| Teachings of reincarnation also conflict with the Christian teaching of redemption. This is seen clearly from the Gospel’s example of the wise thief, who in one moment inherited the kingdom of heaven by simply appealing to Christ (bypassing Hindu Karma). Redemption, created by Christ, frees man from the forces of cosmic processes and from the powers of fate. It gives, by the power of Grace, that which theosophy’s endless cycles of wandering through cosmic corridors cannot. Contemporary stories of life after death are valuable, because they foil the very root of occultist teaching regarding reincarnation. In all the accounts recorded by the reanimating doctors, the soul upon leaving the body continued to recognize itself as the same being that lived in the flesh. If it wanted to return to this world, it was only to finish some task. In meeting the souls of departed friends or relatives, the souls of those who later returned to life recognized them as living personalities and they were likewise recognized by their deceased relatives and friends. In all instances the souls of the departed retained their unique personalities. By denying the retention of personality, teachings of reincarnation deny immortality and make man a toy of blind cosmic processes. It is as false as it is pessimistic. Yet, Christ has risen! By his strength, we too shall rise in transfigured bodies for eternal and conscious life. Glory to Him unto the ages. Amen. Bibliography 1. Raymond А. Moody, MD, “Life afmer Life, Ваптат Books, NY 1978. 2. Raymond А. Moody, MD, Reflecmions оп Life afmer Life, Ваптат Books, NY 1978. 3. Raymond А. Moody, MD, Тне Light Beyond, Ваптат Books, NY 1990. 4. Melvin Morse, MD, Closer то тне Light, Ivy Books, NY 1990 (авоит children who experienced near-deamh). 5. Michael Sabom, MD, Recollecmions of Deamh, Нагрег & Row Publishers, NY 1982. (А serious and memhodical invesmigamion). 6. Кеппетн Ring, PhD Life ат Deamh, QUILL, New Уогк, 1982. 7. Melvin Morse, MD, Closer то тне Light Ivy Books, published by Ballanmine Books, 1990 , “To Hell and Back,” 1993. |
| In the Old Testament, the 2d and 3d books of Maccabees, and the entire New Testament, except for the Gospel of Matthew, were written in Greek. Besides this, the Gospel of Matthew, and all the Books of the Old Testament which are not accepted by the Jewish canon, only survived in Greek, while their Hebrew and Aramaic originals were lost. The first translation of the Holy Scripture known to us was the translation of all the books of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek, which was completed by the so-called 70 (to be more exact, 72) interpreters in the 3d century BC. oly scripture Demetrius Phalareus, the learned noble of the Hellenistic Egyptian King Ptolemaios Philadelphus, set a goal to gather all the books, existing in the whole world at the time, in the capital of his king. Judea at that time (284–247 BC) was subject to the Egyptian kings, and Ptolemaios Philadelphus ordered the Jews to send all their existing books to the Alexandrian library, together with their Greek translation. Probably none of the contemporaries understood that this desire of the king and his noble, typical of bibliophiles, to compile the most complete collection of books, would have such an important significance for the spiritual life of mankind. The Judean high priests treated this task with great seriousness and awareness of their responsibility. In spite of the fact that, by that time, the entire Hebrew nation was concentrated in the single tribe of Judas, and the Judeans could boldly fulfill the wishes of the Egyptian king themselves, however, fully justly and sacredly longing for the participation of all Israel in this task, the spiritual leaders of the Hebrew nation proclaimed a fast and intense prayer among all the people, and called upon the 12 tribes to choose 6 interpreters from each of them, so that they could jointly translate the Holy Scripture into Greek, the language then most widespread. This translation, which in this way became the fruit of the mutual effort of the Old Testament Church, received the title the Septuagint, i.e. the Seventy, and became the most authoritative narration of the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament for Orthodox Christians. |
| But the content of such editions shows that the printers strove to hold fast to the old forms. Texts of church books had come apart, Kiev and Lvov were distributing their new editions, but the lesser printshops all throughout that century continued to print the old texts, based on the manuscript books. In the euchologia, liturgicans, horologia and triodia of the local editions of the western borderlands, we find all or almost all of the characteristic peculiarities of the Old Believer books. This betokens the fact that the tradition was preserved, that it was cherished, that the new peculiarities in the liturgical books were not so readily accepted. Tradition was the mainstay of Orthodoxy. Later, when, under pressure from the governmental apparatus the Unia began to rule, it officially copied the books of the Moghilian model, only with corresponding alterations and additions peculiarly Uniate. But the parish clergy and the people, having nominally accepted the Union, were all the more strongly drawn to the old forms, and have partially carried these old forms up to our times. This is why not so long ago one could hear, and perhaps still can hear, in Carpathian churches such characteristic expressions as “by death He tread upon death” instead of “trampled down” in the paschal troparion, and “highly favored” instead of “full of Grace” in the troparion “Virgin Theotokos, rejoice” – chants which hearken back to the old hook-notation chants, unison recitative, et al. This is why, even on returning to Orthodoxy, these people often express the desire to preserve their local ritual and textual peculiarities. Which side was right in this conflict of two currents within the Orthodox Church – the old or the new? Who is to blame? No one is to blame. The normal process of history is guilty – the process which inexorably accumulated for several centuries a certain sum of differences in comparison to the original form of the divine services. Geographical distance and political borders were guilty, as, of course, was the difference of language, thanks to which the liturgical services in various countries received their own nuances and distinctions. |
| Another Muscovite printer, a colleague of Ivan Fedorov, Peter Mstislavets, who fled with him to Lithuania, established himself in Vilno and organized the afterwards well known Vilnian press of Mamonich. The sojourn of the press in Striatin was remarkable, besides other publications, because of the issue of a new type of church book: this was the great Complete Liturgicon of 1604, which had been corrected in accordance with the Venetian Greek edition. Hence, with the production of this Liturgicon begins the history of the “correction” of the Russian liturgical books; here action was first taken to correct the books. The publishers explained what difficulty they had in choosing the original for the printed edition. The manuscript books did not agree with one another, and it was difficult to choose from among them that which, by rights, might be called the best. They had to turn to the Greek edition and make a new translation. The correction was done according to the Venetian edition. It is possible that the Venetian text of the Liturgicon preserved that form of the order of the liturgy which the famous liturgist and churchman Philotheos, Patriarch of Constantinople, gave it in the 14th century. The Striatin edition was in fact on the highest level. The explanatory directions first given in it for the actions of the celebrants have remained almost without alteration until the present day. Thus, a principle was established: instead of local manuscripts that did not agree with one another, the text of the Venetian Greek edition was to be given in the publication of liturgical books. When the work of publishing liturgical books developed in Kiev under metropolitans Job Boretsky and Peter Moghila in the first half of the 16th century, there were no variations in the choice of text: translating committees were organized, and books – horologia, the Octoechos, the sequential Psalter, the Lenten Triodion and the Pentecostarion, etc. – were reproduced according to the Greek printed edition. |
| During Fr. Seraphim’s lifetime, his books were known to a relatively small number of people in English-speaking countries. In the two decades following his death, however, his writings have had a worldwide impact. Translated into many languages – Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Georgian, French, Latvian, Polish, Italian, and Malayalam (South Indian) – they have changed countless lives with their sobering truth. In Russia during the Communist suppression of spiritual literature, his books Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future and The Soul After Death were secretly distributed in the form of typewritten manuscripts, becoming known to millions. With the cessation of religious persecumion, his books and articles have been published in Russia in mass quantities, and have been on sale everywhere – even at book-tables in the Moscow subway. When American Orthodox Christians go to Orthodox churches and monasteries in Russia, the first question they are often asked is, “Did you know Fr. Seraphim Rose?” Besides the two books just mentioned, Fr. Seraphim’s published works include God’s Revelation to the Human Heart; Heavenly Realm; Genesis, Creation and Early Man; Nihilism; and The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church. All of these books were published by the St. Herman Brotherhood after Fr. Seraphim’s repose, along with his one-thousand-page biography, Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works. The Brotherhood is currently preparing for publication other books by Fr. Seraphim, including his collected lectures and his long-awaited Orthodox Survival Course. Today, Orthodox Christians in Russia and other Orthodox countries of Eastern Europe see this American from southern California, Fr. Seraphim, as pivotal to the restoration of traditional spiritual principles in their ravaged homelands. He is a light of hope in the face of their uncertain future. It is time now for more of his fellow Americans – who face perhaps even greater uncertainty – to hear his message and be awakened to the eternal Truth for which he lived and died. |
| Ward, Benedicta., trans. The Sayings of the Desert Fathers. Cistercian Studies Series, Vol. 59. Oxford: A.R. Mowbray & Co., 1975. Welch, Holmes. Taosism: The Parting of the Way. Revised ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1965. Wong, Eva. The Shambhala Guide to Taosism. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 1997. Wurmbrand, Richard. Tortured for Christ. Glendale, Calif: Diane Books, 1969. –. In God’s Underground. Glendale, Calif.: Diane Books, 1968. Reprint. New York: Bantam Books, 1977. TRANSLATIONS OF THE TAO TEH CHING Cheng, Man-jan. Lao Tzu: “My Words Are Very Easy to Understand”: Lectures on the Tao Teh Ching. Translated from the Chinese by Tam C. Gibbs. Berkeley, Calif.: North Atlantic Books, 1981. Ch’u Ta-kao, trans. and ed. Tao Te Ching. London: The Buddhist Society of London, 1937. Cleary, Thomas., trans. and ed. The Essential Tao. San Francisco: Harper, 1991. Feng, Gia-fu and Jane English, trans. Tao Te Ching. New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1972. Fu Huisheng, trans. and ed. Lao Zi. China: Hunan Publishing House, 1992. Legge, James, trans. and ed. The Sacred Books of the East. Vol. 39. Oxford University Press, 1891. Reprinted as The Texts of Taoism, Part 1: The Tao Te Ching of Lao Tzu: The Writings of Chuang Tzu. New York: Dover Publications, 1962 . Lin Yutang, trans. and ed. The Wisdom of Laotse. New York: Random House, 1948. Mair, Victor H., trans. and ed. Tao Te Ching: The Classic Book of Integrity and the Way. New York: Bantam Books, 1990. Red Pine (Bill Porter), trans. and ed. Lao Tzu’s Taoteching. San Francisco: Mercury House, 1996. Ren Jiyu, trans. and ed. The Book of Lao Zi. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1993. Rose, Eugene [Fr. Seraphim], trans. Unpublished typescript of partial translation, made in conjunction with Gi-ming Shien. Includes translation of each Chinese character. Shien, Gi-ming, trans. Unpublished typescript and carbon copy of partial translation (chapters 1–2, 4–14, 15–16, 20–22, 24–25, 27–28, 34–35, 37– 45, 47, 50–52, 54–55,70–71). Collection of Fr. Seraphim Rose. |
| 225 Commentary on John, 10 (301 – 302). Translation from Ronald E. Heine (tr.), Origen: Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 1 – 10, The Fathers of the Church 80 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1989). 226 Except possibly in the one it mentions as written previously by James. Most scholars regard this too as fictitious. 227 Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospeb: Their History and Development (Philadelphia and London: Trinity Press Intemational/SCM Press, 1990), 196 – 7. While he indicates some doubt about some of these identifications, he says, ‘In any case, reference seems to be made to parables of all three Synoptic Gospels’ (p. 197). Christopher Tuckett, Nag Hammadi and the Gospel Tradition: Synoptic Tradition in the Nag Hammadi Library (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1986), 97, believes the ApocJas presupposes Matthew’s and Luke’s finished Gospels and possibly Mark’s. 228 Pheme Perkins, Gnosticism and the New Testament (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 72, ‘Apocryphon of James intends to invoke the authority of the canonical Gospels to bolster the esoteric, gnostic teaching presented in the treatise’. 231 Philip Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1975), 687, says the EpApost is ‘an attempt to combat the gnostic opponents with their own weapons’. 232 On this last point see now Darrell D. Hannah, ‘The Four-Gospel “Canon” in the Epistula Apostolorum. Journal of Theological Studies, ns 59 (2008), 598 – 632. 234 Ronald F. Hock, The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Santa Rosa, Calif.: Polebridge Press, 1995), 90, 92; Hans-Josef Klauck, Apocryphal Gospels: An Introduction (London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2003), 73. For a recent, short treatment see Tony Chartrand-Burke, ‘The Infancy Gospel ofThomas in Paul Foster (ed.), The Non-Canonical Gospels (London: T. & T. Clark, 2008), 126 – 38, who decides on the originality of one of the shorter recensions of the book. This original was clearly dependent upon the canonical Gospel of Luke and Acts. |
| Walker, A. and Carras, C. (eds.), Living Orthodoxy in the Modern World: Orthodox Christianity and Society, London: SPCK, 1996; repr. Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2000. Ware, K. T. (now Metropolitan of Diokleia), «Orthodox and Catholics in the seventeenth century: schism or intercommunion?» in D. Baker (ed.), Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972, pp. 259–76. The Orthodox Way, Oxford: Mowbray, 1979. Ware, K. T. (Bishop of Diokleia), How Are We Saved? The Understanding of Salvation in the Orthodox Tradition, Minneapolis, MN: Light and Life, 1996. The Inner Kingdom, Collected Works, vol. I, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2000. Through the Creation to the Creator, London: Friends of the Centre, 1997. »The unity of the human person according to the Greek Fathers», in A. Peacocke and G. Gillett (eds.), Persons and Personality: A Contemporary Enquiry, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987, pp. 197–206. Ware, T. (now Kallistos, Metropolitan of Diokleia), The Orthodox Church, New Edition, London: Penguin Books, 1993. Williams, R., Sergii Bulgakov: Toward a Russian Political Theology, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1999. Wimbush, V. and Valantasis, R. (eds.), Asceticism, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. Yannaras, C., Elements of Faith: An Introduction to Orthodox Theology, trans. Keith Schram, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991. The Freedom of Morality, trans. E. Briere, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1984. On the Absence and Unknowability of God: Heidegger and the Areopagite, trans. H. Ventis, ed. A. Louth, Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 2005. Orthodoxy and the West, trans. P. Chamberas and N. Russell, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2006. Person and Eros, trans. N. Russell, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, forthcoming. «Theology in present-day Greece», SVTQ 16.4 (1972), 195–214. Yannoulatos, Archbishop Anastasios, Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns, Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 2003. »The purpose and motive of mission from an Orthodox point of view», International Review of Mission 54 (1965), 298–307. |
| 9.825 Совет Церквей Океании. Взаимоотношение с Церквами Океании 9.826 Конференция Европейских Церквей (КЕЦ) 6956. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ Президиума КЕЦ. – 1984, 2, 56. 6957. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ Совместного комитета КЕЦ-СЕКЕ. – 1984, 4, 53. 6958. СЕМИНАР Церквей СССР–членов Конференции Европейских Церквей, и Церквей, имеющих с КЕЦ экуменическое сотрудничество. (Успенский-Пюхтицкий монастырь, Эстония, 15–17 мая 1984 года): 1. Послание Патриарха Пимена участникам семинара Церквей СССР – членов Конференции Европейских Церквей. – 1984, 8, 60. 2. Коммюнике. – 1984, 8, 61. 3. Семинар Церквей СССР – членов КЕЦ. – 1984, 8, 63. 6959. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ Президиума и Совещательного комитета КЕЦ в Швейцарии. – 1984, 9, 61. 6960. ТРЕТЬЯ экуменическая встреча КЕЦ-СЕКЕ в Рива-дель-Гарда. – 1985, 3, 60. 6961. ПОСЛАНИЕ христианам Европы Третьей экуменической встречи Конференции Европейских Церквей и Совета епископских конференций Европы Римско-Католической Церкви. – 1985, 3, 61. 6962. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ комитета КЕЦ по регионализации. – 1985, 6, 65. 6963. СОРОКИН В., проф. прот. Надежда, единство и мир – насущная забота Конференции Европейских Церквей. – 1985, 7, 59. 6964. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ Президиума и Совещательного комитета КЕЦ. – 1985, 9, 91. 6965. ПОСЛАНИЕ Президиума и Совещательного комитета КЕЦ в связи с 40-й годовщиной окончания второй мировой войны в Европе. – 1985, 9, 92. 6966. УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ Комитета по наблюдению за процессом СБСЕ. – 1985, 9, 94. 6967. СОРОКИН В., проф. прот. На пути к единству. – 1985, 9, 95. 6968. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ богословской группы по подготовке к IX ассамблее КЕЦ. – 1985, 9, 100. 6969. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ Президиума КЕЦ в Португалии. – 1986, 3, 63. 6970. КОММЮНИКЕ. – 1986, 3, 64. 6971. ТЕЛЕГРАММА Президиума КЕЦ. – 1986, 3, 65. 6972. КОНСУЛЬТАЦИЯ КЕЦ по изучению Лимского документа. – 1986, 4, 65. 6973. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ Совместного комитета КЕЦ – СЕКЕ. – 1986, 6, 64. 6974. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ Президиума КЕЦ. – 1986, 7, 64. 6975. ТРЕТИЙ семинар Глав и представителей Церквей в СССР – членов КЕЦ или сотрудничающих с этой организацией. (Пюхтицы, 14–17 июня 1986 года): |
| 3325. ДОКЛАД и.о. Председателя Учебного комитета при Священном Синоде епископа Верейского Евгения на Архиерейском Соборе . –1997, 6, 28. 3126. ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ Священного Синода от 7 марта 2000 года: О распределении выпускников Духовных учебных заведений РПЦ. – 2000, 4, 20. 23.51–1 Духовные академии и семинарии 3127. ЦЫПИН В. , прот. О распределении выпускников Духовных Академий. – 1991, 3, 38. ------------ Московская духовная академия и семинария (МДА и С) 3128. КОЧАНКИН Н. Годичный акт в МДА и МДС. – 1984, 1, 30. 3129. ГЕОРГИЙ, игум. Академический вечер в Московской Духовной Академии. – 1984, 3, 19. 3130. И.С. Монашеские постриги в Духовных школах. – 1984, 3, 20. 3131. ЛЕКЦИЯ митрополита Минского Филарета в МДА. – 1984, 4, 12. 3132. АНДРОНИК, иером. Вечер в Московской Духовной Академии. – 1984, 5, 27. 3133. КРУГЛИК Д., прот. Выпускной акт в Московских Духовных школах. – 1984, 8, 21. 3134. СТРОГАНОВ В., свящ. Начало занятий в Московских Духовных Школах. – 1984, 11, 20. 3135. ЖИЛА С., прот. Праздник Покрова Пресвятой Богородицы в МДА и МДС. – 1984, 12, 29. 3136. АЛЕКСАНДР, еп. Святейший Патриарх Пимен о задачах Духовной школы. (К 300-летию Московской Духовной Академии). – 1985, 1, 60. 3137. ЭКОНОМЦЕВ И. Основание Славяно-греко-латинской Академии. (К 300-летию МДА). – 1985, 2, 67. 3138. АЛИПИЙ, иером. Академический вечер в Московских Духовных школах. – 1985, 3, 18. 3139. ГЕОРГИЙ, игум. Памяти профессора МДА П.С. Казанского . (К 175– летию со дня рождения). – 1985, 7, 12. 3140. ЦЫПИН В. Выпускные акты в Духовных школах. – 1985, 8, 17. 3141. КИРИЛЛО-МЕФОДИЕВСКИЕ чтения в Духовных школах. –1985, 10, 15. 3142. ДРОНОВ М. , свящ. Начало учебного года в Московских Духовных школах. – 1985, 11, 51. 3143. ИНТЕРВЬЮ с ректором Московских Духовных школ. – 1985, 11, 52. 3144. МАКАРИЙ, игум. Праздник Покрова Божией Матери в Академии “У Троицы”. – 1986, 1, 23. 3145. ИВАНОВ М., проф. Академическое богословие. (Исторический обзор). (К 300-летию МДА). – 1986, 1, 59. 3146. 300-ЛЕТИЕ Московской Духовной Академии (1685–1985). – 1986, 3, 23. |
|
|
