| According to the Judean nonaccession year system, Jehoiakim’s first regnal year, then, should be counted from Tishri 1, 609 B.C.E. Jehoahaz’ three months of reign were evidently included in Josiah’s reign of 31 years, instead of being counted as a separate regnal year. (Jehoiachin’s three months of reign, which ended on March 16, 597 B.C.E., was evidently treated in a similar way, being a part of Zedekiah’s first regnal year.) C. Zedekiah’s first year, 598/97 B.C.E. As was shown in the first section of the Appendix for Chapter 5, “The ‘third year of Jehoiakim’ ( Daniel 1:1 21946 dates Jehoiachin’s removal from the throne to the second Adar of Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year, corresponding to March 16, 597, Julian calendar, after which Zedekiah was appointed king. Following the nonaccession year system, Zedekiah’s first year, then, was reckoned from Tishri, 598, to Tishri, 597 B.C.E. Zedekiah’s first regnal year was the same as Jehoiachin’s first year of exile, which is seen from a comparison of Ezekiel 24:1 Ezekiel are those of Jehoiachin’s exile) with 2 Kings 25:1 This is quite natural, as Jehoiachin’s three months of reign began after Tishri 598. His first regnal year, therefore, would have been reckoned from Tishri 1, 598, had he not been removed from the throne. Now his three months had to be included in Zedekiah’s first regnal year. D. Hananiah’s “prophecy”, JulyAugust 594 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 28:1 In Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year a rebellion broke out in his army from the month of Kislev to the month of Tebet (c. November 595January 594 B.C.E.), according to the Babylonian Chronicle B.M. 21946. 573 If this rebellion caused the revolt plans among the Jewish exiles, which also spread to Judah as reflected in Jeremiah, chapters 2729, these plans must have developed soon after the Babylonian rebellion. The “prophecy” of Hananiah, that the yoke of Babylon would be broken and the exiles brought back within two years, is dated to the fifth month of the fourth year of Zedekiah. (Jeremiah 28:14) (Ab, corresponding to JulyAugust), therefore, must have fallen in JulyAugust, 594 B.C.E., a few months after Nebuchadnezzar had crushed the rebellion. A look at the table shows that the fifth mondi of Zedekiah’s fourth year actually fell in JulyAugust, 594 B.C.E., thus indicating that the chronological system presented in the tables is correct. |
| THE CHURCH IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE The last flowering of Byzantine culture and spiritual life was shortlived. Most of Serbia was reduced to vassalage after defeat by the Turks at the battle of Kosovo in 1389. Bulgaria fell to the Turks in 1396, and the fall of the imperial capital in 1453 completed the loss to Muslim rule of the ancient heartlands of Christianity. As had been true in the Middle East for some centuries, so now in Asia Minor and the Balkans the Church " s main focus became survival. The conquering Turks recognised no distinction between religion and nation: the Christians were therefore treated as a subject people with the Patriarch of Constantinople as its «ethnarch». This enabled Constantinople to claim an authority over all the other Churches within the empire, which in practice entrenched Greek domination of other local Churches, including the other ancient patriarchates. Five centuries of Turkish domination have left a mark on the Greek and Balkan peoples that is still evident today. The subject Christians enjoyed freedom of worship and a measure of tolerance most of the time, but at the price of being second-class citizens. The poll-tax, the child levy and humiliating social restrictions kept up a relentless pressure, resulting in a steady haemorrhage of conversions ; public attempts to revitalise and strengthen the faith of the Christian population were liable to end in death. Yet the demoralised state of hierarchy and the general low level of education did not prevent the appearance of many who would be revered as »new martyrs» – often people who had converted to Islam, in some cases as children, and then recanted. THE CHURCH IN RUSSIA The Russian Church alone remained free of the Turkish yoke, a circumstance which led some Russian churchmen to see it as the " Third Rome». The fall of Constantinople was widely viewed as divine retribution for the compromise of Orthodox faith at the council of Florence-Ferrara (1438–9), in a futile attempt to gain Western assistance against the Turks. When the head of the Russian Church, the Greek Metropolitan Isidore of Kiev, returned home after signing the act of union, he was summarily arrested. In due course, the Russians elected their own Metropolitan of Moscow to lead the Church, without the assent of Constantinople. So began Russia " s de facto autonomy from Constantinople, although a patriarchate was established, with the blessing of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, only in 1589. It should be made clear that this was a matter of order, not a split in the Church. Russia would go on to play an important role as protector of the Christians in the Ottoman empire. |
| But the Patriarchate has also come to be identified by such of the Orthodox as are non-Greek, with the cause of Hellenic nationalism.... A widespread hostility has thus pursued the Phanariot clergy among the non-Greek Orthodox; and the revolts which the Phanar puts down to Phyletism (Inappropriate nationalism) have issued in the enforced recognition of national churches, as a refuge from Phanariot oppression. (Kidd 1927: 305) His view, not a last word on the subject by any means, for it glosses over the heroic reality of how Constantinople “kept things going” in these dark times, nevertheless explains why some of the newer national Orthodox churches sprang into being after the collapse of the power of the sultanate in the 19th century; although this too does not give the whole picture – how in most instances this “return to independence” was a return to more venerable ecclesiastical situations that had predated the Turkish yoke. Hostile critics of the Orthodox scene have sometimes been too ready to cry “collaboration” and “simoniacal conformism” when they have seen Orthodoxy under the foot of either Turkish or Soviet oppressions. But they have generally done so from the comfort and safety of their armchairs and the financial security of their own ecclesiastical establishment. The blood that has been spilled in the Orthodox Church over the last three centuries is incomparably greater than the amount of the blood of the martyrs that was shed in the first three centuries of what we now call the period of the Great Persecutions. Today, the main entrance gate to the Phanar buildings is kept closed, in honored memory of the Patriarch Gregory who was the incumbent in the time of the 19th- century Greek Revolution, and who was dragged from the altar of the Church of St. George, still wearing his liturgical vestments, to be hanged from the gate. The patriarchate can boast of its martyrs. The end of political coherence within the sprawling Ottoman Empire, which was becoming more and more obvious at the end of the 19th century, certainly witnessed the breaking up of the immediate jurisdictional sphere of Constantinople. |
| In October of 1943, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia met in Vienna, Austria. Also represented at the Council were two newly free parts of the Russian Orthodox Church-the Byelorussian Autonomous Church, and the Ukrainian Autonomous Church. The principal business of the Council was to condemn the election of Metropolitan Sergius 17 as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. The Council issued an epistle declaring the election as uncanonical and invalid. On 11/24 October 1943, during the Divine Liturgy celebrated in the Saint Nicholas Cathedral in Vienna, Archimandrite Gregory (Borishkevitch) was consecrated to the episcopate as Bishop of Gomel and Mozirsk for the Byelorussian Autonomous Church. Presiding over the consecration was Metropolitan Anastassy 18 , Chief Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, assisted by Metropolitan Seraphim (Alexander Ivanovich Lukianov, 23 Aug 1879-18 Feb 1959) of Paris and Western Europe; Metropolitan Seraphim (Lade) of Berlin and Central Europe; Bishop Sergey of Prague 19 ; Bishop Venedikt of Grodno of the Byelorussian Autonomous Church; Bishop Vassily of Vienna 20 ; and Bishop Philip of Potsdam 21 . (This episcopal concecration became the first in the series of problematic consecrations performed by the ROCOR for the Church of Russia; in this case, for the Belarussian Church, which is subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate – ed.) At the end of June 1944, the entire episcopate of the Byelorussian Autonomous Church, along with many members of their flock, fled West to escape the advance of the Red Army, and the Bolshevik yoke that would follow in its wake. In Germany, the hierarchs of the Byelorussian Autonomous Church ministered to their flock, and entered into cooperation with the Russian Church Abroad. Early in 1946, the Byelorussian hierarchs decided in Council to seek admission into the Russian Church Abroad. Metropolitan Panteleimon (Rozhnovsky) insisted that joining the Church Abroad was the only possible course of action for the Byelorussian hierarchs; this resulted in a unanimous decision by the Byelorussian hierarchs to do so. |
| Now what people, senate, power, or public dignity of the impious city has ever taken care to judge between all these and other nearly innumerable dissensions of the philosophers, approving and accepting some, and disapproving and rejecting others? Has it not held in its bosom at random, without any judgment, and confusedly, so many controversies of men at variance, not about fields, houses, or anything of a pecuniary nature, but about those things which make life either miserable or happy? Even if some true things were said in it, yet falsehoods were uttered with the same licence; so that such a city has not amiss received the title of the mystic Babylon. For Babylonmeans confusion, as we remember we have already explained. Nor does it matter to the devil, its king, how they wrangle among themselves in contradictory errors, since all alike deservedly belong to him on account of their great and varied impiety. One of the Ptolemies, kings of Egypt, desired to know and have these sacred books. For after Alexander of Macedon, who is also styled the Great, had by his most wonderful, but by no means enduring power, subdued the whole of Asia, yea, almost the whole world, partly by force of arms, partly by terror, and, among other kingdoms of the East, had entered and obtained Judea also, on his death his generals did not peaceably divide that most ample kingdom among them for a possession, but rather dissipated it, wasting all things by wars. Then Egypt began to have the Ptolemies as her kings. The first of them, the son of Lagus, carried many captive out of Judea into Egypt. But another Ptolemy, called Philadelphus, who succeeded him, permitted all whom he had brought under the yoke to return free; and more than that, sent kingly gifts to the temple of God, and begged Eleazar, who was the high priest, to give him the Scriptures, which he had heard by report were truly divine, and therefore greatly desired to have in that most noble library he had made. When the high priest had sent them to him in Hebrew, he afterwards demanded interpreters of him, and there were given him seventy-two, out of each of the twelve tribes six men, most learned in both languages, to wit, the Hebrew and Greek and their translation is now by custom called the Septuagint. |
| Communal Considerations All of this is to convey that the practice of “closed” communion is not personal or vindictive. Christians of other confessions are not excluded from Holy Communion based on a judgment of their personal faith, sincerity, or sanctity. Rather they hold to a different Christian tradition and are united to a different Christian body. According to historical Christianity, the bishop is the guardian and embodiment of the tradition. Following this understanding, the simple litmus test for determining whether one can receive the Eucharist of any particular community is this: “Is my bishop in communion with the bishop of this local church?” If he is, you are also in communion with this church. It is also worthy of note that churches that maintain the historical practice of monogamous communion, particularly the Orthodox Church, require from church members a good bit of preparation before receiving Holy Communion. This includes a recent confession of sin, fasting from all food and drink, prayers of preparation, reconciliation with those we have offended, etc. These requirements are not some legalistic yoke with which to burden people, but a guard against casual and negligent reception, or worse, receiving in a state of sin without repentance. The apostle Paul warns that he who does so eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep (1 Cor. 11:29-30). If we take the Scriptures seriously we can see that not only is “closed communion” prudent, it is a merciful and potentially lifesaving practice! Conclusion The Christian Church, like Her Lord, is not an imaginary and invisible abstraction. The tradition of any church is concrete and visible, expressed throughout history by real people in a tangible continuum of faith and practice (whether for 2,000 years or two years). Like the Holy Trinity, the Church is a community, a real communion expressed and embodied by a shared faith and way of life. The maintenance of real communion necessitates borders and boundaries, both doctrinal and disciplinary. If a church is to be faithful to its own tradition, the door will be opened to some things and closed to others. |
| In 1453 the Ottoman Turks seized Constantinople and put an end to the Byzantine Empire; they occupied Mt. Athos and sacked all the monasteries. Under the Ottoman yoke, all the monasteries in Byzantium suffered hardships; so, did Iviron. The Georgian monks could thenceforward rely on help from Georgia alone; indeed, in the 15th century the kings and rulers of the country never forgot their monastery on Mt. Athos and helped it as far as they could. Thus, for instance, the rulers of Samtskhe (South-Western Georgia), Kvarkvare and Mzechabuk Jaqeli, King Levan of Kakheti and his son Alexander provided funds for construction work in the precincts of the monastery. Funds from Georgia were also sent during the 16th and 17th centuries. Still, the situation in which the Georgian monks found themselves continued deteriorating and Greek monks gradually gained supremacy in Iviron. By the beginning of the 19th century, the Greek clergy were striving to wipe out the very memory of Georgians who lived and worked there: frescoes were mutilated, the names of Georgian monks in inscriptions were effaced. But the Georgian monks resisted resolutely and for a short time, successfully. In the 1820s Mt. Athos was occupied by Turkish troops and the terrified monks fled; only Georgian monks were not intimidated; they did not desert the monastery and came to terms with the Turkish commanding officer, a Georgian by extraction, named Chqonia-pasha, thus saving from pillage not only their own monastery, but also a number of other cloisters on Mt. Athos. Among these Georgian monks were Benedict Kitishvili and Hilarion Kanchishvi, whose names are associated with the last upsurge of the Georgian monks’ creative resolve: in 1823 and 1824 several Georgian manuscripts were copied by them on Mt. Athos. But that was the end. Returning there after 1830, the Greek monks forced the Georgians to leave Iviron; those who remained behind were allowed to live in the small hermitage of St. Elijah. In the 1880s there remained only four elderly Georgian monks in that hermitage. |
| If we were talking about the Patriarch of Constantinople working with the United States to preserve Orthodox sacred treasures, to defend its interests on its own canonical territory, would anyone object? I think not. But when the Patriarch of Constantinople relies on eternal forces for actions aimed at destroying Orthodoxy unity, at damaging the Local Orthodox Churches, of course we can’t agree with this. As for the Russian Orthodox Church, we’re not invading anywhere, not taking anything away from anyone. We only take care to preserve the Church we have received from our forebears. Here the interviewer asks about Russia’s ties with Turkey and why more was not done about the recent Agia Sophia crisis. Metropolitan Hilarion notes that Patriarch Kirill was the first primate to speak out, then the Holy Synod expressed its concern, and then President Putin expressed concern directly to Erdogan. The conversion of Agia Sophia and the Chora Monastery into mosques is a great tragedy not only for the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but for all of Orthodoxy, Metropolitan Hilarion says. — Let’s go back to history a bit. Next year, the 200th anniversary of the Greek uprising against the Ottomans for their freedom will be celebrated. Russia played a very important role in this uprising. What is Greece for Church people in Russia? What is the Greek Church and Greece? Despite all the problems, maybe something important enough remains that we are united? Hilarion first speaks about what Greece means to him — If we’re talking about relations between our Churches and our people in general, I would like to express the hope that the Greek people will not forget the feat of the Russian soldiers who took part in the liberation of Greece from the Ottoman yoke, spilling their blood on the Greek land. I really hope that, despite the division that has arisen, we will be able to maintain our ties at the cultural, spiritual, and ecclesiastical levels. Yes, we had to break off relations with several hierarchs of the Greek Church now (hopefully temporarily), including its primate, but we maintain unity with many other hierarchs. |
| Although firmly based on Orthodox, Byzantine sources, Nikodimos " s attention was not confined to them: he translated works of Western, Counter-Reformation spirituality, notably Lorenzo Scupola " s Unseen Warfare, and was interested in the scientific developments of his day (Harvey " s discovery of the circulation of blood, for instance). For Nikodimos, theological renewal was part of a renewal of the whole life of the Church, which had implications for how he understood theology: it was no merely academic accumulation of philosophical and historical learning, nor simply a moral enterprise, but an engagement with God himself, who has communicated himself to humankind through the Incarnation and in the sacraments, a participation in the life of the Trinity through prayer and ascetic struggle, leading to theosis or deification, as the very title page of the Philokalia makes clear, when it speaks of the ways " by which the nous [or intellect] is purified, illuminated and perfected». Of Nikodimos " s works, the Philokalia has perhaps been the most influential (though the influence of the Pedalion can scarcely be underestimated). Although its influence has not been uniform, indeed it has been rather patchy and inconsistent, it could be claimed that it is the vision of the Philokalia that has come to inform all that is best in twentieth-century Orthodox theology. The influence of the Philokalia was not, at first, felt in Greece – in the nineteenth century the Greeks were perhaps too occupied with securing their freedom from the Ottoman yoke – it was rather in the Slav lands that the seed first germinated. In 1793, only eleven years after the publication of the original Greek, a Slavonic translation was published by St Païssy Velichkovsky of most of the texts (the texts of Maximus the Confessor and Palamas being the most notable omissions). Païssy himself had been a monk on Mount Athos since 1746, but by the time the Dobrotolyubie (as the Slavonic translation was called) was published he had left the Holy Mountain for Moldavia. |
| After a series of such " demands from the populace, " there appeared in the News of the VTsIK (#90 dated 25 April 1923) the following remark: " Mass resolutions of the clergy denouncing the Patriarch even before trial as both a traitor to the Church and a counter-Revolutionary criminal, serve as the best answer to the White Guard curs. " The well-known Communist Krylenko, assigned to prosecute the case of Patriarch Tikhon, addressing the representatives of provincial organizations gathered in Moscow to submit the " resolutions " of those organizations demanding that the death sentence be imposed upon the Patriarch, said to those assembled: " The fate of citizen Tikhon is in our hands, and you can rest assured that we will not spare this representative of the classes which, over the course of centuries, have oppressed the Russian people, and which to this time have not abandoned their intention to wage war on the sovereign will of the Russian proletariat. The Soviet government has reached the firm decision to respond to these attempts with the most energetic reprisal. It will be pitiless and will show leniency to no one. The proletariat must at all costs maintain the positions it has gained. At the present time, one of the main stages of the war we are waging is the war against religious prejudices and the blind fanaticism of the masses. We have declared war on religion, war against all religious denominations, of whatever kind they are: the Russian people must be freed from the yoke of the latter. " The persecutions and oppression of the Church by the atheist Soviet regime were still not the most terrible trial of the faithful. Such a trial ensued when there appeared within the Church itself a movement started by the traitor priests Vvedensky and Krasnitsky. This movement, known as the " Living Church " or " Renovationism, " began to grow after the arrest of the Patriarch, and quickly spread throughout all of Soviet Russia. This was a crop sown even before the Revolution by the liberal intelligentsia. The Revolution perverted the hierarchy of spiritual values. The sacred formula of Orthodox Russian Autocratic National Government, " Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality, " under which the masses of the people were held in check by the authority of the government, which was responsible before God and the Orthodox Church, was destroyed. Instead of that sacred formula there appeared a wicked, satanic, anti-Christian formula: " the dictatorship of the proletariat, " with its demand, " All power to the Soviets. " |
|
|
