| Controversies in the West during the 3rd c. were marked by a practical rigorism in dealing with situations stemming from persecution, and theologically by modalism. Hippolytus, who appears as a consistent and credible theologian of the Trinity (qq.v.), fought modalism among the leadership of the Roman Church for decades. Schisms (q.v.) due to rigorism occurred later concerning the presbyter Novatian (q.v.), who as a disappointed candidate for the see led a group into schism over reconciliation of those who made concessions to paganism during persecution, and over the treatment of the lapsed by Cyprian of Carthage (q.v.). In the first instance, the Roman Church was vindicated in its treatment of Novatian, while in the second case Pope Stephen I was bested by Cyprian. The participation of the Roman Church in the theological issues from the 4th c. to the 8th c. may be tracked in the entries on the Ecumenical Councils and Christology. Although one should be mindful of the fall of the Western Empire in 476 after three “barbarian” (here, Arian Christian) invasions of Italy, the record of “orthodoxy” of the Roman Church during the conciliar period was exemplary. The great suffering due to successive persecutions of the 2nd-3rd c., along with administrative growth and responsible pastoring, was not only a mark of honor, but refined the witness of the Church in the truth of the faith. The quarrel between the Churches of East and West was parallel to the widening rift between what had been two halves of the one Empire. “Elder Rome” struck a new path with Charlemagne (q.v.) and the Gregorian Reforms while “New Rome” continued the trajectory begun with Constantine (q.v.). In those two paths lay the differences that would eventually divide Europe as well as the Church. Rome is part of the common inheritance of both, albeit differently appropriated, just as are Athens (philosophy) and Jerusalem (the revelation). Читать далее Источник: The A to Z of the Orthodox Church/Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson - Scarecrow Press, 2010. - 462 p. ISBN 1461664039 |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf SCHOLASTICISM SCHOLASTICISM. This word is chiefly associated with the theological movement beginning in the eleventh-century Christian West, and brought to its highest point by Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure at the University of Paris in the mid-thirteenth century. Centered on “schools,” beginning with the cathedral schools mandated by Charlemagne (q.v.) such as at Chartres, then moving to the great medieval universities of Paris, Oxford, Heidelberg, etc., Scholasticism sought to resolve perceived contradictions in Scripture and the Church Fathers (qq.v.) through recourse to the logic of the newly rediscovered texts of Aristotle coming to the West from Muslim Spain. A form of intellectual apologetics, Scholasticism ultimately came to dominate every approach to theology (q.v.) in the West. For all intents and purposes, it became “theology,” and “systematics” and, more generally, all academic theological work ever since. It was also profoundly different in approach and spirit from the monastic tradition of theological reflection, based on the meditation on liturgy (q.v.) and Scripture, which had prevailed in both East and West until Scholasticism’s rise. While Bernard of Clairvaux (12th c.) was the last great exemplar of this older approach in the West, it continued in the Orthodox world, even winning a signal victory over Byzantium’s (q.v.) own version of Scholasticism in the hesychast (q.v.) controversy of the 14th c. Western Scholasticism might mark a significant philosophical or theological parting of the ways between Roman Catholicism (q.v.) and Orthodoxy. But the participation of Mediterranean and Russian Orthodox hierarchs in the intellectual milieu of Scholasticism has ensured a place for it in the history of Orthodox thought. Both Roman Catholic and Protestant Scholastic problems made their way into the catechetical and theological schools of Constantinople, Kiev, and finally Russia. Bishops such as Cyril Lukaris, Peter Mogila, and the author of Peter the Great’s Spiritual Regulation (qq.v.), Theophanes Prokopovich, all utilized the categories of Scholasticism and based their writings upon it. After Peter the Great, Scholasticism became the basis of the Latin curricula of Russia’s schools, theological and secular, which followed Kievan and European prototypes, respectively. Whether this phenomenon is considered a “foreign invasion” of ideas onto Orthodox soil or a necessary dialogue involving the intellectual history of the greater Church depends on one’s predisposition toward the “legitimate” history of Holy Tradition (q.v.). Читать далее Источник: The A to Z of the Orthodox Church/Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson - Scarecrow Press, 2010. - 462 p. ISBN 1461664039 Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное |
| Предыдущий Следующий Смотри также Man in Creation: The Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor Jesse Dominick Man in Creation: The Cosmology of St. Maximus the Confessor Jesse Dominick The theology of creation and salvation in Orthodox Christianity upholds the centrality and kingship of mankind while simultaneously embracing a cosmological vision that is largely absent in western Christendom. A common characteristic of all creation is corruption and death, and yet we are told that God is not the author of death, and that all of creation awaits its redemption through the revealing of the saints, when all of heaven and earth will be united to God. Within this framework, St. Maximus the Confessor is recognized as a theological and spiritual giant by the Orthodox Church. In his two troparia he is hailed as an “enlightener of the universe” and a “herald of the faith.” Maximos the Confessor: On the Free Will of Christ Archimandrite Irenei (Steenberg) Maximos the Confessor: On the Free Will of Christ Archimandrite Irenei (Steenberg) This study considers the question of " free will " in the Christology of St Maximus, and in particular the soteriological implications of his various discussions. Clash of Paradigms: The Doctrine of Evolution in the Light of the Cosmological Vision of St. Maximos the Confessor, by the Rev. Vincent Rossi Vincent Rossi Clash of Paradigms: The Doctrine of Evolution in the Light of the Cosmological Vision of St. Maximos the Confessor Vincent Rossi Going beyond the typical surface-level considerations of the degree of compatibility between evolution and Orthodox theology, Vincent Rossi offers an indepth explanation and examination of the shining cosmological vision of the great St. Maximus the Confessor, considering the implications of the theory of evolution in light of the seventh century saint " s system. Комментарии Editor 3 февраля 2017, 18:00 Castrese Tipaldi: You are right. We have corrected the text to reflect this. Pope St. Martin stood with St. Maximus at that time against Monothelitism. Castrese Tipaldi 3 февраля 2017, 14:00 Even if the whole universe holds communion with the [Latinizing] Patriarch, I will not communicate with Did this word even have sense at the time of St. Maximos " struggle? The Patriarch was a Monothelite heretic, a heresy which infected the East, not the West. Heretics were enthroned in Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. The Popes of Rome at that time were champions and confessors of Orthodoxy, just like St. Maximos. © 1999-2016 Православие.Ru |
| Restoration of Holy Sepulchre completed Moscow, March 21, 2017 Photo: The Times of Israel The restoration work on the edicule over the Lord’s tomb has been completed according to the previously announced schedule. Earlier, His Holiness Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem stated that the tomb would open to pilgrims sometime between March 22 and 25. The iron cage built around the Holy Sepulchre in 1947 by British authorities has been removed, as the walls of the edicule have been reinforced to be self-sustaining, reports The Times of Israel . The black soot on the stone façade from years of pilgrims’ candles was also cleaned as part of the first restoration work in 200 years. “If this intervention hadn’t happened now, there is a very great risk that there could have been a collapse,” Bonnie Burnham of the World Monuments Fund, which gave the initial million for the million project, said Monday. “This is a complete transformation of the monument.” King Abdullah II of Jordan and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas also donated about 150,000 euros each. The shrine, standing in the middle of the ancient church, was in bad condition after years of water, humidity, and candle smoke. The National Technical University of Athens’ restoration team removed the stone slabs from the edicule’s façade, and cleaned and replaced them, reinforcing the walls with tubes of grout and titanium bolts. Restorers also cut a small window through the edicule’s marble walls for pilgrims to see into the tomb itself, where Christ was laid after His Crucifixion and death on Holy Friday. While historians believed the original remnants of the tomb had been destroyed over the centuries, with the original church being destroyed in 1099 by order of the Fatimid caliph of Egypt, researchers in fact found a limestone slab with a cross carved into it that dated to the fourth century, to the time when Sts. Constantine and Helen had the original Holy Sepulchre Church built. Further restorations are planned to consolidate the underground drainage and sewage pipes and to stabilize the shrine’s foundation. The restoration team’s worksite is being dismantled in preparation for a ceremony on Wednesday to mark the end of the restorations to be led by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic confession. 21 марта 2017 г. Подпишитесь на рассылку Православие.Ru Рассылка выходит два раза в неделю: Смотри также Комментарии Мы в соцсетях Подпишитесь на нашу рассылку |
| The wedding ceremony was performed by His Eminence Andrei, the second bishop of the Tver diocese, newly formed in the 1270’s. Princess Xenia blessed the newlyweds with an icon of the Savior. “And there was great rejoicing in Tver,” (the usual chronicles formula for princely success and festivity). The people of Kashin marked this event with the building of the church of the Archangel Michael and the triumphal St. Michael’s gate from the Kremlin to the Tver Road. In the Dormition cathedral there was a festal service, and the clergy processed with the cross to the parishioners’ houses. 26 июня 2014 г. The Chronicles are contradictory on this account: some call him Michael, while others call him Alexander. In any case, there is no information about him other than his year of birth, from which we can suppose that he died as an infant. The son of Vsevolod “of the Great Nest”. His father divided the Rostov principality from the Vladimir-Suzdal regions and gave it to Constantine. This marked the beginning of the line of Rostov princes. This was a peculiarity of the land of Rostov—the two princely brothers reigned together. See: Presniakov, The formation of the Great Russian Nation, Prague, 1920, pp. 58-59. The tale of Prince Michael of Chernigov’s and his boyar Theodore’s death was undoubtedly compiled in Rostov by an eye-witness, or at least from their words. (Met. Makary, History of the Russian Church, vol. 5, p. 413; and Sunday Chronicles for 1246). Roman Olegovich openly confessed his Faith, that it is holy, while the Tatar religion is heathen. The Tatars cut off his tongue, gouged out his eyes, cut of his ears, chopped off his arms and legs joint by joint. This took place in the reign of khan Mengu-Timure. The famous Russian historian, Karamzin, supposes that information had reached Bishop Ignatius about Prince Gleb’s unseemly behavior amongst the Horde during that campaign. ( The History of the Russian Nation, vol. IV, p. 142.) A. N. Titof, The Life of Right-believing Princess Anna of Kashin, synodal manuscript preserved in the Moscow Patriarchate Library, No. 622. |
| Oktober 312 n. Chr.//Chiron. 1991. Bd. 21. S. 127-174; ODB. Vol. 1. P. 498-500; Costantino il Grande dall " antichità all " umanesimo: Colloquio sul Cristianesimo nel mondo antico. Macerata, 18-20 dic.1990/A cura di G. Bonamente, F. Fusco. Macerata, 1992-1993. 2 vol.; Drijvers J.-W. Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden, 1992; Leeb R. Konstantin und Christus: Die Verchristlichung der imperialen Repräsentation unter Konstantin dem Grossen als Spiegel seiner Kirchenpolitik und seines Selbstverständnisses als christlicher Kaiser. B., 1992; Grant M. The Emperor Constantine. L., 1993; Odahl C. M. Constantine " s Epistle to the Bishops at the Council of Arles: A Defence of Imperial Authorship//JRH. 1993. Vol. 17. N 3. P. 274-289; idem. The Christian Basilicas of Constantinian Rome//Ancient World. 1995. Vol. 26. P. 3-28; idem. Constantine and the Christian Empire. L.; N. Y., 2004; Bradbury S. Constantine and the Problem of Anti-pagan Legislation in the IVth Cent.//CPh. 1994. Vol. 89. P. 120-139; Карташев А. В. Вселенские Соборы. М., 1994; Болотов. Лекции; New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, IV-XIII Cent./Ed. P. Magdalino. Aldershot; Brookfield, 1994; Nixon C. E. V., Rodgers B. In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini. Berkeley, 1994; Wiemer H.-U. Libanius on Constantine//CQ. N. S. 1994. Vol. 44. P. 511-524; Edwards M. J. The Arian Heresy and the Oration to the Saints//VChr. 1995. Vol. 49. N 4. P. 379-387; Grubbs J. E. Law and Family in Late Antiquity: The Emperor Constantine " s Marriage Legislation. Oxf., 1995; Corcoran S. The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government, AD 284-324. Oxf., 1996; From Constantine to Julian/Ed. S. N. C. Lieu, D. Montserrat. L.; N. Y., 1996; Крист К. История времен римских императоров от Августа до Константина. Р. н./Д., 1997. Т. 2; Шабага И. Ю. Славься, император!: Лат. панегирики от Диоклетиана до Феодосия. М., 1997; Treadgold W. |
| Leaders play down hopes of Orthodox ‘thaw’ with Rome May 22, 2014 As Pope Francis prepared to leave Rome for a historic three-day visit to the Holy Land, Orthodox and Catholic church voices tried to cool expectations regarding his meeting tomorrow with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. The visit coincides with the fiftieth anniversary of the meeting in Jerusalem between the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, and Pope Paul VI in January 1964. Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, in an interview for the Swiss online paper katholisch-informiert.ch, said that too much should not be made of the encounter in terms of prospects for greater unity. While he thought the present good Catholic-Orthodox relations would be deepened on the Pope’s journey to the Holy Land, Cardinal Koch said he did not expect the problems that still existed in the theological dialogues with the individual Orthodox patriarchates to be solved. “I am more inclined to think that greater unity between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches will be reached at the Panorthodox Synod in 2016,” Cardinal Koch said. However, he insisted that “the four meetings with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I are clearly at the heart of the whole journey.” Vatican spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi made the same point last week. The rite “in which they will venerate the Holy Sepulchre is … the great ecumenical novelty of the trip,” he said. “In other words, it will be an historic and extraordinary event”. Meanwhile, in an interview in Moscow, the Russian Orthodox Church offered its own perspective on the meeting between Francis and Bartholomew. The meeting is one between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, with no special validity for other Orthodox Churches, said Metropolitan Hilarion, the Moscow patriarchate’s director of foreign church affairs. Metropolitan Hilarion said the current crisis in Ukraine, which has heightened tensions between the Churches there, has also set back Moscow-Vatican relations that had started to improve under Pope Francis. Speaking in his office at Moscow’s Danilov Monastery, Metropolitan Hilarion said: “All these events and the activity of the Uniates take us back to the situation when Catholics and Orthodox didn’t consider themselves allies, but enemies.” 24 мая 2014 г. Смотри также Комментарии Мы в соцсетях Подпишитесь на нашу рассылку |
| One finds a similar tendency when comparing the relics located in other Constantinopolitan shrines noted by the westerners with those noted by the Russians (and the lone Armenian who has left us a catalog from this period). Besides the passion relics, the western visitors mention only the “stone of anointment”, the column of the flagellation, two arms of John the Baptist, the body of Gregory Nazianzen, the tombs of Chrysostom and Constantine the Great, and the procession of the Hodegetria icon. Strangely, they pay no notice to the robe and girdle of the Virgin preserved at Blachernae for centuries (because these same relics were by then also reported in the West?) 1087 , the miraculous healing spring at Christ Φιλνθρωπος 1088 (were Westerners not given to accept contemporary marks of divine favor among the “schismatic” Byzantines?). Perhaps less surprisingly, there is no mention of major relics of saints much more popular in Eastern Christianity than in the Western church: the bodies of the early martyrs Sts. Spiridon and Polyeuctus 1089 , the body of St. Theodosia, martyr under iconoclasm 1090 , the relics of Sts. Florus, Laurus and James the Persian 1091 , the heads of the “holy unmercenaries” Cosmas and Damian 1092 , nor, interestingly, the column at which Peter wept after betraying Christ 1093 (a possible embarrassment to the successor of St. Peter in Rome?). The pattern, then, is not dissimilar to what one finds ca. 1200 with the smaller sample of visitor records. There are a number of Christian relics that are highly regarded by Christians from all over the world (mostly relics connected with personages of the Old and New Testaments, but also relics connected with well known figures of the early centuries of Christianity, such as John Chrysostom and Emperor Constantine). But there are sacred objects much more venerated not only in the Russian Church, but (so the Armenian Anonymus suggests) in the Eastern Church in general, particularly wonderworking images, sites of sacred apparitions known from Byzantine ecclesiastical writings, relics of early martyrs of Eastern Christianity and of figures connected with the struggle to preserve image veneration in the Byzantine world. Джордж Маджеска |
| The early part of this era represented a new monumentalism featuring larger, simpler images expressing a radiant inner beauty reminiscent once again of the first half of the 11th century. The Hagiographical icon (the depiction of a saint framed by smaller scenes from his life as recorded in the Synaxarion) also appeared during this period. The dawn of the 14th century marked the beginning of the Palaeologue Renaissance. Significant for this period are the frescoes at the Monastery of Christ at Chora (Kariye Djami) and the works of the Athonite artist Manouel Panselinos. Typical of this style are supple movement of figure and classical beauty, noble “Greek faces” with high bulging foreheads, deep-set eyes and a three-quarter turn of the head. The first half of the 15th century marked the final chapter in imperial Byzantine art. Despite the constant shrinking of the empire, artistic life was not extinguished during this period. Local schools of iconography such as the Serbian and Bulgarian (Rice 1963: 187f.) continued to develop. With the fall of Constantinople in 1453 many artists fled the Plate 33 Part of the newly restored gallery of priceless icons preserved at St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mount Sinai, Egypt. Photo by John McGuckin. former territories of the empire and some migrated to Crete where the significant Cretan school of iconography developed (Zachaeus 2007: 95f.). The continuation of the Byzantine art tradition after the fall of the empire is evident especially in the great Russian schools of iconography (Moscow, Tver, Rostov, and Novgorod) (Zachaeus 2007: 119ff.) and in great artists such as St. Andrei Rublev. SEE ALSO: Architecture, Orthodox Church; Council of Nicea II (787); Icons; St. Andrei Rublev (ca. 1360–1430) REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Gervase, M. (1963) Byzantine Aesthetics. New York: Harper and Row. Kalokyris, C. (1971) The Essence of Orthodox Iconography, trans. P. Chamberas. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross School of Theology. Rice, D. (1963) Art of the Byzantine Era. New York: Oxford University Press. Schug-Wille, C. E. (1969) Art of the Byzantine World, trans. M. Hatt. New York: Harry N. Abrams. Zachaeus (Wood), Archimandrite (ed.) (2007) A History of Icon Painting, trans. K. Cooke. Moscow: Grand-Holding Publishers. Читать далее Источник: The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity/John Anthony McGuckin - Maldin : John Wiley; Sons Limited, 2012. - 862 p. Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное |
| 2000. Vol. 59. N 1. P. 50-77; Nicholson O. Constantine " s Vision of the Cross//VChr. 2000. Vol. 54. N 3. P. 309-323; Weber G. Kaiser, Träume und Visionen in Prinzipat und Spätantike. Stuttg., 2000; Southern P. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. L.; N. Y., 2001; Marcone A. Pagano e Cristiano: Vita e mito di Constantino. R.; Bari, 2002; Salzman M. R. The Making of a Christian Aristocracy. Camb. (Mass.); L., 2002; Weiss P. The Vision of Constantine//JRArch. 2003. Vol. 16. P. 237-259; Baert B. The Heritage of Holy Wood: The Legend of the True Cross in Text and Image. Leiden, 2004; Harries J. Law and Empire in Late Antiquity. Camb., 2004r; Potter D. S. The Roman Empire at Bay: AD 180-395. N. Y. etc., 2005r; Brandt H. Konstantin der Grosse: Der erste christliche Kaiser. Münch., 2006; Canella T. Gli Actus Silvestri: Genesi di una leggenda su Constantino imperatore. Spoleto, 2006; Hartley E. e. a., ed. Constantine the Great: York " s Roman Emperor. York, 2006; Roldanus J. The Church in the Age of Constantine: Theological Challenges. L.; N. Y., 2006; The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine/Ed. N. Lenski. N. Y.; Camb., 2006; Bleckmann B. Konstantin der Grosse. Hamburg, 20075; Van Dam R. The Roman Revolution of Constantine. Camb., 2007; Попов И. Н. Образ Константина Великого в исторической памяти византийцев: история против мифа//Причерноморье в Средние века. М., 2008. С. 11-33; он же. Константин Арианин: церковная политика 325-337 гг. глазами византийских историков и хронистов//Море и берега: К 60-летию профессора С. П. Карпова. М., 2009. С. 445-458; Humphries M. From Usurper to Emperor: The Politics of Legitimation in the Age of Constantine//J. of Late Antiquity. Baltimore, 2008. Vol. 1. P. 82-100; Konstantin der Grosse: Das Bild des Kaisers im Wandel der Zeiten/Hrsg. A. Goltz, H. Schlange-Schoningen. Köln, 2008; Hijmans S. E. Sol: The Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome: Diss. [Groningen], 2009; Stephenson P. Constantine: Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor. |
|
|
