| Let us look at Giotto’s frescoes again. The angel is flying in through a small window. An angel, having no flesh, needs no window to get inside a room. But Giotto’s angel does not just fly in through the window but squeezes through it, acquiring almost physical materiality. In such a way Giotto brings the miracle ‘down to Earth’, trying to make it look trustworthy. Translation of Christian Tradition into the language of earthly images and the discovery of linear perspective marked a new age in European art – the art of realism. However, people who created icons had quite a different attitude toward space. The space ‘not of this world’ is usually conveyed in icons by golden background; objects and their location in relation to one another are given in the so called reverse perspective. Let us try to explain the nature and properties of reverse perspective which is older than linear perspective. Icon-painters knew the fact that human eyesight is imperfect and cannot be trusted because it belongs to the flesh. Therefore they reproduced the world not as they saw it but as it really is. They did not use the experience of their earthly life but the dogmas of the faith. The authors of the first written works on linear perspective Ibn Al Khaisam and Z. Vitelo considered the decrease of the size of objects moving away from the spectator to be an optical illusion. But linear perspective geometry (reproducing this ‘optical illusion’) was convenient and was eventually mastered by European artists. As for Orthodox icon-painters, they remained true to reverse perspective. As has already been already mentioned, an icon is a window facing the holy, sacred world which opens to a person looking at the icon. Space in that world has properties different from those of the space on Earth; properties unseen by physical eyes and inexplicable through the logic of this world. The picture shows how the expanding space is constructed. Here appears the reverse perspective: objects also expand moving away from the spectator. |
| Храму были подарены собрания проповедей Святейшего Патриарха Кирилла и митрополита Варсонофия. За усердное служение Святой Церкви были награждены: протоиерей Владимир Чорнобай - орденом преподобного Серафима Саровского III степени (в связи с 65-летием), протоиерей Иоанн Смирнов - медалью преподобного Сергия Радонежского (в связи с 50-летием). Верующим раздали крестики, привезенные владыкой из Иерусалима. Петропавловский собор Петергофа был возведен в 1899 году по проекту Николая Султанова указом императора Александра III. Освящен в 1905 году в присутствии царской семьи. Помимо главного было устроено еще два придела: левый - во имя небесного покровителя государя святого Александра Невского, правый - во имя святой Ксении Римляныни, небесной покровительницы дочери государя, великой княжны Ксении Александровны. В советское время собор был закрыт. Возвращен верующим в 1989 году. После восстановления центральный престол был освящен 9 июля 1994 года Святейшим Патриархом Алексием II. В 2015 году началась реставрация храма. 18 июля 2019 года был освящен крест на центральном куполе. Фото Николая Клейменова ИА " Вода живая " , 26.09.22 Play Video Play Current Time 0:00 Duration Time 8:45 Loaded: 0% Progress: 0% Stream TypeLIVE Remaining Time -8:45 Playback Rate 1 Chapters Descriptions Subtitles Captions Audio Track Fullscreen This is a modal window. Caption Settings Dialog Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color Transparency Background Color Transparency Window Color Transparency Font Size Text Edge Style Font Family Defaults Done Поделиться Упоминания в новостях 27 марта 2024 23 марта 2024 19 марта 2024 19 марта 2024 17 марта 2024 17 апреля 2024 14 апреля 2024 14 апреля 2024 13 апреля 2024 13 апреля 2024 7 апреля 2024 6 апреля 2024 31 марта 2024 17 апреля 2024 14 апреля 2024 14 апреля 2024 13 апреля 2024 13 апреля 2024 13 апреля 2024 7 апреля 2024 7 апреля 2024 Карта сайта Санкт-Петербургская епархия Русской Православной Церкви (Московский Патриархат) |
| поиск: разделы рассылка Александр Щипков Александр Щипков: Когда мы используем термины " я живу, и я активный, а он существует " – вот это называется социальный расизм Источник: ОТР Video Player is loading. Воспроизвести видео Загрузка: 0% Воспроизвести Без звука Текущее время 0:00 Тип потокаОНЛАЙН Seek to live, currently behind live ОНЛАЙН Аудиодорожка Качество Auto Сообщить о проблеме Скорость воспроизведения Аудиодорожки Picture-in-Picture Полноэкранный режим Субтитры This is a modal window. Правда 15.05.2018 Александр Щипков This is a modal window. Играть +10 сек -10 сек +10 сек -10 сек × Новое обращение This is a modal window. × Аудиодорожка Основная Анастасия Урнова : Здравствуйте! Вы смотрите Общественное телевидение России. Это программа " ПРАВ!ДА? " . Меня зовут Анастасия Урнова. Николай Матвеев : А меня зовут Николай Матвеев. И гость программы сегодня – советник председателя Государственной Думы, доктор политических наук, профессор философского факультета МГУ Александр Щипков. Александр Владимирович, здравствуйте. Александр Щипков : Добрый день, коллеги. Николай Матвеев : У нас есть традиция – мы гостю показываем короткую выжимку из его биографии. А вдруг чего нового узнает? Посмотрите о себе? Александр Щипков : Ну, рискнем. Николай Матвеев : Давайте посмотрим. Он прошел путь от советского православного диссидента до высокопоставленного чиновника Русской православной церкви. В 1978 году по идеологическим причинам был отчислен с пятого курса Смоленского пединститута, отказался эмигрировать во Францию и почти полтора десятка лет проработал грузчиком, сварщиком, слесарем, шофером, кочегаром на предприятиях Смоленска и Ленинграда. В 90-е мог пойти в политику, но выбрал другую дорогу – занялся исследовательской работой и журналистикой. Объездил всю Россию, изучая ее религиозную жизнь. Бессменный руководитель интернет-портала " Религия и СМИ " . В 2016 году по распоряжению патриарха Кирилла был назначен на должность первого зампреда синодального отдела по взаимоотношениям церкви с обществом и СМИ, которую занимает до сих пор. Считает себя человеком левых взглядов в экономике и консерватором в нравственной сфере. |
| Craig S. Keener The Witness of the First Disciples. 1:19–51 ALTHOUGH THE GOSPEL " S NARRATIVE opens with 1:19, the implied reader knows Jesus» origin from 1:1–18 (and most of John " s earliest audience probably were already Christians; see introduction). That the narrative can open abruptly after the prologue (especially the preparation of 1:6–8,15) is to be expected, and a Diaspora audience conditioned by Mediterranean dramatic culture would feel at home here. Greek dramas often started by informing the viewer of what had happened prior to the opening of the play. The Odyssey opens abruptly and afterwards explains more of Odysseus " s travels through flashbacks, but its hearers could also presuppose what they knew of Odysseus from stories about him in the Iliad (if they knew that work first; probably they heard both repeatedly). The prologue introduces John the Baptist as a model witness for Jesus, leading immediately into a section (1:19–51) about the nature of witness and disciple-making for Jesus, which John the Baptist (1:19–28) opens. 3790 Apart from the prologue, the evangelist starts his Gospel essentially where Mark did and early Christian evangelists often did (Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24). 3791 This witness also fits the Gospel " s specifically Jewish framework by opening with a witness to Israel (1:31,49) embraced by true Israelites (1:47). 3792 The writer of the Fourth Gospel wishes his audience not only to continue in the faith themselves (20:31), but to join him in openly confessing Christ (12:42–43), proclaiming him in a hostile world (15:26–27). The Witness of the Forerunner to Israel (1:19–28) In 1:19–34, as in 3:27–36, John the Baptist models the activity of a «witness» (1:8) by deferring all honor to Jesus. This model may counter the tendency of some to exalt John unduly at Jesus» expense (see comment on 1:6–8); it may also respond to some leaders in the Johannine circle who have proved too ambitious for personal honor (3 John 9). This context explains who John is not (1:20–21), his function as a witness to another (1:22–27), and his testimony for the other (1:29–34). |
| Collingwood R.G., Myres J.N.L. Roman Britain and English Settlements. Oxf., 1936. Cramp R. A Corpus of Anglo-Saxon Stone Sculptures. Oxf., 1984. Cramp R. Early Northumbrian Sculpture at Hexham//Saint Wilfrid at Hexham/Ed. D.P. Kirby. Pp. 115–140. Cramp R. Decorated window-glass and millefiori from Monkwearmouth//Antiquaries Journal 50, 1970. Pp. 327–35. Cramp R.J. Excavations at the Saxon monastic sites of Wearmouth and Jarrow//Medieval Archaeology 13, 1969. Pp. 21–66. Cramp R.J. Monkwearmouth and Jarrow//Famulus Christi: Essays in Commemoration of the Thirteenth Centenary of the Birth of the Venerable Bede/Ed. G. Bonner. L, 1976. Pp. 12–14. Cramp R.J. Window-glass from the monastic site of Jarrow//Journal of Glass Studies 17. 1975. Pp. 88–96. Crawford S.J. Anglo-Saxon Influence on Western Christiendom 600–800. Oxf., 1933. Dark K. Britain and the End of the Roman Empire. Stroud, 2000. Deansley M. Augustine of Canterbury. L, 1964. Deansley M. The Pre-Conquest Church in England. L, 1961. 2 ed. 1963. Dodwell C.R. Anglo-Saxon Art. A New Perspective. Manchester, 1982. Duckett E.S. Anglo-Saxon Saints and Scholars. N.Y., 1947. Duncan A.A.M. Bede, Iona and the Picts//The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays presented to R.W. Southern/Ed. R.H.C. Davis, J.M. Wallace-Hadrill. Oxford 1981. Pp. 1–42. England before the Conquest. Studies in Primary Sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock/Ed. P. Clemoes, K. Hughes. Camb., 1971. Esmonde Cleary A.S. The ending of Roman Britain. L., 1989. Fairless P.J. Northumbria’s Golden Age: the Kingdom of Northumbria AD 547–735. York, 1994. Fisher D.J.V. The Anglo-Saxon Age c. 400–1042. L., 1973. Fletcher E. The influence of Merovingian Gaul on Northumbria in the seventh century//Medieval Archaeology 20. 1980. Pp. 69–81. Fletcher R. Who’s Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England. L., 1989. Fowler D.C. The Bible in Early English Literature. Washington, 1976. Gameson R. Saint Augustine of Canterbury. Canterbury, 1997. Gelling M. Further thoughts on pagan place-names//Place-Name Evidence for the Anglo-Saxon Invasion and Scandinavian Settlements/Ed. K. Cameron. Nottingham, 1975. Pp. 99–114. |
| The appearance of visible objects and the three-dimensional world is altered and adapted so that, as in a dream, another reality is discerned in which the logic of sense perception is suspended. The sacred events are not located in earthly space and time. Icons do not convey the rhythms and energy of ordinary life; instead there is an absence of agitation: angels, saints and apostles enact scenes against a background of silence and eternity. The parallel between dream and icon with regard to clarity and logic has also been addressed by Leonid Uspensky and Lossky who explain that... ...for to transmit the invisible world to sensory vision demands not hazy fog but, on the contrary, peculiar clarity and precision of expression, just as to express apprehensions of the heavenly world the holy Fathers use particularly clear and exact formulations. (Uspensky & Lossky, p. 21) With regard to space this shows the following: the particular conception of space that is often attributed to strange constellations of persons and of architectural elements is not simply a matter of dimensions, perspective and geometry. True, the icon-space has " lost its dimensions. " (Cf. Zeami who said about Noh-space: " Bring Above and Below into one. " ) However, the production of space follows, if examined more closely, the rules of virtual reality. The dreamlike effect suggested by this architecture is firmly grounded on philosophical convictions about the world as something " virtual, " which is the contrary of an illusion. As soon as the understanding of dreamlike, virtual, iconographic language gets lost (as happened after the end of the 17th century), representation almost automatically turns towards illusion. Now " architecture becomes logical and there ensues a fantastic, fairy-tale profusion of purely logical architectural forms. " (Uspensky & Lossky, p. 40) 6. Secularized and Non-Secularized Virtual Reality I want to claim that the latter illusion-like spatial representation of a « fantastic ,» though at the same time « purely logical » world widely overlaps with what we today call " Virtual Reality. " It could also be called a " secularized virtual reality. " P.A. Michelis found that the « infinity » as it was thought by Renaissance, was not a religious infinity but represented the « materialized infinity » of science. The same can be said about today’s Virtual Reality. The computer continues with utmost efficiency the Renaissance tradition of « materializing infinity » by turning virtual irreality into virtual reality. Appearing as the prototype of a « window to celestial realms, » the computer seems to reinstate Renaissence laws of perspective in an almost charicatural way (objects are obligatorily seen from a fixed point as if through a window, and from there the view goes towards « infinity »). |
| There is a prudent reticence about trying to define what a transfigured cosmos might actually be like; but all affirm that we look to a transformation of the actual cosmos, not its replacement. As Evdokimov points out, heaven and earth do not simply prefigure the «new heaven and new earth»; they are the actual substrate of that future transformation. 104 The beginnings of this transformation can actually be glimpsed in the presence of holiness. The person conformed to Christ, whose love of God spills over to embrace all creatures, starts to realise around himself or herself the intended relationship between humans and the rest of creation. Stories of saints enjoying the cooperation of dangerous animals and even of the elements continue up to our own day, and are seen as an important testimony to the intended relationship among all creatures. It is in this light that miracles in general are seen: they are not a matter of overpowering the laws of nature, but rather »exceptional anticipations of the eschatological state», «revealing to nature a window that opens out onto its own most appropriate goal». 105 humanity " s place in creation It is no coincidence that the transfiguration of the cosmos is associated with the sanctified human person. The cosmos is our nature; we are its hypostasis, its conscious existence in relationship with God. In Clément " s graphic image, our bodily existence is »simply the form which the person, our «living soul», impresses on the universal «dust«». 106 While affirming strongly that the human being and the cosmos as a whole are ontologically inseparable and interdependent, many Orthodox writers use the unfashionable language of the world existing »for man». The world serves man " s temporal existence, so that he in turn can take it forward to eternal existence, to salvation and deification. It is in this sense that the world is said to be saved through man, not man through the world. John Meyendorff has described the Orthodox view as «a theocentric anthropology and an anthropocentric cosmology». 107 This characterisation is true in its intended sense, but misleading nonetheless. Today, »anthropocentrism» usually implies a human self-centredness altogether incompatible with a " theocentric anthropology». It would be less confusing, therefore, to speak of a theocentric cosmology in which human mediation has been given a pivotal role. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy His Holiness Patriarch Kirill opens conference on primacy and conciliarity in Orthodoxy On September 16, 2021, the conference on “World Orthodoxy: Primacy and Conciliarity in the Light of Orthodox Teaching” began its work at the St. Sergius Hall of the Cathedral Church of Christ the Saviour in Moscow. The forum was organized and promoted by the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission, the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Ss Cyril and Methodius Institute of Post-Graduate and Doctoral Studies. The event is held with the support of the Foundation for the Support of Christian Culture and Heritage. The conference was opened with the introductory remarks of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia. Pointing to the topicality of the theme under consideration, the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church stressed, “The state of affairs in the family of the Local Orthodox Churches is of much concern. The situation as it has developed in the Orthodox world can be assessed as critical. An evident testimony to the crisis are serious differences among the Orthodox Christians over our understanding of the order of the Universal Orthodoxy - what we mean by primacy and conciliarity, how we correlate the canonical order of the Church and actions in the area of church governance”. His Holiness pointed out that an influence of certain political forces can be perceived in this crisis. “It cannot be denied that in the world there are those who would like to destroy the foundations of the Orthodox life, to sow division and enmity between nations and Churches”, Patriarch Kirill said, “And there is quite an evident trend to create a dividing wall, if not altogether to tear away the Greek Orthodoxy, the Mediterranean Orthodoxy fr om the Slavic Orthodoxy, and first of all, fr om the Russian Orthodox Church, that is to say, to reproduce the model of the 1054 schism and thus weaken the Orthodox Church, which carries out and is capable of carrying out the prophetic service - such service, I am not afraid to say. as few of other Christian confessions are able to do - first of all by assessing all that is happening to the human civilization”. |
| 1) it cites the prayers of the deacon’s vesture, but omits those of the priest; 2) it opens the commemorations of the third prosphora with a mention of the Life-giving Cross and the angelic powers; 3) it welcomes the deacon to commemorate those he wants to right after the priest, instructing him to extract particles from prosphoras as had the priest. The reasons for the omission of the priestly vesting prayers are unclear. Actually, many of the manuscripts of the Athonite translation of the Diataxis contain them, but the number of the manuscripts without them is considerable (including the one I am discussing here, Athos Agiou Pavlou 149). These prayers are also omitted in the Greek Athos Pantel. 770 (49), so it is more probable that they were not cited in the original text (if Athos Pantel. 770 (49) is not the original text), and in the manuscripts which have them they are a later addition, made for convenience. The presence of only the deaconal vesting prayers in the original text of the Diataxis could mean that Philotheos Kokkinos composed his Diataxis while being a deacon – or at a request of some deacon. The commemorations of the third prosphora in current Slavonic practice open with the name of St. John the Baptist. In current Greek practice – with the names of Michael and Gabriel together with the angelic powers. This issue has been a subject of theological reflection in several publications 31 . One of the central questions concerning this is the following: What is the sense of commemorating the angels during the Prothesis if the sacrifice of Golgotha and, therefore, of the Eucharist was offered not for them but for the human race? I am not going to criticize nor praise any of the positions. The revised redaction of the Philothean Diataxis according to Athos Vatop. 133 (744) etc. supports the Slavonic practice and opens the commemorations with the name of St. John the Baptist. It is the initial redaction of the Diataxis where the angelic powers are commemorated, and not only they, but even the Holy and Life-giving Cross! 32 It seems that at first Philotheos had simply followed the common practice, which is also described in the earlier anonymous Diataxis («Hermêneia») 33 , but later decided to refine it. Yet the peculiarity from the initial redaction remained in some Greek manuscripts and had already passed to the Athonite Slavonic translation of the Diataxis. |
| There are numerous practical ideas available and readily accessible today for parishes and families that choose to become aware of their ecological impact on the planet and on people. Indeed, some of our Orthodox parishes – and even more of our sister Christian congregations – have already undertaken initial steps or else made considerable progress toward this goal. Seeking their counsel, or offering our advice to others, is undoubtedly a fundamental form of sharing and communion. Alternatively, parishes may consult professional environmental and energy auditors, often freely at the disposal of local communities. Parishes and parishioners can make a difference by becoming sensitive to what they use (energy-efficient light bulbs and heating/cooling systems), what they can reuse (recycled paper, bags, ink cartridges, glassware and cutlery), what they waste (electricity, water, heat, energy, even cups and plates), and what they do (carpooling or support of local products). Most importantly, however, we can all learn to do and live with less. In order to alter our self-image, what is required is nothing less than a radical reversal of our perspectives and practices. The balance of the world has been shattered. The ecological crisis will not be solved with sentimental slogans or smiley stickers but by proposing self-denial as a solution to self-centeredness or selfishness, by learning to exercise self-control or self-restraint, by the ability to say “no” or “enough.” Here, I think, lies the heart of the problem. For we are unwilling – in fact, violently resist any call – to adopt simpler lifestyles. We have misplaced the spirituality of frugality and abstinence. The challenge is this: How do we live in such a way that promotes harmony – not division? How can we acknowledge – daily – “the earth as the Lord’s” (Psalm 23.1)? This means that stewardship opens up more than simply our pockets and our hands to charitable institutions and tax-deductible options. It opens up our eyes and our hearts to proper and harmonious relations among all of God’s creatures. Learning to give up in a spirit of self-control implies learning to give in a spirit of sharing. It is learning to live in such a way that communicates gratitude and generosity, not avarice and greed. Am I Accountable? |
|
|
