| II, 22-23). Here, the notion source purports to be equivalent with the notion cause, since the primordial principle is the beginning for all others. Yet, this is meant with relation to the Son and the Holy Spirit in terms of their eternal being, of a derivation without beginning within the divine essence, whereas with relation to creatures this derivation occurred in time and apart from the divine essence. Therefore, the divine hypostases are said to be uncreated, while everything other than them is created. The adherents of the filioque, however, made the effort in the XIV Century to reduce the concept of source/cause ( ατα) to the property of the Father as the sole generator of the Son. In other words, the Father may be termed causer but as One who causes the Son and not the absolute One. These properties—the one ascribed to the Father as the One who causes, and the other to the Son as being caused—have allegedly to do only with their mutual relationship, and do not denote the relationship of the Father to the Holy Spirit either. Consequently, there is room for suppressing the idea that the Father should also be the only cause of the Holy Spirit. Putting it differently, the Father is not identified with the property of being an absolute causer within the Trinity, but only as a non-generated being, who, too, generates the Son (Alexopoulos 62-63). These ideas were repudiated by Neilos Kabasilas, who claimed that the concept of cause/source ( ατα) should be understood in an absolute way and not as referring solely to the idea of generating ( γεννν) (Alexopoulos 63). The debates over the intermediation model of the Son began with the idea advocated by the philo-filioque current, according to which it was necessary to conceptualize the way the Son and the Holy Spirit came into existence in such a manner as to avoid the mixture of the divine hypostases. This mixture would have occured, if the distinction of the Son from the Holy Spirit had not been clarified by making a difference between their causal agent. |
| 5, 20 и 26, а также 23, где она выписана отдельно от литургийных формуляров (см. прим. 231 настоящей статьи). 248 В 21 эта молитва, кроме того, представлена как отличительная особенность формуляра ЛВВ, где она и выписана, тогда как другие (утраченные ныне) молитвы были выписаны в формуляре ЛИЗ. 249 5, 6 [но не в основном тексте литургийного формуляра, а на вклейке в него], 10, 16, 18, 22, 33, 34. 252 ГИМ. Син. 604 1). Л. 26; РНБ. Q. п. I. 67 6; основной текст рукописи). Л. 30 об. – 31 об.; РГБ. ф. 256 (Рум.) 398 23). Л. 178 об. – 180 (впрочем, о независимости молитвы от литургийных формуляров в этой рукописи см. в прим. 231 настоящей статьи); РГАДА. ф. 381 (Син. тип.) 41 31). Л. 75 – 77 об. 254 6 [только в основном тексте рукописи, но не на вклейке], 9, 12, 14, 28, 30. Возможно, молитва присутствовала и в 22 и 34 – соответствующие листы рукописей утрачены. 255 В 30 молитва выписана прямо перед Причащением Телом Христовым, что следует понимать как указание на чтение ее непосредственно в момент Причащения. 256 9, 12, 28. Возможно, молитва присутствовала и в 22 и 34 – соответствующие листы рукописей утрачены. 257 Скорее, даже не молитва, а видоизмененная рубрика – но рукопись обозначает ее как молитву, и она имеет формульные начало и конец. 261 Муретов, 1895. С. 62; молитва здесь опубликована согласно тексту, помещенному в начале литургийного формуляра. Прот. М. Орлов опубликовал молитву по той же рукописи, но согласно тексту, помещенному среди молитв во время Причащения: Орлов, 1909. С. 403. 266 См.: Taft, 2001a. P. 285–286 1 и 2), 302–303. Свое предположение Р. Тафт основывает на том, что в пергаменном свитке Patmos 719 (в литературе встречаются датировки XIII или XVI в.) одна из молитв во время Причащения священника имеет именно такой – краткий – вид: Πιστεω, Κριε, κα μολογ, τι σ ε ληθς Χριστς, Υς το Θεο ζντος· πντοτε, νν κα ε κα ες τος ανας τν ανων (Дмитриевский, 1895–1917. Т. 2. С. 174). 270 См.: Alexopoulos, van den Hoek, 2007. Мы благодарим о. Стефана Алексопулоса, любезно предоставившего нам предпечатную версию статьи. |
| ”Today we are… deeply concerned with the fate of 60,000 of our fellow citizens who are Jews… we have lived together in both slavery and freedom, and we have come to appreciate their feelings, their brotherly attitude, their economic activity, and most important, their indefectible patriotism…” Joachim, Metropolitan of Volos “I am a Jew” On September 30, 1943, the Jewish New Year, the chief rabbi of the central Greek city of Volos was ordered to report to the German military leader, Kurt Rikert, and submit a list of the names of the city’s Jewish community within 24 hours. At the time, there were 872 Jewish residents. The rabbi turned to his friend, Metropolitan Joachim (Alexopoulos) who presided over the Greek Orthodox flock of the region and didn’t even blink an eye when asked to help. He ordered every priest in his diocese to help any Jew who asked for it and signed his own name to a letter of introduction that the rabbi used to seek hiding. The letter read in part “I heartily recommend the teacher, bearer of this letter, and I ask every brother who is going to meet him, to listen to him carefully and in good will, and to give him any kind of assistance for anything he may be in need of for his life as well as for his flock, so they do not become victims of this difficult situation.” Joachim mobilized the underground of the region and within 24 hours, 702 Greek Jews fled and were taken into the protective hands of strangers in the villages of the mountains surrounding the city. When he was asked for information about Jews from the Germans he firmly refused their requests for lists of Jewish residents, answering them, “I am a Jew”. The 130 Jews who decided to remain behind were arrested by the SS and sent to Auschwitz. The Nazis blew up the synagogue and looted and pillaged the shops and homes in the Jewish neighborhood. In November 1944 after the liberation of Greece and the Jews came out of hiding, Joachim issues a statement urging all local inhabitants to return to the Jewish residents any valuables they may have either taken during the looting or left in their hands for safe-keeping. |
| Каз., 1884; Τρεμπλας Π. Ν. Μικρν Εχολγιον. Αθναι, 1950, 1998r. Τ. 1. Σ. 259-401; Brock S. P. Studies in the Early History of the Syrian Orthodox Baptismal Liturgy//JThSt. N. S. 1972. Vol. 23. P. 16-64; Stevenson K. W. The Byzantine Liturgy of the Baptism//Studia Liturgica. 1987. Vol. 17. P. 176-190; Parenti S. Christian Initiation in the East//Handbook for Liturgical Studies/Ed. A. J. Chupungco. Collegeville (Minn.), 2000. Vol. 4: Sacraments and Sacramentals. P. 29-48; Арранц М. Избранные сочинения по литургике. Рим; М., 2003. Т. 1: Таинства византийского Евхология. С. 206-415; Gieschen C. A. The Divine Name in Ante-Nicene Christology//VChr. 2003. Vol. 57. P. 115-158; Τ γιον Βπτισμα Πρακτικ Α Πανελληνου Λειτουργικο Συμποσου (Αθνα, Ιερ Μον Πεντλης 8-10 Οκτωβρου 1999). Αθναι, 2003; Day J. The Baptismal Liturgy of Jerusalem: Fourth- and Fifth-Century Evidence from Palestine, Syria, and Egypt. Burlington, 2007; Alexopoulos S. Gestalt und Deutung der christlichen Initiation im mittelalterlichen Byzanz//Die Taufe: Einführung in Geschichte und Praxis. 2008. S. 49-66; Stuhlman B. The Initiatory Process in the Byzantine Tradition. Piscataway (N. J.), 2009; Желтов М., свящ. Сирийский (или палестинский?) чин Крещения в греческой рукописи Sinait. NE МГ 93//ВЦИ. 2014. 1/2(33/34). С. 116-126; К. в каноническом праве Православной Церкви: Никодим (Милаш), еп. Православное церковное право. СПб., 1897. С. 560-563; Алфавитный указатель действующих и руководственных канонических постановлений, указов, определений и распоряжений Святейшего Правительствующего Синода (1721-1901 г. включительно) и гражданских законов, относящихся к Духовному ведомству православного исповедания/Сост.: С. В. Калашников. СПб., 1902. С. 197-200; Павлов А. С. Курс церковного права. Серг. П., 1902. С. 190-192; Горчаков М. И., прот. Церковное право. СПб., 1909. С. 82-84; Красножен М. Е. Основы церковного права. Юрьев, 1913. С. 48-49; Цыпин В., прот. Каноническое право. М., 20122. С. 264-271; чин К. |
|
|
