| From our perspective the decision by the General Synod of the Church of England to allow women to be ordained bishops has come about not as a theological or ecclesiastical-practical necessity, but by the determination to follow secular notions of equality of the sexes in all areas of life. This in turn is tied to the fact that women now have more elevated roles in British society. In other words, the female episcopate, like the female priesthood, is a result of the successes of the feminist movement, which arose and developed in a secular environment, and was not the result of the natural development of Christian teaching and ecclesiastical order. Of course, our Anglican opponents will try to tell us the opposite. They claim that, on the contrary, the introduction of the female episcopate has been dictated by the interests of the Church. We could in the final run renounce all arguments on female priesthood and episcopate or transfer these arguments solely to the sphere of internal dialogue within the framework of the corresponding theological commissions. However, there are other processes at work in the Churches of the Anglican communion which cause great alarm and disappointment in the Orthodox milieu. And not only for the Orthodox: the Anglican communion itself has now become divided as a result of these processes. We mean, in particular, the recognition of same-sex unions as marriage – recognition not only by secular legislation but also by a number of Anglican communities. Recognition of these unions is deemed to be not only a permissible way of life but also something normal and laudable and never a hindrance to receiving not only priestly but also episcopal ordination, as deserving of the approval and blessing of the Church. In 2003 the open homosexual Gene Robinson was elevated to the rank of bishop in the Episcopalian Church of the USA, and in 2010 in Los Angeles the episcopal see was occupied by a woman cohabiting openly in a same-sex relationship. In 2009 the General Convention of the Episcopalian Church took a decision obliging the ordination of homosexuals, and in 2012 adopted an official liturgical text for the blessing of ‘same-sex marriages’ with a peculiar title – The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant. It is impossible to reconcile such decisions with the commandments of Scripture and traditional Christian morality. The Orthodox Church has condemned the aforementioned innovations as apostasy from the norms of the apostolic faith and church order as fixed by the Gospel and Church Tradition. |
| Metropolitan Emmanuel of France, head of the delegation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, is convinced that the only way to the restoration of church unity is the return of schismatics to the Orthodox Church led by Metropolitan Vladimir. Metropolitan Emmanuel added that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has not maintained any contacts with schismatics and has not recognized them. The Church of Constantinople keeps in line with all Orthodox, and a unilateral recognition of schismatics is out of the question. Any talk about a possible recognition does not relate to reality; Filaret is trying to write his own “A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Metropolitan Emmanuel also spoke about relations between the Church of Constantinople and the Russian Church. “The relations between Constantinople and Moscow have improved and we should cherish and guard them like the apple of our eyes,” he said and added with confidence that His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia was disposed towards solving problems on the agenda. Metropolitan Petros of Aksum from the Church of Alexandria also stated unequivocally that schismatics had not the faintest chance of recognition by the Local Orthodox Churches. The jubilee festivities have clearly shown the present stability in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, he said. He is convinced that nothing can disturb the peace in the Church. Metropolitan Gavriil of Love, who led the delegation of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church, told the journalists about the history and appearance and overcoming the schism in Bulgaria, noting that the government contributed to the appearance of schism in 1992. Yet later, a law on religions was passed, which actually did away with the schism. The government saw that none of the Orthodox Churches recognized the schismatics, but did recognize the canonical Church. There are secular people in the government who cannot always discern certain things, but it was clear to them that the Orthodox Church is one and does not recognize schismatics. |
| However, on November 8, 2019, His Holiness Patriarch Theodore unexpectedly announced his recognition of the Ukrainian schismatic group, began commemorating its leader at divine services, and on August 13, 2021 entered into direct Eucharistic communion with him. As is known, the recognition by His Holiness Patriarch Theodore of the schismatic structure in Ukraine caused rejection, including within the Alexandrian Orthodox Church itself. Many of its clergy publicly spoke out in defense of the canonical Ukrainian Church, declared their disagreement with the obviously illegal decision of their Primate, and did not want to be in canonical submission to the one who embarked on the path of schism. For two years, the Russian Church did not respond to the appeals of the African clergy that came to it, but patiently expected that His Holiness Patriarch Theodore would change his mind. However, during this time, His Holiness did not limit himself to commemorating the head of one of the Ukrainian schismatic groups in diptychs of the Orthodox Primates, but entered into Eucharistic communion with him and other “hierarchs” of this structure. These mournful events convinced the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the need to respond to the appeals received and to form, under these exceptional circumstances, a Patriarchal Exarchate in Africa. Such a difficult decision, taken in the situation of the recognition of the Ukrainian schismatics by the Patriarch of Alexandria, is in no way an expression of a claim to the canonical territory of the ancient Church of Alexandria, but pursues the only goal – to give canonical protection to those Orthodox clerics of Africa who do not want to participate in the lawless legitimization of the schism in Ukraine. We call on His Holiness Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria and the archpastors of the Most Holy Church of Alexandria to stop supporting the Ukrainian schism and to return to the canonical path in order to preserve the unity of Holy Orthodoxy.” |
| 12 В добавление к примерам Р. Рока можно привести следующее высказывание свт. Григория Богослова : «Порядок составил все. Порядок охватывает небесных и земных, порядок в умопостигаемых, порядок в чувственных, порядок среди ангелов, порядок среди звезд и в движении, и в размерах, и в отношении друг к другу, и в блистании» (Gregorius Nazianzenus. De moderatione in disputando 32, 2, PG 36, 181:33–37). 13 Clemens Alexandrinus. Eclogae Propheticae 51–52, 3/Ed. L. Früchtel, O. Stählin, U. Treu. B., 1970 (GCS 17)). 14 1-я и 2-я книга Еноха, Апокалипсис Авраама; Восхождение Исаии. См.: Himmelfarb 1993; λξανδρος (Γκολτσιν), ερομ. 2000. Σ. 628. 16 Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata 6, 17, 161, 2:2–3 (Vol. 2/Ed. L. Früchtel, O. Stählin, U. Treu. B., 1960 (GCS 52 (15)). 18 Gregorius Nazianzenus. De Theologia (or. 28). P. 31:14–25 (Gregor von Nazianz. Die fünf theologischen Reden/Ed. J. Barbel. Düsseldorf, 1963). Рус. пер.: Св. Григорий Богослов . Творения. ТСЛ, 1994. Т. 1. С. 412–413. 20 Palladius. Epistula ad Lausum. P. 7:2–6 (The Lausiac history of Palladius. Vol. 2/Ed. C. Butler. Cambridge, 1904 (Hildesheim, r 1967)). Рус. пер.: Палладия, епископа Еленопольского, «Лавсаик» , или Повествование о жизни святых и блаженных отцев. СПб., 1850. С. 5. 21 Proclus. In Platonis Parmenidem. P. 1090:25–28 (Procli philosophi Platonici opera inedita/Ed. V. Cousin. Pars 3. P., 1864 (Hildesheim, r 1961)). 28 Очищение остается необходимым только для людей, а для низших ангельских чинов оно понимается как просвещение от Бога в отношении того, чего они не знали (De ecclesiastica hierarchia 6, 3, 6. P. 119:24–26). 29 Епископы исполняют тройное служение: очищения, просвещения и совершенствования; священники – очищения и просвещения; диаконы – очищения, по более обычной схеме Ареопагита (Ibidem 5, 1, 5 (P. 119:8–10)). 31 Прокл учил о происхождении низшего от высшего. См.: Roques 1983. P. 78. Примеч. 3. Ср. сходное учение Дамаския о тождестве отличия, появляющегося при исхождении, и рождения. Damascius. De principiis (Damascii successoris dubitationes et solutiones. Vol. 1/Ed. C. É. Ruelle. P., 1889. P. 244:15–21). В «Божественных именах» Дионисий сам указывает на эти пункты, отличающие его от Прокла, хотя и не называет его: «Не одно благо, и другое сущее, и другое жизнь или мудрость, и не много причин и иных… божеств, превосходящих других и возвышающихся над ними, но одному Богу принадлежат все благие исхождения и нами воспеваемые божественные наименования, и одно из них указывает на Промысл всесовершенного и единого Бога, а другие – на Его более общие и более частные свойства» (De divinis nominibus 5, 2 (P. 181:16–21)). |
| PETRUS LAODICENUS. Commentarius in 4 Evangelia, fg., 86, II, 3323–30. ANONYMUS. De Christi nativitatis et Passionis annis; 92, 1057–60; alii duo, 1, 858–9 in no-tis. EUTHALIUS. Editio Actuum Apostolorum, 10, 1549–58 et 85, 627–64. Editio catholicarum epistolarum, 665–90. Editio epistolarum Pauli, 693–790. In Matthæum. Clemens Alex. Fg,. 2, 743–4. Origenis, 13, 829–1800; 17, 289–310. Hippolytus, 10, 699–700. Gregorius Thaumaturgus, in VI, 22–3, 10, 1189–90. Athanasius, 26, 1251–6; 27. 1368–90. Chrysostomus hom. 1–90, 67–58 (13–794). Fg. 793–4. – Aniani versio, 58, 975–1058. Ps.-Chrysostomus, Opus imperfection, 57, 611–946. Theodorus Mops., 66, 703–14. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 73, 365–470, 471–4. Ammonius, 85, 1381–92. Petrus Laodicenus, 86, II, 3323–6. Joan. Damascenus, 96, 1407–14. Scholia Vetera, 106, 1077–1174. Photius, 101, 1189–1210. Theodorus Prodromus, . 133, 1177–96. Theophylactus, 133, 139–488. Euthymius Zigabenus, 129. 111–766. Macarius Chrysocephalus, 150, 239–42. Theophanes Cerameus, 132, 331–44, de genealogia. In Marcum. Theodorus Mops., 66, 713–16. Petrus Laodicenus, 86, II, 3325–8. Scholia Vetera. 106, 1173–78. Photius, 101, 1209–14. Theophylactus, 123, 4S7–682. Euthymius Zigabenus, 129, 767–852. Theodoras Prodromus, , 133, 1195–8. In Lucam. Heracleo hæreticus, 7, 1291–2. Clemens Alex., 9. 743–44. Hippolytus, 10, 699–702. Origenes, 13, 1799–1902. Fg., 1901–10; 17, 311–70. Dionysius Alex., 10, 1589–1602. Eusebius Cæs., 24, 529–606. Athanasius, 26, 1243–46; 27, 1381–1404; PGLT., 80, 705–13. Titus Bostrensis. PGLT., 80,757–816. Theodorus Mops., 66, 715–28. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, 73, 475–950. Theodoretus, 84, 31–2. Olympiodorus, 93, 779–80. Petrus Laodicenus, 86. II, 3327–30. Scholia Vetera, 106, 1177–1218. Anastasius Antiochenus, 89, 1285–8. Photius, 101, 1213–30. Nicetas David, 106, 575–8. Theophylactus, 123, 681–1126. Euthymius Zigabenus, 129, 853–1102. Macarius Chrysocephalus, 150, 240–4. Anonymus, Interpretatio duarum odarum Lucæ, , 129, 1101–6. Theodorus Prodromus, , 133, 1197–1204. |
| Origenes, 11. 415–562. Macarius ægyptius, 34, 853–66. Basilius Cæs. De gratiarum actione, 31, 217–38. Chrysostomus, 1–2, 50, 773–86. Chrysostomus, 62, 737–40; 64, 461–66. Nilus, 79, 1165–1200. Eusebius Alex. De gratiarum actione, 86, I, 331–42. Antiochus. De oratione et confessions, 89, 1849–56. Symeon Junior Theologus. De tribus modis orationis, 120, 701–10. Nicephorus et Ignatius Xanthopuli, 147, 813–18. Callistus Telicudes. De oratione et attentions, 147, 827–32. De Oratione Dominica. Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus, 33, 1117–24. Gregorius Nyssenus, hom. 1–5, 44, 1119–94: 46, 1109–10; PGLT., 80, 737–8. Chrysostomus. 51, 41–48; 59, 627–8. Petrus Laodicenus, 86, II, 3329–36. Maximus, 90, 871–910. VII. INDEX MORALIS ET ASCETICUS A) UNIVERSE TESTAMENTUM XII PATRIARCHARUM, 2, 1037–1150. CLEMENS. Epistola ad Corinthios, 1, 201–328; Ep. 329–48. HERMAS, Pastor, 2, 89l-1012. CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, Pædagogus, 8, 247–684. Quis dives salvetur, 9, 603–52. De obtrectatione, 9, 751–54. ORIGENES. Exhortatio ad martyrium, 11, 563–638. ANTONIUS ABBAS. Sermo de vanitate mundi, 40, 961–64. Sermones 1–20 ad monachos, 963–78. Epistolæ 1–7. 977–1000. Alia; 1–20, 999–1066. Epistola ad Theodorum, 1065–6. Regulæ et præcepta, 1065–74. Spiritualia Documenta, 1073–80. Admonitiones, 1079–84. Sententiarum expositio, 1083–94. Responsiones, 1093–8,1097–1102: PACHOMIUS. Præcepta, 40, 947–52; vide PL., 23, 61–88. ORSIESIUS. Doctrina de institutione monachorum, 40, 869–94. De sex cogitationibus sanctorum, 895–6. THEODORUS ABBAS, 40, memoratur; vide PL. r 103, 99, 433, 441, 475. SERAPION. Epistola ad Eudoxium, 40, 923–26. Epistola ad monachos, 925–42. MACARIUS ÆGYPTIUS. Epistolæ et preces, 34, 401–48. Homiliæ spirituales, 1–50, 449–822. Opuscula ascetica [ex homiliis a Symeone Logotheta], 821–968. De custodia cordis. 821–908. De perfectione in spiritu, 841–52. De oratione, 853–66. De patientia et discretione, 865–90. De elevatione mentis, 889–908. De caritate, 907–36. De libertate mentis, 935–68. MACARIUS ALEXANDRINUS. De statu animarum post hanc vitam, 34, 385–92. |
| Ser. 5. Vol. 6 (8). P. 89; Ramsay W. M. Op. cit. P. 280 ss.; cp. Idem. The Late Professor Hort II//The Expositor. 1893. Ser. 4. Vol. 7 (1). P. 73). 572 Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 16, PG 20, 173; cp. Idem. Chronicorum, lib. II, PG 19, 539; Hieronymus Stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 8, PL 23, 621; cp. Idem. Interpretatio Chronicae Eusebii Pamphili, PL 27, 578 ss. По Евсевию, Марк был первым епископом александрийским и сменен Аннианом в 8-й год Нерона (Eusebius Caesariensis. Chronicorum, lib. II, PG 19, 543), каковую дату Иероним относит к смерти евангелиста (Hieronymus Stridonensis. De viris illustribus, 8, PL 23, 622), между тем в Constitutiones apostolicae VII, 46, PG 1, 1052 именно Анниан является первым предстоятелем александрийской церкви по назначению Марка, который, по Епифанию, был отправлен в Египет св. ап. Петром после написания Евангелия (Epiphanius Constantiensis. Panarion, haeres. 51, 6, PG 41, 900). 573 Eusebius Caesariensis. Chronicorum, lib. II, PG 19, 539; Hieronymus Stridonensis. Interpretatio Chronicae Eusebii Pamphili, PL 27, 579; cp. Chronicon Paschale, PG 92, 560. 574 В латинском переводе «Анналов» Евтихия место, о котором идет речь: Eutychius Alexandrinus. Annales, PL 111, 982. -Ред. 576 Cm. Hamack A. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Theil 2: Die Chronologie. Bd. 1: Die Chronologie der Litteratur bis Irenaeus. Leipzig, 1897. S. 70 ss., 124. 577 Cm. Tischendorf C. Acta apostolorum apocrypha. Lipsiae, 1851. P. 73. [Апокриф принято сейчас называть «Деяния Варнавы: странствия и мученичество св. апостола Варнавы » и относить к V в. -Ред.] В «Климентинах» представляется, что сам Варнава пребывал в Египте и здесь поддерживал учение св. ап. Петра (см., например, Pseudo-Clemens Romanus. Homilia I, 9 и 15, PG 1, 64 и 72). 578 Eusebius Caesariensis. Historia Ecclesiastica II, 24, PG 20, 205. [Вероятно, неточность Глубоковского: в указанном месте говорится лишь, что «на восьмом году царствования Нерона первым после евангелиста и апостола Марка управление Александрией получил Анниан, муж боголюбивый и во всем удивительный». |
| Amidae) alteram; de qua fermo eft in fubfequenti Titulo 4-to: eiusdem hujus Capitis p. 342. 63 Et Elgae denique Rufforum Archontiffae poftremam, de qua agitur in Titulo Capitis; quem nos numeramus 5-um: p. 343. 64 Sed Infcriptiones illae, Indiftionem 4-am: praefeferentes, manifefti erroris arguuntur. I o : Quoniam in folemnitatibus illis, aderat et Romanus Filius fimul cum Conftantino Patre, tanquam Imperator, ut abunde puto fuperius oftenfum eft. Sed Romanus II non nifi Indiftione VI, in Confortium a Patre vocatus fuit Imperii, ut hoc paritec extra omne dubium manet. Ergo falfo, пес fine patentifimo Anachronismo, ad Indiftionem IV. retrograde relatse funt. 2 : Quia pag. 329. Ceremoniarii, Amerumnae Legati recipiebantur 31. d. Menfis Maji. Pag. vero 330, Legati Hispani, eodem prorfus modo atque Tarfenfes, recipiebantur d. 24. Oftobris. Sequebatur deinde Ludus Equeftris in gratiam Saracenorum inftitutus; pag. 340. Et poft Ludum d. 6. Augufti, Transfigurationis fplendidiffimum Feftum celebrabatur pag. 341. Atque poft Feftumr; d. 9 Augufti Regale fuccedebat convivium; pag. 342. Poft haec d. 30. Augufti Recepceptio fiebat Delemici; pag. eadem 342. Tandem Receptio peragebatur Elgae Principis, d. 9. Septembris; pag. 343. Et deinceps convivia parabantur, Oftobris d. 18. Principum Rufforum cum Rege, et Archontiffe Elgae cum Defpcenâ feu cum Imperatrice, et Liberis; pag. 345. At quotus quisque ille fuerit, qui alicui perfuadere queat, in eadem Indiftione IV. Id eft, in una eademque unius eiusdemque anni revolutione, coincidere potuifle, res quae geftae fuerint iuxta fequentem feriem: 31. Maji – 24. Qftobris – 6. vd 9. vel 30. Augufti – 9. Septembris – 18. Oftobris? Atqui haec omnia in ipfo Ceremoniarii Textu ita ex ordine referuntur. Ergo Infcriptiones illas Titulorum, Indiftionem IV. defignantes, mendofas effe necefle eft. Et ruit ergo vis teftimonii tota ex Infcriptionibus illis defumpti; quo probetur anno 946. adventum Elgae Conftantinopolim eveniffe; quo an no numerbatur IV. Indiftio. His igitur abfurdis ita patefaftis, quid tandem de Titulis illis Libri II. Cap. XV. Ceremoniarii dicendum erit, in quibus Indiftio IV. praefixa legitur? Quid aliud Mehercle, nifi quod Tituli illi erronei, adfgtitiique, aut faltem interpoluti funt ? nee, per confequens ab ipfo Authore Syntagmatis Confhntino, ita, leguntur inferipti, fed ab aliquo inepto inertique exferiptore, per ignorantiam craffam feu per levem ofcitantiam, ibi inferti? Nifi quis fane contendere velit, operis ipfius Elucubratorem, tarn fegniter et incuriofe Ceremoniarium hoc fuum confcripfiife, ut aliud quid in Articulorum traftandorum Titulis praefigeret; aliud vera in fubieftis Articulis proferret, plane incongruum et incohserens. Quod utique de tanto Auftore, vel fufpicaii prorfus, nefas fit. |
| Quenot, Michel. The Icon: Window on the Kingdom. Translated by a Carthusian monk. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1991. 176 p. Translation of L’icone. Includes bibliographical references (p. 168–169). Rhythm in Byzantine Chant: Acta of the Congress Held at Hernen Castle in November 1986. Editor, Ch. Hannick. Hernen, Holland: A. A. Bredius Foundation, 1991. xii, 201 p. German, French, and English. Rice, David Talbot. Byzantine Icons. London: Faber and Faber, 1959. 24 p. 10 mounted col. (The Faber gallery of oriental art.) -. Icons and Their Dating: A Comprehensive Study of Their Chronology and Provenance. David and Tamara Talbot Rice. London: Thames & Hudson, 1974. 192 p., p. of plates. Bibliography: p. 6. -. Icons and Their History. David and Tamara Talbot Rice. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press, 1974. 192 p., leaves of plates. Bibliography: p. 6. -. Russian Icons. NY: Penguin Books, 1947. 40 p. (The King Penguin Books.) “A short bibliography”: p. 39. Romanus, Melodus, Saint, 6th cent. Kontakia of Romanos, Byzantine Melodist. Translated and annotated by Marjorie Carpenter. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1970–72; v. 2, 1973. 2 v. translation of Cantica. The basis of the translation is the Oxford ed. published in 1963, and edited by P. Maas and C. A. Trypanis. Bibliography: v. 1, p. xxxvii-xxxviii; v. 2, p. x. Contents: 1. On the Person of Christ. 2. On Christian Life. Runciman, Steven. Byzantine Style and Civilization. NY: Penguin, 1990. 238 p. Includes bibliography (p. 227–229) and index. Savas, Savas J. The Treasury of Orthodox Hymnology: Triodion: An Historical and Hymnographic Examination. Minneapolis: Light and Life, 1983. 61, 5 p. Bibliography: p. 63–66. “V. 1.” Schork, R. J. Sacred Song from the Byzantine Pulpit: Romanus the Melodist. Gainesville: University of Florida, 1995. Seaman, Gerald R. History of Russian Music. Oxford: Blackwell, 1967-. Amplification of the author’s thesis, 1961. Bibliography: v. 1, p. 297–303. Contents: v. 1. From Its Origins to Dargomyzhsky. |
| 2310 γρ πλις οκεα τν σοφν ρετ [Ибо родной город мудрецов – добродетель...] (Philo Alexandrinus. Legum allegoriarum liber III, 1, Schwickert. T. 1. P. 126). 2312 Κα πολιτεεται μν ν ορανος, π γς παιδαγωγομενος, πατρα δ κε λαμβνει, ν π γς μανϑνει (Clemens Alexandrinus. Paedagogus III, 12, PG 8, 677C). 2313 Λγουσι γρ κα ο Στωικο, τν μν ορανν κυρως πλιν, τ δ π γς νταϑα οκ τι πλεις (Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata IV, 26, PG 8:1381). 2315 Schurer Е. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi. 3 Aufl. Leipzig, 1898. Bd. 2. S. 506–553. 2345 Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio in psalmum David CXVIII, sermo 1, 4–5, PL 15, 1201; Niederhuber J. Op. cit. S. 86. 2347 Idem. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam II, 89, PL 15, 1585. Cp.: De viduis, 20, PL 16, 241. 2354 Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos, in ps. 47, 4. См.: Pruner J. Op. cit. S. 21. 2356 Ex omni valle congregatus est populus catholicus [От всякой долины собирается народ кафолический] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Hexaemeron III, 3, PL 14:156). 2357 Ambrosias Mediolanensis. Expositio in psalnium David CXVIII, sermo 12, 25, PL 15, 1369. Cp.: Niederhuber J. Op. cit. S. 81. 2358 Idem. De Abraham 11, 66, PL 14, 488; DeTobia, 74, PL 14, 788. Cp.: Niedcrhuber J. Op. cit. S. 81–82. 2367 Ex duobus igitur constat Ecclesia, ut aut peccare nescias, aut peccare desinas [ Церковь стоит на двух (принципах): или ты не знаешь греха, или перестаёшь грешить] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam VII, 96, PL 15:1724). 2376 Ubi tres, id est Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, ibi Ecclesia, quae trium corpus est [Где Трое, то есть Отец, Сын и Святой Дух, там Церковь , которая есть тело Трёх] (Tertullianus. De baptismo, 6, PL 1:1206). 2390 Idem. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam VIII, 73, PL 15, 1787. Cp.: Förster Th. Op. cit. S. 164. 2423 Ubi ergo Petrus, ibi Ecclesia; ubi Ecclesia, ibi nulla mors... Beatus Petrus, cui non inferorum porta praevaluit, non coeli porta se clausit; sed e contrario destruxit inferni vestibula, patefecit coelestia. In terris itaque positus coelum aperuit, inferos clausit [Где Пётр, там Церковь ; где Церковь, там нет никакой смерти... Блажен Пётр, которого не одолели врата ада и не закрылись врата небесные, но наоборот, он разрушил вход в ад и открыл на небеса. Итак, будучи поставлен на земле, он открыл небо и заключил преисподнюю] (Ambrosius Mediolanensis. Enarrationes in XII psalmos Davidicos, in ps. 40, 30, PL 14:1082). |
|
|
