| In other words, could it be that ‘personality’ is so free and autonomous that its world is determined chiefly by some of its own inner factors, whereas culture is not a necessary element at all, but just an appendage to personal being? The problem can also be formulated in the reverse sequence: whether the genetic influence of a particular person, or a group of persons, over culture is considerable? And if it is, what are the actual ways and means of personality’s impact on culture; is it more of an external-aesthetic nature or can some ontological foundations of such a personal imprint can be pointed to? . It seems important for us to draw parallels between the notions of ‘personality’ and ‘culture’ in order to provide justification for their kinship, and to reveal the layout of their reciprocal influence. Certainly, definitions of ‘culture’ are numerous and diverse, as well as the fact that the understanding of ‘personality’ is fairly different in psychology, philosophy and theology. Nevertheless, both the etymology of the word ‘culture’ itself and its definitions by the best culture experts and sociologists bring us to an idea of the cognation of the notions of human culture and personality. For example, an outstanding sociologist of the XX century, Pitirim Sorokin, defines culture as ‘a super-natural phenomenon’, whereas a theological notion of human personality, as it is known, comes exactly to the irreducibility of personality to its nature. That is why V. Lossky, an outstanding theologian of the Russian diaspora, describes the notion of human person as a metaphysical one. Following ancient philosophers (such as Marcus Porcius, Cicero and others), modern philosophers speak of human culture as of one of the highest spheres of human activities: ‘Any culture (even material culture) is actually a culture of the spirit, any culture has a spiritual basis – it is a product of a creative work of the spirit over the elements of nature’ . In this definition by Berdyaev the notion of culture is perceived as a product or a result of a cermain relation of the highest human powers and abilities to the elements of nature. Culture in the most general sense can be defined as a relation or as a system of relations. But only personality can enter into relationship, if relation is considered in its deep ontological sense. If so, only that or those who express their relation – a personality or a community of personalities – can be carriers of culture. The Russian philosopher and theologian of the XX century, A. Losev, defines culture exactly through the concept of ‘relation’: ‘culture … is the relation of general and particular, or of general and single’, where relation is understood in a dialectical sense. ‘The term ‘commonality’ corresponds to the understanding of ‘culture’ much more than terms such as ‘idea’, ‘symbol’ or ‘value’, because each of them expresses only ‘separate aspects of ‘culture’’ . |
| The only doctrinal definition on Mary to which the Byzantine Church was formally committed is the decree of the Council of Ephesus which called her the Theotokos, or «Mother of God.» Obviously Christological, and not Mariological, the decree nevertheless corresponds to the Mariological theme of the «New Eve,» which has appeared in Christian theological literature since the second century and which testifies, in the light of the Eastern view on the Adamic inheritance, to a concept of human freedom more optimistic than that which prevailed in the West. But it is the theology of Cyril of Alexandria, affirming the personal, hypostatic identity of Jesus with the pre-existent Logos, as it was endorsed in Ephesus, which served as the Christological basis for the tremendous development of piety centered on the person of Mary after the fifth century. God became our Savior by becoming man; but this «humanization» of God came about through Mary, who is thus inseparable from the person and work of her Son. Since in Jesus there is no human hypostasis, and since a mother can be mother only of «someone,» not of something, Mary is indeed the mother of the incarnate Logos, the «Mother of God.» And since the deification of man takes place «in Christ,» she is alsoin a sense just as real as man« " s participation »«in Christ " the mother of the whole body of the Church. This closeness of Mary with Christ led to an increasing popularity, in the East, of those apocryphal traditions which reported her bodily glorification after her death. These traditions found a place in the hymnographical poetry of the Feast of the Dormition (Koimesis, August 15), but were never the object of theological speculation or doctrinal definition. The tradition of Mary»«s bodily «assumption» was treated by poets and preachers as an eschatological sign, a follow-up of the resurrection of Christ, an anticipation of the general resurrection. The texts speak very explicitly of the Virgin» " s natural death, excluding any possible connection with a doctrine of Immaculate Conception, which would attribute immortality to her and which would be totally incomprehensible in the light of the Eastern view of original sin as inherited mortality. 304 Thus, the boundless expressions of Marian piety and devotion in the Byzantine liturgy are nothing other than an illustration of the doctrine of hypostatic union in Christ of divinity and humanity. In a sense, they represent a legitimate and organic way of placing the somewhat abstract concepts of fifth- and sixth-century Chris-tology on the level of the simple faithful. 13. The Holy Spirit |
| [Church History] On February 17, having prayed before the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and of the Moscow Patriarchate gathered at Holy Virgin Protection Church in Nyack, NY. [Church History] On February 17, 2006, the sixth working meeting of the Commissions of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and of the Moscow Patriarchate opened at Holy Virgin Protection Church in Nyack, NY. Participating in this meeting were all the members of the two Commissions with the exception of His Grace Bishop Ambroise of Vevey, who had recently undergone a serious operation. It was agreed that Priest Serafim Gan, Secretary of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, would participate in the meetings. [Church History] With the blessing of His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and of the Synod of Bishops, with the goal of informing the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on the progress of talks with the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, an Informational Bulletin has been published which will be distributed to all the parishes of our Church. [Church History] On June 26, 2006, the Commissions on negotiations of the Moscow Patriarchate and of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia met at the offices of the Department of External Church Relations. [Church History] From June 26-28, 2006, the seventh joint meeting of the Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate on dialog with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and of the Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate was held at the offices of the Department of External Church Relations at St Danilov Monastery in Moscow. [Church History] Today, the eighth joint session of the Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on talks with the Moscow Patriarchate and the latter’s Commission on talks with the Russian Church Abroad began at a church meeting hall in Cologne, Germany. |
| The 1686 Act confirming the Metropolis of Kiev as part of the Moscow Patriarchate and signed by His Holiness Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople is not to be reviewed. The decision to ‘repeal’ it is canonically negligible. Otherwise it would be possible to annul any document defining the canonical territory and status of a Local Church, regardless of its antiquity, authoritativeness and common ecclesial recognition. The 1686 Synodal Deed and other documents that accompany states nothing about either a temporary nature of the transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate or that it may be cancelled. The attempt of hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for political and self-seeking reasons to review this resolution now, over three hundred years after it was adopted, runs contrary to the spirit of the Orthodox Church’s canons that do not allow of a possibility for reviewing established church boundaries that have not been challenged for a long time. Thus, Canon 129 (133) of the Council of Carthage reads, ‘If anyone… brought some place to catholic unity and had it in his jurisdiction for three years, and nobody demanded it from him, then it shall not be claimed from him, if also there was a bishop during these three years who should have claimed it but kept silent’. And Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council establishes the thirty years’ term for a possible conciliar consideration of disputes over the belonging of even particular church parishes: ‘Parishes in each diocese… shall be invariably under the power of bishops who manage them, especially if for thirty years they undoubtedly were under his jurisdiction and governance’. And how is it possible to cancel a decision that has been valid for three centuries? It would mean an attempt to see it ‘like it were non-existent’ throughout the successive history of the development of church life. As if he Patriarchate of Constantinople does not notice that the Metropolis of Kiev of 1686, the return of which as its part is declared today, had boundaries that were essentially different from today’s boundaries of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and used to embrace only a smaller part of the latter. The Metropolis of Kiev of our days includes as such the city of Kiev and several areas adjacent to it. The larger part of the dioceses of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church however, especially in the east and south of the country, was founded and developed already as part of the autocephalous Russian Church, being a fruit of its ages-long missionary and pastoral work. The present action of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is an attempt to hijack what has never belonged to it. |
| Sergius of Radonezh (1314–1392). The icon of the Holy Trinity by Andrey Rublyov (1370–1430), that masterpiece of Russian art, testifies to this. It shows the vision of the possibility of accord in love and freedom, reflecting the perfect unity of the Holy Trinity. It was this ideal that inspired the Russian leaders of genius in the nineteenth century – Khomiakov and his teachings on «sobornosj:», Dostoevsky and his « Russian Socialism« . Solovyov and his » Free Theocracy «, and Nicholas Fyodorov (1828–1903) and his »Common Task ». These sacred precepts found a place in the works of the Russian emigre thinkers in whom the tradition of the Orthodox Church and the liberal aspirations of the intelligentsia have been reconciled. At the present time there is only one official voice of the Russian people. It proclaims to everyone the happiness of life under the leadership of the all-powerful and «infallible» Party, and never ceases glorifying the achievements of the «Great Socialist Revolution». The Kremlin invites the whole of mankind to follow in the footsteps of Lenin, that «great teacher of the peoples». It threatens the opponents of Communism with severe punishments. Although this voice sounds triumphantly throughout the entire world, it does not appear to be the only expression of the hopes of the Russian people. Other voices are beginning to be heard from Russia, like that of the writer Solzhenitsyn (b. 1918). The emigre leaders have a special place in this opposition, for they bought their freedom by choosing exile. Among them the voices of the religious thinkers are of considerable importance. These are the voices of men who see hope for a better future for mankind not in submission to totalitarianism but in the revival of the Evangelical teachings. This Christian voice threatens no one, but declares its unshakable belief in the living force of genuine freedom, love and forgiveness. Every despotism runs its course, and there will come a time when the thoughts of Orthodoxy " s philosophers will reach those who have no access to them at present. The drama of Russian Christian culture has reached its apogee in this century. The fate of the emigres has been to assume the arduous but glorious task of preserving and deepening the spiritual values of Russian Orthodoxy in a period of trial and tension. Oxford 28-V-1972. 11 Dr. Kullmann played an important role in the religious life and social fortunes of the Russian emigration. He was one of the outstanding participants of that religious and philosophical renewal which characterized the first decades of the Russian dispersion. In the course of the years spent in the work with the Russian Student Christian Movement, he helped the West to understand better Russian Orthodoxy and its theologians and religious thinkers. The second half of his active life he devoted to the political protection of refugees as a representative of the International Orgainzations. |
| St. Gregory Palamas notes that the diverse uncreated energies or ‘powers’, directed at various creatures of God, are united due to the unity of the tri-hypostatic by internal ‘structure’ Creator. 26 Thus the unity of uncreated energies is grounded in the oneness of the Creator’s essence, and the multiplicity of energies – in the Divine inner ‘hypostatic structure’ as well as in the conformity of numerous created hypostases to the three uncreated Ones. Structural Properties of the Concept of ‘Knowledge’ and Hypostatic Principle of Being St. Gregory Palamas considers the triplicity of human knowledge as a special feature of man’s conformity to the Trinity, which favorably distinguishes him from the angels. 27 Obviously, this still does not imply the actual hypostatic nature of knowledge, for the Holy Fathers often approach the triplicity of human nature as a feature of likeness to the triplicity of hypostases in God. However, St. Gregory’s singling out the three components of knowledge – intellectual, logos-logical and sensual 28 – indicates the complexity of the concept of ‘knowledge’ as well as a certain correspondence of the three components of human knowledge with the hypostases of the Trinity. Here the Father’s hypostasis corresponds to the concept of mind as such, the Son’s hypostasis stands for the logicality of knowledge, and the Spirit’s hypostasis reflects the sensory component of cognitive ability. 29 Moreover, according to the course of thought of St. Palamas, the inner structure of the concept of knowledge, which includes the idea of unconfused distinction and interconnection between the components, is based on the likeness of man and God in the hypostatic principle of existence. Hypostatic Union, προαρεσις and Knowledge The knowledge of God is revealed to humanity through the incarnation of the Son of God, which, according to the Chalcedonian oros, was accomplished through the hypostatic union of the two natures with their energies in Christ. Assimilation of the uncreated energies of God, allowing man to climb the ladder of knowledge, gradually mastering all of its components, is performed also due to the hypostatic unification of human created nature and the Creator’s uncreated energies within a human hypostasis. |
| “Later on [after Constantinople had obtained the status of Nea Roma – author ’s note ] legends saying that the Church of Constantinople was founded by apostle Andrew the First-Called and that its first bishop was apostle of the seventy Stachyus started spreading” . There is another opinion about the establishing of the Church by the apostle Andrew: “The apostle Andrew was credited with a great contribution to establishing the Church of Constantinople ... During 330-451 the status of Constantinople was being worked out in view of its special position as the capital of the Byzantine Empire. Firstly a political headship adaptation pattern and later the principle of apostolic see were applied” . As one can see, the idea of the apostolic evangelisation of Constantinople follows from its political status. In the 20 th century too some scholars stuck to the opinion that “the Patriarch of Constantinople has an apostolic origin...since he is the Head of New Rome. This apostolic descent was granted by way of the visit to Constantinople of the apostle Andrew, the brother of the apostle Peter, who is chief of the apostles” . A number or contemporary Greek writers (belonging to the Patriarchate of Constantinople) still believe that “according to tradition the Orthodox Church of Constantinople was founded by the apostle Andrew”. “The apostolic nature of the Church of Byzantium, the city chosen by Constantine to become the capital of its new empire, is mentioned in the Syriac translation of an early Christian text, Doctrina apostolorum . This document mentions the apostles Luke, John and Andrew as the ones in charge of the Christianization of the region. The tradition of the apostolic nature of the See of Constantinople was particularly developed during the schism of Acacius (484–519). It also penetrated to the state legislation, the 24 th Novella of emperor Heraclius calling the See of Constantinople “apostolic”” . In this respect the Church of Constantinople is inferior to the Churches founded by apostles themselves: the Churches of Rome (apostle Peter), Alexandria (Mark), Jerusalem (James). “Fostering the notion of the origin of the Church of Constantinople from the apostle Andrew is apparently grounded in the desire to boost its authority (as having been established by an apostle) and ancient along withthe above-mentioned Churches. This notion does not have sufficient grounds to be considered seriously. The bishop of Constantinople used to be elected by bishops coming to Constantinople for various reasons. And it was the metropolitan of Heraclea with local bishops wh o endorsedand ordained the bishop (and later patriarch) of Constantinople well into the late Middle Ages” . Gradually the emperor came to take part in electing the bishop (thus, for example, the bishop of Nikomedia Eusebus was moved to Constantinople in 338 by Emperor Constantius’ order). |
| With this in mind, we can hardly call this document an authoritative expression of inviolate Orthodox tradition. We are even more surprised that in justification of the claims of the Patriarch of Constantinople to primacy in the Church of Christ you refer to the act of the Council of 1590 which established Patriarchal rule in Muscovy. Your Beatitude is undoubtedly aware that the great predecessor to the See of Alexandria Saint Meletius Pigas, canonized by Your Holy Church, did not recognize the decisions of this Council since they were made without taking into account the opinion of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. At his initiative a new Council of the Eastern Patriarchs was held in Constantinople in 1593, which revised the decision of the previous Council and determined that the Patriarch of Moscow “is and shall be called a brother of the Orthodox Patriarchs by virtue of his title, independent, yet equal in rank and dignity”. In the decisions of this Council, the inspiration for and main actor of which was Saint Meletius, there is no mention of the notion that the Patriarch of Constantinople enjoys any authority over the Patriarch of Moscow or any other Patriarch. In his works Saint Meletius decisively spoke out against the idea of the primacy of any one bishop in the Universal Church. His successor and disciple the Patriarch of Alexandria Cyril Loukaris, also canonized by Your Holy Church, and recently by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, followed his teacher in actively opposing papal authority and rejected the teaching of the primacy of the bishop who is first in honour over the entire Church. I believe it superfluous to remind Your Beatitude that the Council of the Orthodox Church of Alexandria, called by the Most Blessed Patriarch of Alexandria Nicanor in 1867, condemned the interference of the Church of Constantinople in the affairs of the Church of Alexandria, spoke out in favour of the equality of honour of all the Patriarchs and stated that the Primate of the Church of Constantinople did not enjoy the right to intercede in the affairs of the other Churches. |
| “On January 22, 1995, I married Iulia Mikhailovna Brykina. The Mystery of Marriage was celebrated in the Church of St. John the Theologian by Priest Dionisii Pozdniaev. In the same year my first daughter, Justina, was born. “On May 13, 1995, His Eminence, Bishop Evgenii of Verey, ordained me a deacon. I graduated from the Moscow Theological Seminary at the top of the class on June 14, 1995, and enrolled in the correspondence course of the Moscow Theological Academy, from which I graduated in 2000. On June 9, 2000, the council of the Moscow Theological Academy Council approved my candidate’s thesis, ‘Anthropology and Analysis of the Seventh Day Adventists and the Watchtower Society.’ “ After graduation from the Seminary, by Patriarchal decree, I was appointed a clergyman in the church of the Dormition of the All-Holy Mother of God in Gonchary, the Bulgarian Metochian. “From September 1995, I taught the Law of God in the senior classes of the ’Iasenevo’ Orthodox Classical Gymnasium. On May 24, 2000, I was awarded a Letter of Commendation for my teaching by the Department of Religious Education and Catechesis. “From August 1996, with the blessing of His All-Holiness, the Patriarch, I held missionary Biblical conversations in the Kriutitsy Patriarchal Metochian with people who had suffered from the influence of sects and occultists. I began my work at the Rehabilitation Center of St. John of Kronstadt, directed by Hieromonk Anatoly (Berestov), after its creation. “In 1999, with the blessing of His All-Holiness, the Patriarch, my book The Chronicle of the Beginning, dedicated to the defense of the patristic doctrine of creation, was published by the Publishing House of Sretensky Monastery. “In 2000 I graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy as a Candidate of Theology. In 2001 I was ordained a priest. In the same year my second daughter, Dorofeya, was born. “I served in the Church of Saint Apostles Peter and Paul in Yasenevo in Moscow. I was secretary of the ’Shestodnev’ missionary-educational center and a member of the rehabilitation centre for victims of totalitarian cults and pseudo-religious movements in the name of Saint J ohn of Kronstadt. I am the author of the book The Chronicle of the Beginning (Moscow, 1999), editor of the anthology Hexaemeron Against Evolution (Moscow, 2000) and the anthology Divine Revelation and Contemporary Science. I have published over a dozen articles on creation and anti-sectarian issues. ” |
| And to understand Irenaeus’ rhetoric a little better, something more should probably be said about the social and religious context in which he wrote. No matter what one might think of his polemical language, Irenaeus’ detractors will find it difficult to take refuge in the thought that his theological targets modelled the kind of balanced and fair-minded treatment we all would be proud of. We happen to know that before publishing the first book of Against Heresies Irenaeus had come across something called the Gospel of Judas (AH 1.3 i.i). Most scholars think this is the same book, or at least an early version of it, that was released to the world amid shouts of acclaim just prior to Easter 2006. After devoting much study to the book, April DeConick describes the ‘Sethian’ 83 Christians responsible for the Gospel of Judas as people who were ‘completely opposed to apostolic Christianity and did not consider the apostolic Christians to be real Christians’. 84 According to this gnostic book, catholic Christians like Irenaeus are ignorant of Jesus (34.15 – 17); they are ruled by the stars and cannot be saved (37.2 – 8); they are fornicators (54.25) and murderers of their children (54.26). They are ‘those who sleep with men... people of pollution and lawlessness and error’ (40, lines 10 – 14). Whatever else one might say about the people behind this book, they can hardly be held up as models of religious toleration and the acceptance of‘alternative lifestyles’. Scholars are well aware of this aspect of the Gospel of Judas and generally have no trouble maintaining a proper scholarly detachment when discussing it. ‘In sum,’ writes Frank Williams matter- of-facdy, ‘Gos. Judas exhibits the traits we would expect in a work of religious controversy, in its period or in any... ’ 85 We are evidently permitted a yawn. While Williams believes these same traits are characteristic of the catholic heresiologists like Irenaeus and Tertullian and of several of the gnostic works from Nag Hammadi, there is one aspect of its polemic that apparently sets the Gospel of Judas apart. ‘[T]o accuse the entire leadership of one’s own community, en bloc, of immorality seems strange, whatever accusation one might bring against one leader or another.’ 86 |
|
|
