| I, II (14:348). 6302 . Pontificale Romanum, Clem VIII ac Urbani VIII Jussu editum 1735. 8° (Г. 2938). 6239 . Codex liturgicus ecclesiae universae in epitomen redactus Curavit Herm. Adalb. Daniel. T. 1. Codex liturgicus ecclesia Romano-Catholicae II. Codex liturgicus ecclesiae Lutheranae. III. Codex liturgicus ecclesiae reformatae atque anglicanae. 6846 . Jos. Bingham. Quatuor dissertationes (2 и 3:164)». Определили : Выслать в Правление Херсонского духовного училища означенные в прошении учителя А. Рождественского книги на трехмесячный срок. VII. Прошения бывших студентов Академии: IV курса: Александра Зыкова, Николая Попова , Конона Рахманова и Семена Шишаева; III курса: Павла Тихомирова ; II курса: Николая Георгиевского, Василия Корсунского, Федора Преображенского, Василия Сенатова и Михаила Сеславинского – о приеме обратно в Академию на те же курсы с начала наступающего учебного года. VIII. Прошение студента III курса Академии Ивана Орловского о принятии его вновь на казенное содержание. Справка : 1) Резолюцией Его Высокопреосвященства от 31 октября 1890 года за 137, последовавшей на журнале Правления Академии за 9-е октября, студенты: Зыков, Попов, Рахманов, Шишаев, Тихомиров, Сенатов, Сеславинский, Корсунский и Георгиевский уволены из Академии на год с правом поступить обратно в Академию на те же курсы. 2) По определению Правления Академии от 6 ноября 1890 года, утвержденному Его Высокопреосвященством 27 ноября, студенты 2-го курса Федор Преображенский уволен из Академии на год с правом поступить обратно на тот же курс и Иван Орловский лишен на год казенного содержания. Определили : Принимая во внимание затруднительное положение просителей, из коих иным грозит отбывание воинской повинности, иным – полное отсутствие средств к содержанию, а также имея в виду учебные и хозяйственные затруднения в случае принятия их после начала учебного года, благопочтительнейше ходатайствовать пред Его Высокопреосвященством о разрешении принять бывших студентов: IV курса – Александра Зыкова, Николая Попова , Конона Рахманова и Семена Шишаева, III курса – Павла Тихомирова , II курса – Николая Георгиевского, (Продолжение следует) 886 В тексте значится: οκ σβησαν, что не даёт удовлетворительного смысла. |
| о. Будрин Алексей Иванович, IV, сщмч. о. Вераксин Александр Сергеевич, III о. Владимирский Федор Иванович, II о. Воздвиженский Павел Федорович, I о. Волков Константин Константинович, III о. Ганжулевич Евгений Яковлевич, III о. Гашкевич Михаил Иванович, II о. Гвоздев Иван Михайлович, IV о. Гепецкий Николай Емельянович , III и IV о. Герштанский Дамиан Иосифович, II о. Голынец Василий Федорович, III о. Гриневич Антон Иустинович, II о. Гришковский Яков Игнатьевич, IV о. Гума Василий Иванович, I о. Гумилин Николай Иванович , III о. Дмитриев Михаил Николаевич, III о. Добромыслов Константин Николаевич, III о. Дроздовский Иоанн Дмитриевич, IV о. Евладов Венедикт Викторович, IV о. Зверев Петр Михайлович, IV о. Златомрежев Аркадий Алексеевич, III о. Знаменский Александр Георгиевич, III о. Знаменский Михаил Павлович, IV о. Исполлатов Петр Иванович, III о. Караваев Иоанн Михайлович, IV о. Карпинский Иоанн Константинович, IV о. Кириллович Дионисий Фаддеевич, III о. Климов Василий Васильевич, III о. Колокольников Константин Александрович, II о. Комарецкий Николай Ананьевич, III о. Концевич Авдий Васильевич, I о. Крылов Семен Алексеевич, IV о. Кузьминский Владимир Михайлович, III о. Куприянов Василий Петрович, III о. Лачинов Михаил Федорович, IV о. Лебедев Николай Федорович, III о. Лентовский Владимир Иванович, IV о. Лотоцкий Анания Алексеевич, IV о. Маньковский Григорий Тимофеевич, III и IV о. Машкевич Дмитрий Федорович, III о. Медведков Сергей Степанович, IV о. Мешковский Алексей Дмитриевич, IV о. Митроцкий Михаил Владимирович, IV о. Населенко Памфил Тимофеевич, IV о. Немерцалов Вениамин Иванович, IV о. Никонович Федор Иосифович, III о. Огнев Николай Васильевич, I, II о. Околович Константин Маркович, IV о. Ольховский Федор Иванович, IV о. Остроумов Стефан Иванович, IV о. Петров Григорий Спиридонович, II о. Пирский Николай Васильевич, II о. Подольский Василий Ильич, III о. Покровский Павел Алексеевич, IV о. Попов Александр Александрович, III о. Попов Алексей Алексеевич, III о. Попов Владимир Иванович, IV |
| In other words, she was just a particular “denomination,” among others, and had to be characterized as such. For this task only the modern “symbolic books” were relevant. 4 The Auseinandersetzung between Gass and Kattenbusch was much more than just an episode in the history of modern scholarship. 5 Nor was their disagreement simply methodological. Again, Gass was not alone in his approach. It is still typical of Western scholarship, both Roman and Protestant, to characterize Orthodoxy on the basis of modern and contemporary documents, without clear discrimination between authoritative statements and writings of individual authors, and without any proper historical perspective. It is enough to mention the various studies of such authors as M. Jugie and Th. Spacil. It is logical from the Roman point of view: the Orthodox Church, as a “schism,” must have her distinctive, schismatic features, and cannot be “identical” with the Catholic Church of old, even in her Eastern version. The ultimate question is, therefore, theological. Is the contemporary Orthodox Church the same church, as in the age of the Fathers, as has been always claimed and contended by the Orthodox themselves? Is she a legitimate continuation of that ancient Church? Or is she no more than a new Separatkirche? This dilemma is of decisive relevance for the contemporary ecumenical conversation, especially between the Protestants and the Orthodox. Indeed, the Orthodox are bound to claim that the only “specific” or “distinctive” feature about their own position in “divided Christendom” is the fact that the Orthodox Church is essentially identical with the Church of all ages, and indeed with the “Early Church,” die Urkirche. In other words, she is not a Church, but the Church. It is a formidable, but fair and just claim. There is here more than just an unbroken historic continuity, which is indeed quite obvious. There is above all an ultimate spiritual and ontological identity, the same faith, the same spirit, the same ethos. And this constitutes the distinctive mark of Orthodoxy. “This is the Apostolic faith, this is the faith of the Fathers, this is the Orthodox faith, this faith has established the universe.” |
| For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God…. because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. (Rom. 8:19, 21) Our salvation can be described as the restoration and fullness of communion with God. But that same salvation includes the restoration and fullness of communion with one another and with all of creation. Just as Christ’s communion with us is the means of our salvation, so our communion with everything and everyone works towards that same salvation. [God has] made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth– in Him. (Eph. 1:9) The modern myth of human beings as individual, self-contained moral agents is not just incorrect. It is also a tool of deception. The myth is often used to absolve us from the mutual responsibility that constitutes a just society, as well as to falsely blame individuals for things over which they have little or no control. That contemporary Christianity is often complicit in this deception is perhaps among its greatest errors. It has long been observed that the greatest weakness of the Reformation was ecclesiology (the doctrine of the “Church”). Reformers found it difficult to articulate the reality of “the Church” without undermining their own reforming project. From its inception, the Reformation was not a single work, but an immediate work of divisions and competing reformations. There has never been a “Protestant Church,” only “Churches” that were mutually exclusive in their origins. That modern ecumenical theories have invented the notion of the “invisible Church” to mask this essential failure does nothing to address the real problem. Indeed, it has provided the fertile ground for the individualism of the Modern Project with all of its concomitant destruction. |
| Do you call me a one-sided, unenlightened rigorist? Leave me my one-sidedness and all my other deficiencies. I would rather be a deficient, unenlightened child of the Orthodox Church than an apparently perfect man who would dare to instruct the Church, who would allow himself to disobey the Church, to separate from it. My words will be pleasant to the true children of the Orthodox Church. Let me be clear: I am not suggesting that we get together and burn books. I am not advocating enforced censorship by the State. I am simply suggesting that we, spiritual infants that we are, and especially seeing as how we generally cannot be bothered to fill ourselves with the spiritual food of the Holy Fathers, at the very least heed their advise and refrain from drinking poison on an empty stomach. But let us return to Justina. Having been sadly persuaded of the non-existence of God by the faithlessness of men, having uprooted herself from her home and family, and having arrived in New York City amidst a vast multitude of people, she found herself feeling intensely alone. Then Walford read an article about Sunday Assembly, a community started in Great Britain in 2013 that had spread quickly across the Atlantic to her doorstep. Members gather on Sundays, sing together, listen to speakers, and converse over coffee and donuts. Meetings are meant to be just like Church services—but without God. “That’s it,” she thought. “That’s what I want.” Such groups apparently sprang up and grew rapidly until about three years ago. This article in The Atlantic tries to figure out why they began to die out just as quickly as they arose. The surface-level explanation is quite simple: after a while, people just got tired of making the necessary efforts and preparations to organize each Sunday’s concert/lecture/what-have-you, and the whole thing just fizzled out. But somewhat surprisingly, the article also identifies at least part of what was going on underneath: Ara Norenzayan, a psychologist studying religion at the University of British Columbia, told me that secular communities might have trouble getting members to inconvenience themselves, as people of faith routinely do for their congregations. He cited a study by Richard Sosis, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut who studied 200 American communes founded in the 19th century. Sosis found that 39 percent of religious communes were still functioning 20 years after their start, but only 6 percent of secular communes were alive after the same amount of time. And he determined that a single variable was making this difference: the number of sacrifices—such as giving up alcohol, following a dress code, or fasting—that each commune demanded of its members. |
| “All life is not equal,” says Williams. “[A] fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her.” The fact that Williams’ argument could just as easily exculpate a parent drowning a child with Down syndrome (or practically any child for that matter) is evidently of little concern. What matters is freedom and self-determination, and what do I care about the rest? “Personal freedom is paramount,” said one advertising executive when asked her thoughts on rebranding the pro-abortion movement. “[T]he idea of government limiting your full participation in the world (professionally, economically, socially, et cetera) simply because you have a vagina [is] an insufferable limitation of rights and freedoms.” So while the total number of abortions is down—thank God—the moral state of our nation is arguably worse off nonetheless. We’re knowingly ending human life because, well, some lives matter more than others. Everything Wolf feared about losing our souls is coming true. We had the reckoning and just shrugged our shoulders. So where does that leave us with the our current Planned Parenthood situation? A Wink and a nod It’s hard to escape the thought we’re watching these same stages play out in CMP’s Planned Parenthood videos. On the one hand we have researchers, executives, and others quick to use dehumanizing terms like “product of conception” or “intact cases,” while at the same time actually laughing over a meal about the shock of dead human eyes staring back from an open shipping container. It’s all just tissue for research, but those vacant eyes still possess enough humanity to wink and accuse and judge. You don’t need science to tell you that, just the same humanity possessed by the mutilated creature there in the box. We’re back at Stage 2, a new point of reckoning. There’s no way to deny any longer or play games with words. We’re talking about the trafficking of human body parts, harvested—it would seem—with the intent of driving profit. We cannot afford to shrug our shoulders, or we risk killing our very souls. |
| Dylan’s son-in-law, singer Peter Himmelman, is a Zionist. Supporting Israel’s widely-perceived disproportionate military response against Hamas and civilians in Gaza, Himmelman directly rejected Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount. He told a reporter, “For Jews, turning the other cheek is a sin.” His pro-Israeli-government song “Maximum Restraint” was reminiscent of “Neighborhood Bully” in its biting tone but was clearly about contemporary events, not about the coming Day of the LORD prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures. A third reason that Dylan did not go the route of Christian Zionism is that he remained an anarchist in his ideology after his conversion. As a Christian anarchist, he remained uninterested in human governments, elections, laws, and policies—even those of the Israeli government. He recognized his Hebrew heritage and paid homage to the heroes of Israelite history but he was not interested in a movement characterized by narrow ethnic identity and the power of government. Entering into Christianity through the latter-day Jesus Movement, Dylan shares not only the movement’s American counterculturalism and premillennial eschatology but also its anarchism, which serves as a counterweight to politically-minded Zionism. Dave Kelly, Dylan’s personal assistant in 1979-80, recalls the singer’s dealings with the Lubavitch (Chabad) group from Brooklyn. Kelly recalls, “I saw when the rabbis first were sent to him—[they] were the cutting edge people in America, among the Orthodox Jews, and pretty much pulling the strings in Israel at the time. And he [Dylan] was very much against them at the time. He used to go to Israel himself, no security and just turn up, just wander around. . . . [But] he wasn’t pro-Israel [in a political sense] at all, that I can see. Not at all.” Kelly continues, “I know they had a lot of power in Israel, to move the election in favor of one politician over another. And I don’t think he [Dylan] liked that. And that sort of made him very resistant. Because these were just The Man again. Just the Jewish rabbi version of The Man. He was very, very resistant because he’s a rebel.” |
| Personally, I am uncomfortable with blanket statements about when married couples should or should not abstain from sexual relations. There are so many factors involved—it’s not like simply choosing a salad instead of a hamburger. Perhaps for a monk, even a very holy monk, who has never been married, it is possible to imagine that abstaining from sex in marriage is not much different than abstaining from oil and wine at supper; however, those who are married know it’s not the same. Just look at the way Elder Thaddeus words it: “ Husbands and wives for whom marriage means only the satisfaction of bodily passions will not be justified.” I have known a few young couples who seem to have gotten married “only [for the] satisfaction of bodily passions,” but those marriages either fail quickly, or they learn quickly that there is much, much more to marriage than satisfaction of bodily passions. For a monk, perhaps, marriage may seem to be mostly about satisfying passions, but anyone who has experienced a healthy marriage knows that sex in marriage is about so much more than just bodily passions—just like eating food is about so much more than just satisfying gluttony. In fact, good, healthy sex in marriage requires a great deal of self control. Still, there may be times when abstinence from sexual relations may help us in pursuit of prayer, and if the couple agree on a period of abstinence (and the agreement is genuinely mutual and it doesn’t harm the relationship), then by all means they may abstain. However, they must come together again, “lest the devil deceive them.” Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. |
| I . Государственное законодательство о церкви выражалось: 1) в издании особенных законодательных постановлений относительно церкви и 2) санкционировании правил, изданных или издаваемых церковью. Так как древнему миру чуждо было различие церкви и государства, как двух особых организмов, то церковные законы христианских императоров были в то же время и государственными законами. Государственные узаконения относительно церкви издавались обыкновенно в виде эдиктов, конституций, впоследствии новелл. Узаконения, изданные со времени Константина Великого до Феодосия В. Были сведены вместе в Codex Theodasianos (438 г.); первый закон этого кодекса предписывает всем народам, подвластным римскому императору, содержать ту веру, которой апостол Пётр научил римлян. Особенное значение в истории источников Церковного права имеют памятники Юстиниановской законодательной деятельности: Pandectae, Codex, Novellae, в совокупности носящие название Corpus juris civilis. В Пандектах нет указонений, прямо касающихся Церковного права, но многие положения их, относящиеся до ius sacrum имеют немаловажное значение и для правовой жизни церкви, применяясь к соответственным предметам христианской религии и усвояя лишь некоторое нравственное содержание. В кодексе Юстиниана (Codex repetitae praelectionis, 534 г.) первые 13 титулов первой книги посвящены уже исключительно законодательству о церкви, а именно: первый титул заключает в себе изложение христианских догматов, возведённое в закон; три следующие обширные титула заключают в себе массу законов относительно церквей, их имуществ и привилегий, относительно епископов, прочего духовенства и круга ведомства церковного суда. Законодательство Юстиниана обняло церковную дисциплину со всех сторон, почему и до сих пор не потеряло своего значения при выяснении разных сторон и институтов церкви. После издания кодекса стали выходить новые законоположения Novellae, о таких предметах, о которых говорится и в кодексе Юстиниана; в них Церковное право изменялось или развивалось. Новеллы заключались в сборники, известнейший из коих состоит из 168 новелл, он входит в III т. Corpus juris civilis. Из этих 168 новелл 30 посвящены исключительно церковным вопросам. |
| 1) в издании особенных законодательных постановлений относительно церкви и 2) санкционирование правил, изданных или издаваемых церковью. Так как древнему миру чуждо было различие церкви и государства, как двух особых организмов, то церковные законы христианских императоров были в тоже время и государственными законами. Государственные узаконения относительно церкви издавались обыкновенно в виде эдиктов, конституций, впоследствии новелл. Узаконения, изданные со времени Константина Великого до Феодосия В., были сведены вместе в Codex Theodasianos (438 г.); первый закон этого кодекса предписывает всем народам, подвластным римскому императору, содержать ту веру, которой апостол Перт научил римлян. Особенное значение в истории источников церковного права имеют памятники Юстиниановской законодательной деятельности: Pandectae, Codex и Novellae; в совокупности, носящие название Corpus juris civilis. В Пандектах нет узаконений, прямо касающихся церковного права, но многие положения их, относящиеся до ius sacrum, имеют немаловажное значение и для правовой жизни церкви, применяясь к соответственным предметам христианской религии и усвояя лишь некоторое нравственное содержание. В кодексе Юстиниана (Codex repetitae praelectionis, 534 г.) первые 13 титулов первой книги посвящены уже исключительно законодательству о церкви, а именно: первый титул заключает в себе изложение христианских догматов, возведенное в закон; три следующие обширные титула заключают в себе массу законов относительно церквей, их имуществ и привилегий, относительно епископов, прочего духовенства и круга ведомства церковного суда. Законодательство Юстиниана обняло церковную дисциплину со всех сторон, почему и до сих пор не потеряло своего значения при выяснении разных сторон и институтов церкви. После издания кодекса, стали выходить новые законоположения Novellae, о таких предметах, о которых говорится и в кодексе Юстиниана; в них Церковное право изменялось или развивалось. Новеллы заключались в сборники, известнейший из коих состоит из 168 новелл; он входит в III т. Corpus juris civilis. Из этих 168 новелл 30 посвящены исключительно церковным вопросам. |
|
|
