| Chapter II. The Predicament of the Christian Historian Veritas non erubescit nisi abscondi. – Leo XIII «Christianity is a religion of historians.» 1 It is a strong phrase, but the statement is correct. Christianity is basically a vigorous appeal to history, a witness of faith to certain particular events in the past, to certain particular data of history. These events are acknowledged by faith as truly eventful. These historic moments, or instants, are recognized as utterly momentous. In brief, they are identified by faith as «mighty deeds» of God, Magnalia Dei. The «scandal of particularity,» to use the phrase of Gerhard Kittel, 2 belongs to the very essence of the Christian message. The Christian Creed itself is intrinsically historic. It comprises the whole of existence in a single historical scheme as one «History of Salvation,» from Creation to Consummation, to the Last Judgment and the End of history. Emphasis is put on the ultimate cruciality of certain historic events, namely, of the Incarnation, of the Coming of the Messiah, and of his Cross and Resurrection. Accordingly, it may be justly contended that «the Christian religion is a daily invitation to the study of history.» 3 Now, it is at this point that the major difficulties arise. An average believer, of any denomination or tradition, is scarcely aware of his intrinsic duty to study history. The historical pattern of the Christian message is obvious. But people are interested rather in the «eternal truth» of this message, than in what they are inclined to regard as «accidents» of history, even when they are discussing the facts of the Biblical history or of the history of the Church. Does not the message itself point out beyond history, to the «life of the Age to come»? There is a persistent tendency to interpret the facts of history as images or symbols, as typical cases or examples, and to transform the «history of salvation» into a kind of edifying parable. We can trace this tendency back to the early centuries of Christian history. In our own days we find ourselves in the midst of an intense controversy precisely about this very matter. |
| The Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus: An Underestimated Testimony to the Anaphoral History in the Fourth Century Abstract New critical text edition (with translation and a commentary) of the oldest extant manuscript containing a complete set of prayers, P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–157b. This text is of prime importance for liturgical studies, especially of anaphoral development. Keywords Anaphora, Egypt, Eucharist, liturgical studies, papyri, thanksgiving prayer A 4 th -century papyrus codex, P.Monts.Roca inv.128–178 1 , now in the library of the Abbey of Montserrat but originally in the possession of Ramón Roca-Puig, is yet to receive the scholarly attention it merits. The manuscript contains a few Latin texts as well as some Christian liturgical prayers in Greek 2 , and a long Greek word-list 3 . The liturgical prayers fully occupy seven of its folia (154b–157b) 4 . These prayers comprise a complete anaphora; a thanksgiving prayer after Communion; two prayers for the sick; and an acrostic baptismal (?) hymn. This papyrus is in fact the oldest manuscript known to contain Christian liturgical prayers conserved in their integrity – while, for example, the famous Strasbourg papyrus, P Straßb. inv. 254, dates from the 4–5 th centuries 5 and has many lacunae in its text, – giving our codex seminal importance for liturgical scholarship. Surprisingly, these prayers are seldom cited in current scholarly literature. The main publications concerning them are those of Roca-Puig himself, to whom the academic community is indebted for the edition of the manuscript 6 . Very important contributions to the study of the anaphora of the Barcelona papyrus have been made by Sebastia Janeras 7 and then by Kurt Treu and Johannes Dlethart 8 , who proved that two other 6 th -century fragments, the now lost Coptic parchment 9 Louvain. 27 (Janeras) and the Greek papyrus 10 PVindob. G 41043 (Treu, Diethart), contain parts of the same anaphora. The prayers for the sick from P.Monts.Roca inv. 155b–156b were studied by Wolfgang Luppe 11 and Cornelia Römer, Robert Daniel and Klaas Worp 12 ; and the acrostic hymn from P.Monts.Roca inv. 157a–157b by Andrey Vinogradov, who supposed the hymn to be baptismal 13 . The anaphora and thanksgiving prayer from P.Monts.Roca inv. 154b–155b were studied by me in an article published in 2002 14 . Nevertheless, despite the plain fact that this papyrus, probably connected in some way with the Pachomian monastic community, is the oldest liturgical manuscript containing a full anaphora, its important testimony is almost completely neglected by modern liturgical scholars. It does not play a significant role even in the most notable recent reconstructions of the anaphoral history 15 , receiving at best brief mention. |
| August 31, 2018 – During a meeting with journalists, which took place at the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, the DECR chairman Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk told them about the meeting of the primates of the Church of Constantinople and the Russian Orthodox Church. The meeting has taken place today at the building of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Phanar quarter in Istanbul. As Metropolitan Hilarion reported, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, having come to Phanar, venerated the shrines in the Patriarchal Cathedral dedicated to the Holy Protomartyr George, including the relics of Ss Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom. At the Patriarchate, the primate of the Russian Church was welcomed by His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. The first part of the meeting took place in the official format. Present at it were all the members of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. His Holiness Patriarchate Bartholomew greeted the guest after which His Holiness Patriarch Kirill delivered brief remarks in response. Then the two primates withdrew to Patriarch Bartholomew’s office where a confidential private talk took place. Present at this talk, from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, was Metropolitan Emmanuel of France and from the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk. ‘The talk lasted in total about two and a half hours. It was very frank, very cordial; it really was a talk from heart to heart’, the DECR chairman stressed. His Eminence reminded the journalists that Patriarch Bartholomew and Patriarch Kirill met in 1977 and they have a very long and rich history of personal relationships; as far back as before their election to the Patriarchal ministry, they worked much together for achieving a consensus on very diverse topics on the pan-Orthodox agenda. ‘This meeting was important first of all for the strengthening of personal relationships between the two patriarchs and, of course, for strengthening bilateral relations between our two Churches’ the archpastor said, ‘the interlocutors touched upon a wide range of issues including those on the agenda of the bilateral relations, as well as problems of pan-Orthodox unity. The talk, which began in a very sincere atmosphere, ended on a very friendly note, and the patriarchs exchanged gifts’. Metropolitan Hilarion expressed hope that the meeting would become another important event in the already ages-long history of bilateral relations between the two Churches. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. We focus our attention on the Russian Church in the 19th and 20th c. since the medieval and early imperial history can be found under Kievan Rus’, Novgorodian Tradition, Muscovite Tradition, Unia, and the Spiritual Regulation (qq.v.). The difficulties caused by the Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great in the 18th c. continued into the 19th c. and developed further: The government interfered increasingly in the intellectual and administrative life of the Church; not only was there no patriarch, but the Holy Synod was controlled by the government; and the social status and economic situation of the clergy continued to deteriorate. The ober-procurator’s power, influencing the Holy Synod and leading it, grew until the office became an official Ministry of State. Under Tsar Alexander I the Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Education was formed, but had a brief existence (1817–1824). This so alarmed the hierarchy that it complained of persecution of the Church. Nevertheless, Count Nikolai Protasov (1799–1855) became ober-procurator of the Holy Synod from 1836 to 1855 and continued the trend of strengthening the office. During his tenure he successfully transformed the Russian Church into an organ of the state, “The Department of the Orthodox Confession.” His political methodology may be described as attempting to reduce the Russian Church and clergy to civil religion in the worst sense-bureaucratic functionaries of the state’s “confession.” With this goal, true higher education and ecclesiastical freedom became irrelevant. All that was needed was supplied by the tsar, who was “the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the ruling faith, and observer of orthodoxy and all good order in the Holy Church. In this sense the Emperor, in the law of succession to the throne (5 April 1797), is called the Head of the Church” (Fundamental Laws, articles 42, 43, 1832 edition). Under Protasov, church finances and clergy employment became the sole domain of the ober-procurator. Of those who opposed him, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, renowned for his work on the Russian Bible (q.v.) translation project, distinguished himself by attempting to keep Protasov in check. |
| Did you know that in old Russia convents for many centuries were located within the walls of monasteries for men? There were almost no separate convents. Of course, communities for nuns lived separately, but on the territories of monasteries for men, enclosed by walls. This practice existed in both the Byzantine Empire and Russia (Rus’), and the most glorious monastery of Kiev (also Kyiv) was no exception. So, we offer a brief history of the convent at the Kiev Caves Lavra to all lovers of Kiev antiquity. At war is like at War The major reason for the common community life of monks and nuns (which today would seem odd and full of temptations) was the permanent threat of war. Most ancient and medieval monasteries were situated outside fortified cities—fortresses of that time had very limited space. In addition, monasteries’ livelihoods chiefly depended on their lands, so it was more convenient for monks to settle near their farms instead of travelling there from cities. Besides, for many, withdrawing from the world automatically meant living outside densely populated places. And now imagine a separated and isolated nunnery in the atmosphere of constant raids by the Polovetsians and Tatars, Persians and Arabs, the heterodox and non-Christians, and numerous bands of thieves. It is obvious that without building a good fortress, without quartering a military garrison, the life of a convent like this would not have lasted long and would have ended in tragedy. And if nuns were to elect permanent guards, then monastery brethren were the best candidates. Thus many early monasteries in the regions with continuous danger of war became “double”, or “male-female” monastic communities. And, in fact, they remained such until any threat of war was removed in the nearest regions. Another reason for the presence of communities of nuns within monasteries for men was the need of clergy—a (male) priest is a symbol of Christ, and this is why women cannot be ordained priests. In cities the situation would have been easier: priests could regularly visit convents for performing services and sacraments. But what about nunneries, situated far away from cities (taking into account extremely long journeys in that era)? It is not very good for a priest or two priests to live in an isolated community of nuns on a permanent basis. Making occasional visits to convents is not ideal either. Finally, sisters valued the possibility of choosing confessors from among ten experienced priests or more, and monasteries for men with a large number of priests on the same territory provided them this opportunity. |
| М.В. Легеев, иером. Мефодий (Зинковский), иером. Кирилл (Зинковский) Содержание 1. Введение: причины появления экуменизма 2. Зарождение экуменического движения и его цель 3. Экклезиологические концепции экуменического движения 4. Что такое «православный экуменизм»? 5. Оценка «экуменизма» церковным самосознанием 6. Экуменическая концепция Критского Собора и миссия Церкви 6.1. Единство 6.2. Святость 6.3. Кафоличность 6.4. Апостоличность 7. Заключение Литература Немного найдется явлений в современном мире, которые вызывали бы столь разноречивые оценки, как экуменизм – от восторженных до крайне отрицательных. Что же такое экуменизм? На какой почве он возникает? Какие цели ставит? Что вообще стоит за этим понятием? Однороден ли экуменизм в своем составе? Какие тенденции направляют его движение? Какова оценка его подлинно церковным самосознанием? Хотя сказано об экуменизме было немало, однако почти все сказанное представляет собой тот или иной срез, ту или иную грань экуменизма как явления. Настоящая статья представляет попытку краткого систематического обзора данной темы, отвечая на заданные вопросы с точки зрения богословия истории, без которого ее раскрытие вряд ли оказалось бы возможным. Ключевые слова: экуменизм, экумена, экуменический, вселенский, Церковь , экклезиология, миссия Церкви, Собор на Крите, актуальные проблемы богословия. Rev. Mikhail Legeev, hier. Methody (Zinkovskiy), hier. Kirill (Zinkovskiy) ECUMENISM AS A PHENOMENON OF MODERNITY Few phenomena in the modern world receive such contradictory judgments as ecumenism. In fact they vary from highly enthusiastic to extremely negative. So what is ecumenism? On which soil does it appear? What ares its purposes? What actually hides behind this concept? Is ecumenism’s structure homogeneous? Which impulses are directing its development? How does the true ecclesiastic consciousness view it? Although quite a lot has been said about the ecumenism, still most of these thoughts consider just particular facets of the ecumenism as a phenomenon. This article is an attempt of a brief systematic overview of the topic via answering of the above stated questions from the theology of history point of view, without which its disclosure would hardly have been possible. |
| Assyrian Genocide Monument Unveiled in Boston/Православие.Ru Assyrian Genocide Monument Unveiled in Boston Source: Assyrian International News Agency Grafton, MA, October 25, 2015 An Assyrian genocide monument was unveiled today in Grafton, a suburb of Boston. The monument commemorates the Assyrians who were killed in the Turkish genocide of Assyrians, Pontic Greeks and Armenians between 1915 and 1918. The genocide targeted the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire and claimed the lives of 750,000 Assyrians (75%), 500,000 Greeks and 1.5 million Armenians. The monument was erected on the grounds of Saint Mary " s Assyrian Orthodox Church. It was sponsored by the Assyrian American Association of Massachusetts and designed and crafted by renowned Assyrian artists Ninos Chammo. There are now 16 Assyrian genocide monuments worldwide. The dedication of the monument was attended by the Assyrian community in Boston, one of the oldest Assyrian communities in the United States, Assyrians from nearby states and representatives from the Armenian and Greek communities. The keynote speech was presented by U.S. Congressman James McGovern. Speakers also included Dr. Mary Jane Rein, the Executive Director at Strassler Cneter for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Clark University, Marc Mamigonian, Director of Academic Affairs at the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research. A brief history of the Assyrian genocide was presented by Sabri Atman, Director and cofounder of the Assyrian Genocide Research Center. The AAAM press release said " In dedicating this monument to the Assyrian genocide, at the site of an Assyrian church and cultural center, we honor the lives that were lost and the memories of horror that haunted the girls and boys, men and women who witnessed their families tortured, their children sold as slaves, their women raped, and their men murdered, 100 years ago. " 25 октября 2015 г. Предыдущий Следующий Смотри также Pontian Greek genocide victims commemorated in Kuban Pontian Greek genocide victims commemorated in Kuban Repressions against Greeks and other Christian peoples took place systematically from 1908 to 1923. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf VENIAMINOV, INNOCENT (JOHN POPOV) VENIAMINOV, INNOCENT (JOHN POPOV), Metropolitan of Moscow, Alaskan missionary, translator, St. (1798–1879). Born in Siberia, Joh n Popov was educated at the Irkutsk Seminary and awarded a family name made up from that of the newly deceased Bishop Benjamin (i.e., Veniaminov) in recognition of his high academic performance. He arrived as a priest in Alaska (q.v.) in 1824 with his mother, brother, wife, and son; at that time he found that almost the entire Aleut population was baptized. Fr. Joh n Popov-Veniaminov was an extraordinarily multitalented individual who figured in the history of Alaska by scientifically recording flora, fauna, weather, and the tides. He made furniture, built clocks, designed and built churches-including the Mission House and St. Michael’s Cathedral in Sitka. Both preceding and after his episcopal consecration, he was an advocate for indigenous Christianity in Alaska before the Holy Synod, and was the first resident bishop (1840–1858). He developed an Aleut alphabet and translated a catechism and the Gospel of Matthew with the assistance of Ivan Pankov. He was always an active proponent of education and opened a seminary in Sitka for the training of native clergy. In terms of California history, he made a trip to Fort Ross (q.v.) in 1836 and visited some Spanish Missions in the San Francisco Bay area. He communicated with the Franciscans in Latin, and eventually built a few barrel organs for the Missions. He kept a brief diary of his daily duties and travels while visiting California. (See Russian America.) In terms of Russian history, he was made archbishop in 1850 and combined his Alaskan responsibilities with those of Yakutsk in Asia in 1852. In the succeeding years, he worked with Count Nicholas Muraviev for the annexation of the Amur River Basin, which occurred through the Treaty of Argin in 1858. The next year, he paid his last visit to Sitka and installed his new vicar, Bishop Peter (Lysakov). In 1861, after shipwreck, he spent time in Japan with Fr. Nikolai Kasatkin (q.v.). He served as an apostolic inspiration for this priest who would later be canonized the “Enlightener of Japan.” In 1865 Veniaminov was appointed to the Holy Synod of Russia. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf ROME ROME. Capital of the Roman Empire and see of the popes (qq.v.), Rome and its mystique-Roma aeterna-have played practically as important a role in the Orthodox as in the Roman Catholic Church (q.v.). The ancient capital was, in a sense, the badge of legitimacy for Constantinople, “New Rome,” the capital of the East and of the Empire, which, until its demise in 1453, claimed to be the continuation of the polity begun by Augustus Caesar. The early Christian history of the city is worth noting in brief, not only for its intrinsic value and its influence on the East, but for the remarkably detailed list of its early bishops (Epiphanius, Haer. 27.6). After the burning of the city by Nero (A.D. 64) and the resulting martyrdom of Peter and Paul, the Church grew under Vespasian (69–79) and Titus (79–81 ) until the persecutions of Domitian (81–96) and Trajan (98–117). Ignatius of Antioch (q.v.) was martyred at Rome (ca. 110–117), along with at least one early bishop, Telephorus (ca. 126–136), Justin Martyr (q.v.), and Cecilia-the latter two under the severe persecutions of Marcus Aurelius (161–180). The first century and a half of Christianity in Rome was characterized by these persecutions, while the bishops were Greek-speaking and generally lesser known than contemporary Roman heretics Tatian, Valentinus, and Marcion. These heretics seem to have been criticized only by Rhodo, Pius, (possibly) Justin Martyr, and Hippolytus (q.v.) from the Roman Church. (It is significant that the Christian Apologists [q.v.] from this period, other than the aforementioned, were not Roman.) The earliest Roman bishops who actively appear on the historical record are Clement (ca. 88–97), who wrote an epistle to the Corinthians, which was included in some early lists of the canon of Scripture, Pius I (ca. 141–154), brother of the author of The Shepherd of Hermas and the bishop under whom Marcion was excommunicated, and Anicetus (ca. 155–166), who discussed the quartodeciman question with Polycarp of Smyrna (q.v.). Victor I (ca. 189) was the first Latin-speaking pope. |
| The History and Development of the Orthodox-Oriental Dialogue In the previous article, I discussed the problems that subverted the Ecumenical dialogue. I tried to analyze why the approach led to a dead end and called for a fresh start with a proper approach. In brief, I referred to the fallacy of the attempts of reducing the difference between the Orthodox and Monophysite Christologies to be merely a terminological misunderstanding. Part II – a Historical and Doctrinal Premises Exclusive to Pravmir Part 1 Edited by Elizabeth J Iskander Introduction In the previous article , I discussed the problems that subverted the Ecumenical dialogue. I tried to analyze why the approach led to a dead end and called for a fresh start with a proper approach. In brief, I referred to the fallacy of the attempts of reducing the difference between the Orthodox and Monophysite Christologies to be merely a terminological misunderstanding. Readers should note two points; first, this article sheds light on major facts but doesn’t produce an intensive study on them. Secondly, it should also be known to the reader that the following ideas shed light on the fundamental issues that have been, most probably deliberately, overlooked by the two sides of the Joint Commission of the dialogue. Origins of Monophysitism: a history of the one-nature formula Monophysitism is not a term that has been literally used by Monophysites. In fact, it was later used by scholars to describe a way of thinking that led people to what is called believing in the One-nature. This belief is described by a Greek formula Mia-physis which means the One-nature. The first objection of the Monophysites is the distinction made between mono and mia. The former is the prefix of the name Chalcedonians use to describe the non-Chalcedonian faith, while the latter is the one used in the formula non-Chalcedonians themselves use. They argue that the difference between the term Chalcedonians use, that is mono, and the term used by the non-Chalcedonians, that is mia, shows the inaccurate approach in describing the faith they hold. Actually, Monophysitism is a technical name used to describe the common factors in their various shapes of belief found in Eutychus, Dioscorus, the Severans (Severus and his followers) and later the non-Chalcedonians. Whilst they all reject Orthodox Christology they do not share the same system of belief. In any case, we need to start to understand the origins of the Mia-physis formula and the core of Monophysitism within it. |
|
|
