| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf ICON ICON. The holy icons touch on central issues of Orthodox theology (q.v.) and worship, and the phenomenon of the icon as a distinctive form of Christian art (q.v.) is perhaps the most widely known and appreciated aspect of Orthodox Holy Tradition. Guests in Orthodox households will invariably note the “beautiful corner” (a corner in one of the main rooms featuring a collection of icons and usually a vigil lamp or candle), bookstores display collections of Russian or Greek icons, and the casual visitor to an Orthodox church is normally struck by the wall of images separating the altar area from the nave, the iconostasis (q.v.), punctuated by two large central gates, the Royal Doors, and two side doors, which themselves bear images. A large painting or mosaic of Christ the “All-Ruler” (Pantocrator) is often staring down from the church’s central dome, and dozens-or hundreds-of other pictures around the walls of the church portray important events in the life of Christ together with the saints and prophets. All the images are painted in roughly the same distinctive style. This distinctiveness and the multitude of images-the latter being the simple sense of the Greek word, eikon-is not the product of a wildly decorative urge. It is instead the fruit of a long theological reflection unique in the Christian world. From 731 until 843 the emperors of Byzantium (q.v.) led a movement to remove images from the churches of the Empire. In response to this imperially sponsored iconoclasm (literally, “image smashing”), Joh n of Damascus, Germanos of Constantinople, and Theodore of Studion (qq.v.), who led the iconodule (or iconophile) movement, advanced powerful and ultimately convincing theological arguments in favor of the images. Against the imperial contention that the worship of images was simply idolatry, these writers replied that, while worship belonged indeed to God alone, veneration of the images was nonetheless called for and distinctive. The prayer (q.v.) of the devout is addressed to its object through or by means of the image. In answer to the iconoclasts’ frequent citation of the Decalogue’s commandment against images, they replied that God (q.v.) in the Old Testament could not be portrayed. But because in Christ God’s eternal Word had taken on the permanent “vesture” of humanity, it would be a denial of the Incarnation to refuse the possibility-and even the obligation-of Christ’s portrayal in images as well as in the words of Scripture and the liturgy (qq.v.). |
| The First Sunday of Lent: The Sunday of Orthodoxy Introduction The Sunday of Orthodoxy is the first Sunday of Great Lent. The dominant theme of this Sunday since 843 has been that of the victory of the icons. In that year the iconoclastic controversy, which had raged on and off since 726, was finally laid to rest, and icons and their veneration were restored on the first Sunday in Lent. Ever since, this Sunday has been commemorated as the " Triumph of Orthodoxy. " Historical Background Icon of the The Sunday of Orthodoxy used with permission and provided by: ΕΚΔΟΣΗ και ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ , ΓΑΛΑΚΤΙΩΝΟΣ ΓΚΑΜΙΛΗ ΤΗΛ. 4971 882, ΕΚΤΥΠΟΣΗ Μ. ΤΟΥΜΠΗΣ Α.Ε.,http://www.toubis.gr The Seventh Ecumenical Council dealt predominantly with the controversy regarding icons and their place in Orthodox worship. It was convened in Nicaea in 787 by Empress Irene at the request of Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Council was attended by 367 bishops. Almost a century before this, the iconoclastic controversy had once more shaken the foundations of both Church and State in the Byzantine empire. Excessive religious respect and the ascribed miracles to icons by some members of society, approached the point of worship (due only to God) and idolatry. This instigated excesses at the other extreme by which icons were completely taken out of the liturgical life of the Church by the Iconoclasts. The Iconophiles, on the other-hand, believed that icons served to preserve the doctrinal teachings of the Church; they considered icons to be man's dynamic way of expressing the divine through art and beauty. The Council decided on a doctrine by which icons should be venerated but not worshipped. In answering the Empress' invitation to the Council, Pope Hadrian replied with a letter in which he also held the position of extending veneration to icons but not worship, the last befitting only God. The decree of the Council for restoring icons to churches added an important clause which still stands at the foundation of the rationale for using and venerating icons in the Orthodox Church to this very day: " We define that the holy icons, whether in colour, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. |
| The Goal of History is the Birth of the Christ Fr. Ted Bobosh Abraham and Sara. Orthodox liturgical practice has undergone significant development over its 2000-year history. There were times in Orthodox history in which differing practices could be found occurring simultaneously in various parts of the Byzantine Empire. Over time some of these practices disappeared, some were changed, and some came to predominate over other variations. Christmas is one season that has undergone change through the centuries. The Nativity Fast itself underwent change and development. At one time, monasteries kept Christmas Eve as a feast day, not a strict fast day. By the time of St. Gregory of Palamas (14th Century), in the Orthodox liturgical practice: Later, however, two additional preparatory Sundays were established, which broadened the original theme to include all the righteous of the Old Dispensation—all those who were well-pleasing to God from Adam to Joseph the Betrothed, including those men and women who had prophesied of the coming of Christ, especially the prophet Daniel and the Three Holy Children (whose feast day falls on December 17/30). Hence, the first Sunday before Christmas (between December 18/31 to December 24/January 6) became known as the ‘Sunday before the Nativity of Christ’ […], while the second Sunday (between December 11/24 to 17/30) took on the name, ‘Sunday of the Holy Forefathers of Christ’ […]—to distinguish them from the Fathers of the ecumenical councils, while the third Sunday before Christmas (between 1 to 10 December) is simply an extension of the second, continuing the remembrance of all those who lived before and under the law, and is marked by the readings of Luke 13:10-17, which speaks of the Crippled Woman who was Healed by Christ on the Sabbath as a ‘daughter of Abraham’. ” So, St. Matthew begins his Gospel and genealogy with the Patriarch Abraham (Mt. 1:1-25): The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. |
| 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. |
| Г. А. Острогорский Список сокращений часто цитируемых работ и периодических изданий Actes de l’Athos Petit L., Korablev В., Kegel V., Kurtz E. Actes de l’Athos//ВВ. Прилож. 10(1903), 12(1906), 13(1907), 17(1911), 19(1912), 20(1913). Adontz . Basile I. Adontz N. L " âge et l " origine de l " empereur Basile I//Byz. 8 (1933). P. 475–550; 9 (1934). P. 223–260. Adontz. Samuel l " Armenien. Adontz N. Samuel l " Arménien, roi des Bulgares//Mémoires de l " Académie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres 38 (1938). P. 1–63. Alexander . Patr. Nicephorus. Alexander P.J. The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople. Ecclesiastical Policy and Image Worship in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford, 1958. Babinger . Beiträge. Babinger F. Beiträge zur Frühgeschichte der Türkenherrschaft in Rumelien (14.–15. Jahrhundert). Brünn-München-Wien, 1944. (Südosteuropäische Arbeiten; 34). Banescu . Duchés byzantins. Banescu N. Les Duchés byzantins de Paristrion (Paradounavon) et de Bulgarie. Bucarest, 1946. Beck . Kirche. Beck H.-G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. München, 1959. (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII. 2. 1: Byzantinisches Handbuch II 1). Beneševi . Ranglisten Beneševi V.N. Die byzantinischen Ranglisten nach dem Kletorologion Philothei und nach den Jerusalemer Handschriften//BNJ 5 (1926). S. 97–167; 6 (1928). S. 143–145. Byzantinisch-Neugriechischejahrbücher. Berlin-Athen, 1920–1960. Bon . Le Péloponnèse Bon A. Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqúen 1204. Paris, 1951. Bratianu . Études byz. Bratianu G.I. Études byzantines d " histoire économiqueet sociale. Paris, 1938. Bratianu . Privilèges. Bratianu G.I. Privilèges et franchises municipales dans l’Empire byzantin. Paris-Bucarest, 1936. Bréhier . Institutions. Bréhier L. Les institutions de l " Empire byzantin. Le Monde Byzantin, II. Paris, 1948. (L " évolution de l " humanité 32 bis). Bréhier. Civilisation. Bréhier L. La civilisation byzantine. Le Monde Byzantin III. Paris, 1950. (L’évolution de l " humanité; 32 ter). |
| XXI. Эпоха императора Юстиниана Александр Дворкин. Очерки по истории Вселенской Православной Церкви. Литература: Meyendorff, Imperial Unity; Meyendorff J. Emperor Justinian, the Empire, and the Crurch//Byzantine Legacy in the Orthodox Church. N.Y., 1982; Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Thought; Previte-Orton; Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State; Vasiliev; Карташев; Шмеман, Исторический путь; Jones; Болотов; Флоренский, Восточные отцы V-VIII вв.; Obolensky D. Byzantium and the Slavs, N.Y., 1994. 1. Итак, в 518 г. на трон взошел начальник дворцовой стражи Юстин I (518-527). Он происходил из бедной крестьянской семьи, но благодаря своим способностям (он стал весьма дельным генералом) сделал фантастическую карьеру. До конца дней своих он так и не научился грамоте и подписывался через прорезь в золотой табличке. Сам по себе императором он был никаким, но у него было два очень больших достоинства: его православие и его племянник. На самом деле Империей управлял племянник Юстина Юстиниан (Флавий Петр Савватий Юстиниан), получивший благодаря своему дяде великолепное образование. Родом Юстиниан был из небольшого городка близ Скопье. По происхождению он был славянином, но романизированным, так как его родным языком был латинский. Образование он получил в Константинополе и поэтому, естественно, в совершенстве владел греческим. Когда его дядя взошел на престол, Юстиниану было 36 лет. 1 апреля 527 г. Юстин сделал Юстиниана императором-соправителем, а после его смерти в том же году началось долгое единоличное правление Юстиниана I (527-565). Сразу же по пришествии к власти Юстин начал вести прохалкидонскую политику. Юстиниан продолжил эту политику, еще более радикально вводя религиозное единообразие по всей Империи. Юстиниан стал, наверное, самым знаменитым византийским императором, но, несомненно, и самым противоречивым. Его придворный историк Прокопий оставил нам две истории правления императора. Одна - парадная: «История войн Юстиниана» и «Трактат о постройках Юстиниана», наполненная безмерными восхвалениями; другая - так называемая «Тайная история», где собраны все сплетни и грязь об императоре и его жене. Наверное, как и всегда, истина находится посередине. Кем же был император Юстиниан, еще при жизни бывший творцом истории и через свой свод законов продолжающий оказывать влияние на сегодняшний мир? |
| БИБЛИОГРАФИЯ 1 . Abraham W., Powstanie organizacyi kosciola lacinskiego na Rusi, I. Lwow,1904. 2 . Ammann A. M., Abriss der Ostslavischen Kirchengeschichte. Wien, 1950. 3 . Ammann A. M., Kirchenpolitische Wandlungen im Ostbaltikum bis zum Tode Alexander Newskis. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 105, Rome, 1936. 4 . Angold M., A Byzantine Government in Exile; Government and Society under the Lascaria of Nicaea (1204–1261). Oxford, 1905. 5 . Aristarches, S., ? ? ?, II. Constantinople, 1900. 6 . Balard M., A propos de la bataille du Bosphore. L " expedition genoise de Paganino Doria. In: Travaux et Memoires, 4, Paris, 1970. 7 . Barker J. W., Manuel II Paleologus (1391–1425). In: A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship, New Brunswick, N. J., 1969. 8 . Baumgarten N. de, Saint Vladimir et la conversion de la Russie. In: Orientalia Christiana, 27, 1; n72, 1932. 9 . Beck H.-G., Von der Fragwurdigkeit der Ikone. In: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 1975, Heft 7, Munchen, 1975. 10 . Beck H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII, 2, 1: Byzantinisches Handbuch II, l, Munchen, 1959. 11 . Boissonade J. F., Anecdota graeca, V, Paris, 1833, (repr. Hildesheim, 1962). 12 . Boojamra J. C., The Ecclesiastical Reforms of Patriarch Athanasius of Constantinople. Unpublished dissertation, Fordham University, N. Y., 1976. 13 . Bratianu G. L, Recherches sur le commerce genois dans la Mer Noire au XIII siecle. Paris, 1929. 14 . Brehier L., Les institutions de l " Empire Byzantin. Le Monde byzantin, II (L " evolution de l " humanite, 32 bis), Paris 1948. 15 . Byzantinische Zeitschrift (BZ), Leipzig, 1982-. 16 . Byzantium. The Imperial Centuries. AD 610–1071, London, I960-. 17 . Cherniavsky M., Khan or basileus: an Aspect of Russian Mediaeval Political Theory. Journal of History of Ideas, 20, 1959. 18 . Chodynicki K., Kosciol Prawoslawny a Rzeczpospolita Polska (1370–1632). Warszawa, 1934. 19 . Chomates Nicetas, Historia, ed. Bonn. |
| Н. Ломоури Афонский Ивирон The Georgian centre of scholarship and enlightenment on Mount Athos East of the Balcan peninsula, the Chalcidice peninsula just out into the Aegean Sea from its northern coast, like a giant trident. Its eastern prong is the narrow and elongated Athos peninsula (Acte in antiquity), also called Ayion Oros, i. e. « the «Holy Mount». Its advantageous location, remarkable climate, rich vegetation» (olivetree plantations, beech, oak and pine woods), the mountainous terrain have attracted believers since the seventh and eighth centuries: first anchorites, and later monks came to live there. The first monks took up their abode in small, scattered cells; but in 963 Athanasius, a well-known divine, founded the first big monastery on Mt. Athos, near the southeastern coast of the above peninsula. The founding of Athanasius» «Great Laura» launched large-scale erection of monasteries on Mt. Athos, gaining it the name of «Holy Mount».In the same tenth century other monasteries sprang up there, among them a Georgian monastery or « Iviron» which from the very outset became one of the powerful centres of Georgian enlightenment and literature. Georgians very early began to take part in the monastic movement in the Byzantine Empire. This is attributable not so much to the ascetic and mystical aspirations of Georgian ecclesiastics, but rather to their interest in Christian literature which was then being developed mainly in the Byzantine monastic centres. As far back as the fifth century, Georgian monks joined the fraternities in Egyptian monasteries and subsequently founded their own cloisters in Palestine, in the environs of Jerusalem. Since those days numbers of Georgian monks came to live and work in such Palestinian monasteries as St. Sabbas», Palaura, Gethsemane and elsewhere; these cloisters became some of the oldest centres of Georgian literature. In the early mediaeval period, Georgian monks also came to Syria to dwell in the environs of Antioch, on the so-called Black Mount; and beginning with the eleventh century, they were exceedingly active. An original Georgian literary school came into being in Syria, and the works of a number of eminent scholars enriched Georgian ecclesiastic literature. |
| Примечания 1 The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus and his reign. Cambridge, 1929; The First Bulgarian Empire. London, 1933; The Medieval Manichee. Cambridge, 1947; A History of the Crusades. Cambridge. Vol. I. 1951; Vol. II. 1952; Vol. III. 1954; The Eastern Schism. Oxford, 1955; The Sicilian Vespers. Cambridge, 1958; The White Rajahs. 1960; The Fall of Constantinople, 1453. Cambridge, 1965; The Great Church in Captivity. Cambridge, 1970; The Orthodox Churches and the Secular State. 1972; Byzantine Style and Civilization. 1975; The Byzantine Theocracy. Cambridge, 1977; Mistra. London, 1980; A Traveller " s Alphabet. Partial Memoires. London, 1991. Многие из этих монографий переведены на разные европейские языки, в том числе пять — на греческий. 2 Именно поэтому мы оставляем в неизмененном виде подстрочный аппарат книги и авторский список литературы. 3 В настоящее время готовится русский перевод этой книги. 4 Вслед за ним подобную схему строит другой английский византинист, Д. Оболенский, который ввел в научный обиход понятие «Византийского содружества государств». 5 Эта градация хорошо показана в монографии С. А. Иванова: Иванов С. А. В изантийское миссионерство. Можно ли сделать из варвара христианина? М.. 2003. 6 История экуменических контактов Вселенского патриархата нашла своего исследователя в лице ныне здравствующего В. Ф. Ставридиса, младшего современника Рансимэна, профессора Халкинской богословской школы и автора многочисленных работ по истории Церкви и каноническому праву. Он был одним из главных ученых, теоретически обосновавших экуменический курс, принятый Вселенским патриархатом со времени патр. Афинагора. См.: Σταυρικο В. " Ορθδοξος " Ελληνικ Βιβλιογραφα π της Οικουμενικς Κινσεως. Αθναι, 1960; Idem. Ιστορα της Οικουμενικς Κινσεως. " Αθνα, 1964 и др. 7 Мы умышленно включаем в него только некоторые монографические исследования; статьи в периодических изданиях и издания источников остаются за пределами списка и желающие могут ознакомиться с ними в библиографиях к указанным новейшим книгам. |
| СПИСОК СОКРАЩЕНИЙ AB Analecta Bollandiana. Brussels, 1882. ?. Schwartz, ed. Ada conciliorum oecumenicorum. Berlin, 1927. Beck. Kirche H.G. Beck. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII, 2, 1). Munich, 1959. Bolotov. Lektsii V.V. Bolotov. Lektsiipo istorii drevnei tserkvi. IV. Istoriya tserkvi ? period vselenskikhsoborov. – Istoriya bogoslovskoimysli. Petrograd, 1918. Butler. The Arab Conquest A.J. Butler. The Arab conquest of Egypt and the last thirty years of the Roman dominion. Ed. by F.M. Fraser. Second edition. Oxford, 1978. Byzantiniche Zeitschrift. Leipzig, 1892. Chalkedon A. Grillmeier and Bacht. Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2 vol. Wurzburg, 1953–62. P. Kruger, ed. Codex Justinianus. Berlin, 1954. P.R. Coleman–Norton. Roman State and Christian Church. A Collection of Legal Documents to A.D. 535.1–III. London. SPCK. 1966. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. Paris, 1903. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna, 1866. T. Mommsenand D.M. Meyer, edd. Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Comtitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes. Berlin, 1954. 2 vols. Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Washington, D.C., 1941. Duchesne. L " Eglise L. Duchesne. L " Eglise au We siecle. Paris, 1925. Echos d " Orient. Paris, 1897. Frend. The Rise W.H.C.Frend. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge, 1972. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte. Leipzig, Berlin, 1897. Greek Orthodox Theological Review. Brookline, Mass., 1952. Jedin–Dolan. History H.Jedin and J.Dolan. History of the Church, II. The Imperial Church from Constantine to the early Middle Ages, by K. Baus, H.G. Beck, E. Evig, H.J. Vogt. Translated by Anselm Biggs. The Seabury Press. New York, 1980. Jones. Roman Empire A.H. M.Jones. The Later Roman Empire, 184–602. A Social andAdministrative Survey. Oxford. Blackwell, 1964. 3 vols, and maps. Journal of Theological Studies. London, 1899. |
|
|
