| Most historians attribute the introduction of the feast to Prince Andrei Bogolubsky of the late 12 th c. Now, you might be asking, if you haven’t switched to a different YouTube channel because of all this history. Why would Prince Andrei introduce a feast that the Church of Constantinople did not have? After all, the Church of Rus’ was baptised by Greek-speaking missionaries, and in fact, in the 12 th century had Greek bishops. That’s why even today we sing to our Russian bishops Eis polla eti, despota! in Greek, because originally our bishops understood that language. The thing is, that Prince Andrei is said to have tried to obtain more cultural independence for his people. He wanted his people to have their own customs, and their own, independent tradition. In fact, he even tried to elevate his own bishop, or metropolitan, named Theodore, independent of the Kievan church. But of course, the Patriarch of Constantinople, did not agree to this. So, Andrei did not succeed in establishing culture independence in his land, because in fact, culture independence does not exist. Especially not in a last 1000 years. Every tradition, you see, has been and is, influenced by other traditions. Interestingly, even this beautiful church (“Pokrova-na-Nerli” Church), which Prince Andrei had built in honour of the new feast of the Protection, was built by foreign builders from the Latin West. They were sent to Prince Andrei by Friedrich Barbarossa- the famous crusader and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. But that’s just a fun fact. Concerning this feast in the Greek-speaking churches today, it is commemorated on October 28 th , not October 1 st . In the Greek-speaking churches it is commemorated on the Greek national holiday called Ochi-Day . And the feast, the church feast, is associated with thanksgiving for the deliverance of the Greek nation from the Italian invasion of 1940, because of the miracles reported by many Greek soldiers, – miracles of the Holy Virgin during the Greco-Italian War of 1940-1941. But that’s enough about the historical side of this feast. |
| This is an idea that has had an extraordinarily powerful influence and appeal. Paschalis Kitromilides, for example, has gone on to explore how it might still apply in later periods as the basis of an ‘Orthodox culture’ in the Balkans; one of his papers, dealing with Greco-Russian connections in the Ottoman period, makes the connection explicit by using the title ‘From Orthodox Commonwealth to National Communities’. 32 To quote from the concluding paragraph of this paper: ‘The last figure to give expression to the idea of the Orthodox Commonwealth, Joachim III, Patriarch of Constantinople, died in the year of the outbreak of the Balkan wars.’ As Kitromilides argues, the end of the nineteenth century, with its rising national states, ‘seemed to symbolize the end or the forgetting of a thousand years of shared past for the peoples of East and South-East Europe’. The shared past he had in mind was the Orthodox world of Obolensky’s Byzantine commonwealth. It is a matter for reflection that now we have seen a resurgence of Orthodoxy in states where the Church was at best barely tolerated or at worst persecuted or forbidden, while at the same time we have also seen a resurgence of a different kind of nationalism. But the notion of an earlier Orthodox culture in which Athos played a central and benign role derives directly from the powerful image of a Byzantine commonwealth, which in Obolensky’s original book of that title ended in 1453, but which in further essays, including his equally classic Raleigh Lecture for the British Academy on ‘Italy, Mount Athos and Muscovy: The Three Worlds of Maximos the Greek’, given in 1981, he himself carried forward into the Ottoman and especially the Russian worlds. It is also a conception which has had its critics. ‘Commonwealth’ is a British idea, after all; 33 perhaps the concept lays too much stress on whether the spread of Orthodoxy really was a deliberate policy of the Byzantine state itself; ‘commonwealth’ being a political term, how can it be applied in a religious context? Jonathan Shepard has restated it in our case as a ‘force field’, with Byzantium as the centre of concentric circles of influence, and with ‘horizontal’ as well as hierarchical strands of connection. 34 In some ways this influence resembles what is nowadays sometimes called ‘soft power’. Shepard’s formulation of the reason for this influence is that the prestige and influence of Byzantium in the wider world derives from ‘its credible show of majesty and piety’. That is, the way that Byzantium itself was perceived by the wider group of neighbouring peoples was deeply connected both with the concept of the emperor and court and with its Orthodox religion. |
| The Physiologus composed in Egypt around .the third century, served as a kind of catehistic text as well («theology in pictures») as it was, at least in part, meant for the missions in various regions, including India (cf. the mission of Panten of Alexandria in India). A Narrative of Shahaisi " s Twelve Dreams reflects Buddhist eschatalogical topics (which are preserved in Pali and Chinese texts) that reached Russia via Iran. The chapter which specifically compares The Romance of Varlaam and Joasaph and ancient Indian biographies of the Buddha reveals the complexity and contradiction in the utilization of the story about the conversion of an Indian prince impressed by sickness, age and death (cf. The Buddhacarita of Asvaghosa and other earlier interpretations). It also examines means of the Chri-stianization of a Buddhist literary theme by refashioning the semi-Christian Nestorian version of the romance (the archetype of the text). Among the changes introduced in the romance is the shift from emphasis on a world-renunciation ideology in the earlier versions to a history of the struggle for the faith in India in the Greco-Slavonic one. The monograph closely examines all the «small» narrative-didactic subjects of Inlian origin that made their way to Russia, such as the allegory of the unicorn and the princess from The Physiologus, elder Varlaam " s parables about the king and beggar-ascetics, about a man pursued by the beast, and about man " s three friends. After tracing the passage of these apologia and subjects from India to Russia (including an examination of their intermediate, Arabic and Georgian phases) and some notional transformations introduced as a result of interpretation, the author follows their evolution in Russian culture in works of art and social thought. The section devoted to ancient Indian historical realities in Russian culture opens with a review of the literature on the problem of the transformation of India " s image in ancient historiography and in works by early medieval writers. |
| Meletios’s election and all this activity I just described took place during a period of stalemate in the Greco-Turkish War, a tension-filled lull before the Asia Minor Catastrophe. In February and March, when Meletios was enthroned and when he rescinded the 1908 Tomos, the Allies, led by Britain, held diplomatic meetings in London, trying to broker an armistice. Ataturk wasn’t having it, and the Greeks were increasingly demoralized and divided. In April, Meletios wrote to Venizelos, “It is certain that all of us here and in Smyrna and in Athens are struggling in the dark and hitting out at friends and enemies without any definite aim any more…” In the weeks leading up to the Tomos on the diaspora, the Soviet government – which, for its part, was busy persecuting the Russian Orthodox Church – sent large sums of money to aid Turkey. The Greeks began to fixate on Constantinople. Everyone was going for broke. This is the context in which Meletios and his Synod rescinded the 1908 Tomos and established the Archdiocese of North and South America. The future of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, of Orthodoxy in not only Turkey but in Russia and, frankly, everywhere else, was suddenly in doubt. The great empires that had defined the Orthodox world for centuries – Russian, Ottoman, Habsburg – were suddenly gone, and in their place was uncertainty at best, and in many cases persecution and destruction. In this context, Meletios, perhaps the most creative, ambitious, and politically-minded Patriarch in history, dramatically reinvented the very institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, recasting its purpose as the master of an expansive “barbarian lands” that covered the majority of the globe. At the beginning of this paper, I quoted the future Patriarch Christophoros of Alexandria, who claimed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate began to extend its jurisdiction over the diaspora only in 1922 – that is, with this 1922 Tomos. Although we can trace the Patriarchate’s claim to the diaspora back a little further, to 1908, Christophoros appears to be generally correct: the “barbarian lands” theory does appear to date to the early 20 th century: first clearly elucidated in the 1908 Tomos and not asserted with any practical effect until 1922. |
| With his broad knowledge of Church history and the history of liturgy, Father Alexander sought to examine and highlight those practices, authentically Orthodox, from whatever time or place, from any epoch or ethnic tradition that might help better to convey the Orthodox Tradition, the spiritual treasures of the ancient Church, to modern North Americans, both “cradle” Orthodox and potential as well as actual converts. Applying this approach to the celebration of divine services, he recommended the extensive use of English, at a time when the vast majority of immigrant communities were still worshipping in their ancestral languages–rendering Orthodox worship unintelligible to any visitors or seekers who might attend a service. If the Church is in North America for all the people of this continent, Father Alexander would argue, then it must be accessible to them. This may not be true for many jurisdictions who define their mission as preserving an ancestral Faith in tact, in the same condition as they remember it in their homeland, somewhere else. But if the Orthodox Church in America remains true to its own history, as a mission to America for Americans (who were originally the indigenous tribes of Alaska) then it must translate and teach in the local language, continue an outreach to the local community, and focus on its situation, its needs, its heritage, its culture. This was the genius of the Alaskan missionary saints who learned the various languages, developed writing systems for them, produced translations and opened schools, training an indigenous clergy to lead the Church in the first half-century of its existence. The Church, as a mission, must adapt to the context into which it is sent. But this is exactly what the Church as done through the centuries. What else was the adaptation of the Greek language necessary in the first centuries of Christianity? Why else did the Church spend seven centuries, struggling to find language adequate to God, adequate to her message, re-defining and virtually re-inventing Greek terms, bending them to the meaning the Church required to articulate and explain the Gospel to a Greek-speaking intelligentsia? Every controversy that the Church entered, every heresy she confronted, arose from within the Greco-Roman classical worldview, a culture that radically separated the physical and spiritual worlds, making the incarnation of the Word of God “folly” to the Greeks. |
| It is important to note, however, that there have always existed specific Christian groups that did try to adhere to the radical ethical-economic demands of Christ without softening them, without realigning their apocalyptic bluntness in terms of the vicissitudes of “normal fiscal responsibility” in daily life. We can cite the instance of the early monks of Syria, the Ebionites, the Donatist Circumcellions, and the followers of Eustathius of Sebaste, as a few examples. The later Russian Non-Possessors are examples of similar tendencies in the church. The softening of Jesus’ demands is readily apparent in Matthew’s transformation of the Beatitudes text “Blessed are the poor” into the version “Blessed are the poor, in spirit.” This minor variant opened the door to a variety of interpretations, to the effect that what was being called for was not literal poverty (or fiscal simplicity – living for the day) but a right attitude (of course, how attitude would manifest in right action was sometimes glossed over). Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) was one of the first theologians to respond reflectively to the issues of wealth and poverty for Christians in Greco-Roman society. In his treatise Who is the Rich Man that can be Saved? Clement asks: “What would there be left to share among people, if nobody had anything?” (Quis. Div. 13). Clement argued that the literal meaning of Christ’s call for poverty could not have been what he meant. It would be senseless if God intended all to be poor. Clement was responding to a larger community that was antagonistic toward the wealthy. Being in the minority of the literate middle-class intelligentsia, Clement was evidently concerned with legitimizing the possession of wealth, and does so on the philosophical basis of advocating a “detachment” from the allure of riches, on the moral basis of adopting a simple (non-excessive) lifestyle, and on the biblical basis of symbolic (typological) rather than literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Origen of Alexandria would follow him in all three things, and establish this as the church’s standard intellectual approach in later ages. Following the author of the Shepherd of Hermas Clement advocated the divine economy of “redemptive almsgiving.” The terms of this economy are that the wealthy were to use their resources in the service of the poor, and would receive in return the intercessions of the poor who prayed for them. This approach, unfortunately, tended to justify the chasm that existed in antique society between rich and poor, by obscuring it. Clement sees it as a solution, an alternative economy: “What beautiful trade, what divine business! One buys incorruptibility with money, and by giving the perishable things of the world one receives an eternal abode in exchange” (Quis. Div. 32). |
| “The earliest Christians in the Roman Empire are usually portrayed as eccentrics who withdrew from the world and were threatened by persecution. This is countered by the contents of the Basel papyrus letter,” Huebner explained. “The letter contains indications that in the early third century, Christians were living outside the cities in the Egyptian hinterland, where they held political leadership positions and did not differ from their pagan environment in their everyday lives.” Huebner also pointed out that the author uses an abbreviated version of the phrase “I pray that you farewell ‘in the Lord,’ which separates it from other early letters of Greco-Roman Egpyt. “The use of this abbreviation – known as a nomen sacrum in this context – leaves no doubt about the Christian beliefs of the letter writer,” Huebner explained. “It is an exclusively Christian formula that we are familiar with from New Testament manuscripts.” She further pointed out that the name “Paulus” was an important detail because it “was an extremely rare name at that time,” which indicates that the “parents mentioned in the letter were Christians,” and probably “named their son after the apostle as early as 200 AD.” The letter, known as P.Bas 2.43, came from the village of Theadelphia in central Egypt and belongs to the Heronius archive. The Heronius archive is the largest papyrus archive from Rome and has been in the Swiss University for the past 100 years. Huebner, who wrote “The Family in Roman Egypt: A Comparative Approach to Intergenerational Solidarity and Conflict,” is penning her next book “ Papyri and the Social World of the New Testament, ” based off of the social, political, and economic life of the earliest Christians. Tweet Donate Share Code for blog New 1,700-Year-Old Christian Letter Sheds Light Into the Lives of Early Christians Lindsay Elizabeth A 1,700-year-old letter was recently unveiled by researches from the Unversity of Basil, detailing the lives of early Christian believers and their lifestyles. The letter, written from one Christian to another, is the oldest Christian letter outside of New Testament copies. The letter, ... |
| No place for singles here, or for the barren! Those who were unmarried generally were subordinate elements within the extended household – slaves, unmarriageable daughters, widowed grandmothers, and others who helped provide necessary services for the household, from child-care to elder-care. One more thing to note: In the Graeco-Roman world, as in many other traditional societies, you did not look to marriage and family to fulfill all your needs in life – at least if you were a free man. Marriage was important for your economic wellbeing and material support – certainly you valued your wife and children just as you did your other possessions. But for emotional support you looked to friendship, which by definition was possible only with peers, with other respected male members of society, and certainly not with women or slaves or other inferiors. And often you did not look to marriage even for major sexual satisfaction. A very revealing ancient saying goes something like this: The gods have given us our wives for legitimate children, men for friendship, and courtesans for pleasure. Could someone – for whatever reason – opt out of the social demands of marriage and family? This would have been very difficult in antiquity, whether Jewish or Greco-Roman, and indeed in most pre-modern societies. But Christianity offered the ancient world a very different message, a very different view of marriage and family – one that was truly revolutionary and truly liberating. Christianity told men and women that you do not have to marry and procreate to be saved – to have a sense of self-worth accompanied by a sense of divine acceptance and acceptance by those other human beings who mean the most to you. Christianity accepted and honored marriage, but it also accepted and honored celibacy. It valued children, but it also saw the barren – Joachim and Anna, Zacharias and Elizabeth – as blessed by God. In short, Christianity relativized the importance of both marriage and family. It did so by placing marriage and family – and indeed all human relations – in a new perspective, a perspective made possible by Christ’s self-giving love. |
| Among the last acts of Patriarch Alexei I was the official declaration in 1970 of the autonomy of the Orthodox Church in Japan. Bishop Vladimir (Nagosky) (1922–1997), the American-born primate of the Japanese Church, which had been affiliated with the American Metropolia since World War II, was made Metropolitan of Tokyo. The Moscow Patriarchate reserved the right to confirm the election of the Japanese primate and to participate in his consecration, but in all other respects the Church in Japan became self-governing. At the time of Japanese autonomy, the founder of the Church in Japan, Archbishop Nikolai (Kasatkin) (1836–1912), was glorified as a saint by the Russian Church. In 1972, Metropolitan Vladimir returned to the United States, and the native-born, American-educated Metropolitan Theodosius (Nagashima) (1935–1999) replaced him as primate of the Japanese Church. He was followed by Metropolitan Daniel (Nushiro) (b. 1938), who was born into a Japanese Orthodox family. Installed by Patriarch Alexei II of the Church of Russia in 2000, Metropolitan Daniel was still guiding the Japanese Church in 2013. It numbers about 30,000 faithful. The Church in Greece In 1907, Father Eusebios Matthopoulos (1849–1929) founded the Zoe Brotherhood in Greece, an organization dedicated to the “enlightenment” and “reevangelization” of Christian Greece. The Brotherhood founded thousands of Sunday schools and study groups. However, it also brought some Protestant doctrines, practices, and forms of piety into the life of many Greek Orthodox Christians. The first quarter of the century saw the influx of many Greeks from the Turkish territories into Greece, particularly at the time of the Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1923 in which Greece was defeated by the newly emerging Republic of Turkey led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881–1938). In this era the Patriarchate of Constantinople lost a vast number of members, many of whom emigrated to other places, including the New World. This natural emigration was forcefully increased by the so-called “population exchange” of 1923–1924. As stipulated by the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, signed by all the major European powers, Greece agreed to deport as many Turks as possible to Turkey, and Turkey in turn agreed to deport as many Greeks as possible to Greece and the Greek islands. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла ГОРОХОВ Иван Тимофеевич (14.11.1879, с. Лещинская Плота Тимского у. Курской губ.- 24.01.1949, Нью-Хейвен, шт. Коннектикут, США), регент. Род. в семье псаломщика. Обучался в духовном уч-ще уездного г. Тим, затем в Курской ДС, где на старших курсах управлял семинарским хором. По окончании ДС в 1903-1905 гг. возглавлял архиерейский хор Курской и Белгородской епархии. Через неск. лет, решив посвятить себя муз. карьере, Г. переехал в Москву. В 1905-1907 гг. был псаломщиком-регентом в ц. Двенадцати апостолов в Кремле. С 1906 г. посещал занятия в Московском синодальном уч-ще церковного пения. С 1907 г. преподавал пение в Перервинском духовном уч-ще Московской епархии. Имеется свидетельство о службе Г. регентом на подворье Троице-Сергиевой лавры в Москве. В нач. 1912 г. Г. возглавил хор рус. Свято-Никольского собора в Нью-Йорке, к-рый основал и субсидировал до 1917 г. амер. бизнесмен и филантроп Ч. Р. Крейн. В церковных школах при правосл. приходах Америки и в приюте для сирот при Свято-Тихоновском мон-ре Г. набрал мальчиков-певчих, к-рых поселил в открытом для них в Нью-Йорке интернате. После 6 месяцев обучения они присоединялись к взрослым певчим. Заведовал хором соборный прот. Александр Хотовицкий (с 1914 - прот. Л. И. Туркевич ), организовывала концерты И. Ф. Хепгуд, переводившая на англ. язык основные правосл. чинопоследования, к-рые были опубликованы в 1906 г. в «Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic (Greco-Russian) Church». Первый концерт состоялся 1 февр. 1913 г. в Нью-Йорке, в «Иолиан-холле». Состав хора менялся, но всегда в числе певчих были 21 мальчик и 8 мужчин. В 1913-1915 гг. и в 1917 г. хор давал 6-7 концертов; в 1916 г. состоялось 15 публичных выступлений, включая концерты из 2 отд-ний и исполнение неск. сочинений. Платные и благотворительные концерты устраивались в Свято-Никольском соборе и др. правосл. и инославных амер. церквах, в ун-тах (Йельский, Гарвардский, Принстонский и др.), в домах богатых людей, в Белом доме в присутствии президента В. Вильсона. Помимо мн. амер. городов (Филадельфия, Чикаго, Ричмонд, Кливленд и др.) хор гастролировал в Торонто и Монреале. |
|
|
