| The source of different deviations from due order is not only our sinfulness, but also the demons — these invisible fallen spirits which play a most active role in our sins. Both the Scriptures and the patristic literature (see our book “At the threshold of the fiery gehenna”) speak in detail about their fatal activity in people’s life. Demons influence people through thoughts and feelings. During the thousands of years spent in destructive activity they have perfected themselves in the “art” of tempting. Their influence on people is akin to hypnosis, intoxication or doping, when a person sees things not as they really are, but in a warped way: what is harmful and pernicious is accepted as the height of happiness, and what can really give him happiness, he sees as boring and unnecessary. Because of the diligence of the “demon of lust,” as the fathers of Church call the demon who kindles lust in people, this lascivious passion at times takes the most monstrous and disgusting forms. The Holy Fathers affirm that the “demon of fornication” is one of the strongest spirits. It is obvious that his power comes from our sexual energy, which lies at the very foundation of our nature. Who is not familiar with the situation when it seems that each of our cells demands sexual satisfaction? In accordance with the predictions of the Holy Fathers, one of the characteristic signs of the approaching end of the world will be a universal and awful dominance of debauchery, an abominable carnal dissoluteness and unrestrained voluptuousness. Realizing that their end is near the demons throw all their energy in arousing lust in people, because through this passion it is easier to alienate a person from God, because it is precisely through carnal passions that we lose our godlike image. The cult of fornication. The predictions of the Holy Fathers about the last days begin to come true before our eyes. It seems that never in the history of mankind has there been such a universal pressure of sexuality in all the areas of life as there is today. All the achievements of culture and engineering are used to this end: literature, art, magazines, newspapers, TV, films, music, advertising, fashion, the Internet, computer games, sexual education in schools… At the same time the wild opinion that abstinence is harmful and satisfaction of lust is good is being imposed more and more persistently. The modern conditions of a wide-spread “sex cult,” which calls to get rid of the yoke of the Middle Ages and worships “free love”, is especially difficult for the poor young people. The monogamous marriage appears as a “vestige of the past”; usual family life and family obligations — as “prejudices”; the necessity to restrain carnal lusts — as a “dangerous thing” which injures one’s mentality; modesty and bashfulness — as an “inferiority complex.” “We have entered a new era of free mankind,” therefore: “No prejudices!”, “Closer to the nature!”, “Away with shame!” |
| Childs B. S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible. Minneapolis, 1992. Cohen D. Law, Sexuality and Society: The Enforcement of Morals in Classical Athens. Cambridge, 1991. Cook E. M. Dictionary of Qumran Aramaic. Winona Lake, 2015. Crossan J. D. The Greatest Prayer. Rediscovering revolutionary message of the Lord’s Prayer. London, 2011. Cullmann O. Christ and Time. The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History. London; Philadelphia, 1962. Dalman G. Die Worte Jesu. Band 1. Leipzig, 1930. Davies W. D., Allison D. C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vols. 1–3. Edinburgh, 1988–1997. Davies W.D. The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount. Cambridge, 1964. Davis J. F. Lex Talionis in Early Judaism and the Exhortation of Jesus in Matthew 5. 38–42. London; New York, 2005. Deines R. Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew – An Ongoing Debate//Built upon the Rock. Studies in the Gospel of Matthew/edited by D. M. Gartner and J. Holland. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2008. P. 53–84. Deutsch C. Hidden Wisdom and the Easy Yoke. Sheffield, 1987. Dibelius M. Die Bergpredigt. Botschaft und Geschichte. Tübingen, 1953. Dodd C. H. The Primitive Catechism and the Sayings of Jesus//New Testament Essays. Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson/ed. By A. J. B. Higgins. Manchester, 1959. P. 106–118. Dupont J. Les béatitudes. Vol. 1: Le problème littéraire. Bruxelles, 1958. Evans C. A. Matthew. Cambridge, 2012. Fiebig P. Das Vaterunser. Ursprung, Sinn und Bedeutung des christlichen Hauptgebetes. Gutersloh, 1927. Fitzmyer J. A. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2000. Fitzmyer J. A. The Gospel according to Luke (X-XXIV). Introduction, Translation and Notes. New York, 1985. France R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids; Cambridge, 2007. Gardner R. B. Matthew. Scottdale, 1991. Gerhardsson B. The Matthaean Version of the Lord’s Prayer//The New Testament Age. Essays in Honor of Bo Reicke. Vol. I/ed. by W. C. Weinrich. Macon, GA, 1984. P. 207–220. |
| Jerusalem 5/l8 July, 1925 Originally appeared in Orthodox Life , vol. 31, no. 5 (Sept.-Oct., 1981), pp. 3-14. To read more about the life of this saint, consult Grand Duchess Elizabeth of Russia: New Martyr of the Communist Yoke by Lubov Millar. Includes over 40 photographs and an extensive bibliography. However, the book is not without its problems. Following is a short book review by Bishop Auxentios that appeared in Orthodox Tradition , Vol. IX, No. 1, p. 25: “This book is not written in the pious manner of the traditional hagiography of the Orthodox Church. One is astounded at the constant descriptions of the physical beauty of the martyred Grand Duchess Elizabeth, commentaries on her jewelry collection, and some effete preoccupations with la royaut . As well, the author shows little knowledge of many Orthodox institutions, including the female diaconate and monasticism. Nonetheless, the book provides beautiful glimpses into the life of a convert woman who, having grown much in her Faith at a time when Russian Orthodoxy was not at its healthiest, gave her life for Christ and the Church. Such glimpses make this handsome book a treasury.” Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. |
| At this time an encounter took place between the representatives of the clergy and the intelligentsia which was beneficial to both sides. 14 The desire ripened to free the Church from the yoke of the Synodal Administration imposed on it by Peter. The prophecies of Dostoyevsky and Solovyov began to be realized. A hitherto unknown growth of art, philosophy and religious thought began in Russia. 15 But this renaissance suffered a fatal blow at the hands of the Leninist dictatorship which offered the archaic positivism and materialism of the nineteenth century as the only acceptable world-view for the entire population of Russia. The hatred which Lenin and Stalin and their successors had for Orthodox culture brought about a mass extermination of the cultured classes in Russia, and the destruction of the art treasures which represented her traditional Orthodox culture. Only those Orthodox thinkers who were able to leave their homeland could continue their creative work. Here is the ultimate significance of emigre religious and philosophical literature for Russian culture: it maintained the vital links with the past and deepened the brilliant ideas of teachers such as Khomiakov, Dostoevsky and Solovyov. It preserved that spiritual essence of ideas and thoughts which even today remain inaccessible to Russians within the Communist orbit. While living and working outside their homeland, Orthodox writers have never lost their belief that the Russian people would one day achieve the right to read without fear the works of their thinkers and scholars who cherished freedom, and so enjoy again that Christian culture from which they had been torn away by the revolution. Significance of russian emigre literature for other christians The first Russian emigration of 1919–1922 coincided with the start of the Ecumenical Movement, whose goal was the re-integration of the Christian church. Initially this movement met with disapproval from the Vatican, which forbade Roman Catholics to participate in it. |
| And the followers of Lutherwent incomparably further. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize that the concept of an absolute canon of Holy Scripture is exclusively a Church concept; outside of the Church it is totally inconceivable. It is completely incomprehensible when sectarians want to talk about canonical and uncanonical books of Holy Scripture. Protestants study the history of the New Testament canon a good deal, but that very history is utterly devastating to the concept of canonicity outside the Church. History shows that the canon has not always and in all the [local] Churches been the same. A few centuries passed before the canon was fixed by conciliar decisions. For us there is nothing tempting in this, since we believe in the Church, and therefore her decisions are equally sacred, whether they belong to the second, fourth or twentieth century. But not so for the Protestants and others who deny the truth of the Church. For them, the history of the New Testament canon casts doubt upon the very concept of canonicity. The more consistent Protestants do not conceal this. For example, Adolf Jьlicher concludes his study on the history of the New Testament canon with a very characteristic sentence: “The unassailable fact of the human and gradual genesis of the New Testament canon may serve the purpose of liberating us from the danger that this canon could turn from being a support into being an oppressive yoke.” It can be said that on the Protestant stock exchange the price of Holy Scripture is highly unstable but never rises to its face value. The price is constantly threatened by an unexpected plunge. Suddenly a scholar proves for a while the lack of authenticity of this or that New Testament book. When the Tubingen school of Baur predominated, all thatremained of the entire New Testament were four or five Epistles of theApostle Paul. At the present time they seem inclined to recognize the authenticity of the majority of the New Testament books. But suddenly, somewhere in Egypt, some papyrus will be discovered which throws a different light on the period, and the value of Holy Scripture among the Protestants will fall headlong. |
| During the barrage of persecutions many of the Alexandrian clergy fled into the Egyptian countryside, which led to increased contact and unity. By the early 4th century the Alexandrine episcopate had extended its authority over nearly a hundred bishops throughout Lower and Upper Egypt, as well as neighboring Libya, Nubia, and Cyrenaica. It is also in this period that more Greek Christian texts were being translated into the native Egyptian Coptic language (a form of ancient Egyptian language written in primarily Greek characters). The 4th century marks the flourishing of Coptic monasticism. Following the models of St. Anthony and St. Pachomius, Copts and Greeks set off to the desert in search of God. St. Macarius the Great (ca. 300–90), a disciple of St. Anthony, attracted many followers and developed a vast network of monks in the Fayyum, at Scetis and Nitria (today, Wadi Natrun). The monks of Scetis were the principal fonts of the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, one of the most precious gems of Coptic Orthodoxy. The monastic movement in Egypt was primarily a lay phenomenon. While most of the monks supported the Alexandrine clergy during the Arian controversy, they remained suspicious of the powerbrokers in Alexandria. In the 5th century the Great Shenoute of Atripe founded the large White Monastery which offered a more unified and disciplined form of Coptic monasticism. Abba Shenoute also represents a response to the plight of the native Copts under the yoke of oppressive landlords. His monastery became not only a refuge for the poor, but a symbol of Coptic unity. Shenoute was also a stalwart supporter of Bishop Cyril of Alexandria in his controversy with Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus (431). The Coptic monks, however, also expressed their own theologies which were, at times, at odds with Alexandria. Many of the monks of Upper Egypt were vigorous supporters of “Origenist” theology, while others were literal exegetes of the Scriptures (what the Origenist ascetics denounced as “fundamentalists”). Again we note that Egyptian monasticism had remained significantly diverse, capable of coexisting with multiple strands, even with tensions that frequently broke out (and would need an international attempt at resolution in the condemnation of Origen and Evagrius in the time of Justinian). At times, certain monasteries were set up in opposition to each other (take, for example, the pro-Chalcedonian monastery at Canopus and the anti-Chalcedonian monastery at Enaton). |
| 3507 See the references below. The Noahide law tradition in its completed rabbinic form may not be prerabbinic, but Pseudo-Phocylides contains allusions to it (see P. W. Van der Horst in OTP 2:569), the idea appears as early as Jubilees, and Philo and Josephus attest the tradition (see Schultz, «Patriarchs,» 48–49). Not only does Noah " s covenant prefigure Israel " s covenant in Jub. 6:4–10 (with 6:15–16, this passage provides an inclusio around 6:11–14); 7:20–25 portrays the Noahide laws more plainly (although Finkelstein, Pharisaism, 223–27, overstates his conclusions from this evidence; see Schultz, «Patriarchs,» 44–45). 3508 1QH 6.2–14; 1QM 12.14 (in both texts, the nations» conversion " s function is to exalt Israel " s eschatological glory); Sib. Or. 3.710–726 (second century B.C.E.; perhaps also 1.129); T. Zeb. 9(tex-tually uncertain); t. Ber. 6:2; Num. Rab. 1:3. In Pss. So1. 17Gentiles survive under Messiah " s yoke. 3509 Cf. Josephus Ant. 20.34–36; Ag. Αρ. 2.210; m. " Abot 1(if include Gentiles); b. Šabb. 31a (purportedly Tannaitic); Sank 99b; Gen. Rab. 39:14; 47:10; 48:8; 84:8; 98:5; Num. Rab. 8:4; Ecc1. Rab. 7:8, §1; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Sup. 1:6; Pesiq. Rab. 14:2; 43:6. For further discussion, see Bamberger, Proselytism, 13–19 (OT period), 19–24 (intertestamental period), 222–25 (early rabbis), 225–28 (the royal house of Adiabene), 267–73 (on Matt 23:15); Urbach, Sages, 1:549–54, passim; Flusser, «Pagan-ism,» 1097; cf. the information in Georgi, Opponents, 83–164, although his conclusions may go too far. 3510 See, e.g., Hoenig, «Conversion,» 49; Lake, «Proselytes,» 75; Sevenster, Anti-Semitism, 203. Active proselytizing may have followed Hellenistic models (see Goodenough, Church, 9; Culpepper, School, 117), but the wars with Rome may have stifled it (Applebaum, Cyrene, 343; Gager, Kingdom, 137; for more detailed history, see Cohen, «Conversion»). 3511 E.g., Orestes in Sophocles Electra; Euripides E1. 202–206,234–236. Cf. also the unpersuasive but accurate mantic (Apollodorus 3.12.5). |
| The organizers from “Chigot” point out that the 1444 Battle of Varna was one of the most important military battles in the history of the Balkan Peninsula because its outcome doomed Bulgaria and all of Southeast Europe to remain part of the Ottoman Empire, a period known as the Ottoman Yoke, for centuries to come. The reenactment on the 571st year since the Battle of Varna is sponsored by Varna Municipality, and the Varna District Administration. Bulgaria’s Black Sea city of Varna has a memorial complex dedicated to the Battle of Varna in 1444 AD, and the heroism of the Polish King, known as the Vladislav Varnenchik Museum Park. The Museum was first opened on the site of the Battle of Varna as a mausoleum in 1935, and then turned into a park museum with an area of 30 decares (app. 7.5 acres) in 1964, on the occasion of the 520th Year since the Battle of Varna. Varna is also going to have a monument of Vladislav Varnenchik in the city (the museum park is located outside the site, on the actual site of the 1444 Battle of Varna). The monument is to be erected at the initiative of the Bulgarian Cultural Institute in Warsaw, Poland, and has been donated by renowned Polish sculptor Prof. Marian Konieczny from Krakow. The bravery, sacrifice and tragic end of Polish and Hungarian King Vladislav (Wladyslaw) Varnenchik, whose warriors included Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Wallachians, Ruthenes (Rusyns), Bulgarians, Croatians, Saxons, Lithuanians, and Crusader Knights of Pope Eugene IV (r. 1431-1477), affected the fate of all of Central and Eastern Europe, and made him a hero in the folklore of many European nations, Bulgaria included. Background Infonotes: The Battle of Varna occurred on November 10, 1444, near the Bulgarian Black Sea city of Varna. In it, the forces of Ottoman Turkish Sultan Murad II (r. 1421-1451 AD) defeated the Christian Crusade of the King of Poland and Hungary Vladislav (Wladyslaw) III Jagello. Vladislav (Wladyslaw) III Jagello, also known as Varnenchik (Warnenczyk), King of Poland and Hungary, was King of Poland in 1434-1444, and King of Hungary and Croatia in 1440-1444. |
| Nor must this be simply dismissed as Russian romanticism about the pre-revolutionary age, for we also find such words enshrined in the Church’s authoritative Seventh Ecumenical Council: “God gave the greatest gift to men: the Priesthood and the Imperial power; the first preserves and watches over the heavenly, while the second rules earthly things by means of just laws,” and again: “The priest is the sanctification and strengthening of the Imperial power, while the Imperial power is the strength and firmness of the priesthood.” Indeed, the Church has traditionally understood the person of the Emperor to be he who now restrains of whom St. Paul wrote, who holds back the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess. 2:7). And recalling the coronation of Sts. Nicholas and Alexandra the Grand Duchess further stated: From that very moment Nicky’s responsibility was to God only. I admit that the very idea may sound unreal today, when the absolute power of sovereigns has been so discredited. Yet it will always retain its place in history. The coronation of a Tsar of Russia was a most solemn and binding contract between God and the sovereign, His servant. That is why, after sixty-four years, the memory of it has a special sanctity for me. Tsar Nicholas II’s Personal Qualities Taking up the yoke of servitude to God and the people was a serious and heavy responsibility. Upheld by God, the personal circumstances, characteristics and actions of each Emperor yet played a significant role in his reign. It is common enough to hear bewailing of the reign of the sainted last Tsar, supposedly one altogether weak and ineffectual. While not denying her brother’s imperfections, Grand Duchess Olga offers some explanatory insight into Tsar Nicholas’ imperial formation, and the gravity with which he approached the situation. She recalled her brother approaching her on the verandah, putting his arms around her and sobbing: “Even Alicky [the Empress Alexandra] could not help him. He was in despair. He kept saying that he did not know what would become of us all, that he was wholly unfit to reign. Even at that time I felt instinctively that sensitivity and kindness on their own were not enough for a sovereign to have. And yet Nicky’s unfitness was by no means his fault.” Recalling some of the Sovereign’s finer qualities she noted, “He had intelligence, he had faith and courage” and yet “he was wholly ignorant about governmental matters.” Her brother had been trained as a soldier but insufficiently as a statesman. |
| And there is no common measure between the latter and the methods of Hegel or Kant. Or are we supposed to evaluate the fullness of the Church according to a Kantian standard, or to re-measure it with the yardstick of Lotze or Bergson, even perhaps of Schelling? The very idea is somewhat tragi-comic. Other objections against the “plea for Hellenism” come from the opposite side, not from Western philosophy, but form the spirit of the Russian people itself. Would it not be proper to transcribe orthodoxy in the Slavic key, in conformity with the style of this “Slavic soul” recently gained for Christ? A few Slavophiles (for example Orest-Miller), and after them some Populists, conceived of such endeavors. Whatever was Greek was suspected of intellectualism and consequently pronounced superfluous and alien to the exigencies of the Russian heart. “Not by chance did our people assimilate Christianity by starting, not from the Gospel, but from the Prologue; was catechized, not by predication, but by the liturgy, not by theology, but by worship, adoration and reverence for the sacred things.” Tareiev has recently questioned Greek “tradition” or influence more frankly than anyone else. Quite logically, he extends to Patristic tradition his rejection of all kinds of Hellenism. “Patristic doctrine is from end to end a gnosticism”, he believed. It is proper therefore that theology should proceed along its own track in order to obviate “Byzantine gnosticism”. It is necessary to create a “philosophy of the heart”. If such a philosophy does not replace dogmatic theology, which is a typical product of Greek intellectualism, it might at least disguise it. Tareiev declaimed with pathos against Greek oppression, against the Byzantine yoke: “Greek gnosticism had fettered religious thought, checked our theological creativity; it hindered the growth of our philosophy of the heart, it caused its root to dry up, it burned its shoots.” In fact Tareiev is simply inserting surreptitiously an illusory foundation beneath that sweet and widespread kind of obscurantism which appears whenever one seeks in the ardor of piety as in the “philosophy of the heart” a refuge from all the tribulations of the spirit. We cannot help wondering how a man can so naively withdraw himself from history and from the Christian heritage, with the candor and indifference of those who have forgotten their origins. Russian theology did not suffer from Greek oppression. It suffered, on the contrary, for its imprudence and lightheartedness in breaking up the continuity of the Hellenic and Byzantine traditions. The fact of excluding itself from this succession has cast a lasting spell on the Russian soul and made it barren, for creation is impossible without living traditions. Renouncing the Greek patrimony is actually tantamount to ecclesiastical suicide. |
|
|
