| Лактанций (Lact.) De ira De ira Dei De mort. persec. De mortibus persecutorum Div. inst. Divinae institutiones Epit. Epitome Максим Исповедник (Maxim. Confess.) Amb. ad Ioann. Ambigua ad Ioannem Quaest. ad Thalas. Quaestiones ad Thalassium Quaest. et dub. Quaestiones et dubia Марий Викторин (Victorin.) Adv. Ar. Adversus Arium Com. Eph. Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Ephesios Com. Gal. Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Com. Philip. Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Philippenses De gen. Liber de generatione Divini Verbi De hom. recip. De homoousio recipiendo Hymn. Hymni de Trinitate Марк Аврелий (Marc. Aurel). Ad se ipsum Ad se ipsum Марциан Капелла (Marcian.) De nuptiis De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii Минуций Феликс (Min. Fel.) Octav. Octavius Новациан (Novatian.) De Trinit. De Trinitate Нумений (Numen.) Fr. Fragmenta Олимпиодор (Olymp.) Com. in Alcib. In Platonis Alcibiadem Commentarii Ориген (Origen.) Com. Ioann. Commentarii in Euangelium Joannis Contra Cels. Contra Celsum De princ. De principiis Exp. in Prov. Expositio in Proverbia Fragm. in Hebr. Fragmenta in Epistolam ad Hebraeos Fragm. in Ps. Fragmenta in Psalmos In Ep. ad Hebr. In Epistolam ad Hebraeos Schol. in Matth. Scholia in Mattheum Платон (Plato) Epinom. Epinomis Leg. Leges Parm. Parmenides Phaedr. Phaedrus Phileb. Philebus Protag. Protagoras Resp. Respublica Sophist. Sophistes Tim. Timaeus Плотин (Plotin.) Enn. Enneadae Порфирий (Porph.) Com. in Parm. In Platonis Parmenidem Commentaria De philos. ex orac. De philosophia ex oraculis De regr. anim. De regressu animae Hist. phil. Historia philosophiae Isagog. Isagoge sive quinque voces Sent. Sententiae ad intelligibilia ducentes Symm. Zetem. Symmicta Zetemata Vita Plot. Vita Plotini Посидоний (Posidonius) Fr. Fragmenta Потамий Лиссабонский (Potamius) Ep. de substant. Epistola de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti Прокл (Procl.) Com. in Parm. In Platonis Parmenidem Commentaria Com. in Tim. In Platonis Timaeum Commentaria Elem. theol. Elementa theological |
| Norris, Richard Α., Jr., ed. The Christological Controversy. 135–40. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980. (англ. пер. Ep. 5) (Ser.) Sermones Nestoriana. 225–350. (фрагменты текстов и лат. вере.) Norris, ed. The Christological Controversy. 123–31. (англ. пер. Ser. 9) (Lib. Her.) Liber Heraclidis Nestorius. Le Livre d’Hérclide de Damas. Translated by F. Nau. Paris: Letouzey et Ani, 1910. (фр. пер. сирийской вере.) Nestorius. The Bazaar of Heracleides. Edited and translated by G. R. Driver and Leonard Hodgson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925. (англ. пер. сирийской вере.) Ориген: (De Princ.) De prineipiis – PG 11.115–414 SC 252, 268 (фрагменты текста, лат. вере, и фр. пер.) Origen: On First Principles. Translated by G.W. Butter-worth. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1973. (англ. пер.) Проспер Аквитанский: (Con. Collat.) De gratia Dei et libero arbitrio liber contra collatorem – PL 51.213–76 ACW 32.70–138 (англ. пер.) Тертуллиан: (De Car.) De carne Christi – PL 2.751–92 Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani De Carne Christi Liber. Edited and translated by Ernes t Evans. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1956. (текст и англ. пер.) SC 216 (текст и фр. пер.) (Adu. Prax.) Aduersus Praxean – PL 2.153–96 Q. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Adversus Praxean Liber. Edited and translated by Ernest Evans. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1948. (текст и англ. пер.) Феодор Мопсуэтский: (De Incar.) De incarnatione – PG 66.969–94 Theodori Episcopi Mopsuesteni in epistolas b. Pauli Com-mentarii: The Latin Version with the Greek Fragments. Vol. 2:1 Thessalonians – Philemon, Appendices, Indices. Edited by H. B. Swete. 290–312. Cambridge: University Press, 1882. (фрагменты текста, лат. и сир. верс.) Norris, ed. The Christological Controversy. 113–22. (англ. пер. некоторых фрагментов) (Hom. Cat.) Homiliae catecheticae Les homélies catéchétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste. Réproduction phototypique du ms. Mingana Syr. 561. Translated by Raymond Tonneau and Robert Devreesse. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1949. (сир. вере, и фр. пер.) |
| 3 Раннехристианские отцы Церкви. Брюссель, 1978. С. 77–78; 73. 4 Там же. С. 138. 5 Там же. С. 482–483. 6 Justyn, Dialog z Zydem Tryfonem, prze. A. Lisiecki, Wrocaw 1967, 134, 4 (POK IV). 7 Св. Ириней Лионский . Творения. М., 1996. Против ересей. С. 467–468; 481; 427. Цит. по: Henryk Pietras, «Apokatastasis wedug Ojców Kocioa», s. 124. В русском переводе этот место звучит иначе: «Господь в последние времена явил и представил Себя всем» Св. Ириней. Там же. С. 427. 8 Свое учение об апокатастасисе св. Ириней противопоставлял гностикам, для которых апокатастасис состоял исключительно в возвращении в плирому Мудрости, извергнуой из неё по причине греха. Она блуждает по миру, предоставленная своей страстности, пока, наконец, не отыскивается как «утерянная овца» и не возвращается в овчарню. В жизни она обитает в гностиках или пневматиках. Благодаря им, спасение могут достигнуть и психики (душевные люди), принадлежащие к Церкви, они тоже могут приобщится к апокатастасису. Ну, а тот, кто является только земным, и с материей сосуществует, будет учичтожен. Таким образом, гностики тоже представляют себе апокатастасис как неполное избавление. Пневматики, приобщившиеся к духовной субстанции Плеромы призваны к апокатастасису, психики как существа одной природы с Демиургом, к нему приглашаются, а люди земные из него исключаются (св. Ириней Лионский. Там же. Книга I. Главы 1–9. С. 1–48). 9 Башкиров Вл., прот. Учение об апокатастасисе до его осуждения на Вселенских соборах. Богословские труды N 38. М., 2003. С. 249–250. 10 Princ. 1, 6, 1. Цит. по: Henryk Petras. Указ. соч. С. 128. Некоторые ученые предполагают, что для Оригена это была больше умственная гимнастика, чем серьезное богословие, и потому неверно поступали те, кто пытался истолковать такие философемы в догматическом смысле. Эти люди допускали непозволительную методологическую ошибку, которая затрагивает апокатастасис больше, чем любую другую проблему, поднятую Оригеном, потому что позволяет связывать с его именем доктрины, которые, на деле, к нему не имели никакого отношения Н. Grouzel, L’apokatastase chez Origen‘e, Origeniana Quarta, Insbrucker theologische Studien 19, Insbruck 1987, s. 283. |
| Daniélou defends the orthodoxy of Origen although knowing that the Alexandrian’s Scriptural exegesis views human history as the umbra of the heavenly exemplar of things. He seems to have convinced himself that the historiosophy which Origen took from Platonism was “entirely transformed by the two essential categories of Christian thought, the subjective (the value of the person) and the historical” (Origen. p. 153). Later in the same book (p. 165), Daniélou makes the astonishing statement that “the first distinctive feature of Origen’s typology is its predominantly spiritual tone, its bearing on the inner life.” But typology is concerned with history, with persons and events – whatever moral implications they may have. And again, Origen “saw the Bible as a world of symbols, which it was his task to explore” (Ibid., 172). See Hanson’s criticism of Daniélou in Allegory and Event., pp. 97–129. 178 According to G.W. Butterworth (translation of First Principles, p. 309, note 7), Origen made much more of “the eternal Gospel” than Rufinus’ translation permits the reader to see. Origen, St Jerome informs, believed “the eternal Gospel to be as superior to our Gospel as the preaching of Christ is superior to the rites of the old law...” Jerome quoted Origen to the effect, says Butterworth, that the Economy of Christ needs to be perfected “by the truth of that gospel which in the Apocalypse of John is called " the eternal gospel’, that is, in comparison with the gospel of ours, which is temporal and was preached in a world and an age that are destined to pass away” (Ep, ad Avitum. 12; quoted in Butterworth). 179 Gospel Message and Hellenistic Culture, p. 287. Cf. De Princ. IV, ii, 7. Hanson describes the concept of “the eternal gospel” not as a “Platonized form of genuine Christian eschatology, but as an alternative to eschatology, indeed an invasion of it” (Allegory and Event, p. 354). 181 “Allegory and Mysticism in Origen and St Gregory of Nyssa,” 372. The words of Fr Louis Bouyer are instructive. He writes that the most primitive Christian mysticism, far from being a legacy of pagan mystery-religions or of Neo-Platonism, was the experience of “the Mystery,” about which we have spoken already. The realization of that experience came first with meditation upon the Scriptures. “For the first use of the word mystikos (μυστικς) in Christian literature is always in connection with a special understanding of the Scriptures...” Even in the writings ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite, “so obviously influenced by Neo-Platonism,” the word “mystical” is defined in connection with the Scriptures; also the word was used in connection with the Mysteries (Liturgical Piety. Notre Dame [Ind]., 1955, p. 225). |
| Origen of Alexandria (d. 253/254) enlarged the doctrine of the Parousia through emphasizing the possibility, for the spiritually advanced, to experience God in the present moment. While known for his speculative tendencies, Origen’s pastoral concerns informed his theology of the Parousia (Etcheverria 1969; Daley 2003: 48). Origen predominantly understood the Apocalypse of John through the lens of Christ, rather than focusing on the “last days” (Daley 2003: 49). There is another “second coming,” according to Origen, where the Lord becomes present to the souls who are being perfected. Overall, Origen interprets the “last times” in a manner that primarily is meant to illuminate Christian spiritual growth. The consummation of the world, according to Origen, involves the present process of spiritual growth realized within each soul (De Principiis 3.6.6). The Kingdom of God is already present in virtuous Christians, while not fully realized (Comm. on Matt. 12.14; Or. 25.2). The Parousia is presently experienced; however, the coming of Christ also remains a future hope only fully realized when “God becomes all in all” (Comm. on Jn. 20.7.47 ). God’s presence, according to Origen, is experienced through contemplation. The heavenly banquet is analogous with contemplation of God, which is delimited by our human capacity (De Princ. 2.11.7). Further, Origen insists our knowledge of God will never be complete; rather, the sojourner is always spiritually advancing through entering deeper into the presence of God (Hom. 17 on Numbers). With the ascendancy of Constantine as emperor (ca. 272–337) the church entered into an era of relative security. In this new situation a more church-centered eschatology became common; for example, Eusebius of Caesarea declared the first fruits of future rewards bring assurance to the faithful in their present state (Vita Const. 1.33; Thielman 1987). The first two ecumenical councils emphasized Christology and the doctrine of God; consequently, there was perhaps less of a lively theological interest in a future-looking eschatology throughout the 4th century. |
| 1170 Origen. de princ. 1, c. 5; Chrysost. de incompreh. homil. IV; в Хр. Чт. 1841, IV, 195–196, et homil. V, в Хр. Чт. 1842, I, 32; Theodoret. Commentar. in epist. ad Ephes. 1, 21; Theophilact. Commentar. in eundem locum. 1171 Justin. Apolog. 1, с. 28; Tatian. contr. Graec. с. 7; Iren. adv. haeres. III. 20, n. 1; Athenag. Legat. pro Christ. c. 24; Origen. contr. Cels. IV, 32; Ambros. epist. LXXXIV; Augustin. de civit. Dei VIII, c. 22; Lactant. Divin. inst. II, c. 9; Euseb. Demonst. Evang. III, c. 5. 1173 Athenag. Legat. pro Christ. XXIV; Clem. Alex. Strom. VII, 7; Origen. de princ. prol. n. 6; Tcrtull. adv Marc. II, 10; Lactant. Divin. inst. II, 9; Athanas. de Synod. n. 48; Anton. orat. ad monach. n. VII; Epiphan. haeres. LXIV, n. 22; Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. IV, 9; Didym. contr. Manich. n. XIII; Cassian. Coll. VIII, 8; Иоанн Дамаск. Точн. Излож. прав. веры кн. II, гл. 4. 1177 Против Евном. кн. II, в “Творениях святых Отцов” VII, 112. В другом месте святой Отец рассуждает об этом обстоятельнее: “Почему лукав человек? по собственному своему произволению. Почему зол диавол? По той же причине; потому что и он имел свободную жизнь, и ему дана была власть, или пребывать с Богом, или удалиться от благого. Гавриил – Ангел и всегда предстоит Богу. Сатана – ангел, и совершенно ниспал из собственного своего чина. И первого соблюло в горних произволение, и последнего низринула свобода воли. И первый мог стать отступником, и последний мог не отпасть. Но одного спасла ненасытная любовь к Богу, а другого сделало отверженным удаление от Бога. И это, отчуждение от Бога, есть зло. Небольшое обращение глаза производит, что мы или на стороне Солнца, или на стороне тени своего тела. И там просвещение готово тому, кто взирает прямо; необходимо же омрачение тому, кто отвращаете взор к тени. Так диавол лукав, имея лукавство от произволения, а не природа его противоположна добру” (Там же VIII, 157). 1183 Origen. in Ez. XII; Кирилл Иерусалимский , Огл. поуч. II, п. 4, стр. 27–28 в русск. перев.; Феодорит. Кратк. излож. Бож. Догмат. гл. 8, в Хр. Чт. 1844, IV, 213–214: “Пророк Иезекииль под именем князя тирского описывает отпадшего князя, диавола, который ему содействовал”.. |
| Vat., 1970. (ST; 264); Orbe A. Textos y pasajes de la Escritura interesados en la teoría de la Reincorporación//Estudios eclesiásticos. Madrid, 1959. Vol. 33. N 128. P. 77-92; Dodds E. R. Numenius and Ammonius//Les Sources de Plotin. Gen., 1960. P. 1-32; Hornschuh M. Das Leben des Origenes und die Entstehung der alexandrinischen Schule//ZKG. 1960. Bd. 71. S. 1-25, 193-214; Jaubert A. Introduction// Orig è ne. Homélies sur Josué. 1960. P. 9-89; Peri V. I passi sulla Trinità nelle omelie origeniane tradotte in latino da S. Gerolamo//StPatr. 1962. Vol. 6. P. 155-180; idem. Omelie origeniane sui Salmi: Contributo all " identificazione del testo latino. Vat., 1980; Simonetti M. Alcune osservazioni sull " interpretazione origeniana di Genesi II, 7 e III, 21//Aevum. Mil., 1962. Vol. 36. N 5/6. P. 370-381; idem. Due note sull " angelologia origeniana//RCCM. 1962. Vol. 4. P. 165-208; idem, ed. Origene: I Principi, Contra Celsum e altri scritti filosofici. Firenze, 1968; idem. La morte di Gesù in Origene//RSLR. 1972. Vol. 8. P. 3-41; idem. Origene e la lavanda dei piedi//Orpheus. Sofia, 1997. Vol. 18. P. 66-79; idem. Dio (Padre)//Origene: Dizionario. 2000. P. 118-124; idem. Spirito Santo//Ibid. P. 450-456; idem. Trinima//Ibid. P. 459-466; idem. Qualche novima sulla dottrina origeniana del «Logos»//Augustinianum. R., 2011. Vol. 51. P. 331-348; idem. Leggendo le «Omelie sui Salmi» di Origene//Adamantius. Pisa, 2016. Vol. 22. P. 454-480; Weber K. O. Origenes der Neuplatoniker. Münch., 1962; G ö gler R. Zur Theologie des biblischen Wortes bei Origenes. Düss., 1963; Mart í nez Pastor M. Teología de la luz en Orígenes: (De princ. e In Joh.). Comillas, 1963; Kettler F. H. Der ursprüngliche Sinn der Dogmatik des Origenes. B., 1966; idem. War Origenes Schüler des Ammonios Sakkas?//Epektasis. 1972. P. 327-334; idem. Origenes, Ammonios Sakkas und Porphyrios//Kerygma und Logos: FS C. Andresen. Gött., 1979. S. 322-328; Theiler W. Ammonios, der Lehrer des Origenes// Idem. Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus. |
| 158 According to Koch, “Für Origenes war die Kirche was die phllosophischen Schulen für andere Gelehrte seiner waren.” She is a “school” in which “the mystery of piety” is filled with “true gnostic.” The purpose of their “education” is the return of souls to the primordial state (Pronola 79). Unlike him, St Gregory took very seriously the historical institution of the Church. Salvation does not occur in some supertemporal realm, but is an historical process (See footnote 59 below), beginning after the Crucifixion and with the Resurrection (In Deum Lum., PG 46 577C). For St Gregory the Church is already becoming the new cosmos. She leads the lover of truth through things observable to the knowledge of things infinite: “According to the apostolic word, He made by His Incarnation things invisible visible, revealing them through the constitution of the Church” (Con. Eun. XIII PG 45 949B). Not so incidentally, Gregory defined the visible Church, outside of which there is no salvation, as composed of anyone “initiated” through baptism, while for Origen “the body of Christ” is “the souls of those who have reached perfection” (Song of Songs IV, 15; FC). The ecclesiology of Origen led Bigg (The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 268) to conclude that Origen denied the necessity of the visible or historical Church for salvation. The Professor seems unimpressed by Origen’s Extra hanc donum, id est ecclesiam, nemo salvatur (In Jos. horn. Ill, 5 PG 12 811C-812A). “Men might belong to the visible Church (as Origen remarked), and yet be dead in trespasses and sins,” Bigg writes. “They might be cut off from the visible Church, and yet be true brothers of Christ.” J. A. Lyons agrees. Origen’s doctrine of the Church, he insists, is a dimension of his cosmology, that is, the Church comprehends more than “a terrestrial assembly of Christ’s followers.” The Church of Christ is more than the Church of history; beyond the latter is “the heavenly Church of the first born” (De Princ. IV, ill, 8). Beyond Christ " s Body is every race of men which belong to Him, “perhaps the totality of creation” (The Cosmic Christ in Origen and Teilhard de Chardin: A Comparative Study. Oxford, 1982, p. 140). Cf. quia corpus Christi sumus, hominum genus, imo fortassis totius creaturae universitatis corpus est (Hom. in Psa., 11 PG 12 1330A). |
| Origen " s work of textual criticism Hexapla, representing an attempt to take into account all the possible variety of readings of the Old Testament translations, became a monument of Alexandrian Philology, while at the same time expressing one of his staple ideas concerning the text " s multiple meanings. The didascalus» (i. e. the early Christian teacher " s) mistakes were noticed both by representatives of the Antiochene school and by his own successors in the Alexandrian school, especially by St Peter the Martyr who reproached him for his disregard for the Bible " s grammatical sense. Origen interprets the whole world as a parable of the Divine transcendental reality. In this connection, the Old Testament, as it had developed in history, was a parable of the New Testament, giving the fullness of moral norms, whereas the New Testament is a parable of the «Eternal Gospel», containing the mystery of the »age to come. «Origen understood this mystery, according to Hellenistic Philosophy and in defiance of the Church doctrine, as the timeless world of spirits who at times fall apart from their Maker. History is cyclic: »Before this world there had been other worlds» (Princ. III. 5, 3). No world, however, has resembled the previous one (Ibid. II. 3, 4). The worlds» profile is defined by the free will of the creatures who have failed to hold on contemplating the Good. On the one hand, Origen cannot ensure the safety of salvation; on the other hand, he is full of hope that nobody, even the devil himself, shall perish altogether. God leads everybody to the recovery of communion with Himself, theoretically speaking, it must be universal (the final Apocatastasis, that is, universal salvation). The blurred vision of God is connected with the fact that even the Logos Himself does not thoroughly know the Father, albeit He cannot fall apart from the Latter as He is not created. Relations among the Persons of the Holy Trinity are presented as a hierarchical subordination in the one nature. |
| 159 Grillmeier says that in Origen’s Christ there is no intrinsic unity of natures. One finds rather what Fr Grillmeier calls a “natural unity, that is to say, a unity like the unity between two constituent parts which go together to form one reality.” Consequently, Origen lacks full appreciation of the Lord’s humanity. “Even the essential act of the human Christ, His redemptive death, has been said to be devalued” (Christ In Christian Tradition [vol. 1 ], p. 148). 160 As mentioned, St Gregory of Nyssa taught that the “coats of skins” of Gen. 3:21 (“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord make coats of skins and clothed them”) were the symbols of man’s fallen nature (De an. et res. PG 46 148Cf.). Following the distinction made by St Paul, he conceived the “skins” to be “flesh,” not the “body” (Catech. Ora.. 8 Sr). In the resurrection, the “coats of skins” will be discarded, that is, the earthly body will be transformed, partaking by Grace in the immortality of the deified Christ. Origen, however, arguing that the spirit or soul is consanguinetatem quandam ad Deum (De Princ. IV, iv, 10), equated the body into which the soul had fallen with “the coats of skins.” After death, the body becomes a “spiritual body,” perhaps a subtle and luminous thing altered for the new creation (See L.R. Hennessey, “Gregory of Nyssa’s Doctrine of the Resurrected Body,” SP [XXII]. ed. by E.A. Livingstone. Leuven, 1989, 28–34). 161 G. Mueller observes that the Origenist Heilgeschichte is based on two principles: Greek cyclicism and a personal understanding of Christ and His Mission. Thus, Origen distinguished between “eternal life” (which everyone possesses) and “life in Christ” (Comm. on Rom. VI, 5–6 PG 14 1067AC: Contra Cel. Ill, 78). When Origen declared that everyone will live eternally, he meant eventually vitiam aeternam in Christo Jesu. Therefore, he offers “ein rein christologische begründete Apokatastasts-Lehre” (“Origenes und die Apokatastasis,” Theologische Zeitschrift XIV (1958), 187–188). The Christian doctrine of salvation teaches ’’eternal life” for all who belong to Christ and obey all whatsoever He commanded the Apostles to teach the nations (Matt. 28:19). |
|
|
