| The French Countermovement The Manif pour Tous was born and evolved within an accelerated time frame. This movement first formed against same-sex marriage. It stunned the world with its massive mobilizations on November 17, January 13, March 24, and May 26. Then, it faced a number of serious setbacks. The group lost its primary struggle when the “Taubira Law,” named after Attorney General Christiane Taubira, passed, legalizing same-sex marriage and adoption. The March 24 rally, the largest, was fraught with controversy. Some factions of the Manif clashed with police, got tear-gassed, and received the scorn of other factions. The media demonized the whole movement. Soon three female leaders, each charismatic, splintered off and transformed the Manif from one unified front into three competing insurgencies: the French Spring, led by Beatrice Bourges; the Future for All, led by Frigide Barjot; and the Manif, led by Ludovine de la Rochère. Barjot blamed the French Spring for provoking the tear gas attack on March 24. Then, after ousting Bourges’ people, Barjot was also ousted from the Manif because she was pushing civil unions for same-sex couples, something that most in the Manif found (quite understandably) pointless. Same-sex marriage was the law in France, so there had to be a shift of focus. Despite friction among Bourges, Barjot, and de la Rochère, there have been concerted efforts not to become divided, and also not to become consumed by any of the mainstream French political parties or by the Catholic Church. Rather than rue the lost battle over same-sex marriage, the Manif has shifted to very specific aims going forward: blocking the legalization of sperm banking for lesbians, blocking gestational surrogacy, and pushing back against Education Minister Vincent Peillon’s attempt to impose “gender theory” as a countrywide curriculum. With the change in focus came a change in approach. The Manif has proved that it can bring millions of French people to the streets. But Ludovine de la Rochère and her allies also determined that it was necessary to formulate a clear intellectual firewall against further imposition of the ligbitist agenda on France. |
| Nestorians, in argument with Eutychians (Monophysites), referred to these works, and Eutychians found in them an excuse to reject the Fourth Ecumenical Council and to slander the universal Orthodox Church, charging that it was deviating toward Nestorianism. The Council was attended by 165 bishops, who condemned all three works and Theodore of Mopsuestia himself, as not having repented. Concerning the other two, censure was limited only to their Nestorian works. They themselves were pardoned. They renounced their false opinions and died in peace with the Church. The Council reiterated its censure of the heresies of Nestorius and Eutychius. The Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Sixth Ecumenical Council was convened in the year 680 A.D., in the city of Constantinople, under the Emperor Constantine IV, and was composed of 170 bishops. The council was convoked against the false doctrine of heretics, Monothelites, who, although they recognized in Jesus Christ two natures, God and man, ascribed to Him only a Divine will. After the Fifth Ecumenical Council, agitation provoked by the Monothelites continued and threatened the Greek Emperor with great danger. Emperor Heraclius, wishing reconciliation, decided to incline Orthodoxy to concession to the Monothelites, and by the power of his office, ordered recognition that in Jesus Christ is one will and two energies. Among the defenders and advocates of the true teachings of the Church, were St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and a monk from Constantinople, St. Maximus the Confessor, who for his firmness in the faith had suffered having his tongue cut out and his hand chopped off. The Sixth Ecumenical Council condemned and repudiated the heresy of Monothelitism, and formulated the recognition that in Jesus Christ are two natures, Divine and human, and in these two natures there are two wills, but that the human will in Christ is not against, but rather is submissive to His Divine will. It is worthy of attention that at this Council excommunication was pronounced against a number of other heretics, and also against the Roman Pope Honorius, as one who acknowledged the teaching of one will. The formulation of the Council was signed by a Roman delegation, consisting of Presbyters Theodore and Gregory, and Deacon John. This clearly shows that the highest power in Christendom belongs to the Ecumenical Council, and not to the Pope of Rome. |
| Hegesippus who lived at a period not far from the Apostolic age, writing a History of all ecclesiastical events from the passion of our Lord, down to his own period, and gathering many things useful to the reader, composed five volumes in simple style, trying to represent the style of speaking of those whose lives he treated. He says that he went to Rome in the time of Anicetus, the tenth bishop after Peter, and continued there till the time of Eleutherius, bishop of the same city, who had been formerly deacon under Anicetus. Moreover, arguing against idols, he wrote a history, showing from what errorthey had first arisen, and this work indicates in what age he flourished. He says, They built monuments and temples to their dead as we see up to the present day, such as the one to Antinous, servant to the Emperor Hadrian, in whose honouralso games were celebrated, and a city founded bearing his name, and a temple with priests established. The Emperor Hadrian is said to have been enamoured of Antinous. 23. Justin Martyr Justin, a philosopher, and wearing the garb of philosopher, a citizen of Neapolis, a city of Palestine, and the son of Priscus Bacchius, laboured strenuously in behalf of the religion of Christ, insomuch that he delivered to Antoninus Pius and his sons and the senate, a work written Against the nations, and did not shun the ignominy of the cross. He addressed another book also to the successors of this Antoninus, Marcus Antoninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus. Another volume of his Against the nations, is also extant, where he discusses the nature of demons, and a fourth against the nations which he entitled, Refutation and yet another On the sovereignty of God, and another book which he entitled, Psaltes, and another On the Soul, the Dialogue against the Jews, which he held against Trypho, the leader of the Jews, and also notable volumes Against Marcion, which Irenæus also mentions in the fourth book Against heresies, also another book Against all heresieswhich he mentions in the Apology which is addressed to Antoninus Pius. He, when he had held διατριβς in the city of Rome, and had convicted Crescens the cynic, who said many blasphemous things against the Christians, of gluttony and fear of death, and had proved him devoted to luxury and lusts, at last, accused of being a Christian, through the efforts and wiles of Crescens, he shed his blood for Christ. 24. Melito |
| 393–ca. 466)did not deny the possibility of a spiritual meaning in Biblical texts; yet they reacted strongly against the elimination of the literal, historical meaning and against an arbitrary allegorism based on Platonic philosophical presuppositions foreign to the Bible. Thus, the notion of theoria («contemplation»), which implies the possibility of discovering a spiritual meaning behind the letter of the text, was not rejected, but the emphasis was placed upon what actually happened or was said historically, as well as upon the moral or theological implications of the text. The theological authority of the School of Antioch was shattered by the condemnation of Nestorius, a pupil of Theodore of Mopsuestia, at Ephesus in 431, and by the anathemas against the Three Chapters (Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa) pronounced by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553. After 553, the scriptural commentaries of Theodore, one of the greatest exegetes of early Christianity, could be preserved only clandestinely in Syriac or Armenian translations, while the Greek original survived only in fragments scattered in the catenae. But the tradition of Antiochian exegesis survived in the exegetical works of Theodoret, which were never prohibited, and even more so in the writings of Theodoré " s friend John Chrysostom, by far the most popular of all Greek ecclesiastical writers. His definition of typology, as opposed to allegory, as «a prophecy expressed in terms of facts» 15 and his concern for history served as safeguards against the spiritualizing excesses of the Alexandrian tradition in late-Byzantine exegetical literature, while still leaving room for theoria, i.e., fundamentally a Christ-oriented typological interpretation of the Old Testament. 2. Philosophical Trends Some modern historians continue to pass very divergent judgments on the philosophy of the Greek Fathers. In his well-known Histoire de la philosophie, Emile Brehier writes: «In the first five centuries of Christianity, there was nothing which could properly be called Christian philosophy and which would imply a scale of intellectual values either original or different from that of the pagan thinkers.» 16 According to Brehier, Christianity and Hellenic philosophy are not opposed to each other as two intellectual systems, for Christianity is based on revealed facts, not on philosophical ideas. |
| Eventually, by the end of the fourth century, Apollinarius had ensured the transformation of the mia-physis term from a mere expression into a complete solid formula. That formula was the one used later by Monophysites who stick with it till today excluding any other formula and teaching. Apollinarian writings developed until it reached this controversial sentence: “Thus, the Lord existed not in two substances but in one … Orthodoxy could be summed up in the formula One Incarnate Nature of the Logos – BODY –> Mi&a fu&sij tou Qeou lo&gou sesarkwme&nh “ This extravagantly fashioned formula had been received negatively by the whole Catholic Church since it undermines the unity and solidarity of the Son with our humanity. “What has not been assumed cannot be restored, what is saved is what has been united with God” says St. Gregory of Nazianzus. The shocked and disappointed Athanasius of Alexandria who thought for once that Apollinarius was his ally against Arianism wrote several treatises against his belief, while the Cappadocian Fathers and Rome started writing against what was called then an “awkward” formula and teaching. This composite One-nature preserved an illegitimate and deformed Christology. St. Gregory of Nyssa said: “If, then, the nature of each of these is to be observed in their opposite properties – I am referring to the properties of flesh and of divinity- how can the two natures be one?” St. Gregory of Nazianzus said: “The combination is one; however, it is not one by nature, but by union.” The problem escalated when the Fathers did not only criticize the usage of this formula, but also condemned it. Eventually, Apollinarianism was condemned in the first canon of the third Ecumenical Council in Constantinople. So as not to leave any room for using this formula even apart from Apollinarianism, St. John Chrysostom who was the Archbishop of Constantinople, the highest throne in the East, along with saint Ambrose of Milan in the West, wrote a warning against using this “awkward” formula and condemning anyone who uses it. The question is how this formula, with the minimized concept of humanity it holds, found its way into the writings that Monophysites rely on to proved their patristic authenticity? Let’s crack this riddle. |
| But Tuma Celik, owner and chief editor of the Syriac-language Sabro newspaper, objected to Erdogan's implication that any of the 1,700-year-old monastery's land had ever belonged to the Turkish government. " The attitude of 'returning' Mor Gabriel, as if it was ever the property of the state, is wrong. Actually, this land belonged to the [Syriac] foundation, " Celik told Today's Zaman. In a controversial Supreme Court of Appeals verdict last November, the government had wrested away legal control of 680 disputed acres of land around the monastery. After Ankara suffered heavy international criticism over the final ruling, Celik said, the decision to reverse it was drafted " with the concern of decreasing international pressure " . In terms of actual implementation, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc specified that a formal decision regarding Mor Gabriel would be issued by the Foundations Council " at the latest by the end of next week " . In one other positive step, Erdogan announced the toughening of criminal penalties for discrimination based particularly on religion or ethnicity. Up to three-year prison terms would be handed down, he said, against " those who prevent people from using their faith-related rights and performing their religious duties, and those who intervene in people's lifestyles originating from their belief by threat or use of force " . But according to some civil society experts, such regulations could also be used to stifle freedoms, particularly in terms of hate speech targeting religious beliefs. " The most fundamental mistake that can be made is making these regulations specifically against Islamophobia, " Galatasaray University academic Yasemin Inceoglu told Shalom newspaper. " Turkey has seen not Islamophobic crimes, but crimes against non-Muslims. " During 2013, three Turkish citizens were found guilty and awarded prison sentences for alleged blasphemy against Islam, including world-renowned pianist Fazil Say, Turkish-Armenian author and linguist Sevan Nisanyan and lawyer Canan Arin, founder of the Mor Cati women's organisation. Two cases remain on appeal, while a third sentence was suspended, provided the defendant is not sued for the same charges within the next three years. |
| Allies and champions of theirs were Severos, “the corrupter from Antioch,” and John Philoponos the Tritheite, who by their teaching “deny the mystery of our common salvation.” They wrote many things against “the God-inspired teaching of the 630 Fathers,” seducing and destroying many people in “their pernicious heresy.” The brief reference to their impious teaching and the small interpolated notes were for the purpose of refuting “their godless and abominable heresy.” When these points are transferred to the contemporary theological reality they indicate the following. St. John does not doubt the correctness of the condemnation of Dioscoros—whom many Orthodox now exonerate—on the ground that he defended the heresy of Eutyches in a synod. The words “Dioscoros was not deposed for reasons of faith,” which Patriarch Anatolios uttered and which became a slogan at the dialogue, as did “being Orthodox in every other way,” do not signify that his Orthodoxy was recognized, but simply that, after being summoned to come to the Synod, he did not come, and was deposed for this canonical infraction of his and not “for reasons of faith,” as is most clearly evident in the commentary by Leontios that is quoted here in the footnote. If, however, he were to come, he would be deposed for reasons of faith, because he was a heretic. The reservations and accusations of the Non-Chalcedonians against Chalcedon are rejected by St. John without question as groundless. In the contemporary dialogue the Orthodox are attempting to interpret and justify the Synod of Chalcedon by adopting in many respects the criticisms of the Non-Chalcedonians, and especially their fury against St. Leo the Pope of Rome, who supposedly enticed the Synod to his own Nestorianizing positions and split the Easterners, and is entirely responsible for the schism and division of the Eastern world, which the dialogue is now trying to correct and heal. A consequence of this virulence against St. Leo is the effort being made even at the level of theological research to show the “Cyrilline character” of the Chalcedonian definition and to alienate St. |
| There are young believers who came to the Church themselves as adults, whose parents were unbelievers, or not Orthodox. We have youth from Orthodox families, usually the children of old emigres. In the former, who came to the faith themselves, we notice a genuine striving for piety, for following the rules, observing the “letter of the law” in all things. With all the positive aspects of such an attitude, it sometimes enables errors from inexperience: in the haste to pass judgment picked up from some quick reading, from zeal “without wisdom.” Such youth must be warned not to hurry, to carefully examine the tradition, the experience that the Church accumulated before they joined her. Do not rush in, learn first. Children of Orthodox parents must be cautioned against a casual lukewarm attitude, against accustomedness to the holy things, against self-confidence in their Orthodoxy. Carelessness often accompanies piety which is bound to children by their families (that is, superficially), and adopted automatically, but not internally, by the heart. In contrast with today’s generation, my generation survived the war and resettlement throughout the world, and sensed the hand of God, Divine mercy, one might say, at every step. Undoubtedly, today’s young people have more difficulty strengthening their faith and keeping eternity in mind. Still, the Lord does not abandon us, but calls us towards the spiritual life, to communion with Him, to working over ourselves in the present circumstances. 8. What are the pieces of advice that you have gained from in life, and those that you can give seminarians and young people today? Condemnation of ones neighbor is our common illness. How do we struggle against it? St Ephraim of Syria gives good advice in his works. This holy father says that the Lord plants His Kingdom into the heart of each person He creates. And so our main task is to descend into the depths of our hearts and find this treasure. If we immerse ourselves in self-examination with all earnestness, we will see a great many inner wounds, that is, sins and passions. |
| When Voulgaris was called by patriarchal sigil, in 1753, to improve the Athonite Academy, to ‘change and reform it’, certainly the Church’s expectation was that by modernizing the education of its leading personnel, it would be able to respond more effectively to the challenges of the times. 342 With the backing of both the patriarch and the Vatopedi fathers, Voulgaris seemed destined for a stellar career that would test the extent and the strength of the encounter between Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment. For a while all seemed to go well, and in a letter written in 1756 to a former pupil, Kyprianos the Cypriot, whom he had taught in Ioannina, he wrote lyrically of the delights of the school’s location and went on to give a rather poetic description of the curriculum: There Demosthenes struggles, encouraging the Athenians against the Macedonians; there Homer in his rhapsodies sings the heroic deeds around Ilion; there Thucydides narrates in sublime style the civil strife of the Greeks; there the father of history in Ionic style narrates earlier history and victories against the barbarians; here Plato expounds theology and Aristotle in multiple ways unravels the mysteries of nature; and the French, the Germans, and the English teach their novel philosophical systems. 343 There is no reference to religious instruction (apart from Plato); and ‘the French, the Germans, and the English’ who did form part of the curriculum were presumably Descartes, Leibniz and Wolff, and John Locke. As in Ioannina, it was these ‘novel philosophical systems’ that were to be the director’s undoing. Despite his impeccable Orthodox credentials, his serious interests in hesychasm and apophatic theology, and his receipt of a cure from a miracle-working icon of the Mother of God at Dionysiou, Voulgaris soon encountered opposition. It came first from the monks who found his teaching to be at odds with their own conservative traditions. Then his own students (who had greatly increased in numbers since his arrival at the school) divided into factions and a group turned against him. Finally in 1757 Patriarch Cyril himself was deprived of his throne and retired to Athos where he proceeded to meddle in the business of the school. Having been Voulgaris’s staunchest supporter, Cyril became his most hostile opponent and set the whole Mountain against him. Under attack on all fronts, from colleagues, students, and his former patron, Voulgaris felt obliged to resign. In a letter to Cyril dated 29 January 1759 Voulgaris cites the behaviour of the former patriarch as the principal reason for his resignation and in February he left Athos for good. |
| At Thessalonica the orthodox Jews who were trying to silence Paul and Silas, unable to find and seize them, took his host Jason and ‘certain brethren’ before the magistrates, who took security from them: λαβντες τ κανν. 334 The term is the equivalent of the Latin satis accipere, correlate of satis dare, in connexion with the offering and giving of security, in civil and criminal procedures. 335 The term turns up as an accepted Roman usage in Greek civic practice, at Pergamum in an imperial rescript, probably of Hadrianic date, organizing civic finances. 336 What is happening to Jason is clear enough: he is giving security for the good behaviour of his guests, and hence hastens to dispatch Paul and Silas out of the way to Beroea, where the jurisdiction of the magistrates of Thessalonica was not valid. Acts is particular and well informed about Thessalonica. The author knows the correct and fairly unusual title of the city magistrates: they were πολιτρχαι, as inscriptions reveal. This title was replaced in a later age by the more common First Ruler. 337 The city also possessed the technical privilege of libertas, ‘municipal freedom’, which conferred great independence on its internal administration. 338 Though Acts makes no reference to this, the energetic action of the Jews against Paul and Silas might have been inspired by the knowledge that the hands of the city authorities, unlike those of Ephesus, were not directly under Roman control. Two actions were attempted. The first was against the apostles before the ‘people’, which should mean the city assembly, and then, when Paul and Silas could not be found, action was taken against their host Jason before the city magistrates. 339 The court of a civitas libera or free city was the one seat of jurisdiction where severe punishment could be inflicted, at least on non-Romans, peregrini, without invoking the governor. 340 The accusation brought against the apostles at Thessalonica is somewhat obscure, and possibly garbled. 341 But it includes the charge of acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar. Whatever this means, it was not strictly relevant in the court of a free city which lay outside the Roman jurisdiction; hence the city magistrates were not compelled to take serious action. |
|
|
