| К VIII веку относится и надпись над гробницей диакона Домеция в Риме, упоминающая о сестре его диакониссе Анне 486 . В конце этого же века о диакониссах упоминается в Ordo Romanus, составленном при папе Льве III 487 , и в рассказе о вступлении этого папы в Рим в 799 году 488 . В IX веке о существовании диаконисс на Западе говорит приведенный нами ранее закон Капитуляриев о браке диаконисс. Относящаяся к тому же времени Глосса к 15 Халкидонскому правилу говорит: «...diaconissa est abbatissa, quae... per manus impositionem ab episcopo ordinatur» 489 . Упомянутое правило Вормского Собора 868 года свидетельствует, что восточный взгляд на церковное служение женщин возобладал на некоторое время и на Западе. В житии св. Нила Младшего († 1005), грека по происхождению, бывшего аббатом Гротаферратского монастыря в конце X века, сообщается, что в г. Капуе его встретила диаконисса, бывшая игуменией монастыря, со своим пресвитером 490 . Упоминаются диакониссы и в посланиях папы Бенедикта VIII (1012–1024) к Бенедикту, епископу Опорто 491 , и в двух посланиях папы Uoahha XIX к тому же Бенедикту (1029) 492 и к епископу Сильвы Кандиды Петру (1026 или 1027) 493 , в послании Бенедикта IX к тому же епископу Петру или его преемнику (1039) 494 и, наконец, в послании папы Льва IX (1048–1054) 495 . Последним упоминанием о диакониссах можно считать эпитафию диакониссы Дацианы в Вероне, относящуюся, судя по упоминанию о должности консула, ко второй половине IX века 496 . Некоторые следы существования диаконисс сохранились в Западной Церкви и до настоящего времени. Мы видели, что по Карфагенским правилам девы получали посвящение в 25 лет и потом вторичное – в 40. Но в этом же возрасте посвящались и диакониссы. И вот обряд посвящения монахинь в этом возрасте объединяет в некоторых монастырях монашеское посвящение и посвящение в диакониссы. По свидетельству Антонина Флорентийского (1389–1459) 497 , посвящаемой даются при этом епископом бревиарий и право читать при богослужении. Pontificate Romanum 498 прямо говорит, что в некоторых монастырях есть обычай посвящать монахинь loco diaconissatus, причем посвящаемой дается епископом бревиарий и право читать при богослужении. Наконец, аббатиссы и монахини картезианского ордена во Франции до недавнего изгнания их получали посвящение диаконисс, носили орарь (stola) и манипль и во время больших праздников даже читали Евангелие 499 . В некоторых местностях, например в Венеции и Милане, сохранились и другие следы существования здесь диаконисс 500 . Приводим дошедшие до нас западные чины посвящения диаконисс: a) ordo romanus, b) картезианский, с) английский. |
| Публикуемая проповедь святителя Амфилохия Иконийского была критически издана в 1978 г. бельгийским ученым Корнелием Датема в Corpus Christianorum на основании 12 рукописей, которые по своему происхождению делятся на две группы — w 1 и w 2 . В первой группе преимущественное значение для реконструкции текста имеют три манускрипта Parisinus gr. 1173 (XI в.), Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 85 (IX в.) и Romanus Angelicus gr. 108 (XI–XII в.). Среди этих трех рукописей Parisinus gr. 1173 является наиболее верной копией первоначального текста, поскольку своим источником имеет собрание рукописей V века 3 . Манускрипты Vaticanus Ottobonianus gr. 85 и Romanus Angelicus gr. 108 позволяют, со своей стороны, устранить некоторые неточности первой рукописи. Во второй группе, содержащей всего три рукописи, необходимо отметить манускрипт Parisinus gr. 1173 А (XII в.) как наиболее верную копию. Следует также отметить, что рукописи группы w 2 передают сильно измененный текст. Это видно из того, что библейские цитаты исправлены с учетом textus receptus. Первое издание проповеди святителя Амфилохия о Лазаре четверодневном было предпринято Комбефисом в 1644 году на основании самой древней и верной рукописи Parisinus gr. 1173. Затем эту проповедь повторно издал Галланди, а через него это сочинение вошло в издание Миня. Данная проповедь на русском языке публикуется впервые. Вновь возвещу евангелиста Иоанна, потому что удобно [у него] рассмотреть начаток воскресения. Ведь ты только что слышал, что он сказал: За шесть дней до Пасхи пришел Иисус в Вифанию, где был Лазарь умерший, которого Он воскресил из мертвых(Ин 12:1). Видишь, как начаток воскресения стал прообразом в Лазаре, и как это признал верующий народ? Народ признал, а архиереи вознегодовали, превратив сотворенное чудо в повод для ненависти. Они действительно возненавидели воскресение Лазаря, потому что после воскресения, о котором ты слышал, они решили убить его. Видишь избыток ненависти? Они замышляли убить того, кого воскресил Господь, потому что не поняли, что если даже они убьют его, то Господу не трудно будет вновь воскресить друга. Они совещались убить Лазаря, потому что ничто так не уязвляло иудеев, как воскресение Лазаря. Только это чудо они не могли оклеветать. Они оклеветали исцеление слепорожденного, говоря: Это он. Это не он. Похож на него(Ин 9:9) 4 . |
| Dictatus Рарае: I. Quod Romana ecclesia a solo Domino sit fundata. II. Quod solus Romanus pontifex iure dicatur universalis. III. Quod ille solus possit deponere episcopos vel reconciliare. IIII. Quod legatus eius omnibus episcopis presit in concilio etiam inferioris gradus et adversus eos sententia depositionis possit dare. V. Quod absentes papa possit deponere. VI. Quod cum excommunicatis ab illo inter cetera nec in eadem domo debemus manere. VII. Quod illi soli licet pro temporis necessitate novas leges condere, novas plebes congregare, de canonica abbatiam facere et e contra, divitem episcopatum dividere et inopes unire. VIII. Quod solus possit uti imperialibus insigniis. VIIII. Quos solius papae pedes omnes principes deosculentur. X. Quod illius solius nomen in ecclesiis recitetur. XI. Quod hoc unicum est nomen in mundo. XII. Quod illi liceat imperatores deponere. XIII. Quod illi liceat de sede ad sedem necessitate cogente episcopos transmutare. XIIII. Quod de omni ecclesia quocunque voluerit clericum valeat ordinäre. XV. Quod ab illo ordinatus alii ecclesiae preesse potest, sed non militare; et quod ab aliquo episcopo non debet superiorem gradum accipere. XVI. Quod nulla synodus absque precepto eius debet generalis XVII. Quod nullum capitulum nullusque liber canonicus habeatur absque illius auctoritate. XVIII. Quod sententia illius a nullo debeat retractari et ipse omnium solus retractare possit. XVIIII. Quod a nemine ipse iudicari debeat. XX. Quod nullus audeat condemnare apostolicam sedem apellantem. XXI. Quod maiores causae cuiuscunque ecclesiae ad earn referri debeant. XXII. Quod Romana ecclesia nunquam erravit nec imperpetuum scriptura testante errabit. XXIII. Quod Romanus pontifex, si canonicae fuerit ordinatus, meritis beati Petri indubitanter ( sanctus testante sancto Ennodio Papiensi episcopo ei multis sanctis patribus faventibus, sicut in decretis beati Symachi papae continetur. XXIIII. Quod illius precepto et licentia subiectis liceat accusare. XXV. Quod absque synodali conventu possit episcopos deponere et reconciliare. XXVI. Quod catholicus non habeatur, qui non concordat Romanae ecclesiae. XXVII. Quod a fidelitate iniquorum subiectos potest absolvere. |
| § 3. Кроме Галликанского миссала, до нас дошли из той же эпохи три весьма сходные миссалы, несомненно восточного происхождения: Ordo Romanus, Медиоланский (Амвросиев) и Мозарабский. 448 В них мы имеем, прежде всего весьма развитую и сложную начинательную часть литургии. Она состоит из следующих моментов: Ordo Romanus: священник, приготовившись к священнодействию, входит в храм со словами: во имя Отца».... Ordo Ambrosianus: тайная молитва и 50 псалом. Ordo Mozarabicus: «облачившись в одежды, священник говорить: «Отче, согреших на небо и пред Тобою, Κριε λησον, Отче наш, от сокровенных моих... с покаянно-предуготовительною молитвою: Боже недостойных соделал достойными». 2. Во время входа: антифоны: «вниду к алтарю... Суди ми Боже» и проч. 3. Исповедание: «Исповемся Богу всемогущему, блаженной Марии Приснодеве, блаж. Михаилу Архангелу, Иоанну Предтече, Петру и Павлу и всем святым..., на что сослужителиотвечают: да помилует тя всемогущий Бог..., священник говорит им: да помилует вас..., потом: прощение, отпущение и оставление грехов наших да даст нам..., антифоны..., отыми от нас Боже»... 4. Introitus, т. е. входные антифоны из псалмов: «к Тебе возведох душу мою»... 5. Наконец, став среди алтаря, говорит: «слава в вышних Богу, мир всем и oremus», т. е. начинательную молитву (соответствующую нашей: Господи ниспосли). 449 После чтения из Писаний, символа веры и преподания мира, по окончании литургии оглашенных, совершается npockoмuдuя(oblamio), имеющая весьма сложный чин. 1. Поется offertorium, т. е. соответствующий нашей херувимской песни антифон, смотря по празднику и назначению мессы, например в праздник Тела Христова: «священницы Господа фимиам и хлеб приносят Богу и тако святи будут Богу своему и не осквернят имени Его, аллилуйя», 450 или в праздник Рождества Христова: «Отроча родися нам и Сын дадеся»... и под. 451 2. Дьякон или священник приносит из сакрария священные сосуды (дискос, чашу, покровы, кадильницу) и преждеосвященные дары. 3. Верующие совершают приношение хлеба и вина, из коих избирается потребное для таинства и возлагается на престол. |
| Nicodemus calls Jesus «teacher» (3:2), which is a correct term for disciples to employ (1:38; 11:28; 13:13–14; 20:16), 4764 even if it is not a complete Christology by itself. Although the leaders may have thought themselves the appropriate guardians of sound teaching (9:34), Jesus teaches (6:59; 7:14, 28, 35; 8:20; 18:20), just as do the Father who sent him (5:20; 6:45; 8:28) and the Spirit who carries on his teaching (14:26). In this context, the most striking point is that Jesus is much more truly a teacher than the ignorant «teacher of Israel» who comes to him to learn (3:10). Although Nicodemus is not a completely reliable voice in the narrative, John elsewhere confirms Nicodemus " s recognition that God is with Jesus (8:29; cf. 1:1–2). 1B. Nicodemus Comes by Night (3:2) Scholars propose various reasons why Nicodemus came by night. Jewish teachers often studied at night, 4765 especially those who had to work during the day; 4766 thus Nicodemus may have come to receive instruction from a greater sage, namely, Jesus. More likely, he comes at night to avoid being seen (cf. 7:51–52; 12:42–43; 19:38); night was the time for secret (sometimes antisocial) deeds and whatever one wished not to be known. 4767 Nicodemus remains a secret believer at this point, not a disciple. 4768 Nicodemus here remains in solidarity with those who fear to confess Jesus lest they be expelled from the synagogue (12:42). 4769 In the story world, fear accounts for Nicodemus coming by night, but John probably also mentions «night» on a more symbolic level for his audience (cf. 13:30), bracketing the narrative with Nicodemus coming «by night» (3:2) and true believers leaving darkness to come to Jesus» light (3:21). 4770 In so doing, John foreshadows Nicodemus " s ultimate discipleship in 19:39–42. 4771 2. Birth from Above (3:3) Jesus responds to Nicodemus " s observation about Jesus» identity by calling him to a greater level of recognition. 4772 For this reason, some suggest that 3is a christological assertion. |
| Throughout the period following the close of World War II, there was a demonstrable increase in contacts and cooperative activities among the members of the various Orthodox jurisdictions in America. As a consequence of ethnic and political differences, divisions continued to afflict many parishes and many dioceses. Yet, there was a growing recognition that all the Orthodox shared the same faith. Indeed, among many there was a growing recognition that the Orthodox Church had a distinctive witness to make in American society. With joint liturgical services and joint educational projects and through unified participation in ecumenical gatherings, the representatives of the major Orthodox jurisdictions began, in some measure, to overcome the isolation from one another that had generally characterized the Orthodox in America for decades. At the same time, the American Orthodox began to recognize, in some measure, their responsibility to all Christians and to the society in which they lived. 212 George Papaioannou, The Odyssey of Hellenism in America (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute, 1985), pp. 379–392; Constance Tarasar and John Erickson, eds., Orthodox America 1794–1976 (Syosset, N.Y.: Orthodox Church in America, 1975), pp. 141–142. 214 Robert Donus, «Greek-Americans in a Pan-Orthodox Parish,» St. Vladimir " s Theological Quarterly 18:1 (1974): 44–52. 215 John Meyendorff, Vision of Unity (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1987), pp. 66–67. 217 Georges Florovsky, «The Responsibility of Orthodox Believers in America,» The Russian Orthodox Journal 2:6 (1949): 15–18. 218 George Nicozisin, The Road to Orthodox Phronema (Brookline, Mass.: Department of Religious Education, 1977), pp. 33–38; Tarasar and Erickson, Orthodox America, p. 202. 223 Andrew Blane, ed., Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual-Orthodox Churchman (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir " s Seminary Press, 1993), p. 100. 224 Ernest Villas, «Toward Unity of Orthodox Youth in America,» St. Vladimir " s Theological Quarterly 2:4 (1954): 31–32. |
| 71 It is not accidental that in 1 Clement (96 A.D.) it was called “the gifts of the episcopê”. See below for greater detail 72 Research for the present work had already been completed when A.Schmemann’s study “Towards a Theology of Councils” was published (St.Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, 6 (1962), pp.170–184). On the enormous importance of the question of the origin of the parish and the scant attention afforded it hitherto by research, he writes as follows (p.177): “This process (which transformed the original episcopal structure of the local Church into what we know today as parish) although it represents one of the most radical changes that ever took place in the Church, remained, strange as it may seem, virtually unnoticed by ecclesiologists and canonists” 73 To determine what developments have occurred, it will often be necessary to use sources later than the first three centuries. This is required sometimes because they throw light on earlier conditions, or else because by their contrast or agreement with the sources of the first three centuries, they either make clear what developments have taken place, or connect the later developments with the original situation. Sources later than the third century will be used in this way only insofar as this aids the investigation of problems which go back to the first three centuries. As to the unity of the Church from the fourth century on, a special study will be needed 74 The distinction between theoretical and practical ecclesiology is intended here to underline the fact that the first theology concerning the Church did not develop as speculation about the idea or the concept of the Church, but initially appeared as an experience of a reality; a state, in which Christians were continuously living. The conscious recognition of this state and the subsequent expression of the consciousness which had been created constituted the first theology of the Church, expressed through images which described but did not define the reality which the Christians lived. Thus, the theoretical theology of the Church did not precede the historical events and institutions of the Church’s life. On the contrary, the events and experiences of the Church, consciously recognized by her, led gradually to theoretical theological formulations. This has particular significance from the point of view of methodology, especially for this study, which examines the unity of the Church, starting not from the theoretical teaching on unity in the sources, but from those events, institutions and experiences, the consciousness recognition of which led the early Church to ecclesiological formulations of a purely theoretical character |
| “Validity” is basically a juridical term, and it implies that the ministry can be isolated from the rest of ecclesiology and be judged in itself. This notion implies, furthermore, that there can be objective criteria, such as “faith” or “historical apostolic succession” etc., that can form the norms for such a judgment. Such an approach would tend to undermine the fact that all these “criteria” originally formed an integral and organic part of the concrete community, especially in its eucharistic form. Their meaning, therefore, depends constantly on their natural context, which is the community. We have seen, for example, how this is the case with apostolic succession. The same must be remembered with regard to “faith”: the “symbols” or “confessions” of faith were not in the early Church autonomous statements, as they are today in dogmatic manuals, but integral parts of the life and especially the worship of the community; they started as baptismal creeds and were adopted and used again as confessions for baptismal and eucharistic use. The great methodological error in the classical theories of “validity” therefore is that they tend to go to the unity of the community via these criteria, as if the latter could be conceived before and regardless of the community itself. If, as we have insisted in this paper, we do not isolate the ministry from the reality of the community created by the koinonia of the Holy Spirit, what “validates” a certain ministry is to be found not in isolated and objectified “norms” but in the community to which this ministry belongs. It may be argued that the community is something we cannot grasp and deal with and we shall therefore sooner or later arrive at the procedure of “criteria.” But to arrive at a certain judgment by considering the community first is essentially different from looking at the community through the spectacles of isolated “criteria.” The first and fundamental consequens of the method of looking at the community first and then at the criteria is that the recognition of ministries becomes in fact a recognition of communities in an existential sense. |
| Metropolitan Gavriil noted the role of the All-Orthodox Council held in Sofia in 1998. It summoned the schismatics and demanded repentance. They understood their sinfulness and repented. Should the Ukrainian Orthodox Church receive the schismatics, the Local Churches would recognize them, he added. Metropolitan Nicolaos of Messogaia and Lavreotiki from the Orthodox Church of Greece said that recognition of the “Kievan Patriarchate” was out of the question, as the Local Orthodox Churches recognize only the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. “The healing of the schism is her internal problem, and she must solve it without any pressure on the part of the other Orthodox Churches,” he said. Metropolitan Nicolaos underscored the impossibility of recognizing the sacraments administered by the schismatics and told the journalists about a similar situation in Greece. The Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece resolved not to recognize the baptism of the Greek Old Calendarists, but receive them back from the schism only through rebaptizing. Archbishop Abel of Lublin and Chelm, who represented the Orthodox Church of Poland at the festivities, emphasized that schism was a sin, and any sin can be healed only through repentance. The Church has its own structure, discipline and canon law, and one cannot manipulate her. There is a simple and definite canonical path in the Church. He added: “We live under rather difficult circumstances in Poland, because we do not have many Orthodox Christians in the country. We have signed a declaration on common recognition of the sacrament of baptism with the Roman Catholic Church as there are many mixed marriages. However, this is not a great problem, as both Churches have kept the apostolic succession… Schismatics would accuse us of receiving the Catholics and of not receiving our own, but I say that one should think on a deeper level. Archbishop Abel reminded the journalists that the head of the “Kievan Patriarchate” had been anathematized and that the structure he leads had no place among the canonical Churches. |
| At his first departure from Russia in 1842 he was told by the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, Count Pratassov, that a new chaplain was to be appointed to the Russian Church in London, who might be able to learn the language and study Anglican divinity. In 1843 the Rev. Eugene Popov, a graduate of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, was transferred from Copenhagen to London, and continued to serve there until his death in 1875. Fr. Popov used to send periodical reports to the Holy Synod concerning ecclesiastical affairs in England, and established close links with some leading churchmen, including Pusey and Newman. Unfortunately, these reports were published only in part, many years after the author’s death, and only in Russian. Fr. Popov at first had hopes of union, but changed his attitude in later years. 142 Certain links were established between Oxford and Moscow, and theological professors and students in Moscow used to collate Greek manuscripts of the Fathers for the Library of the Fathers. Nor were books on Anglicanism, brought by Palmer to Russia and presented by him to the Academy in St. Petersburg, left without use. One of the students was advised to write his thesis on Anglicanism compared with Orthodoxy, apparently on the basis of materials supplied by Palmer. 143 In both countries there were groups earnestly interested in rapprochement between the respective Churches. John Mason Neale, by his historical studies and translations of Eastern liturgical texts, did more than anyone else to further this idea. In 1851, when the repercussions of the famous Gorham case were at their height, an attempt was made to approach the Church of Russia in order to secure recognition of a group of Anglicans which was contemplating secession from the Established Church. Although this was not in any sense an ecumenical move, some points in the project were of interest. The proposed basis of reunion was to include recognition of the seven Ecumenical Councils, the Russian Catechism as an outline of doctrine, and repudiation of Lutheran or Calvinist leanings. |
|
|
