| Metropolitan Maximos, Bishop Demetrios of Xanthou, Fr. Alexander Golitzin [now Bishop (OCA)—ed.], Fr. Alkiviadis Calivas, Professor John Erickson and others were among the Orthodox representatives who signed the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation on “Baptism and Sacramental Economy.” Issued in 1999, it was an attempt to answer critics of the Balamand Agreement as well as to issue a critique of sacramental economy. Besides labeling St. Nikodemos the Athonite an “innovator” for his contribution to the Church’s tradition regarding economy, the Consultation stated the following: The Orthodox and Catholic members of our Consultation acknowledge, in both of our traditions, a common teaching and a common faith in one baptism, despite some variations in practice which, we believe, do not affect the substance of the mystery. We are therefore moved to declare that we also recognize each other's baptism as one and the same. This recognition has obvious ecclesiological consequences. The Church is itself both the milieu and the effect of baptism, and is not of our making. This recognition requires each side of our dialogue to acknowledge an ecclesial reality in the other . . . In our common reality of baptism, we discover the foundation of our dialogue, as well as the force and urgency of the Lord Jesus' prayer that all may be one. Here, finally, is the certain basis for the modern use of the phrase, " sister churches. " For our purposes here, what should be clear is the important role the Roman Catholic theory of “baptismal unity” played in this agreement. In this brief analysis of the document, Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos declares the falsity of “baptismal unity” and rightly identifies it as simply another version of the much-condemned “branch theory.” He wrote that it is “obvious that [Orthodox] ecumenists understand the acceptance of the baptism of heretics (Catholics and Protestants, who have altered the dogma of the Holy Trinity and other dogmas) to mean accepting the ecclesial status of heretical bodies and, worse still, that the two “Churches,” Latin and Orthodox, are united in spite of “small” differences, or that we derive from the same Church and should seek to return to it, thereby forming the one and only Church. This is a blatant expression of the branch theory.” |
| That is why the adherents of different theological doctrines could go to the same churches and take part in the sacraments together in such large church centers as Antioch. Only the formation of the new Nicene terminology and its acceptance by the Church could bring about a clear distinction between heresy and Orthodoxy. According to Archimandrite Doroteus, it would be appropriate to call the Homoeans the “unexposed heretics.” Ordinations performed by them did not mean opposition to the Church and intentional withdrawal to a heretic community. – The installation of St. Meletius to the See of Antioch was an election rather than ordination, because he was a bishop at that time. The ancient church historians say that he was installed to the See of Antioch by the adherents of Acacius of Caesarea, having in mind that assertion. Archimandrite Dorotheus (Voulisma) confirms it, saying that St. Meletius was Bishop of Sebaste and was elected to the See of Antioch rather than ordained – The words “Meletian schism” must be considered incorrect. They are typical for Catholic tradition because St. Meletius was not in communion with the See of Rome, but in the 20 th century there appeared a tendency in Catholic literature to drop these words as inappropriate. – St. Meletius not only participated in the Second Ecumenical Council, but presided over it. The Fathers of the Council were trying to settle an intricate situation in Antioch and did not question Meletius’ ordination or cast doubt on his being Orthodox. The ordination issue (recognition or non-recognition) was not approached at all. The reasons for the “Antiochian schism” lie in a completely different plane. – A younger contemporary of St. Meletius, St. John Chrysostom, who used to live in Antioch, views him as a legitimate hierarch without debating his ordination and describes his opponents as schismatics. Moreover, St. John Chrysostom defines clear criteria according to which account must be taken of preserving the Orthodox faith while in schism and of the validity of ordinations. These two factors must not be neglected as well as canonical rules on ordinations, because otherwise anyone can declare himself a priest thus turning down the rites for the ordination to the Holy Orders. |
| -When we talk about medical profession, conditions can always be better, including the invested capital and professional training of our staff and application of new treatment methods. However, the thing which we cannot omit is a nice and warm word, smile for each patient and those are the things on which we should insist, concluded the MMA Head in his speech. The ceremony offered opportunity to present all results achieved during the past period while the recognition for the best clinic was delivered, for the fifth time, to the MMA Clinic for Emergency Internal Medicine. Colonel Dr. Milic Markovic, representative head of the Clinic received the recognition awarded by the MMA Head. For five years, the Military Medical Academy on the occasion of MMA Day awards medals “Dr. Vladan Djordjevic” for the best surgeons and this-year awarded are Colonel Prof. Dr. Jovan Jablanov, Specialist in Cardiosurgery, who spent most of his work at the MMA and Academician Prof. Dr. Zoran Krivokapic, professor of the Medical School, University of Belgrade and Head of the Department of Colorectal Surgery, First Surgical Clinic, Clinical Center of Serbia. Head of the MMA Surgical Clinics Group Colonel Prof. Dr. Nebojsa Jovic delivered the recognitions. Prof. Dr. Aneta Lakic from the Neurology and Psychiatry Clinic for Children and Youth, Clinical Center of Serbia and associate professor of the Medical School, University of Belgrade received the award for the “Military Medical Review” author of the year 2012, whilst Lieutenant Colonel Prof. Dr. Slobodan Obradovic, MMA Clinic for Emergency Medicine and associate professor for the subject internal medicine, MMA Medical School, University of Defence, Belgrade was selected for the “Military Medical Review” reviewer of the year. Head of the Military Health Care Department Brigadier General Prof. Dr. Zoran Popovic delivered the awards to the author and reviewer of the year. Military Medical Academy celebrates its anniversary of 2nd March to commemorate the day of 2nd March 1844, when Prince Aleksandar Karadjordjevic issued the Decree on the establishment of the first Central Military Hospital. |
| Pondering on the fact that Christ wrote nothing, I am often prepared to acknowledge a certain providential quality in it. Because of this fact, approaching Holy Scripture from outside the Church can be logically carried to absurdity. This has virtually already been done by Rationalism, which, on the basis of Protestantism, has shown that there are no obstacles to the complete distortion of the Gospel and its replacement with one’s own inventions. Moreover, reason left to itself will not stop at the abolition of the very books of Holy Scripture. Indeed, what is the basis for recognizing these or other books as Holy Scripture and genuine Apostolic works? There can only be one answer to this question: our recognition of certain books as Holy Scripture and authentic Apostolic works is based solely on faith in the Church and on trust in the authority of the Church. The books of Holy Scripture were written by the Apostles and entrusted to the custody of the Church. The Apostles, and particularly the Apostle Paul, even gave special proof of the genuineness of their Epistles, providing them with their own handwritten signature. The custodian of the authentic Epistles and all the Apostolic writings was the Church. Only she could judge the Apostolic value of her property. After all, the Church expressed in her decisions her teaching on the composition of Holy Scripture. Thus we must recognize as the New Testament precisely those twenty-seven well-known books which were recognized as the New Testament by the Church. Blessed Augustine said: “Ego uero Euangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commouerat auctoritas.” “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” These words of Augustine express a great truth. If there is no Church, there will be no Holy Scripture either. Protestants and sectarians seemingly recognize and revere Holy Scripture; but does not their recognition hang in thin air? Let Protestants or sectarians completely and sincerely think out the question: why do we recognize exactly these books as Holy Scripture? To refer to one’s personal opinion is to refuse to give a reasonable answer. |
| The organization faltered and collapsed for a variety of reasons, but according to Father Thomas FitzGerald, “its significance cannot be diminished. It was the first formal association of Orthodox bishops in the United States. The establishment of the federation was an indication that the old barriers of language, politics, and cultural suspicion could be overcome and that issues of common concern could be addressed. Bringing together in a consultative body the primates of six jurisdictions, the federation was an important association that indicated a growing recognition of the critical need for cooperation and the common resolution of problems. As we shall see, the federation provided a historical precedent for the establishment of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA) in 1960.” In 1956, the Orthodox Christian Education Commission (OCEC) was founded by Sophie Koulomzin (1903–2000) of the Metropolia, along with representatives from four other jurisdictions – Greek, Carpatho-Russian, Syrian, and Ukrainian – to coordinate Church school efforts among the various Orthodox groups in America. Having formal recognition by SCOBA ever since that body’s founding, this pan-Orthodox ministry was still active in 2013, continuing to produce educational materials for Orthodox church schools. SCOBA In March of 1960, Archbishop Iakovos, head of the Greek Orthodox in North America, hosted a meeting of the primates of all the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States to discuss the possibility of closer cooperation. On June 7 in the same year, the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA) was established. Although it was founded as a consultative group with no canonical jurisdiction or authority, SCOBA provided a symbol of Orthodox unity in the New World, and it gave a structure for the coordination of inter-Orthodox activities. The most fruitful of the projects carried on under the official auspices of SCOBA in its first 15 years were the Campus Commission for work among college students – supervising the organization known as the Orthodox Christian Fellowship – and the Orthodox Christian Education Commission. |
| So the unique niche required to make a go for this venture in the competitive academic market place is an Orthodox Christian environment, small classes, dedicated faculty, low cost overhead, a unique inquiry path to allow the student to meet their own interests and talents, set in a small town environment, and in one of the beautiful spots of this nation – sunny, southern California. The Challenges: Overcoming the Hurdles and Meeting the Milestones The obvious first challenge is having enough financing to last until the College can sustain itself and grow to its planned objective. The first milestone needed is to have enough students. The college needs a critical mass by the fall. For many new ventures, a viable marketing technique is to give away the venture’s product or service for free for a period of time. Indeed that is part of the plan, several courses, including one for adults on the biology of aging are being offered to allow students to see what St. Katherine College can really do. Another milestone that the College needs to achieve is accreditation. This is sort of a chicken and egg type situation. It is also a fact of life that for an institution; it needs to receive recognition and hence have credibility. In this case, St. Katherine is underway to seek recognition by the Western Associate of Schools and Colleges. But this takes time, resources, dedication to standards and filling out an enormous amounts of paper work as well as the numerous, entailed visits by the accrediting certifiers. It also takes resources. The College must have a library with a 50,000 volume plus book collection. This will take time to acquire. The entry classes of students must demonstrate ability and learning to set, prescribed, standards. No doubt putting extra pressure on the college professors and administration. These are just a few of the challenges. Summary: Can You Help? There is high risk involved in every new venture. The relative rate of failure is fairly high, meaning that many new ventures have the plug pulled before they reach their success criteria. As you can see there are challenges here. |
| Thus one’s primary question in facing another ministry would be a question concerning the entire structure of the community to which it belongs. When we say “structure” we do not mean a certain institution as such but the way in which a community relates itself to God, to the world and to the other communities. Baptism, for example, is to be seen as a prerequisite for recognition of a ministry because it determines the entire structure of the community and the way it relates both to God and the world. Thus it is obvious, at least from the point of view of the theological perspective we are using in this study, that a fundamentally different way of a community’s relating to God and the world amounts to making this community “unrecognizable” by other communities, not juridically but existentially. This is due to the fact that Church structure and the ministry are not simply matters of convenient and efficient arrangements, but “modes of being,” ways of relating between God, the Church and the world. The various forms of ministry may differ at times and at places provided that they do not introduce or imply a fundamentally different way of the Church’s relating herself to God and the world. This means that a difference in ministerial form as such cannot determine the recognition of a ministry: the history of the Church has plenty of such examples to offer. At the same time, however, this means that not every form of ministry would do for the expression of the Church’s right relation with God and the world. Plurality and diversity of ministerial forms cannot be made a necessary implication of the existential and eschatological conditioning of the past structures, 545 a conditioning on which we have insisted in this study. Just as the baptismal structure of the community is not basically changed by this conditioning, so in the same way the eucharistic structure must be understood as implying something permanent, its permanence being dictated precisely by its existential and eschatological nature. |
| Vast majority of nations and cultures share our understanding of marriage Because of the crucial role marriage plays as the nursery for the future of the community, and its responsibility always to act in the best interests of children, governments everywhere recognise and regulate marriage. Far from being unusual in the international community for not supporting ‘same-sex marriage’, Australia’s definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman is consistent with that of the vast majority of world nations, who represent over 91 per cent of the global population. 1 To date, only 21 of the 193 member states of the United Nations have changed their legal definition of marriage to incorporate same-sex unions. 2 International courts continue to recognise the truth that marriage is a union of a man and a woman oriented to the begetting and nurturing of children. 3 As the United Nations Human Rights Committee has affirmed, the “right to marry and found a family”, expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elsewhere, “implies, in principle, the possibility to procreate”. 4 This highlights a crucial way in which marriage between a man and a woman is different from a relationship between two men or two women. Stating this belief publicly and upholding it in law is not bigotry, but an acknowledgement of legitimate difference. The link to children is essential to what marriage means For the sake of children and to encourage men and women to commit to one another and to their offspring, marriage between a man and a woman has always been given the special recognition and support of the state. This proposed legislation undermines that shared understanding of marriage and places the wishes of adults above the interests of children. It fails to acknowledge the truth that children constitute the very basis for the state’s recognition and regulation of marriage. We acknowledge that, sadly, some marriages and families break down. But a stable, loving marriage provides the best conditions for raising children. Marriage between a man and a woman gives children the best chance of being loved and raised by their biological mother and father. This is the family structure most consistent with a child’s right to know who they are and where they have come from. It is the family structure associated most strongly with positive child outcomes. 5 |
| Лит.: Pflugk-Harttung J., von. Das Breve Papst Clemens II. für Romainmôtier//NA. 1886. Bd. 11. S. 590-594; Mann H. K. The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages. L., 1911. T. 5. P. 270-285; G ü ggenberger K. Die deutschen Päpste. Köln, 1916. S. 29-37; Foreville R. Clément II//DHGE. T. 12. Col. 1093-1096; Specht W. Der Tod des Papstes Clemens II.: Eine chemisch-toxikologische Studie//Jb. f. Fränkische Landesforschung. Neustadt, 1959. Bd. 19. S. 261-264; Hauck K. Zum Tode Papst Clemens II.//Ibid. S. 265-274; Das Grab des Papstes Clemens II. im Dom zu Bamberg/Hrsg. S. Müller-Christensen, A. von Reitzenstein. Münch., 1960; Neukam W. G. Eine zeitgenössische Tradition der verschollenen Urkunde des Papstes Clemens II. für Kloster Theres vom 1047 Okt. 1//Jb. f. Fränkische Landesforschung. 1963. Bd. 23. S. 225-238; Dolley M. Some Neglected Evidence from Irish Chronicles Concerning the Alleged Poisoning of Pope Clement II//Frühmittelalterliche Studien. B., 1969. Bd. 3. S. 343-346; Goez W. Papa qui et episcopus: Zum Selbstverständnis des Reformpapsttums im 11. Jh.//AHPont. 1970. Vol. 8. P. 27-59; Schr ö bler I. «Dâ von wizze wir alle wol, das S. Johannes ein swert truoc»: Zur Ikonographie des Clemensgrabes im Bamberger Dom//Verbum et signum: Fr. Ohly zum 60. Geburtstag/Hrsg. H. Fromm. Münch., 1975. Bd. 1. S. 341-353; Zimmermann G. Bischof Suidger von Bamberg - Papst Clemens II.//Sorge um den Menschen: FS zum 25-jährigen Bischofsjubiläum von Alterzbischof J. Schneider/Hrsg. H. G. Röhrig. Bamberg, 1980. S. 125-135; Zimmermann G., Timmel R. Bischof Suidger von Bamberg - Papst Clemens II., † 1047//Fränkische Lebensbilder: N. F. des Lebensbilde aus Franken. Würzburg; Neustadt, 1982. Bd. 10. S. 1-19; Clemens II., der Papst aus Bamberg/Hrsg. L. Göller. Bamberg, 1997; Lombardi F. V. Vita e morte di papa Clemente II a San Tommaso in Foglia (anno 1047)//Studia Picena. Ancona, 1997. T. 62. P. 69-82; Laqua H. P. Clemente II//Enciclopedia dei papi. R., 2000. T. 2. P. 150-153; Das Bistum Bamberg in der Welt des Mittelalters/Hrsg. C. van Eickels, K. van Eickels. Bamberg, 2007; Gresser G. Clemens II.: Der erste deutsche Reformpapst. Paderborn, 2007; Hubel A. Überlegungen zum Grabmal des Papstes Clemens II. im Bamberger Dom//Neue Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Bau- und Kunstgeschichte in Franken/Hrsg. H. Achim. Bamberg, 2011. S. 11-50; Stroll M. Popes and Antipopes: The Politics of 11th Cent. Church Reform. Leiden, 2012. |
| Провозглашаемые К. гносеологические и методологические принципы были восприняты современниками как манифест неосхоластики. В бытность К. профессором Боннского ун-та они стали причиной острого конфликта с А. Гюнтером и его последователями (в частности, с И. Б. Бальцером ): в течение 1853 г. К. опубликовал неск. сочинений с критикой богословской системы Гюнтера и демонстрацией отклонений от католич. учения. Критические высказывания К. повлияли на мнение папы Римского Пия IX и легли в основу бреве «Eximiam tuam», осудившего в 1857 г. «гюнтерианство». Соч.: De philosophia Anaxagorae Clazomenii. B., 1839; Der heilige Rock zu Trier und die protestantische Kritik: Zur Würdigung der Schrift: «Der heilige Rock zu Trier und die zwanzig andern heiligen ungenähten Röcke: Eine historische Untersuchung» von Dr. J. Gildemeister und Dr. H. von Sybel. Coblenz, 1845; Giordano Bruno und Nicolaus von Cusa: Eine philosophische Abhandlung. Bonn, 1847. Bristol, 20002; Die Abweichung der Günther " schen Spekulation von der katholischen Kirchenlehre bewiesen durch den Herrn Domcapitular und Prof. Dr. Baltzer in seiner Schrift: «Neue theologische Briefe an Dr. Anton Günther: Ein Gericht für seine Ankläger»: Eine Replik. Köln, 1853; Die speculative Theologie A. Günther " s und die katholische Kirchenlehre. Köln, 1853; Offene Darlegung des Widerspruchs der Günther " schen Speculation mit der katholischen Kirchenlehre durch Herrn Prof. Dr. Knodt in seiner Schrift: «Günther und Clemens»: Eine Replik. Köln, 1853; De scholasticorum sententia philosophiam esse theologiae ancillam commentatio. Monasterii Westphalorum, 1856; Die Wahrheit in dem von Herrn Prof. Dr. I. von Kuhn in Tübingen angeregten Streite über Philosophie und Theologie. Münster, 1860. Лит.: Knodt P. Günther und Clemens: Offene Briefe. W., 1853-1854. 3 Bde; Christliche Philosophie im katholischen Denken des 19. und 20. Jh./Hrsg. E. Coreth, W. M. Heidl, G. Pfligersdorffer. Graz; W.; Köln, 1988. Bd. 2: Rückgriff auf scholastisches Erbe. S. 134-139; Piolanti A. Un pioniere della filosofia cristiana della metà dell " Ottocento: Franz Jakob Clemens ( 1862). Vat., 1988; Blum P. R. Franz Jakob Clemens e la lettura ultramontanistica di Bruno//Brunus redivivus: Momenti della fortuna di Giordano Bruno nel XIX sec./A cura di E. Canone. Pisa; R., 1998. P. 67-103; idem. Philosophenphilosophie und Schulphilosophie: Typen des Philosophierens in der Neuzeit. Stuttg., 1999. S. 235-253; Peitz D. Clemens//BBKL. Bd. 24. Sp. 484-487. |
|
|
