| “The Lord Himself says: ‘If you do all that is demanded of you [that is, follow all the commandments], consider yourselves unprofitable servants whose duty it is to fulfill the master’s orders’ (Luke 17:10) … For this reason, the seeking of high spiritual states is forbidden by the Lord and by the Holy Fathers. All our inner struggle should be concentrated on repentance and on everything which promotes the penitent state” (Abbot Nikon). One must only experience an internet listserve devoted to theological discussion to see that today everyone has become a “theologian.” In our day it is possible to graduate from seminary and yet not even be able to fulfill a simple rule of prayer — five minutes in the morning and ten minutes in the evening. The point of spiritual education is the health of the soul. While many of the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church had great formal educational backgrounds, other great “theological minds” of the Church had only elementary school educational levels. This should teach us that theological education is not determined by academics. The books we read often form our spiritual attitudes and approach to theology. Do we continually read highly academic-oriented theological books, or edifying works which seek to teach us how to live the spiritual life? Books on the lives of holy persons (canonized and not yet canonized) of our own times are being written and translated in abundance today. These books can provide us with examples which inspire us and form us in the theology of the Church. There are the lives and teachings of more recently canonized Saints such as St. Silouan the Athonite, St. John Maximovich, St.Nicholas Planas, St. Nektarios of Aegina, and the Elders of Optina Monastery, Leonid, Anthony, Moses, Macarios and the others. There are still many more works in existence of those holy ones who have not yet been officially canonized by the Church: Papa Dimitri Gagastathis, the Nun Gavrillia, Elder Porphyrios, Elder Joseph the Hesychest, Elder Amphilocios Makris, Elder Epiphanios Theodoropoulos, Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain, and many more. |
| On completion of this translation Maximos expected to be able to return to Mount Athos, but this was not to be. Now he was employed in translating various biblical and patristic texts and also in correcting the liturgical books, which he found to be full of errors. ‘It became obvious to him’, writes Dimitri Obolensky, that the howlers committed by early translators, compounded by scribal errors, had led to mistranslations which at best were absurd, and at worst heretical. Some of the most glaring he corrected himself, unaware of the trouble he was storing up for the future. 333 Maximos also allowed himself to be drawn into other controversial debates. At the request of his friend Vassian Patrikeev, a former general and diplomat who had become a monk, he wrote in praise of the virtues of cenobitic monasticism as practised by the monasteries of Athos. He left unstated his opposition to the very different approach of the larger monasteries of Russia which had become immensely wealthy by their possession of enormous estates and exploitation of peasant labour. But if Maximos was restrained in his writing, his friend Vassian went to the opposite extreme in declaring: All our books are false ones, and were written by the devil and not by the Holy Spirit. Until Maxim we used these books to blaspheme God, and not to glorify or pray to him. Now, through Maxim, we have come to know God. 334 Not everyone agreed. In 1522 Daniel, abbot of Volokolamsk, one of the wealthiest of the monasteries that Maximos had tacitly impugned, was appointed bishop of Moscow and primate of the Russian Church. Most provocatively, Daniel invited Maximos to translate a book that supported monastic landownership and contained other texts of a heretical nature. Maximos declined, and went on to criticize the divorce and remarriage of the ruler, earning himself enemies both ecclesiastical and princely. In the winter of 1524/5 he was arrested on charges of heresy (for making changes to the liturgical books), sorcery, and treason (for allegedly entertaining relations with the Sublime Porte). He was also accused of maintaining that the independence of the Russian Church from the Constantinople patriarchate was illegal and of criticizing the Russian monasteries for their ownership of land and serfs. While the first three charges were clearly unjust, the last two were no doubt true and Maximos would not have denied them. The court, presided over by Grand Prince Basil III and Metropolitan Daniel, sentenced Maximos to solitary confinement in the monastery of Volokolamsk where he was put in chains, excommunicated, and deprived of the means to read and write. After a second trial, in 1531, convened to silence the prisoner’s protests at his unjust treatment, he was moved to Tver where gradually some of his privations were relaxed. He asked repeatedly to be allowed to return to Mount Athos but all such requests were refused. |
| So, we may now ask, how did the Christian church, apparendy drowning in a sea of Gospels, finally end up with only four? The educated reader of today may already have come to the conclusion that the story was attended with a good bit of bullying, intrigue, and skullduggery. Many perhaps picture councils of bad-tempered bishops voting on which books to include in the Bible one minute, and voting to execute heretics the next. It is now widely believed, in any case, that the four canonical Gospels emerged into prominence only fairly late from a long and drawn-out battle within early Christianity, a battle finally won in the fourth century after the establishment of the church by Constantine the Great. While academics might not, as Teabing does in Dan Brown’s novel, attribute the collation of the Bible to ‘the pagan emperor Constantine’, many even in the academic community insist that the question of which Gospels the church ought to endorse was still up for grabs in the fourth century. As Boston University professor and author of American Jesus Stephen Prothero says: There are many places to begin this search for the American Jesus, but the fourth-century Council of Laodicea may be the most appropriate. At that gathering, early Christians met to close the canon of the still evolving Christian Bible. Some, following the second-century theologian Marcion, insisted that the one true Church should have only one true Gospel. Others, citing Marcion’s contemporary Irenaeus, fought for four (one for each comer of the earth). Inexplicably, Irenaeus got his way. 4 It is true that the Council, meeting in 363 or 364 ce, issued a statement that no ‘uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament’. And some later manuscripts of the Council’s proceedings give the list of the books which the Council in all probability understood as ‘canonical’. 5 But there is no reason to believe that any of the thirty or so church leaders in attendance would have suggested the acceptance of only one Gospel as opposed to four, let alone that any would have called upon the example of Marcion, a well-known but widely denounced Christian heretic, as a rallying-point. Prothero calls the Council’s alleged selection of the four ‘inexplicable’. And why wouldn’t he think so, for, again, the common idea is that the church’s canon is the result of a great power-struggle between rivals among early Christianity. The four Gospels, like the other books in the canon of the Christian New Testament, achieved their place only by finally out-muscling their many competitors. |
| 51 Widows and orphans « Those who are not yet united with the Spouse of the Church, though divorced from their old connection, nor yet adopted children of the Father.» Westcott. 52 «By this he evidently means that certain passages taken literally do not instruct us, for no one can deny that they have a meaning.» Westcott. 84 See above. The Spirit is supposed to invent some of the history for the sake of the spiritual meaning conveyed.. 88 «The spiritual world in which the interpretation of Scripture is realised, may be regarded as heavenly, or as Christian and earthly; when we contemplate the former, we explain anagogically, and allegories properly are applied only to the latter. Thus the prophecies which describe the character and fate of various nations under the Jewish dispensation may be referred, according to the one system (anagoge), to the inhabitants of the celestial regions correlative to the kingdoms on earth, or by the other (allegoria), to spiritual characters unfolded by Christianity.» Westcott. 137 This total was made by taking Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah. See Sanday, Inspiration, pp. 56 ff., 111 ff., on «the Symbolism of. Numbers.» «Origen was the first who pointed out this number was also that of the letters in the Hebrew alphabet (Euseb. H.E. VI. 25, and the coincidence is emphatically repeated by Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, and Epiphanius, as well as by Jerome. The coincidence, it was thought, could hardly be accidental. The «twenty-twó books of the Greek Bible must, it was supposed, represent »twenty-twó books of the Hebrew Bible; hence, it was concluded, the number of the books in the Hebrew Canon was providentially ordained to agree with the number of the Hebrew letters.» Ryle, Canon of the Old Testament, p. 221. 138 «It is noteworthy that the supposed agreement in the number of the Hebrew letters with the number of the Hebrew sacred books seems to be of Greek origin, and does not appear in Hebrew tradition,» Ryle, p. 222. |
| As the heirs of Plato and Homer, most Church Fathers, educated in the classical tradition, wrote well. That is, they said simple things simply and complex things clearly. God’s grace was revealed to me in the form of two presses for which I would translate books: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press in Crestwood, NY, and Cistercian Publications, then at Western Michigan University, in Kalamazoo, MI. I am deeply aware that God’s grace has been at work in my life as a professor and translator, and for this I bow my head in gratitude. I also know that my life does not yet form a complete unity, and that this will be an ongoing struggle until my death. The thirteen books I have translated were written in French or German by great scholars: Irénée Hausherr and his Czech student, Tomaš Špidlík, both of whom taught Eastern spirituality in Rome; the Russians Boris Bobrinskoy, Paul Evdokimov, Bishop Krivochéine, and Leonid Ouspensky; Placide Deseille, a French Cistercian monk first at Bellefontaine and later at Aubazine in south-central France. In l977, he and his community joined the Orthodox Church on Mount Athos; and Gabriel Bunge , the Benedictine specialist on Evagrius of Pontus (343-399), who has recently been received into the Orthodox Church, in Russia. I worked with Fr John Meyendorff, the renowned Orthodox Church historian, in the sense that I translated several books which Fr Meyendorff had recommended to the Board of Publications at St Vladimir’s Seminary. Also, together with Professor and now Fr John Erickson, I edited Meyendorff’s book, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D. (SVS Press a work which Jaroslav Pelikan, then at Yale University, described as “a remarkable achievement.” Why, then, are the books written by these giants of learning and holiness so important? Because they clarify the Tradition of the Fathers, and in this context, we can never emphasize too strongly that Western or Latin-speaking Christendom originated from the Greek Tradition, as a branch grows from a tree. |
| Глобальной же задачей богословия митр. Иоанна (Зизиуласа) является преодоление главной причины разделения Церквей – примата Папы Римского. Своеобразная методология определяет специфику всей богословской системы митр. Иоанна (Зизиуласа) в целом. Влияние, которое на митр. Иоанна (Зизиуласа) оказали его учителя и предшественники, в его богословии не остается зацементированными и консервативными установками, а преломляется в собственную позицию по соответствующим вопросам, что свидетельствует о митр. Иоанне (Зизиуласе) как о самобытном, оригинальном богослове. БИБЛИОГРАФИЯ Работы митрополита Иоанна (Зизиуласа) 1. Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church. Coll. Contemporary Greek Theologians, 4. Crestwood N. Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. 269 p. 2. Communion and Otherness. Further Studies in Personhood and the Church. Edited by P. McPartlan. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006. 315 p. 3. Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2001. 4. Human Capacity and Human Incapacity: A Theological Exploration of Personhood//Scottish Journal of Theology. 1975. T. 28. P. 401 – 447. 5. Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T&T Clark, 2009. 6. The one and the many : studies on God, man, the Church, and the world today/Metropolitan of Pergamon, John D. Zizioulas; [edited by] Fr. Gregory Edwards. 1st ed. Alhambra, С A : Sebastian Press, 2010. 7. Бытие как общение: Очерки о личности и Церкви/Предисл. прот. Иоанна Мейендорфа; Пер. с англ. Д.М. Гзгзяна. М.: Свято-Филаретовский православно-христианский институт, 2006. 280 с. 8. Общение и инаковость. Новые очерки о личности и церкви./Пер. с англ. (Серия «Современное богословие»). М.: Изд-во ББИ, 2012. 407 с. 9. Церковь и Евхаристия. Сборник статей по православной экклесиологии/Пер. с греч. Иером. Леонтия (Козлова). Богородице-Сергиева Пустынь, 2009. 332 с. Литература 1. Антология восточно-христианской богословской мысли. Ортодоксия и гетеродоксия: в 2-х т./Под науч. Ред. Г.И. Беневича и Д.С. Бирюкова; сост. Г.И. Беневич. М., СПб.: «Никея»-РХГА, 2009. Т. 1. 672 с. (Smaragdos Philocalias; Византийская философия: т. 4.). |
| Итак, как для В.Н. Лосского, так и для митр. Иоанна (Зизиуласа) основной предпосылкой богословия является реальность богочеловеческого общения. Для обоих богословов характерно схожее отношение к эпистемологии: в богословском дискурсе онтология и эпистемология неотделимы. Однако различное понимание онтологии божественно-человеческого общения приводит каждого из них к своеобразной эпистемологии: для В.Н. Лосского это «антиномично-апофатическая» эпистемология, а для митр. Иоанна (Зизиуласа) – евхаристическая эпистемология. Различное понимание богословской эпистемологии определяет различие формы и содержание их богословских систем. Если сравнивать богословские системы митр. Иоанна (Зизиуласа) и В.Н. Лосского, то можно прийти к выводу, что тринитарная онтология митр. Иоанна (Зизиуласа) является внутренне более последовательной и ясной, чем апофатическая система В.Н. Лосского . БИБЛИОГРАФИЯ Работы митрополита Иоанна (Зизиуласа) 1. Zizioulas, John .Communion and Otherness. Further Studies in Personhood and the Church./Edited by P. McPartlan. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2006. 315 p. (Русское издание: Зизиулас, Иоанн. Общение и инаковость. Новые очерки о личности и церкви./Пер. с англ. (Серия «Современное богословие»). М.: Изд-во ББИ, 2012.). 2. Zizioulas, J. Being as Communion. Studies in Personhood and the Church. Coll. Contemporary Greek Theologians, 4. Crestwood N. Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. (Русское издание: Иоанн (Зизиулас), митр. Бытие как общение: Очерки о личности и Церкви/Предисл. прот. Иоанна Мейендорфа; Пер. с англ. Д.М. Гзгзяна. М.: Свято-Филаретовский православно-христианский институт, 2006.). 3. Zizioulas, J. Eucharist, Bishop, Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2001. 4. Zizioulas, J. Human Capacity and Human Incapacity: A Theological Exploration of Personhood//Scottish Journal of Theology. 1975. T. 28. P. 401 – 447. 5. Zizioulas, John .Lectures in Christian Dogmatics. London: T&T Clark, 2009. |
| 2696. ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ Священного Синода от 7 октября 2000 года: 1. Освободить игум. Серафима (Гончара) от должности наместника обители. 2. Назначить на эту должность архим. Никандра (Мунтяну), освободив его от должности наместника Свято-Михаиловского Киштельнического мужского монастыря. –2000, 11, 4. -------- 2697. ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ Священного Синода от 5 мая 1995 года: 1. Благословить открытие Свято-Вознесенского Гыржавского мужского монастыря, Республика Молдова. 2. Утвердить наместником обители игум. Евлогия (Николенко). – 1995, 5, 15. -------- 2698. ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ Священного Синода от 5 мая 1995 года: 1. Благословить возобновления монашеской жизни в Давидова-Вознесенской пустыни пос. Новый Быт Московской области. 2. Назначить настоятелем обители иером. Германа (Хапугина) с возведением в сан игумена. – 1995, 5, 13. -------- 2699. ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ Священного Синода от 23 ноября 1983 года: О работах по реставрации архитектурного комплекса Даниловского монастыря. – 1984, 1, 9. 2700. ЕВЛОГИЙ, архим. Посещение Святейшим Патриархом Пименом Даниловского монастыря. – 1984, 1, 18. 2701. ЕГО ЖЕ. Восстановительные работы в Даниловском монастыре начаты. – 1984, 1, 19. 2702. К СООБЩЕНИЮ о передаче Московскому Патриархату Даниловского монастыря. – 1984, 2, 5. 2703. ЗАСЕДАНИЕ Ответственной комиссии по реставрации и строительству Данилова монастыря в Москве. – 1984, 4, 6. 2704. ЕВЛОГИЙ, архим. Из летописных сведений о святом князе Московском Данииле. – 1984, 5, 13. 2705. ЕВСТАФИЙ, игум. Престольный праздник в Московском Даниловом монастыре. – 1984, 11, 18. 2706. АЛЕКСИЙ, священноинок, СОКОЛОВ Ф., диак. В святые рождественские дни. – 1985, 3, 10. 2707. ДАНИИЛ, иерод. В Московском Даниловом монастыре. – 1985, 5, 15. 2708. МАКАРОВ А. Постриг в Даниловом монастыре. – 1985, 7, 11. 2709. В МОСКОВСКОМ Даниловом монастыре. – 1985, 8, 14. 2710. АЛЕКСИЙ, митр. Открытие текущего счета “Фонд реставрации и строительства ансамбля “Данилов монастырь”. – 1985, 11, 39. 2711. ЕВЛОГИЙ, архим. Праздник в честь Владимирской иконы Божией Матери в Даниловом монастыре. – 1985, 11, 47. |
| Un représent de l’Eglise russe formule son point de vue sur la théologie de la libération (Interview), in: Episkepsis 1985,345,3–4. Global’naja ugroza eloveestvu – global’naja strategija mira, in: MP 1985,10,38–49. O rešenijach Tret’ego Predsobornogo Vsepravoslavnogo Sovešanija, in: MP 1987,3,54–56; 5,56–58. Sources de la tradition spirituelle d’Eglise Orthodox Russe, in: Vest. Ekzarchata 1988,116,11–22. 0b istonikach duchovnoj tradicii Russkoj Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi, ebda 83–96. Rede beim Pomestnyj Sobor RPC 170, 262. Gesandte des ökumenischen Patriarchen in Moskau, in: StdO 1966, 7,17–24. Stellungnahme zu den Ereignissen in Griechenland, in: StdO 1967, 7,5. Erklärung (Zum Arrest des M Panteleimon von Saloniki), in: StdO 1968,3,7. Ansprache auf einem Empfang in Tokio, in: StdO 1971,1,16–19. Rede vor dem Landeskonzil 1971, in: StdO 1972,1,17–27. Die Patriarchenreise in die Tschechoslowakische Orthodoxe Kirche, in: StdO 1973,6,11–22. Eröffnungsansprache zu Zagorsk III, in: StdO 1979,1,45–49. Nacharbeit zur V. Allchristlichen Friedensversammlung, in: StdO 1979,5,31–40. Die Katholizität der Universal- und Lokalkirche, in: StdO 1980, 10,52–64. Gottes Verheißungen und unsere Verantwortung, in: StdO 1981,3, 27–34; 4,26–33. Referat auf der Internationalen Religionskonferenz in Moskau, in: StdO 1982,2,22–34. Vergeltet nicht Böses mit Bösem, in: StdO 1982,3,19–22. Erbe aus einer jahrhundertealten Erfahrung der Kirche. Zweite präkonziliare Beratung zu Kalenderfragen, in: StdO 1984,5, 4–8; 6,5–11. Die Theologie der Befreiung im Blickfeld. Die Forderung nach sozialer Gerechtigkeit darf die zentrale Bedeutung des Heilsverständnisses nicht verdrängen (Interview), in: StdO 1985, 6,20–22. Fundament altrussischen Schrifttums und der Kultur. Gastvorlesung anläßlich der Ehrenpromotion durch die Prager Jan-Hus- Fakultät, in: StdO 1985,10–20. Globale Menschheitsbedrohung gebietet weltweite Friedensstrategie, in: StdO 1985,12,24–35. Globale Menschheitsbedrohung – globale Friedensstrategie, in: Standpunkt 13(1985)208–210. |
| Нахимов 1913б – Н. Нахимов (Н.Ч. Заиончковский). – Несколько последних слов г. П. Мироносицкому . – Прибавления к Церковным ведомостям 1913 13, с. 687–688. Нелюбов 1961 – Б. Нелюбов . Перевод греческого текста Литургии св. Иоанна Златоуста по Служебнику афинского издания 1951 г. в его параллели со славяно-русским текстом синодального издания (Перевести основной текст на церковнославянский язык, комментарии – на русский). Загорск, 1960–1961 (Машинопись, хранящаяся в библиотеке МДА). Нефедов 1983 – Г. Нефедов, прот. (Рец. на) Чиновник архиерейского священнослужения. М., Изд. Московской патриархии, 1982, кн. 1-я. – ЖМП 1983, 2, с. 80. Никитин 1978 – В. Никитин. (Рец. на) Православный церковный календарь на 1978 год. – ЖМП 1978, 5, с. 76–78. Никитин 1980 – Б. Н(икитин). (Рец. на) Православный церковный календарь на 1980 год. – ЖМП 1980, с. 77–78. Никитин 1981 – В. Никитин. (Рец. на) Часослов. Изд. Московской патриархии, 1980. – ЖМП 1981, 6. Никитин 1983 – В. Н(икитин). (Рец. на) Православный церковный календарь на 1983 год. М., 1982, 80 с., 7 л. илл. – ЖМП 1983, 5, с. 80. Никитин 1984 – В. Никитин. (Рец. на) Православный церковный календарь на 1985 г. – ЖМИ 1984, 11, с. 80. Никитин 1985 – В. Никитин. (Рец. на) Требник. Изд. Московской патриархии. М., 1984, часть III, 368 с. – ЖМП 1985, 3, с. 79. Никитин 1985а – Б. Никитин (Рец. на) Православный церковный календарь на 1986 год. М., 1985, 80 с., илл. – ЖМП 1985, 12, с. 80. Никитин 1985б – Б. Н(икитин). (Рец. на) Службы первой седмицы Великого Поста. – ЖМП, 1985, 11. Никитин 1986 – В. Н(икитин). (Рец. на) Православный церковный календарь на 1987 год. М., 1986. – 80 с., с илл. – ЖМП 1987, 4. Николай 1951 – Митр. Николай (Ярушевич) . (Рец. на) А.И. Георгиевский . «Чинопоследование Божественной литургии ». – ЖМП 1951, 9, с. 55. Николай 1999 – Из писем епископа Николая (Муравьева-Уральского) к епископу Афанасию (Сахарову) . Публикация О.В. Косик. – Православный Свято-Тихоновский богословский институт. Богословский сборник. Вып. 4. М., 1999, с. 253–268. |
|
|
