) http://korma.hram.by/?page_id=22 " СВЯТОЙ СИНОД БЕЛОРУССКОЙ ПРАВОСЛАВНОЙ ЦЕРКВИ, внимательно изучив жизнь, подвижнические труды, молитвенные подвиги и священнослужение протоиерея Иоанна Гашкевича, ПОСТАНОВИЛ: 1. Протоиерея Иоанна Гашкевича причислить к лику местночтимых святых Белорусской Православной Церкви. ... Деяния Синода БПЦ от 30 апреля 1998 года, г. Минск " А вот рассказ священника-очевидца: http://korma.hram.by/?page_id=69 С уважением, р.Б. Ангелина, редактор интернет-сайта " Святой праведный Иоанн Кормянский " (http://korma.hram.by/). Ангелина 17 ноября 2012, 16:38 По милости Божией, я приезжаю в Корму с июля 1999 года. За это время была свидетельницей множества чудес по молитве ко святому батюшке Иоанну, многое произошло со мной и с моими близкими. |
| Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight: or at least when He says: Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. But I knew that You hear Me always. But though our Lord made a distinction between these four kinds of prayers as to be offered separately and one by one according to the scheme which we know of, yet that they can all be embraced in a perfect prayer at one and the same time He showed by His own example in that prayer which at the close of S. John " s gospel we read that He offered up with such fullness. From the words of which (as it is too long to repeat it all) the careful inquirer can discover by the order of the passage that this is so. And the Apostle also in his Epistle to the Philippians has expressed the same meaning, by putting these four kinds of prayers in a slightly different order, and has shown that they ought sometimes to be offered together in the fervour of a single prayer, saying as follows: But in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. Philippians 4:6 And by this he wanted us especially to understand that in prayer and supplication thanksgiving ought to be mingled with our requests. Chapter 18. Of the Lord " s Prayer. And so there follows after these different kinds of supplication a still more sublime and exalted condition which is brought about by the contemplation of God alone and by fervent love, by which the mind, transporting and flinging itself into lovefor Him, addresses God most familiarly as its own Father with a piety of its own. And that we ought earnestly to seek after this condition the formula of the Lord " s prayer teaches us, saying Our Father. When then we confess with our own mouths that the God and Lord of the universe is our Father, we profess immediately that we have been called from our condition as slaves to the adoption of sons, adding next Which art in heaven, that, by shunning with the utmost horror all lingering in this present life, which we pass upon this earth as a pilgrimage, and what separates us by a great distance from our Father, we may the rather hasten with all eagerness to that country where we confess that our Father dwells, and may not allow anything of this kind, which would make us unworthy of this our profession and the dignity of an adoption of this kind, and so deprive us as a disgrace to our Father " s inheritance, and make us incur the wrath of His justice and severity. |
| Psychologically the reversion to Scholasticism and to Romanizing moods is thoroughly understandable and explainable in connection with the reforms of the Chief Prokurator of the Holy Synod under Nicholas I, Count Pratasov. Yet this return to the Romanizing formulations of the 17th and 18th centuries, to the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila, to the works of St. Dmitrii of Rostov, or to Stefan Iavorskii’s Rock of Faith proved fruitless because it offered no creative exit from the historical difficulties of Russian theology. The inclination to Protestantism could only be overcome by a return to the historical sources of Eastern Orthodoxy, by a creative restoration of that once existing organic continuity and cultural tradition and not by hasty and scholastic assessments of ready-made “solutions” of Western thought. In this sense Philaret accomplished incomparably more of the actual “Churchification” [“ Verkirchlichung”] of Russian “school theology” than did Pratasov and his advisors. The Dogmatics by Makarii Bulgakov, an eminent historian of the Russian Church and later the Metropolitan of Moscow, remained – despite all its merits –a dead book, a memorial to lifeless scholarship, uninspired by the true spirit of the Church: once again precisely a Western book. The return to a truly genuine and living Christianity was possible only by the historical path, not by the path of scholasticism. It is possible only by the living, albeit sometimes contradictory, experience of the history of the Church which contains embryonically the sought-for synthesis, and not by a hasty “systematization” based on alien sources. This “historical method” was the path of Russian theology at the end of the previous century. This method (see, for example, the Dogmatic Theology of Bishop Silvester) was the most important achievement of the Russian theological heritage. 126 , pp. 128 – 233. IV In the history of Western Theology of the previous centuries the influence of German idealistic philosophy was one of the most significant phenomena, not only in Evangelical circles but also – suffice it to mention the Roman Catholic school at Tübingen – to a very significant extent in the works of Roman Catholic theology and scholarship, especially in Germany. This influence of German Idealism was strong in the Russian theological schools, although here it was more of a philosophical, than theological, concern. The influence of philosophical idealism was almost not at all apparent in the genuine theological literature, genuine in the strictest sense of the term. This is partially explained by the strictness of censorship. We know from the memoirs of contemporaries that many of the Academy professors were inclined to a philosophical interpretation of the data of Revelation rather than to a strictly theological interpretation. |
| The Fourth Ecumenical Council had condemned the Monophysite heresy, which falsely taught that in the Lord Jesus Christ there was only one nature (the divine). Influenced by this erroneous opinion, the Monothelite heretics said that in Christ there was only one divine will (“thelema”) and only one divine energy (“energia”). Adherents of Monothelitism sought to return by another path to the repudiated Monophysite heresy. Monothelitism found numerous adherents in Armenia, Syria, Egypt. The heresy, fanned also by nationalistic animosities, became a serious threat to Church unity in the East. The struggle of Orthodoxy with heresy was particularly difficult because in the year 630, three of the patriarchal thrones in the Orthodox East were occupied by Monothelites: Constantinople by Sergius, Antioch by Athanasius, and Alexandria by Cyrus. Saint Maximus traveled from Alexandria to Crete, where he began his preaching activity. He clashed there with a bishop, who adhered to the heretical opinions of Severus and Nestorius. The saint spent six years in Alexandria and the surrounding area. Patriarch Sergius died at the end of 638, and the emperor Heraclius also died in 641. The imperial throne was eventually occupied by his grandson Constans II (642-668), an open adherent of the Monothelite heresy. The assaults of the heretics against Orthodoxy intensified. Saint Maximus went to Carthage and he preached there for about five years. When the Monothelite Pyrrhus, the successor of Patriarch Sergius, arrived there after fleeing from Constantinople because of court intrigues, he and Saint Maximus spent many hours in debate. As a result, Pyrrhus publicly acknowledged his error, and was permitted to retain the title of “Patriarch.” He even wrote a book confessing the Orthodox Faith. Saint Maximus and Pyrrhus traveled to Rome to visit Pope Theodore, who received Pyrrhus as the Patriarch of Constantinople. In the year 647 Saint Maximus returned to Africa. There, at a council of bishops Monotheletism was condemned as a heresy. In 648, a new edict was issued, commissioned by Constans and compiled by Patriarch Paul of Constantinople: the “Typos” (“Typos tes pisteos” or “Pattern of the Faith”), which forbade any further disputes about one will or two wills in the Lord Jesus Christ. Saint Maximus then asked Saint Martin the Confessor (April 14), the successor of Pope Theodore, to examine the question of Monothelitism at a Church Council. The Lateran Council was convened in October of 649. One hundred and fifty Western bishops and thirty-seven representatives from the Orthodox East were present, among them Saint Maximus the Confessor. The Council condemned Monothelitism, and the Typos. The false teachings of Patriarchs Sergius, Paul and Pyrrhus of Constantinople, were also anathematized. |
| -. We Shall See Him as He Is. Translated from Russian by Rosemary Edmonds. Rev. ed. Essex, England: Stavropegic Monastery of Saint Joh n the Baptist, 1988. 237 p. Translation of Videt Boga kak on jest. Theokistos the Stoudite. Faith Healing in Late Byzantium: The posthumous Miracles of the Patriarch Athanasios I of Constantinople by Theokistos the Stoudite. Edited by Alice-Mary Maffry Talbot. Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1983. 162 p. (The Archbishop Iakovos library of ecclesiastical and historical sources; n. 8.) Includes Greek text and English translation. Theophan, the Recluse, Saint, Bishop of Tambov and Shatsk, 1815–1894. The Heart of Salvation: The Life and Teachings of Russia’s Saint Theophan the Recluse. Translated by Esther Williams; edited with commentary by Robin Amis and an introduction by George A. Maloney. Newbury, MA: Robertsbridge, England: Praxis Institute Press. 1991? xxi. 183 p. Bibliographical references: p. 177–178. -. The Path of Prayer. Edited by Robin Amis. Robertsbridge, England: Praxis Institute Press, 1992. xiii, 78 p. Tradition of Life: Romanian Essays in Spirituality and Theology. Arthur M. Allchin, ed. Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, 1971. 73 p. (Studies Supplementary to Sobornost, n. 2.) Ware, Kallistos. The Power of the Name: The Jesus Prayer in Orthodox Spirituality. London: Marshall Pickering, 1989. 48 p. (Christian spirituality series.) Includes bibliographical references (p. 48). Way of a Pilgrim; and, The Pilgrim Continues His Way. Translated from the Russian by R. M. French. NY: Seabury Press. 1965. x, 242 p. (A Seabury paperback, SP18.) IV. Canon Law Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, Sometimes Called the Council of Bethlehem, Holden Under Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1672. Translated from the Greek with an appendix containing the confession published with the name of Cyril Lucar condemned by the Synod and with notes by J.N.W.B. Robertson. NY: AMS Press, 1969. vii, 215 p. Reprint of the London ed., 1899. Translation of Aspis orthodoxias e apologia kai elenchos pros tous diasyrontas ten Anatoliken Ekklesian. |
| ---. “De virginitate.” In Gregoire de Nysse. Traite de la virginite. Edited by M. Aubineau. Sources Chretiennes, vol. 119. Paris: Cerf, 1966. ---. “Dialogus de anima et resurrectione.“ In Patrología Cursus Completus; Series Graeca, vol.. 46. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Paris: Migne, 1863. ---. “Oratio catechetica magna.“ In The Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa. Edited by J. Strawley. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903. Irenaeus. “Adversus haereses (liber 5).” In Contre les heresies [par] Irenee de Lyon, livre 5, vol. 2. Edited by A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau and C. Mercier. Sources Chretiennes, vol, 153. Paris: Cerf, 1969. Isaac of Nineveh. “Asketica.” In Isaak – Asketika. Edited by Nikephoros Hieromonachos. Athens, 1895. Jerome. “In die dominica Paschac.” In Tractatus sancti Hieronymi presbyteri in librum Psalmorum. Edited by D Germanus Morin. In S. Hieronymi preibyicri opera. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 78. Tumhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1958. ---. “Liber quaestionum hebraicarum in Genesim.“ In S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera. Edited by Paul de LaGarde. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 72. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1959. ---. “Tractatus lix in Psalmos.” In Tractatus sancti Hieronymi presbyteri in librum Psalmorum. Edited by D Germanus Morin. In S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 78. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1958. ---. “Tractatus in Marci Euangelium.” In Tractatus sancti Hieronymi presbyteri in librum Psalmorum. Edited by D Germanus Morin. In S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 78. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1958. ---. “Tractatuum in Psalmos Series Altera.” In Tractatus sancti Hieronymi presbyteri in librum Psaimorum. Edited by D Germanus Morin. In S. Hieronymi presbyteri opera. Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, vol. 78. Turnhout, Belgium: Typographi Brepols Editores Pontificii, 1958. |
|
|
