| Hail, O earth unsown! Hail, O bush which burned, yet was not consumed! Hail, O abyss unfathomable! Hail, O bridge leading to heaven, and lofty ladder, which Jacob saw! Hail, O divine container of manna! Hail, O abrogation of the curse! Hail, O recall of Adam! The Lord is with you [Annunciation vespers]. The Marian emotionalism displayed by Byzantine hymnographersthe same ones who were able to use the strictest possible theological language in other textsis often an expression of liturgical wisdom and common sense. The liturgy of the Church, a sacred play involving the whole of man, must assume and transform all forms of human feeling and must not be restricted to satisfying only his intellectual capacity. The alternation and correlation between the various aspects of religious experience is probably the secret of the lasting impact exercised by Byzantine Church hymnography upon generations of human souls. This humaneness of Byzantine hymnography is also shown in the Triodion, a book for use during the Lenten period, composed in large part by Theodore the Studite and his immediate disciples. A monument of monastic spirituality, the Triodion assumes a patristic system of anthropology according to which man is truly man only when he is in real communion with God: then also is he truly free. In his present fallen state, however, man is a prisoner of Satan and, as we saw in connection with the spiritual doctrine of Evagrius, his liberation and salvation presuppose the suppression of his «passions " i.e., of that which makes him love creatures rather than God. The way to «passionlessness» (apatheia) is through repentance: O how many are the good things I miss! How beautiful the Kingdom I lost through my passions! I spent the wealth I once possessed by transgressing the commandment. Alas, O impassionate soul! You were condemned to fire eternal. But, before end comes, call on Christ, our God. Accept me as the prodigal son, O God, and have mercy on me [Sunday of the prodigal son, vespers]. |
| Зато Голубинский достаточно внимательно следил за эволюцией взглядов немецкого мыслителя, и в письме к Ю.Н.Бартеневу от 23 марта 1843 г. оставил о нем следующее подробное суждение: «Недавно перечитывал я берлинские лекции Шеллинга, от которого так много ожидали даже лучшие христианские мыслители (Мейер, Стефенс и друг.) для высшей философии, для метафизики христианской. Но выходит, что он от одного берега отстал (и то не совсем), а к другому не пристал. Теперешняя его Философия Откровения не удовлетворит ни строгим философам, требующим не провещаний оракула, а доказательств, — ни любителям и ученикам премудрости божественной. За все берется, усиливается философически вывесть и таинство Троицы, и учение об искуплении, и глубины сатанинины, но все по началам пантеизма. Давнее его направление, чтобы процессы жизни конечного мира переносить на жизнь божества, и ныне сбивает его с правильной точки зрения. Так, у него в учении о Троице первая потенция (Potenz), родотворная сила Отца — есть слепая, бессознательная, только беспрестанно стремящаяся к развитию воля; вторая потенция — это ограничивающая, обуздывающая первую сила — Сын; третия — Дух, умеряющий борьбу двух первых сил, источник самосознания. Это повторение старой его гипотезы об Urgrund бездонной, безумной, темной, абсолютной силе в божестве, в которой нет еще личности и сознания. Дух зла, Satan, по его, не есть тварь, но начало выше твари, необходимое для раздражения деятельности существ конечных, для задержания их от слишком скорого погружения в единство с божеством, и проч., и проч.». Голубинскому гораздо милее был аббат Ботэн (1796-1867), который вполне безыскусно решал вопрос о соотношении философии и религии. «Философия, — писал он, — после того, как она тщетно испытала все, что человек может изобрести, дабы найти Истину без Истины обязана вернуться к Богу как единственному Источнику науки и мудрости» и в Слове Божием «черпать свои принципы». В том же письме к Бартеневу Голубинский признается: «Впрочем, и я иногда отдыхаю в беседе с добрыми древними философами и с Ботенем. Имеете ли вы недавно изданную его Philosophie morale, т. I и II-й, 1842? У него нет той полноты и систематической отчетливости, как у лучших из немецких философов; но много жизни, светлые Платоновы начала, и в подробностях много опытного знания духа человеческого». |
| Под Иисусом, священником великим, которого Греки называют ρχιερες, а Латиняне – pontifex, Евреи хотят разуметь Иисуса, сына Иоседекова, который вместе с Зоровавелем начальствовал над народом. С правой стороны его стоял враг (ибо это и значит слово satan), чтобы противиться ему. И по праву стоял он с правой стороны, а не с левой, так как обвинение против Иисуса было не ложным: он вместе с прочими женился на чужестранке, что весьма подробно описано в книге Эздры и у пророка Малахии, которые следует за пророком Захариею ( 1Езд.10:18 , Мал.2:11 ). И сказал Господь сатане, обвинителю и врагу его, ибо он есть и враг и мститель и обвинитель братьев своих: Да запретит Господь тебе, Сатана и, подобно тому, как сказано: Пролил Господь дождь от Господа ( Быт.19:24 ), говорит: И да запретит тебе Господь, избравший Иерусалим. Итак, если из всех городов Иуды ныне избран Иерусалим, и Господь не вменяет ему грехов, которые он совершил, почему ты стараешься выбросить, как головню, или как горящий кусок дерева, Иисуса, который удалился из Вавилонского плена, как бы полусожженным? А слова: Иисус был одет во одежды грязные понимаются трояко: или в значении недозволенного брака, или в смысле грехов народа, или же в отношении к нечистоте от плена. А ангел, перед лицом которого стоял Иисус, повелел другим ангелам от лица Господа снять с него одежды грязные, о чем мы уже сказали выше. Когда они самым делом исполнили повеление, тот же ангел снова говорит Иисусу: Вот я снял с тебя неправду твою – его грязные одежды, и надел на тебя одежды переменные, т. е. дал тебе супругу Израильтянку; Семьдесят вместо этого перевели ποδρη, что мы можем перевести словом: одежду спускающуюся до пят и ступней. А в следующих затем словах: Возложите на главу его кидар чистый в Еврейском вместо кидар читаем saniph ( ), что многими называется повязкою (mitra); и в этом хотят видеть достоинство священства, именно: по снятии грязных одежд он будет иметь непорочное священство. Так обясняют это место Иудеи. – А наши рассуждают так, что священник великий есть Тот, Которому говорится: Ты священник во век по чину Мелхиседекову ( Пс.109:4 ). |
| But when conversation touched upon the relations of the regime to the Church administration, he would say, “One must be in this situation at least a while, otherwise it’s impossible to describe. This is plainly Satan himself.” Archbishop Ilarion was in the Solovki camps until the winter of 1929, when he was sent into exile to Central Asia. On the way, he contracted typhus and died in the Petersburg Prison on 15/28 December. Six years in the camps had transformed the once tall, broad-shouldered knight of a hierarch into a pitiful, grey-haired old man. His body was given to his close relatives, who buried it in the cemetery of the Novo-Devichiy Convent in Saint Petersburg. Bishop Maxim of Serpukhov (Mikhail Alexandrovich Zhizhilenko) was born in 1885, in Kalisha, Poland, to the family of a public prosecutor. He completed medical studies at Moscow University, and worked as a psychiatrist. From 1914 he was a military medic. In 1920, he became the chief physician for the Taganka Prison in Moscow. Though he secretly received priestly ordination, he continued to function as a doctor, thus becoming a physician for both body and soul. While still free, he slept on bare boards, ate prison food, and distributed his entire salary among the prisoners. In connection with the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, Dr. Zhizhilenko was secretly tonsured into monasticism, receiving the new name Maxim, thus carrying out the will of the late Patriarch Tikhon. Not long afterward, there appeared in Serpukhov the Catacomb bishop Maxim, whom the people recognized as the “doctor of Taganka.” The restraining influence of Bishop Maxim brought all eighteen churches in Serpukhov, and those of many nearby cities, into the opposition, i.e., rejection and dissociation from the resolutions of Metropolitan Sergius. His influence even extended to the Moscow clergy, and in mid-1929 he was arrested and sent to Solovki. The arrival of Bishop Maxim in the camp brought about great changes in the attitude of the imprisoned clergy. |
| All ancient religious tradition maintain that humans are composed of both material and spiritual elements; but the correlation between the two has been understood in different ways. The dualistic religions view matter as originally evil and hostile towards humanity: the Manichaeans even believed that Satan was the maker of the material world. Classical philosophy regards the body as a prison in which the soul is kept captive or incarcerated. Indeed Plato deduces the word soma (body) from sema (tombstone, tomb): «Many people believe that the body is like a tombstone concealing the soul buried beneath it in this life... The soul endures punishment... while the flesh does duty as its fortress so that it can be healed, while located in the body as in a torture chamber». The ancient Indian philosophies speak of the transmigration of souls from one body to another, even from a human being to an animal (and vice versa). The doctrine of metempsychosis (reincarnation) was rejected by early church tradition as incompatible with divine revelation. It was proclaimed senseless and erroneous on the basis of the assertion that a human being, who possesses reason and free will, cannot be transformed into an unintelligible animal, since all intelligible being is immortal and cannot disappear. Moreover, what is the point of someonés being punished for sins committed in an earlier life if he does not know why he has to endure it (after all, it is impossible to recollect onés previous «existence»)? The church Fathers, basing themselves on Scripture, teach that the soul and the body are not foreign elements united temporarily in the individual, but are bestowed simultaneously and for all time in the very act of creation: the soul is «betrothed» to the body and is inseparable from it. Only the totality of soul and body together comprises a complete personality, a hypostasis. St Gregory of Nyssa calls the unbreakable link between soul and body an «inclination of affection», «commixture», «community», «attraction» and «acquaintance», which are preserved even after death. Such a concept is far removed from Platonic and Eastern dualism. |
| It was not at all unnatural for participants in this conflict to find its origins in a similar conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. Jesus» charismatic authority could not be controlled in the way that Pharisaic traditioning could be, and Jesus presented as much a challenge to the authority they vested in their tradition as did other charismatic teachers. 1752 3. Unwelcome in the Synagogues Early Christian literature is clear that Jewish believers continued in the synagogues well into the first century (Jas 2:2; Acts 22:19; 26:11). Many believers in Ephesus had left the synagogue community several decades earlier (Acts 19:8–9), but undoubtedly other sympathizers had risen within the synagogues; if the tension that created the original schism remained, another such schism would have been natural (probably more recent in some nearby cities, Rev 2:9; 3:8–9). Rabbinic texts suggest that even into the second century many Jewish Christians in Palestine sought to maintain their presence in the synagogues as part of their solidarity with Israe1. 1753 The probably greater diversity in the Diaspora should therefore allow the same possibility there (hence Chrysostom " s later concern with even Gentile Christians frequenting synagogues that, however, apparently welcomed them). In any case, the Fourth Gospel seems to address a milieu where at least secret believers are thought to continue in the synagogue (12:42). The presence of Jewish Christians in the synagogues undoubtedly posed a problem for the rabbis at Yavneh who hoped to create a more normative halakic Judaism and desired more influence in the synagogues. It probably also posed problems for synagogue authorities in the Diaspora whose authority and beliefs would have been questioned by the sectarians, following the model of these Christians» Palestinian siblings. That this is a problem for at least one Johannine community is clear from Revelation 3:7–9, where the «synagogue of Satan,» falsely claiming to be «Jews,» have sought to expel the Johannine Christians from the people of God. 1754 |
| Во время беспорядков в Тбилиси, когда друзья меня, как русского грузина, просили прокомментировать происходящее, а я качал головой и разводил руками, моя близкая московская православная подруга, которая множество раз ездила по святым местам Грузии, посещая самые отдаленные монастыри и святыни, неожиданно сделала мне удивительные подарки. Она подарила мне икону Пресвятой Троицы из Троицкой церкви в Гергети (Гергетис Цминда Самеба) XIV века на слюдяной пластине, икону 100 тысяч мучеников Тбилисских и икону преподобного Давида Гареджийского из его монастыря. «Молись, – говорит, – Денис, им за нашу любимую Грузию! Когда люди перестают слушать голос разума, остается одно – говорить с ними на языке любви и молитвы!» Рейтинг: 9.9 Голосов: 2157 Оценка: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 скрыть способы оплаты Смотри также Комментарии Гостья 21 июля 2019, 22:17 Денис, спасибо Вам за хорошие слова. Какие красивые фото - вид на вечерний Тбилиси и место упокоения мощей отца Гавриила... Так хочется, чтобы люди жили в мире и согласии. Так хочется побывать в Тбилиси в середине сентября текущего года...Где-то на недельку. Люди, не бросайте в меня тапками...Но я хочу быть на концерте скрипача Дэвида Гарретта, который состоится в Тбилиси 13-го сентября 2019 года и поехать в Самтавро, к маме Габриэли. Но, видно, не судьба. (Я не ропщу, нет. Это уж как Бог даст.) JEinCA 8 июля 2019, 11:31 Have no doubt it is the Devil who sows discord between Orthodox Nations and peoples using his earthly agents to accomplish this task whether in knowledge or ignorance. Satan " s proxies are hard at work in Ukraine and Georgia attempting to thwart and undermine Orthodox unity at every possible occasion with the full support of the US State Department. The Orthodox Faithful know without a doubt this is the work of the Devil and his minions. For those of us who have been blessed with a truly Orthodox understanding of the world the work of the Devil is plain to see. Unfortunately for those that Orthodoxy is only window dressing (a cultural identity) the takes a back seat to worldly concerns. |
| Unity of Zechariah Examined in Light of Statistical Analysis//ZAW. 1975. Vol. 87. S. 30-55; Mason R. The Relation of Zech 9-14 to Proto-Zechariah//Ibid. 1976. Vol. 88. S. 227-239; idem. Some Examples of Inner Biblical Exegesis in Zechariah 9-14//Studia Evangelica. B., 1982. T. 7. P. 343-354; idem. The Use of Earlier Biblical Material in Zechariah 9-14: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis//Bringing Out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusions in Zechariah 9-14/Ed. M. J. Boda et al. L., 2003. P. 192-208; Wilson R. R. Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel. Phil., 1980; Hill A. E. Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination//Hebrew Annual Review. Columbus, 1982. Vol. 6. P. 105-134; Petersen D. L. Zechariah " s Visions: A Theol. Perspective//VT. 1984. Vol. 34. Fasc. 2. P. 195-206; idem. Haggai and Zechariah 1-8: A comment. L., 1985; idem. Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A comment. L., 1995; Portnoy S. L., Petersen D. L. Biblical Texts and Statistical Analysis: Zechariah and Beyond//JBL. 1984. Vol. 103. N 1. P. 11-21; Craigie P. C. Twelve Prophets. Phil., 1985. Vol. 2: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi; Meyers C. L., Meyers E. M., eds. Haggai, Zechariah 1-8: A New transl. with introd. and comment. Garden City; N. Y., 1987; idem. Zechariah 9-14: A New transl. with introd. and comment. N. Y., 1993; Amsler S. Aggée. Lacocque A. Zacharie. Vuilleumier R. Malachie. Gen., 19882; Tate M. E. Satan in the Old Testament//Review & Expositor. Louisville, 1992. Vol. 89. N 4. P. 461-474; Cook S. L. The Metamorphosis of a Shepherd: The Tradition History of Zechariah 11:17 + 13:7-9//CBQ. 1993. Vol. 55. P. 453-466; Menken M. J. J. The Textual Form and the Meaning of the Quotation from Zechariah 12:10 in John 19:37//Ibid. P. 494-511; Redditt P. L. The Two Shepherds in Zechariah 11:4-17//Ibid. P. 676-686; idem. Nehemiah " s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9-14//Ibid. 1994. Vol. 56. P. 664-678; idem. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. L.; Grand Rapids, 1995; idem. |
| The same thought is pursued by another author of the book, Andrey Kostryukov. He shows how and why the attitude of representatives of the Russian church diaspora (primarily that of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) to the Ecumenical See changed. The author rightly ‘derives’ the history of the ROCOR from the Supreme Church Administration organized in southern Russia in 1919, asserting that initially the SCA on the whole trusted the Church of Constantinople: ‘habitually’ Russian emigres’ attitude to Phanar was deeply respectful. What followed under Patriarch Meletius was not only ‘disparagement’ of the Russian Church but also open claims of Constantinople to global jurisdiction. These claims emerged when the Orthodox Russian Church found herself in the situation of a hostage of the theomachist policy of the Bolsheviks. As a result, Russian hierarchs abroad had to react to both the church developments within the Soviet Russia and the response to them by Phanar. And the response was quite unambiguous. The Renovationist schism was taken extremely painfully by Russian hierarchs abroad. Already in 1922, the diaspora SCA declared the Renovationist leaders graceless (it stated though that they should be judged by Patriarch Tikhon and his Holy Synod). The cooperation of schism leaders with the Bolsheviks was perceived by ‘those abroad’ as Judas’s sin. In summer 1922, the Joint Presence of the Diaspora Synod and the ROCOR Church Council stated that they considered the members of this schism anathematized. At the same time, Kostryukov believes that ‘in the Diaspora Synod they considered that good relations with Phanar made it possible to make it avert the recognition of the Renovationists’. It turned out that diaspora archpastors sincerely hoped that they would be able to make Phanariots change their mind and embark on the path of a ‘sober view’ of the schism in the Russian Church. The decision to anathematize the Rennovators, author believes, was made not without the influence of the so-called charter of Patriarch Tikhon issued on December 6, 1922, the authenticity of which has not been re-affirmed to this day. In this charter, the Renovationist administration was anathematized while the Russian situation was described as ‘a year of the triumph of Satan and the reign of the Antichrist’. |
| Again, St. Isaac of the Kiev Caves (Feb. 14) saw a great light and “Christ” appeared to him with “angels;” when Isaac, without making the sign of the Cross, bowed down before “Christ,” the demons gained power over him and, after dancing wildly with him, left him all but dead. He also later attained genuine sanctity. There are many similar cases when “Christ” and “angels” appeared to ascetics and granted astonishing powers and “gifts of the Holy Spirit,” which often lead the deluded ascetic finally to insanity or suicide. But there is another more common, less spectacular form of spiritual deception, which offers to its victims not great visions but just exalted “religious feelings.” This occurs, as Bishop Ignatius has written, “when the heart desires and strives for the enjoyment of holy and divine feelings while it is still completely unfit for them. Everyone who does not have a contrite spirit, who recognizes any kind of merit or worth in himself, who does not hold unwaveringly the teaching of the Orthodox Church but on some tradition or other has thought out his own arbitrary judgment or has followed a non-Orthodox teaching – is in this state of deception.” The Roman Catholic Church has whole spiritual manuals written by people in this state; such is Thomas a Kempis’ Imitation of Christ. Bishop Ignatius says of it: There reigns in this book and breathes from its pages the unction of the evil spirit, flattering the reader, intoxicating him... The book conducts the reader directly to communion with God, without previous purification by repentance... From it carnal people enter into rapture from a delight and intoxication attained without difficulty, without self-renunciation, without repentance, without crucifixion of the flesh with its passions and desires ( Gal. 5:24 ), with flattery of their fallen state.” And the result, as I. M. Kontzevitch, the great transmitter of patristic teaching, has written, 50 is that “the ascetic, striving to kindle in his heart love for God while neglecting repentance, exerts himself to attain a feeling of delight, of ecstasy, and as a result he attains precisely the opposite: ‘he enters into communion with satan and becomes infected with hatred for the Holy Spirit’ (Bishop Ignatius).” |
|
|
