| In other words, the “schismatics” were a good opportunity for enrichment, and their murder was a special occasion for forgiveness of the “Christians” sins. It’s obvious that “the Christian Church” had from the beginning a hostile attitude toward “pagans”, that is non-Christians, increased gradually by the same attitude against “heretics”, but the “anti-schismatic” component was accentuated more recently, not so much after 1054 but rather after 1204. The innovation was not enmity directed against the “Greeks”, but the placement among the ranks of “heretics” or even “pagans” of those who had only recently, in Rome’s vision, committed no more than a formal “error”... In other words, the death of Christians in the war against other Christians became a unique virtue, praised and appreciated. We don’t have any innovation here in 1314, and unfortunately not the last absolution of sins for Christians sent to war against other Christians. 2 From other sources one understands that, especially inside the kingdom of Hungary, the war against “schismatics” could not be the only solution, and that other means existed to manage the situation. In fact, the usual method recommended by the Western Church to be used before violence was the peaceful attraction of the “Greeks/schismatics” toward Catholicism. In this spirit we see the action of the Dominican and Franciscan orders, and the Hungarian Church’s effort, coordinated with that of the royalty—although the results did not seem satisfying and the difficulties were great. The peaceful methods did not always prove appropriate. Thus, around 1328, king Carol Robert was asking the papal curia from Avignon not to ask for a too large a tithe from the Cumans, Romanians and Slavs from Hungary converted to Catholicism, because this was endangering the whole conversion campaign. Consequently, Pope John XXII on May 8 1328 commanded all the Hungarian prelates to relax their material zeal in order to salvage the spiritual goal; the pope knew from the king that these Romanians, Cumans and Slavs, “because they had not previously paid these tithes, say now that the reason they were counseled to convert to the Catholic faith was so that they would give their goods to the clergy,” and that, “many who would otherwise happily convert to this faith are holding back because of this issue.” 3 Another mention of the tithe taken from the Romanians is made by pope Gregory IX in 1377. The Avignon Pontiff approved the request of the noble lady Caterina, the widow of Simion, the owner of the Medies fortress (from the Satmarene parts)—snatched at some point in around 1200 “from the hands of the schismatic Romanians”, converted now to Catholicism ... 1 That there was such effort put into converting everyone in the country to Catholicism , and that the amount is stated at being around a third of the population, points to a situation where the minority was imposing their rules on the majority. |
| The use of contraceptives and planning families, which basically means control over the birth rate, is taken to be a solution to the demographic problem. Unfortunately, up until very recent times, the Georgian population tended toward a decline. His Holiness the Patriarch’s initiative has put a damper on this process. Perhaps there is an over-population problem in some countries, but the situation in Georgia is absolutely to the contrary. And although the UN is stimulating a population reduction of the whole planet out of fear of over-population, we should act in the interests of our own citizens. There are not so very many of us as could cause a crisis. It is in our interests to increase our population. Therefore we should have our own political stance on this question. Appeals and exhortations are not enough. We conduct meetings and lectures on this theme; we have had meetings and lectures about this—we have conducted several scholarly conferences dedicated to the demographic problem. Baptizing an infant in Georgia. —What steps have you taken against abortion? —Usually those who call for contraception represent themselves as being against abortion. I ask them: What is the difference between cutting off life in the initial stages and having an abortion? Therefore, in coming out against abortion, you have to come out against contraception as well. You also have to talk about how both contraception and abortion are hazardous to health. These are essentially a step taken against God, and that never brings forth good fruit. Therefore I think that this problem should be looked at very seriously on the governmental level also. It is in the government’s interests. The government should be interested in the population’s increase, and it should make that increase possible. —Has the situation changed at all in Georgia? Is the number of abortions decreasing? —Such matters are not resolved in two or three weeks. The actions of His Holiness the Patriarch (about which I spoke earlier) have changed the situation, and there is progress. |
| In 602: ” [The third year: In the month . . ., on] the thirteenth [day] Nabushumulishir [ . . .] [In the month . . . the king of Akkad mustered his army and [marched] to Hattu. [……] He brought the vast [booty] of Hattu into Akkad.” In 601 (march against Egypt in Kislev=Nov./Dec.): ”The fourth year: The king of Akkad mustered his army and marched to Hattu. [He marched about victoriously] in Hattu. In the month Kislev he took his army’s lead and marched to Egypt. [When] the king of Egypt heard (the news) he m[ustered] his army. They fought one another in the battlefield and both sides suffered severe losses (literally, they inflicted a major defeat upon one another). The king of Akkad and his army [went back] to Babylon.” 559 From this chronicle it is seen that the whole Hattuterritory (primarily SyriaLebanon but extending to Phoenicia and Palestine) became tributary to Nebuchadnezzar as of his accession year. And in Nebuchadnezzar’s first year it is explicitly stated that “all the kings of Hattu” were tributary to him, which reasonably cannot have excepted Jehoiakim. Many scholars conclude that Nebuchadnezzar’s fourth year, in which Insight on the Scriptures supposes that Jehoiakim’s Babylonian vassalage began, was probably the year in which Jehoiakim revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, because in that year Nebuchadnezzar batded with Egypt, and both seem to have suffered great losses. Nebuchadnezzar had to return to Babylon, where he remained in the fifth year and “refitted his numerous horses and chariotry.” 560 unsuccessful batde with Egypt may have encouraged Jehoiakim to throw off the Babylonian yoke, thus ending his three years of vassalage to Babylon. 561 2 Kings 24:17 conclusion. Verse 1 that “in his (Jehoiakim’s) days Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him.” As a result, Jehovah (through Nebuchadnezzar) “began to send against him marauder bands of Chaldeans and marauder bands of Syrians and marauder bands of Moabites and marauder bands of the sons of Ammon, and he kept sending them against Judah to destroy it, according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken by means of his servants the prophets.” – 2 Kings 24:1 |
| From the moment of its foundation the ROCOR, as the church of the White emigration, was anti-communist. Its specificity lies in that it comprised the more right-wing and conservative stratum of the clergy and laity of the Russian emigration. For many emigres, the struggle did not stop with the end of the Civil War; they saw their task as continuing the battle against communism, if not military then ideological. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia was always in the avant-garde of this struggle. On 26 October 1935 the Synod of Archbishops ruled for the creation of a united front for struggle against godlessness. In 1943 the Vienna conference of bishops issued a resolution on the struggle against Bolshevik godlessness and finally – in 1970, the Synod of Archbishops anathematized Lenin and other persecutors of the Christ’s Church. The position in principle regarding questions of war and peace, in our view, was expressed most clearly in the leading article by archbishop Averky “The action of sycophancy.” “How many times we hear today about peace – global peace. There are endless “peace conferences” which include even those who speak of peace, but prepare for war.” A true Christian, according to archbishop Averky’s deep conviction, must be an irreconcilable foe of satanic evil and fight against it rather than seeking compromises with it in the cause of some sort of global peace. On a world-wide scale this evil is definitely communism with its theomachy and persecution of religion and the Church. Communism was perceived by the conservatives of the Russian emigration specifically as a global evil (emphasis mine – D.A.) “Any struggle against it, wherever it took place, was for the purpose of the destruction of the global evil – communism. “ It is important to understand this correctly. For the Russian emigration, and its Church, this war was not just a local armed conflict, but an integral part of the global opposition to global communism and, consequently, global evil. |
| 3298 Cf. Irenaeus Haer. 1.26.1, on Cerinthus; Hippolytus Haer. 6.28–29, on Valentinians. Although the gnostic view of creation reflected Platonic ideas (e.g., Marcus " s creation after an invisible image, Irenaeus Haer. 1.17), the neoplatonist Plotinus found it severely wanting (Plotinus Enn. 2.9.8) 3299 See Cohn-Sherbok, «Mandaeans,» who cites t. Sanh. 8:7; Gen. Rab. 8:10. This may suggest a proto-Mandaic idea later incorporated into Mandaism; but its evidence may derive from a gnostic source, which may have been influenced by the Christian doctrine of the second Adam as well as rabbinic Adam speculation. Further, the polemic against minim in t. Sanh. 8may not address Adam at all; rabbis did polemicize against dual powers in creation (Gen. Rab. 1:7), but this could oppose Christians or the male-female dyad principle of some pagan (e.g., Varro L.L. 5.10.58; cf. Gen. Rab. 8:9; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2) as well as gnostic (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1) thought, and a polemic against gnostic or Philonic angelic mediation (cf. Urbach, Sages, 205) need not involve proto-Mandaism in particular. 3301 Confusion 171, 179; Flight 69; cf. also Papias frg. 7 (from Andreas Caesariensis, ca. 500 C.E., in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:155). God created through assistants so that if his creation went astray, the assistants would be blamed (Creation 75). 3302 Despite disagreement on when angels were created, later rabbis agreed that God did not create them on the first day (contrast the earlier claim in Jub. 2:2), lest schismatics claim that angels aided in creation (Gen. Rab. 1:3; Justin Dia1. 62; cf. Gen. Rab. 8:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 1:26 ; Williams, Justin, 129; Barnard, «Judaism,» 404; Urbach, Sages, 1:203–4; for other traditions on days of creation, cf. t. Ber. 5:31; houses dispute in p. Hag. 2:1, §17; cf. Gen. Rab. 1:15), although God did consult with them (b. Sanh. 38b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:1; Gen. Rab. 8:3–4,8; 17:4; Lev. Rab. 29:1; Num. Rab. 19:3; see Urbach, Sages, 1:205–7). This clearly represents polemic against an existing interpretation of the plural in Gen. 1 (contrast Jub. 2:3, second century b.C.E.; the plurals of Gen. 1and 11include angels–Jub. 10:22–23; cf. 14:20); polemicists before the rabbis may have also objected to the Jubilees chronology (cf. L.A.B. 60:3; 2 En. 29A; 29:3–5 J). |
| Да будет так! Аминь! Литература Иванцов-Платонов А. М., прот., проф. Ереси и расколы первых трех веков христианства. М.: Университетская типографиия, 1877. Ч. 1. С. 3. Константин (Островский), епископ Зарайский. Проблема «добра» и «зла» в учении секты Виссариона « Церковь последнего завета»//Труды Коломенской духовной семинарии. Вып. 12. Коломна, 2017. С. 3–10. Конь Р. М. Несостоятельность сектантского герменевтического принципа «Писание изъясняет само себя» (на примере баптизма)//Вопросы богословия. 2019. Т. 1. 1. С. 140–157. Конь Р. М. К вопросу о проблематике теории познания Р. Штайнера//Диакрисис. 2020. 1 (5). С. 160–167. Конь Р. М. Роль воображения в современном западном оккультизме//Диакрисис. 2020. 2 (6). С. 154–168. Конь Р. М. Православная миссия среди сект. Часть I//Богословский вестник. 2018. Т. 29. 2. С. 207. Конь Р. М. Введение в сектоведение. Нижний Новгород: Нижегородская духовная семинария, 2008. Флоровский Г., прот. Утрата библейского мышления//Избранные богословские статьи. М.: Пробел, 2000. Gemeinhardt P. Athanasius Handbuch (Handbücher Theologie) Tuebingen: JCB Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 2011. The Treatise attributed to St. Athanasius the Great «Against all heresies» Translation and commentary Pavel K. Dobrotsvetov PhD in Theology, PhD in Philosophy, Associate Professor of the Theology Department of Sretensky Theological Academy 107031, Moscow, Bolshaya Lubianka st., 19/3, agathantos@list. ru For citation: The Treatise attributed to St. Athanasius the Great «Against all heresies». Translation and commentary by P. K. Dobrotsvetov//Diakrisis. 2020. 3 (7). P. 91–106 (in Russian). DOI:10.54700/diakrisis.2020.3.7.004 Abstract For the fi rst time a translation of the treatise inscribed with the name of St. Athanasius the Great «Against all Heresies» (spuria) into Russian from Greek is published, which contains a polemic against Arians, Pneumatomachians, Paul of Samosata, Manichaeans, Marcion, Valentine, Basilides, Hierax, Novatians, Monatnists and Apollinarians. |
| Repressions against the clergy did not lessen even after the Patriarch’s letter, " On the cessation of clergy’s fight against the Bolsheviks " in September 1919. It was carried out unilaterally: the priests did their duty at the places of their ministry and rejected everything that was contrary to the Patriarch’s letter, but the Soviets proceeded with their policy of terror. They year of the great famine in Russia is memorable for one more tragedy—the state campaign for requisitioning the Church valuables. For a long time the official version dominated, according to which the Church resisted to hand over its valuables whichg the authorities intended to use for rendering help to the starving people. In reality, everything was quite different. As early as in August 1921, Patriarch Tikhon established the church committee to help the starving. On February 19, 1922 the parishes and church boards obtained the Patriarch’s permission to donate precious church decorations and other things, which had no liturgical use, for the needs of the starving. An Orthodox movement of rendering help to the starving that was gaining momentum was not desired by the authorities. Requisitioning of church valuables according to Lenin’s plan had to make a fund of " several hundred millions rubles " . This was the financial aspect of the campaign. But there was also a political one. In the course of requisitioning it was decided to start " the most resolute and merciless combat against reactionary clergy and suppress its resistance with such violence that they would not forget it for several following decades " . In Moscow, Petrograd, Shuya, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Smolensk, and Staraya Russa, processes took place followed by mass execution of the clergy and other participants of the resistance against the requisition of valuables. In Petrograd there were 80 accused and 4 death sentences, including Metropolitan Veniamin (Kazansky); in Moscow—154 accused, 11 death sentences. Even the Patriarch was arrested. At that very hard time for the Church, the State did its utmost to stimulate the activity of a renovation movement formed already before October 1917: it backed renovation editions; the OGPU (Unified State Political Directorate) deported disagreeable bishops; divided the laity. This policy was aimed at breaking up the Orthodox Church into groups hostile to each other. Thus it would cease to be a force spiritually opposing the Bolshevik dictatorship. The number of martyrs grew. During the period of the campaign of requisition of the church valuables, over 10,000 people were condemned, and 2,000 shot. |
| The Father γαπ the Son: 3:35; 10:17; 15:9; 17:23–24, 26 The Father φιλε the Son: 5:20 The Son γαπ the Father: 14:31 The Son φιλε the Father: no examples The Father γαπ believers: 17:23; cf. 3:16 The Father φιλε believers: 16:27 The Son γαπ believers: 11:5; 13:1, 23, 34; 15:9, 12; 19:26; 21:7, 20 The Son φιλε believers: 11:3, 36; 20:2 Believers γαπσι Jesus: 8:42; 14:15, 21, 23, 24, 28; 21:15–16 Believers φιλοσι Jesus: 16:27; 21:15–17 Believers γαπσι God: cf. 5:42; no references for φιλοσι People γαπσι a sinful object: 3:19; 12:43 People φιλοσι a sinful object: cf. 12:25; the world " s love in 15:19 Believers should γαπσι one another: 13:34–35; 15:12, 17 Believers should φιλοσι one another: no examples Given a frequency of αγαπω greater than φιλω, the few categories in which their uses do not overlap surely reflect the sort of coincidence one would expect if the terms were essentially interchangeable. One passage (21:15–17) clearly uses the two terms interchangeably, unless we are to suppose that Jesus diminished the intensity of his own request to accommodate Peter s desire. Against many scholars, 2789 John employs his two terms for love interchangeably. 2790 Stylistic changes from one section of the Gospel to another no more need indicate separate sources or redactors than similar changes from one part of Epictetus to another indicate that Arrian quotes him more accurately at some points; both Epictetus and Arrian probably had certain words or phrases more on their minds at certain times. 2791 Variation was a common feature of ancient writing; 2792 some writers, in fact, explicitly asserted their preference for variation in vocabulary against «the pedantic precision» of some philosophic trends of their era. 2793 As Nock pointed out, their pleasure in variety «often works havoc with the neat differentiations of meaning we seek to establish.» 2794 It is not surprising that it is a standard feature of Johannine style. 2795 John " s call to love is a call to church unity, 2796 whether against the outside opposition ( John 15 ) or against the secessionists (1 John 3). Love also adds a moral context to «knowing God» ( 1 John 4:7–8,16,20) that goes beyond the amoral mysticism some false teachers may have been proclaiming ( John 8:55; 1 John 2:3–5; 3:6 ). 2797 |
| Extreme publicistic activities of HRW on the eve of US agression against Iraq is an illustration of interests of HRW in the conflict. One of consealed tasks of this agression is to eliminate potential treat to Israel from Saddam Hussein’s regime. So, several months before the beginning of military operations Human Rights Watch initiated a series of Reports and Declarations on human rights violations in Iraq... 10 and even 15 years before, including the use of chemical weapons by Hussein’s regime against Kurd separatists in 1987. The goal of these publications is evident: to show the world the horrors of Saddam’s ruling and by means of this to reduce expected negative reaction to US agression against Iraqi Republic. But not to give rise to suspect HRW of solidarity with Bush’s Administration Human Rights Watch preferred not to declare its position on Iraqi war. INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION Against the background of imperialist, expansionist and openly agressive foreigh policy of the Administration of G.W. Bush violating international law, all the more human rights – selective defense of human rights and double standards of Human Rights Watch look petty and insignificant, as if you compare childish tricks to street banditism. However, now it became evident for the majority of observers that the newly just brought to light masters of “a new world order” overrated their strength and degree of resistence of antiglobalists even within the United States. “Bolshevist” milieu of G. W. Bush – the disciples of Jewish-German philosopher Leo Strauss and yesterday’s trotskists who started “permanent democratic revolution” are just “kings for a day”. When George Bush and Richard Cheney leave the White House, they will also leave (and they – Richard Perle, David Frum – have already left) it. Then today’s critics of American “bolshevists-neocons” – “menshevist-liberals”, supporters of “humanitarian interventions” like the one in Yugoslavia (Zbigniev Brzezinski, Kenneth Roth, Morton Abramowitz, Strobe Talbott, Barnett Rubin, Rita Hauser, Richard Dicker and, of course, George Soros, who is financing now presidential candidates from the Democrats) will fill their posts. Anew avalanches of “Declarations” on “atrocious treatment of Chechen refugees in Ingushetia” by Russian authorities and “violations of human and civil rights of Meskheti turks” in their new homeland (this time in Kuban), on “raging of fascism and antisemitism” in the streets of Russian cities will overflow the Congress of the United States, the Administration of the President and UN. |
| Uthemann 1985 – Anastasii Sinaitae. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas/Ed. K.-H. Uthemann. Turnhout – Leuven, 1985 (CCSG 12). Abstract Saint Anastasius of Sinai. Chapters against monothelites: 1–2 chapters/Translation from Ancient Greek, introductory article and notes by hegumen Adrian (Pashin) For the first time ever the work of St. Anastasius of Sinaís “Chapters against the Monothelites” (two chapters out of six) are translated into Russian. In the first chapter, St. Anastasius reveals his doctrine of the three states of the human will: natural, unnatural and supernatural. In the second one, he analyzes and refutes some of the provisions of the monophelite doctrine. The next four chapters of the “Chapters against Monothelites” and the “Florilegia against Monothelites” that adjoin them will be published in the following issues of the Theological herald. 46 Скорее всего, под этим «внешним» прп. Анастасий подразумевает несторианина Марона Эдесского. В «Путеводителе» (Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux 13, 10, 105–106) Синаит приводит его слова: «Разве есть место, неразумные, где не присутствует неограниченное Божество? Ведь, наполняя небо и землю и везде присутствуя, непременно Оно было и во гробе Иисуса, как и во всем творении». 53 Ср.: Иисус сказал им в ответ: разрушьте храм сей, и Я в три дня воздвигну его. На это сказали Иудеи: сей храм строился сорок шесть лет, и Ты в три дня воздвигнешь его? А Он говорил о храме тела Своего ( Ин.2:19–21 ). 58 Так мы перевели на русский язык смысл употребленной прп. Анастасием игры слов: πορον (=πορα) – апория, трудность, недоумение, ψυχρν – холодный, призрачный, πειρον – неученое, беспредельное. 64 Аналогичная с началом второй части этой главы игра слов: πορα – апория, трудность, недоумение, πειρα – неопытность, незнание Читать далее Источник: Преподобный Анастасий Синаит. Главы против монофелитов: 1-2 главы (Пер. с древнегреч. Вступ. сл. и прим. игумена Адриан (Пашин))//Богословский вестник. 2017. Вып. 1-2. 24-25. С. 573-591. |
|
|
