| 5. Otro Hábeas, sin relación con los cuatro precedentes, era desconocido hasta hace poco. Gusta Claesson, filólogo sueco, descubrió en un manuscrito de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Codex Ottobonianus Latinus 25, saec. XIV, extractos de los tratados de Tertuliano De pudicitia, De paenitentia, De paitentia y De spectaculis. Las lecciones son en unos lugares idénticas a las del Trecense, pero en otras muestran tal independencia que es obligado admitir la existencia de un quinto Corpus. 6. Por último, recientemente se ha hecho en los Países Bajos un descubrimiento sorprendente. A. P. van Schilfgaarde y G. I. Lieftink publicaron un fragmento del De spectaculis hallado en los archivos de Keppel, hoy día en la biblioteca de Leiden. Proviene de un manuscrito del siglo IX; es, por consiguiente, anterior a todos los ejemplares de Tertuliano que poseíamos hasta el presente; ofrece un texto que no se encuentra en ninguno de los corpus mencionados arriba. Fue escrito en Colonia y originalmente pertenecía quizá a la biblioteca de la catedral. En efecto, el catálogo más antiguo (n.833) de aquella catedral menciona un manuscrito con varios tratados de Tertuliano, sin dar el nombre de su autor. Es posible que el fragmento de Keppel perteneciera a este manuscrito. Además, el catálogo de Colonia, otro catálogo de la abadía de Corbie y un manuscrito actualmente perdido, de cuyas variantes se sirvió Pamelio en su edición de Tertuliano gracias a los buenos servicios de Johannes Clemens Anglus, prueban la existencia de otro corpus. Por las primeras ediciones impresas tenemos, además, noticia de otros manuscritos que ya no existen, que tienen también su importancia para la historia del texto. La editio princeps de Beatus Rhenanus, publicada en 1521 en Basilea (R), se basa en el Codex Paterniacensis (P) y en el Codex Hirsaugiensis, hoy desaparecido, que dependía de los Cluniacenses y había pertenecido antiguamente al monasterio de Hirsau de Wurtemberg. En una tercera edición, publicada en París el año 1539, Rhenanus usó, además, un Codex Gorziensis del monasterio de Corea, cerca de Metz. Este códice, emparentado también con el grupo de los Cluniacenses, ha desaparecido. La editio princeps comprendía los tratados De patientia, De carne Christi, De resurrectione carnis, Adversus Praxean, Adversus Valentinianos, Adversus Iudaeos, De praescriptione haereticorum (Adversus omnes haereses), Adversus Hermogenem. |
| 434 De dif. essen. et hyp. 1–3; Ad Graec.//GNO. III. 1. P. 20–21; 32; Ad Abl.//GNO. III.1. P. 40–41; Adv. Apoll.//GNO. III.1. P. 165; C. Eun. I.1.479.1; II.1.133.5; III.5.43.1; Ad Eust.//GNO. III.1. P. 14.20. 438 Adv. Maced.//GNO. III.1. P. 90.31–91.4; cp. C. Eun. I.1.231–232; I.1.276.5–6; II. 1.475.1–4; Ad Abl.//GNO. III.1. P. 55.13–16; Adv. Apoll.//GNO. III.1. P. 133.22–23. 444 См. C. Eun. II.1.166.9–10; II.1.582.6; III.5.57.1; 58.1; 59.3; 60.2–9; Ad Abl.//GNO. III.1. P. 43.1–20; De beat. VI//PG 44. Col. 1269A. 447 См. C. Eun. I.1.571–573; II.1.149.4–152.3; II.1.353; II.1.476; Ref. conf. Eun. 124.9–125.6; Ad Abl.//GNO. III.1. P. 44.7–10; De beat. VI//PG 44. Col. 1268B– 1269B; In Cant. XI//GNO. VI. P. 334.7–8; 335.1; 339.7–8; De op. hom. 6; См. также Meredith. P. 95. 451 См. C. Eun. II.1.582.4–585.5; 149.6–150.1; Ad Abl.//GNO. III.1. P. 44.14–45.1; Ad Graec.//GNO. III.1. P. 22.4–6; Ad Eust.//GNO. III.1. P. 15.1. 453 C. Eun. I.1.276.1–277.1; cp. C. Eun. I.1.208.5–9; 234–235; Adv. Maced.//GNO. III.1. P. 92.16–25. 468 См. Adv. Ar. et Sab.//GNO. III.1. P. 71.1–11; 85.19–23; Ad Eust.//GNO. III.1. P. 5.10–14; cp. C. Eun. I.1.499.4–500.3; II.1.14.6–15.6; о незыблемости в Боге Троицы Лиц см. Ad Graec.//GNO. III.1. P. 24.14–24. 470 De op. hom. 5; Or. Cat. 1; Ad Simpl.//GNO. III.1. P. 64.23–65.8; C. Eun. III.6.29.1–6; Ref. conf. Eun. 58.2. 480 См. De dif. essen. et hyp. 2.1–30; Ad Graec.//GNO. III.1. P. 30.20–32.5; Ad Abl.//GNO. III.1, P. 40.5–23; 54.1–4. 486 См. Ad Abl.//GNO. III.1. P. 38.13–15; 40.24–41.7; 46.14–16; Ad Graec.//GNO. III.1. P. 19.15–16; 20.27–21.15; 22.13–24; 26.1–4; 29.9–11; 33.2–5; De dif. essen. et hyp. 4.2–21; 83–87; Ep. 5.9; См. также Cross. 2002. P. 280–281. 490 См. Or. Cat. 1–2; C. Eun. I.1.498.2; II.1.353.9; II.1.356.3; II.1.538.8; III.8.25.5–9; De dif. essen. et hyp. 3.5–12; Ad Abl.//GNO. III.1. P. 40.16–20; 54.2; De or. Dom. III//Oehler. S. 264.54. 491 См. C. Eun. I.1.277.8–278.2; De dif. essen. et hyp. 4.38–44; Ref. conf. Eun. 12.4–13.8; De or. Dom. III//Oehler. S. 262.19–28. |
| Let me begin by recounting a recent exchange of views within Orthodoxy in the United States. The inaugural issue of a stimulating but short-lived magazine entitled American Orthodoxy carried an article reviewing some responses of the National Council of Churches critical of the Gulf War and juxtaposing some official statements by Orthodox jurisdictions here in the United States. 215 The thrust of the article was two-fold: that Orthodoxy accepted a just-war theory, albeit imprecisely, and that much of the official U.S. Orthodox response to the Gulf War betrayed this just-war approach by succumbing to the NCC’s anti-American, anti-just war rhetoric. A subsequent issue carried a response by Fr. Stanley Harakas, distinguished professor of ethics at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. 216 In it, he recounted the evolution of his own thought on the subject of the “just war.” Initially in his teaching and public speaking, he had followed the position set forth in the lectures and handbooks of professors in the Athens theological faculty where he had studied, who basically supported a just war approach and rejected the principle of conscientious objection and especially of selective conscientious objection as showing an unbecoming lack of responsibility towards society and disobedience towards duly constituted civil authority. Fr. Harakas began to question this position, however, when he discovered what he called the “stratification of pacifism” in the ancient canons which prohibit any form of military activity to the clergy while allowing it for the laity. 217 Then, when asked to comment on the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Pastoral Letter on War and Peace, he reviewed the Eastern patristic and canonical sources yet again and found, to his surprise, that he could not find any of the traditional components of the Western just war theory, whether jus ad bellum or jus in bello. Rather, he found an amazing consistency in the almost totally negative moral assessment of war coupled with an admission that war may be necessary under certain circumstances to protect the innocent and to limit even greater evils! In this framework, war may be an unavoidable alternative, but it nevertheless remains an evil. Virtually absent in the tradition is any mention of a ‘just war’ much less a ‘good’ war. The tradition also precludes the possibility of a crusade. For the Eastern Orthodox tradition…, war can be seen only as a ‘necessary evil’ with all the difficulty and imprecision such a designation carries. 218 |
| At some point in my past, there was a survey used in parishes that was all the rage. It was a “gifts and talents” survey, designed to make everyone in the parish find their true ministry and to work together in fulfillment of St. Paul’s description of the Body of Christ in 1 Corinthians. The key in these surveys was to determine precisely what gifts and talents someone had, match them with the right ministry, and fit them all together. The end product would be more effective ministry for the parish and happier parishioners. What priest wouldn’t want such a thing? Of course the draw-back to this scheme was the imponderables. People are not just gifts and talents – they come with issues – with encumbered lives and broken gifts. The gifted singer can also be deeply dishonest or frightened (or what have you). The same is true for the whole parish – including the priest. Another problem can be found in the notion of an effective parish. What does this mean? In Evangelical and mainline Protestant circles, where the surveys originated and flourished, the effective parish was often measured in numbers – parish growth and greater stewardship. A happy parish, a growing parish was a prosperous parish, and a prosperous parish was a successful parish. But these are just cultural notions – standards that would apply just as well to a business. They are not appropriate ways of looking at the Body of Christ. The successful parish is an American invention. Originally, parishes were neighborhood and village Churches, existing to serve the population of a particular area. There was just the Church – not the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, just the Church. Of course, that Church was originally the Orthodox Church (or the Orthodox Catholic Church, let’s say). But with the modern migrations and various historical upheavals, Church became a purveyor of religion – offering similar products (a worshipping community) but in direct competition with the purveyor down the street. |
| But there was a strong note of spiritual estrangement: «and every fatherland is a foreign land.» It was coupled, however, with an acute sense of responsibility. Christians were confined in the world, «kept» there as in a prison; but they also «kept the world together,» just as the soul holds the body together. Moreover, this was precisely the task allotted to Christians by God, «which is unlawful to decline» (Ad Diogenitum, 5, 6). Christians might stay in their native cities, and faithfully perform their daily duties. But they were unable to give their full allegiance to any polity of this world, because their true commitment was elsewhere. They were socially committed and engaged in the Church, and not in the world. «For us nothing is more alien than public affairs,» declared Tertullian: nec ulla magis res aliena quam publica (Apologeticum, 38.3). «I have withdrawn myself from the society,» he said on another occasion: secessi de populo (De Pallio, 5). Christians were in this sense «outside society,» voluntary outcasts and outlaws, – outside of the social order of this world. It would be utterly misleading to interpret the tension between Christians and the Roman Empire as a conflict or clash between the Church and the State. Indeed, the Christian Church was more than «a church,» just as ancient Israel was at once a «church» and a «nation.» Christians also were a nation, a «peculiar people,» the People of God, tertium genus, neither Jew nor Greek. The Church was not just a «gathered community,» or a voluntary association, for «religious» purposes alone. She was, and claimed to be, a distinct and autonomous «society,» a «distinct polity.» On the other hand, the Roman Empire was, and claimed to be, much more than just «a state.» Since the Augustan reconstruction, in any case, Rome claimed to be just the City, a permanent and «eternal» City, Urbs aeterna, and an ultimate City also. In a sense, it claimed for itself an «eschatological dimension.» It posed as an ultimate solution of the human problem. |
| McGuckin concludes that this canon of St. Basil excludes the development of just war theory in Orthodoxy. Though particular wars may be necessary or unavoidable, they are never justified, as shedding the blood of other human beings is contradictory to the way of the Kingdom of God. In his book, The Price of Prophecy , Fr. Alexander Webster agrees that a theory of justified war “has never been systematically elucidated in Orthodox moral theology.” He describes participation in such a war as “a lesser moral option than absolute pacifism, for those unwilling or unable to pay the full price of prophecy.” He suggests that Orthodox criteria for a just war include a “proper political ethos,” meaning that the nation going to war should follow “the natural-law ethic and have positive relations with the Orthodox community.” The war should also take place for the “defense of the People of God” from injustice, invasion, or oppression “by those hostile to the free exercise of the Orthodox faith.” A proper “spiritual intent” should also lead to “forgiveness and rehabilitation” of enemies as persons who bear the image of God, and not “mere revenge, self-righteousness, or conquest.” Webster states that Whereas the pacifist seeks to emulate Jesus as the Good Shepherd who allowed Himself to be slain unjustly by and for sinners, the just warrior perceives a higher duty: to defend the relatively innocent from unjust aggression. If the Orthodox pacifist can never do anything evil even for a reasonably just end, the Orthodox warrior cannot preserve his personal holiness by allowing evil to triumph through his own inaction. It is curious for Webster to suggest that the just warrior follows a “higher duty” than that of the pacifist, especially when the clear norm for the Church is the selfless, forgiving, nonresistant way of Christ. Likewise, the enumeration of moral categories for a justified war and the reference to governments which follow an ethic of natural law raise the question of whether this interpretation places questions of war and peace more within the context of human moral reasoning than in that of the journey to theosis. It is fair to ask whether Webster’s formulation gives sufficient attention to the spiritual vision of Orthodoxy, as opposed to the greater reliance on an ethics of human reason in Western Christianity. |
| It is rather a certain potential corporeality, pertaining to each soul and to each person. It is the forming and the quickening principle of the body, just a seed capable of germination. Origen also uses the term λγος σπερματικς, ratio seminalis. 63 It is impossible to expect that the whole body should be restored in the resurrection, since the material substance changes so quickly and is not the same in the body even for two days, and surely it can never be reintegrated again. The material substance in the risen bodies will be not the same as in the bodies of this life (το λικν ποκεμενον ουδποτε χει ταυτν). Yet the body will be the same, just as our body is the same throughout this life in spite of all changes of its material composition. And again, a body must be adapted to the environment, to the conditions of life, and obviously in the Kingdom of Heaven the bodies cannot be just the same as here on earth. The individual identity is not compromised, because the «eidos» of each body is not destroyed (το εδος το χαρκτηριζον το σμα). It is the very principium individuationis. To Origen the «body itself» is just this vital principle. His εδος closely corresponds to Aristotle’s εντελχεια. But with Origen this «form» or germinative power is indestructible; that makes the construction of a doctrine of the resurrection possible. This «principle of individuation» is also principium surgendi. In this definite body the material particles are composed or arranged just by this individual «form» or λγος. Therefore, of whatever particles the risen body is composed, the strict identity of the psycho-physical individuality is not impaired, since the germinative power remains unchangeable. 64 Origen presumes that the continuity of individual existence is sufficiently secured by the identity of the reanimating principle. This view was more than once repeated later, especially under the renewed influence of Aristotle. And in modern Roman theology the question is still rather open: to what extent the recognition of the material identity of the risen bodies with the mortal ones belongs to the essence of the dogma. |
| We have noted before Skeat’s conjecture that the Christians, perhaps around 100 CE, adopted the codex for the transmission of their sacred texts because it, and not the scroll, could contain all four Gospels. Our present knowledge, however, does not allow us to confirm that the newly developing technology of the codex could have accommodated the text of all four Gospels until sometime later in the second century. And yet Skeat’s instincts might not be far wrong. For it was around the year 100, when Papias was collecting stories about Jesus, and stories about the books about Jesus, when some may already have held the seeds of the idea which would eventually produce the four-Gospel codex. Who chose the Gospels? Natural Selection: The Gospels that Imposed Themselves We began this book by noticing how the selection of the four Christian Gospels is portrayed today as (in Darwinian terms) anything but ‘natural’. It is not just popular media, novels, films, and the work of journalists which depict an ‘unnatural’ process, attended with coercive ecclesiastical and even imperial pressures. In certain academic circles as well the triumph of these Gospels is tied inseparably to the ‘conquest’ by one particular branch of Christianity over its many rivals, each perceived to be equally deserving (or undeserving). That victory for both the ‘orthodox’ and their Gospels is portrayed as the result of a great and protracted struggle, aided by conspiratorial designs on the part of certain powerful bishops, like Irenaeus and Athanasius. Those who describe the process in this way place the victory for the orthodox and their four Gospels sometime in the fourth century. It was late in the fourth century when the church, through councils and the work of individual bishops and scholars, achieved virtual unanimity about the entire contents of its New Testament Scriptures, including some of the less-often-cited epistles in the collection. But this fact is rather carelessly interpreted to imply that even the four Gospels did not achieve wide recognition until roughly the same time. The present book, I hope, has shown the emptiness, sometimes bordering on disingenuousness, of that claim. Whoever it was who made the first or definitive choice of the four Gospels, it wasn’t the emperor Constantine, the bishop Athanasius, the Councils of Nicaea, Laodicea, or any other council of the fourth century. At the dawn of the fourth century the four Gospels, unlike a few other books in the New Testament, were not inconvenienced by any real dissent in what was recognized almost universally as the Christian church. They had long been functioning as the church’s acknowledged sources for the life and teaching of Jesus; individual copies were stored in the book cupboards of coundess churches; they had been transmitted as a unit in four-Gospel codices, even in languages other than their original Greek. |
| о. Попов Дмитрий Яковлевич, IV о. Попов Стефан Александрович, IV о. Попов Тихон Дмитриевич, IV о. Поярков Алексей Владимирович, I о. Пурпуров Иван Петрович, III о. Рождественский Василий Яковлевич, III о. Рознатовский Константин Николаевич, III о. Рудич Каллинник Несторович, IV о. Сендерко Макарий Иванович , III о. Соколов Александр Серапионович, III о. Соколов Иоанн Иасоннович, III о. Соловьевич Стефан Иосифович, III о. Солуха Виктор Дмитриевич, III о. Спасский Алексей Михайлович, III о. Спасский Владимир Александрович, IV о. Станиславский Алексей Маркианович, III и IV о. Сырнев Сергей Васильевич, IV о. Титов Иоанн Васильевич, III и IV о. Тихвинский Федор Васильевич, II о. Трегубов Александр Лаврентьевич, III и IV о. Троицкий Александр Ильич, III о. Филоненко Федор Дмитриевич, IV о. Юзьвюк Владимир Порфирьевич, IV о. Юрашкевич Андрей Данилович, III о. Якубов Николай Евграфович, III о. Якубович Вячеслав Андреевич, II, III и IV Приняли священный сан впоследствии о. Булгаков Сергий Николаевич, II архимандрит Сергий (Шеин), IV о. Грудинский Петр Феофилович, III кн. Куракин Иван Анатольевич, – епископ Иоанн, III Депутаты Государственных Дум – Члены Священного Собора Русской Православной Церкви 1917–1918 гг. Преосв. Анатолий (Каменский), епископ Елисаветградский, IV Преосв. Евлогий (Гергиевский), епископ Холмский и Люблинский, II, III Преосв. Митрофан (Краснопольский), епископ Гомельский, сщмч., III Преосв. Платон (Рождественский), епископ Чигиринский, II о. Альбицкий Александр Геннадьевич, IV Арефьев Михаил Иванович, IV Бобринский Владимир Алексеевич, II, III и IV Булгаков Сергей Николаевич, II Васильчиков Иларион Сергеевич, IV о. Гепецкий Николай Эмилианович (Емельянович), III и IV Гучков Александр Иванович , III Евсеев Илья Тимофеевич, IV Каптерев Николай Федорович, IV Ковалевский Евграф Петрович, III и IV Котляревский Сергей Андреевич, I Лашкевич Валериан Валерианович, IV Львов Владимир Николаевич, III и IV Львов Николай Николаевич, I–IV Олсуфьев Дмитрий Адамович, III |
| Диспут происходил, вероятно, зимою 532-533 г.; в связи с этим диспутом стоял указ императора Юстиниана о вере, от 15-го марта 533 г. (Codex Just. I, 1.6), к населению Константинополя и главных городов империи. 26-го марта того же года Юстиниан издал рескрипт с изложением вероучения на имя патриарха Епифания, в который было включено Выражение «τον σαρκωθεντα… και ενανθρωπησαντα και σταυρωθεντα να εναι της αγιας τριαδος». Извещая патриарха Епифания об издании вероопределения, император прибавляет, что он довел обо всем до сведения Римского папы, так как «он есть глава всех святейших Божьих священников» и всегда сдерживает авторитетом своего престола все ереси в восточных областях (Codex Just. I, 1, 7, 2 — I, 1, 6, 6 — I, 1, 8, 14). Формула Юстиниана стоит в связи с теопасхитскими спорами скифских монахов, к которым сначала Юстиниан относился отрицательно, а потом стал на их сторону. Папа после некоторых колебаний признал, как уже замечено, теопасхитскую формулу Юстиниана, по совету диакона Карфагенской Церкви Ферранда (Patrol, lat. LXVII, 889-908). Ответ папы императору послан 25-го марта 534 г./Вера императора изложена у Mansi VIII, 803-806/. После смерти патриарха Епифания, 5-го июля 535 г., кафедру занял Анфим, епископ Трапезунта. Почти одновременно произошла перемена и на римской кафедре: на место умершего папы Uoahha II, был поставлен 3 июля 535 г. папа Агапит. Юстиниан, немедля, отправил ему свое исповедание веры и получил его одобрение (Mansi. VIII, 845-848). Однако новый Константинопольский патриарх Анфим был в большом подозрении относительно своих верований. 20-го февраля 536 г., по распоряжению римского царя Феодагота, папа Агапит прибыл в Царьград для предотвращения надвигавшейся войны. Осведомленный относительно верований и полемики патриарха Анфима, он потребовал его низложения. Император уступил и предложил папе самому назначить патриарха. Папа поставил пресвитера Мину и посвятил его 3-го марта 536 г. Вскоре после этого, заболел сам папа Агапит и умер 22-го апреля 536 г. |
|
|
