| 10 Один раз Максим Исповедник упоминает о «тщетных усилиях Эпикура и Аристотеля» (…ριστοτλους ματαιοπονας). направленных на отрицание бессмертия души (см.: Maxim. Confess. Ep. 7. PG 91. 437B). Второй раз имя Аристотеля упоминается им в связи с рассказом о происхождении некоего животного, называемого «обжорой» (ζου μαργο λεγομνου), которое рождается от гниения из влажной земли и беспрестанно пожирает землю, пока не выберется на поверхность (см.: Maxim. Confess. Quaest. et Dub. 126. 3–9; ср.: Aristot. Fr. 7, 39, 361 Rose). 11 См.: Aristot. Phys. VII 1,241b 34 – 243a 30; VIII 5, 256a 4 – VIII 10, 267b 27; Met. XII 6, 1071b 2 – XII 10, 1076a 6. 12 Maxim. Confess. Amb. Io. 10. 88. 15–16 (ссылки на «Трудности к Иоанну» мы приводим по тексту последнего критического издания: Maximus the Confessor. On Dificulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua. Vol. 1–2. Camb.; L., 2014; все русские цитаты из Ambigua мы приводим в нашем авторском переводе). Данное определение перводвигателя дословно заимствовано у Аристотеля; см.: Aristot. Phys. VIII 5, 258b 4–5: то лрготгод дкгпто; Met. XII 8, 1073a 27: то лргото дкгпто ка» айто. То же аристотелевское определение перводвигателя, отнесенное к Богу, мы встречаем ранее у христианских авторов – Немезия Эмесского (см.: De nat. hom. 18. P. 79, 16) и Иоанна Филопона (In Aristotelis physicorum libros commentaria. P. 885. 28; 887. 6; In Aristotelis libros de anima commentaria. P. 20. 36–37; 96. 24–25), а впоследствии – у Иоанна Дамаскина , хорошо знавшего труды как Аристотеля, так и Максима Исповедника (см.: Exp. idei. I 4. 14–21). Морескини в понятии о Боге как неподвижном перводвигателе видит «первый признак внимания, оказанного Максимом учению Аристотеля» (Морескини К. Указ. соч. С. 830; ср.: Moreschini C. Op. cit. P. 107–108). 15 κβανει γρ τν ντων τν φσιν, επερ ληθς περ ατο ρισμς, κν λλτριος λγων «τλος στν ο νεκεν τ πντα, ατ δ οδενς νεκεν» (Amb. Io. 7. 7. 7–10). Ср.: Aristot. Met. II 2, 994b: τι δ τ ο νεκα τλος, τοιοτον δ μ λλου νεκα λλ τλλα κενου. Ср. также: Ibid. V 16, 1021b; XII 7, 1072b. |
| Patriarch Kiril died on March 7 1971, at a time when the public influence of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church already had been traduced to its lowest. Since 1965, militia cordons had been surrounding churches on Easter and, in the early 1970s, a new campaign was gaining momentum to impose civil rites, meant to build a system that would have had no ties to the religious holidays. Churches and monasteries were turned – visibly or symbolically – into monuments of culture. Despite that, some state institutions insisted that the Church was too successful in rebuilding its authority and improving its finances – data was cited concerning the rising sales of candles and the increased number of religious services. Statistics show that 80 per cent of all burials were carried out using church rites, including for deceased members of the communist party. The thesis of an increasingly active church was put forward by the Interior Ministry, specifically by State Security, which demanded stronger administrative repression of the rank-and-file priesthood. It was opposed by the Committee on church issues, whose long-serving chairman Mihail Kyuchoukov argued that repression risked alienating a certain part of the country’s population. The decision to appoint Maxim as Patriarch was taken by the Politburo a day after Kiril’s death – “to propose and support as head of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church the Metropolitan of Lovech Maxim”. The proposal came from Kyuchoukov and, at first glance, it was a mere formality. But it caused a debate that would leave its mark on Maxim’s entire tenure. Three respected members of the Synod signed a special opinion asking that the election of the patriarch be postponed until elections were held for the entire church pyramid – the parish electors who voted for the members of the patriarch election council in 1971 were illegitimate, which made all metropolitans elected after 1955 similarly so, when the terms of the last elected parish electors expired. The request was not realistic – this could have led to the renewal of church life, something that the Bulgarian Communist Party did not wish. The same year, in 1971, the new Zhivkov constitution was up for plebiscite, to be followed by nationwide elections – holding legitimate church elections was seen as a provocation. On July 4 1971, the patriarch electoral council enthroned the Metropolitan of Lovech Maxim as Patriarch. |
| On the later development in Byzantium see P. Viscuso, „Purity and Sexual Defilement in Late Byzantine Theology,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 57 (1991) 399-408. Cf. H. Hunger, “Christliches und Nichtchristliches20im byzantinischen Eherecht,“ Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 3 (1967) 305-325. 10 C. L. Feltoe (ed.), The Letters and Other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria (Cambridge 1904), 102-103. For date and authenticity see P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique (IVe- IXes.) 1-2 (Grottaferratta-Rom 1962), 2, 12. Translation adapted from The Rudder 718. R. F . Taft, The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites (Rome202008), 205-207 (in press). See the commentary of Theodore Balsamon (ca. 1130/40-post 1195) on this canon: In epist. S. Dionysii Alexandrini ad Basilidem episcopum, can. 2, PG 138: 465C-468A. English translation in The Rudder 719. Zonaras is repeated verbatim by Patriarch Pavle, “Moet li enš?ina” 25.11 See the questions-answers of Fr. Maxim Kozlov on the website of the St. Tatiana Church in Moscow: www.st-tatiana.ru/index.html?did=389. W. Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien (Leipzig 1900), 209. See English translation in P. Bradshaw (ed.), The Canons of Hippolytus, English trans. by C. Bebawi (Bramcote 1987),20. P. Browe, Beiträge zur Sexualethik des Mittelalters, Breslauer Studien zur historischen Theologie XXIII (Breslau 1932). On the development of the concept of „ritual im/purity“ in the West in connection with priestal celibacy see H. Brodersen, Der Spender der Kommunion im Altertum und Mittelalter. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Frömmigkeitshaltung, UMI Dissertation Services, (Ann Arbor 1994), 23-25, 132.12 On the debate in the West as to whether menstruating women could take part in liturgical life see: J. Flandrin, Un Temps pour embrasser: Aux origines de la morale sexuelle occidentale (VIe-XIe s.) (Paris 1983), 11, 73-82. E. Levin, Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs 900-1700 (Ithaca-London 1989), 46. |
| An earlier study of the Orthodox Church of America also offered a fresh Orthodox perspective on “ritual impurity”: “…ideas that women with their menstrual periods should not receive holy communion or kiss the cross and icons, or bake the bread for the Eucharist, or even enter the nave of the church, not to speak of the altar area, are ideas and practices that are morally and dogmatically indefensible according to strict Orthodox Christianity […] Saint John Chrysostom condemns those who propagate such an attitude as unworthy of the Christian faith. He calls them superstitious and the supporters of myths. “ 15 Conclusion I shall conclude briefly, since the texts have spoken for themselves. A close look at the origins and character of the concept “ritual impurity” reveals a rather disconcerting, fundamentally non-Christian phenomenon in the guise of Orthodox piety. Regardless of whether the concept entered church practice under direct Judaic and/or pagan influences, it finds no justification in Christian anthropology and soteriology. Orthodox Christians, male and female, have been cleansed in the waters of baptism, buried and resurrected with Christ, Who became our flesh and our humanity, trampled Death by death, and liberated us from its fear. Yet we have retained a practice that reflects pagan and Old-Testament fears of the material world. This is why a belief in “ritual impurity” is not primarily a social issue, nor is it primarily about the depreciation of women. It is rather about the depreciation of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ and its salvific consequences. This paper appeared as an article in St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 52:3-4 (2008) 275-92. See the questions-answers of Fr. Maxim Kozlov on the website of the St. Tatiana Church in Moscow: www.st-tatiana.ru/index.html?did=389 (15 January 2005). Cf. A. Klutschewsky, “Frauenrollen und Frauenrechte in der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche,” Kanon 17 (2005) 140-209. First published in Russian and German in the quarterly of the ROCOR Diocese of Berlin in Germany: li vsegda xram?” Vestnik Germanskj Eparxii 2 (2002) 24-26 and later online: http://www.rocor.de/Vestnik/20022/. |
| On the date see: T. Tenšek, L’ascetismo nel Conci lio di Gangra: Eustazio di Sebaste nell’ambiente ascetico siriaco dell’Asia Minore nel IV° secolo, Excerpta ex dissertatione ad Doctoratum in Facultae Theologiae Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, (Rome 1991), 23-24. J. Gribomont, “Le monachisme au IVe s. en Asie Mineure : de Gangres au messalianisme,” Studia Patristica 2 (Berlin 1957), 400-415. P. Joannou, Fonti. Discipline générale antique (IVe- IXes.), fasc. IX, (Grottaferrata-Rome 1962), t. I, 2, 89. English trans. from The Rudder (Pedalion), trans. by D. Cummings (Chicago 1957), 523. See Tenšek, L’ascetismo 17-28.9 Joannou, Discipline 91; The Rudder 524. Tenšek, L’ascetismo 28. Joannou, Discipline 94; The Rudder 527. On the later development in Byzantium see P. Viscuso, „Purity and Sexual Defilement in Late Byzantine Theology,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 57 (1991) 399-408. Cf. H. Hunger, “Christliches und Nichtchristliches20im byzantinischen Eherecht,“ Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 3 (1967) 305-325. 10 C. L. Feltoe (ed.), The Letters and Other Remains of Dionysius of Alexandria (Cambridge 1904), 102-103. For date and authenticity see P. Joannou, Discipline générale antique (IVe- IXes.) 1-2 (Grottaferratta-Rom 1962), 2, 12. Translation adapted from The Rudder 718. Patriarch Pavle, “Moet li enš?ina” 24. R. F . Taft, The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites (Rome202008), 205-207 (in press). See the commentary of Theodore Balsamon (ca. 1130/40-post 1195) on this canon: In epist. S. Dionysii Alexandrini ad Basilidem episcopum, can. 2, PG 138: 465C-468A. Can. 8, Rallis-Potlis II, 133. English translation in The Rudder 719. Zonaras is repeated verbatim by Patriarch Pavle, “Moet li enš?ina” 25.11 Klutschewsky, “Frauenrollen” 174. See the questions-answers of Fr. Maxim Kozlov on the website of the St. Tatiana Church in Moscow: www.st-tatiana.ru/index.html?did=389. CPG 244; Joannou, Discipline II, 243-244, 264. W. Riedel, Die Kirchenrechtsquellen des Patriarchats Alexandrien (Leipzig 1900), 209. See English translation in P. Bradshaw (ed.), The Canons of Hippolytus, English trans. by C. Bebawi (Bramcote 1987),20. |
| 5. În legtur cu cererea Preasfinitului episcop de Neftekamsk i Belebeevsk Amvrosii a o elibera pe egumena Moiseea (Rakitina) pe motive de sntate din funcia de egumen a mnstirii de maici Bogoroditse-Odighitrievski (Bugabaski) din satul Bugabaevo, raionul Bakalinsk, Republica Bakortostan i a o numi în aceast funcie pe monahia Vitalia (Sandalova). 6. În legtur cu cererea Preasfinitului episcop de Smolensk i Viazma Isidor de a deschide mnstirea de maici în cinstea Mântuitorului i a icoanei Maicii Domnului Odighitria lâng oraul Veazma i a o numi în funcie de egumen a acestei mnstiri pe monahia Angheluna (Nesterova). 7. În legtur cu cererea Preasfinitului episcop de Kostroma i Galici Ferapont de a-l elibera de îndatoriri de arhimandritul slujitor al mnstirii de clugri Predtecenski Iakovo-Jeleznoborovsk, din satul Borok, raionul Buisk, regiunea Kostroma i a-l numi pe egumenul Andrei (Kozlov) în funcia de egumen al mnstirii menionate. 8. În legtur cu cererea Preasfinitului episcop de Kalacevo i Pallasovka Ioan a-l elibera pe egumenul Lazari (Kulikov) din funcia de egumen al mnstirii de clugri în cinstea Cuvioilor Serghie i Gherman de Valaam, fctori de minuni, din oraul Voljsk. CONDICA NR. 85 S-A ASCULTAT: Informaia Preafericitului Patriarh al Moscovei i al întregii Rusii Chiril cu privire la eparhiile i parohiile din strintate. S-A HOTRÂT: Eparhia de Argentina i America de Sus 1. Preotul Victor Ivanik, absolventul Academiei teologice din Moscova, a-l îndrepta în clerul eparhiei de Argentina i America de Sus la dispoziia episcopului de Argentina i America de Sus Leonid pentru slujirea pstoreasc în Brazilia. 2. Preotul Maxim Boiarov, absolventul Academiei teologice din Moscova, s fie îndreptat în clerul eparhiei de Argentina i America de Sus la dispoziia episcopului de Argentina i America de Sus Leonid pentru slujirea pstoreasc în Brazilia. 3. Protoiereul Vasilii Ghelevan s fie eliberat din funcia de paroh al bisericii în cinstea sfintei mucenie Zinaida în oraul Rio-de-Janeiro, Brazilia, în legtur cu sfâritul terminului i a-l îndrepta la dispoziia Preafericitului Patriarh al Moscovei i al întregii Rusii Chiril. |
| Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов нет. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-15 16:21:48 Владелец: Maxim Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов нет. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-15 16:21:33 Владелец: Maxim Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов: 1. Последний ответ: Слева направо: великомученица Екатерина, мученик Андрей Стратилат, святая Анна пророчица, мученица Матрона. Но было две мученицы Матроны - кто это из них, не знаю. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-08 16:00:51 Владелец: lorik1 Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Описание владельца: по всей иконе (под и над изображениями)трудно различаемые надписи. Удалось прочесть лишь часть текста, что снизу, под пятном: " воздвиглъ еси древле, да зову ти спасаемь : щедрый, слава Христе держав твоей. " Ответов: 2. Последний ответ: Ага, спасибо. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-05 20:52:28 Владелец: Franza Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Описание владельца: [Добавлено 2016-09-05 21:57:22]: Надвратная икона, в ставне, писана на листе меди. Из монастыря. Ответов: 5. Последний ответ: Спасибо Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-05 20:52:01 Владелец: Franza Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов нет. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-05 12:22:18 Владелец: helen070707 Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов: 4. Последний ответ: Спасибо Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-05 12:20:54 Владелец: helen070707 Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Описание владельца: Икона досталась по наследству. Хотелось узнать кто изображен. Ответов нет. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-03 19:21:36 Владелец: steppenwolf Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов: 1. Последний ответ: Похоже, что написано Св.(святая) Агриппина. Добавлено на опознание: 2016-09-03 19:21:25 Владелец: steppenwolf Владелец доволен опознанием? Пока еще нет... Ответов: 1. Последний ответ: Прп. Феодосия. Есть Константинопольская,дева,прмц, отм.ст.ст.29.5, есть Муромская прп, но это реже, т.к.отм.только в Соборе владимирских святых. |
| The many compromises that generations of church authorities had reached with the communist regime in order to secure its existence (albeit a very peripheral one) had undermined its intellectual credibility and its moral standing in society. Furthermore, the situation was exacerbated when a dissenting faction from within the church led by Christopher Subev, a member of the clergy and a prominent political figure in the coalition of the United Democratic Front, demanded the resignation of the incumbent Bulgarian Patriarch Maxim and initiated a schism within the church. In 1991 a new democratic government was elected and Christopher Subev was appointed as a chairman to the Commission for Religious Affairs. Subev and his supporters sought to eliminate the holy synod and the patriarch as a punishment for their involvement with, and acquiescence to, the communist regime. In 1992 the government released an official statement declaring that the election of Patriarch Maxim in 1971 had been in breach of the statutes of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and thus he had to be removed from his post and replaced by another person. This statement was supported by four Bulgarian metropolitans: Pimen of Nevrokop, Pankrati of Stara Zagora, Kalanik of Vratsa, and Stefan of Veliko Turnovo. Pimen, Pankrati, and Kalanik proclaimed that they now constituted the legitimate holy synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, and were joined by five other bishops and by Christopher Subev. On May 25, 1992 the newly founded holy synod appointed Pimen as the new patriarch and de facto led to the creation of a schism within the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, now with two rival patriarchs and two synods vying for control of the church. The conflict and opposition between the two patriarchs and their followers led to major conflicts over the correct disposition of church funds and property, to violent actions on both sides, and to severe erosion of the authority of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church both domestically and internationally. |
| Consider c acordul pe care îl semnm astzi, pe de o parte, perfecteaz tot ce deja se face în planul colaborrii Bisericii Ruse cu Ministerul culturii, pe de alt parte, deschide noi posibiliti pentru realizarea proiectelor menionate mai sus, precum i a altor proiecte. De aceea a vrea înc odat s menionez cu recunotin participarea Dumneavoastr personal în acea mare activitate, care astzi se implementeaz în relaia dintre Biserica Ortodox Rus i lumea culturii ruse”. În cuvântul su de rspuns A.A. Avdeev a menionat atenia deosebit, pe care Ministerul culturii o acord problemelor relaiilor cu Biserica Rus: „Preafericirea Voastr, ai vorbit foarte corect despre necesitatea educrii în ceteni a dragostei fa de Patrie. Unul din instrumentele cele mai importante al unei astfel de educri este dezvoltarea culturii ruse, care face ca ara noastr s fie un stat mare. i în acest sens Ministerul culturii preconizeaz i în continuare s dezvolte relaii foarte strânse cu Biserica Ortodox Rus i s acorde un ajutor maxim la restaurarea monumentelor de unicat ale culturii Patriei, dintre care sunt multe biserici, mnstiri, exponate de muzeu, expuse atât în muzee de stat, cât i în biserici i în muzee de pe lâng biserici, care de asemenea au cptat dezvoltarea lor i exist cu succes în Biserica Ortodox Rus. A vrea s menionez acel fapt c statul aloc foarte multe mijloace pentru restaurarea monumentelor de cultur, în primul rând a bisericilor, mnstirilor, icoanelor i a altor valori. Un eveniment semnificativ în aceast privin a fost decizia lui Vladimir Vladimirovici Putin cu privire la transmiterea în folosina Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse a mnstirii Novodevicii i a exponatelor de muzeu, care sunt parte indispensabil a ei. Evenimente semnificative au fost multe. Este vorba i de restaurarea mnstirii Noul Ierusalim, este, desigur, i catedrala Maritim – gloria i mândria atât a flotei ruse, cât i a culturii i arhitecturii ruse, precum i a Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse. Actualmente ne pregtim împreun de solemnitile, legate de aniversarea a 700 de ani de la adormirea sfântuluilui Serghie de la Radonej – este un eveniment important în istoria Rusiei, un eveniment în viaa duhovniceasc a poporului nostru. Sunt foarte recunosctor Preafericirii Voastre pentru posibilitile largi în colaborarea la toate nivelurile, pentru ca s folosim la maxim aceast srbtoare pentru dezvoltarea culturii i pentru demonstrarea minunatelor pagini ale istoriei poporului nostru. |
| Astzi, la începutul mileniului al treilea de la întruparea lui Dumnezeu Cuvântul, cu bucurie putem constata c fundamentul trainic al relaiilor noastre freti nu sunt doar nite amintiri ce in de trecut, îns sunt un testament viu i activ pân în zilele noastre, pe care noi, motenitorii sfântului Ciprian al Moscovei i ai tuturor ierarhilor pururea pomenii bulgari i rui din trecutul apropiat i îndeprtat, îl pstrm cu sfinenie i îl urmm în viaa noastr i aciunile noastre; c dragostea i încrederea reciproc, care întotdeauna au prezentat baza adevrat a relaiilor noastre, nu numai c nu s-au micorat, dar, din contra, cresc întru slava lui Dumnezeu i întru binele Bisericii Lui, întru binele Sfintei Ortodoxii” – este sigur Preafericitul Patriarh Maxim. La rândul su Întâistttorul Bisericii Ortodoxe Ruse a spus: „Preafericirea Voastr, iubii confrai arhipstori! Hristos a Înviat! Pentru mine este o mare onoare s primesc astzi cea mai înalt distincie a Bisericii Ortodoxe din Bulgaria - ordinul „Sfântul cuvios i întocmai cu apostolii ar Boris”. Când Întâistttorul este decorat cu o distincie de ctre alt Biseric Local, aceasta are loc nu atât datorit meritelor personale, cât în semn al unitii noastre întru Hristos. Decorarea mea cu ordinul fondatorului Ortodoxiei bulgare îmi amintete, întâi de toate, despre faptul cât este de strâns relaia duhovniceasc dintre Bisericile noastre. Uimitor de asemntoare sunt destinele istorice ale Bisericilor Rus i Bulgar: atât poporul Bulgariei, cât i popoarele din Rusia Kievean au primit sfântul botez prin voina i eforturile conductorilor si înelepi, ale cror inimi au fost luminate de lumina credinei lui Hristos. Cuvântul lui Dumnezeu spune: asemenea unui curs de ap este inima regelui în mâna Domnului, pe care îl îndreapt încotro vrea (Pilde, 21:1). A sosit timpul naterii duhovniceti - i sfântul ar Boris, crezând într-Unul Dumnezeu Cel Adevrat, Care a fcut cerul i pmântul, marea i toate cele ce sunt în ele (Fapte, 14:15), a adus la botez poporul, încredinat în grija lui de Pronia Dumnezeiasc. Prin aceast fapt istoric mrea el a dat un exemplu conductorilor altor ri, punând astfel început la cretinarea supuilor si. Acest început bun i-a cptat continuitatea în pmânturile ruseti. |
|
|
