| Rom. Ep. I ad Cor. 42). При этом он говорит, что служения Е. и диаконов были предвозвещены в ВЗ, и приводит парафраз цитаты Ис 60. 17 (по LXX). Далее замечает, что апостолы предвидели споры об «имени епископов» и по этой причине установили правило преемства: с этого времени Е. стали избираться «достоуважаемыми мужами с согласия всей Церкви» ( Clem. Rom. Ep. I ad Cor. 44). Кроме того, сщмч. Климент связывает с епископством «принесение Даров», т. е. совершение таинства Евхаристии. В «Пастыре» Ермы Е. упоминаются вместе с апостолами и учителями ( Herm. Pastor. I 5). Говорится, что они принимают странников у себя дома, покровительствуют бедным и вдовицам и если пребудут в этом служении до кончины, то займут место среди ангелов (Ibid. III 27). Впервые стройная 3-степенная система церковной иерархии описывается в посланиях сщмч. Игнатия Богоносца (напр.: Ign. Ep. ad Magn. 2, 6, 13; Idem. Ep. ad Trall. 2, 3; Idem. Ep. ad Philad. 4, 7). Он говорит о согласии пресвитерства с Е. ( Idem. Ep. ad Eph. 4), о силе совместной молитвы Е. с Церковью и о том, что покорность по отношению к Е. есть выражение покорности Богу (Ibid. 5). Сщмч. Игнатий призывает смотреть на Е. «как на Самого Господа» (Ibid. 6; ср.: Idem. Ep. ad Magn. 6) и ничего не делать в Церкви без него ( Idem. Ep. ad Magn. 4, 7; Idem. Ep. ad Smyrn. 8). Без Е. нельзя совершать Крещение и «вечерю любви» (т. е. Евхаристию - Idem. Ep. ad Smyrn. 8), а вступающие в брак должны делать это только с ведома Е. ( Idem. Ep. ad Polyc. 5). Е. может быть юным по возрасту ( Idem. Ep. ad Magn. 3). Е. в последующей церковной традиции Во II-III вв. епископское служение окончательно оформляется и за ним закрепляются те учительные, адм. и литургические функции, к-рые составляют его сущность до наст. времени. В соч. Тертуллиана домонтанистского периода впервые ясно говорится о служении Е. как об иерархической степени (ordo episcoporum - Tertull. De praescript. haer. 32; Idem. Adv. Marcion. 4. 5). Основными функциями Е. он называет управление Церковью, совершение таинств и учительство. |
| Lpz., 1910; Bousset W. Der zweite Brief an die Korinther// Idem. Die Schriften des NT. Gött., 19173. Bd. 2. S. 167-223; Weiss J. Das Urchristentum. Gött., 1917; idem. Der erste Korintherbrief. Gött., 192510, 1970r; Goguel M. Introduction au NT. P., 1922-1926. 4 vol. in 5; Reitzenstein R. Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen nach ihren Grundgedanken und Wirkungen. Lpz.; B., 19273; Waele F. J. M., de. Uit de geschiedenis van Korinthe in de dagen van Paulus//Studia Catholica. Nijmegen, 1927/1928. Vol. 4. P. 145-170; Evans E. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Oxf., 1930; Roos A. G. De titulo quodam latino Corinthi huper reperto//Mnemosyne. N. S. Lugd. Batav., 1930. Vol. 58. P. 160-165; Cadbury H. J. Erastus of Corinth//JBL. 1931. Vol. 50. N 2. P. 42-58; Loisy A. Remarques sur la littérature épistolaire du NT. P., 1935; Broneer O. Colonia Laus Iulia Corinthiensis//Hesperia. Camb., 1941. Vol. 10. P. 388-390; idem. Corinth: Center of St. Paul " s Missionary Work in Greece//BiblArch. 1951. Vol. 14. P. 78-96; idem. The South Stoa and Its Roman Successors. Princeton, 1954. P. 100-155. (Corinth: Results of Excavations; 1/4); idem. The Apostle Paul and the Isthmian Games//BiblArch. 1962. Vol. 25. P. 2-31; idem. The Isthmian Victory Crown//AJA. 1962. Vol. 66. N 3. P. 259-263; idem. Paul and the Pagan Cults at Isthmia//HarvTR. 1971. Vol. 64. N 2/3. P. 169-187; idem. Isthmia. Princeton, 1971. Vol. 1: The Temple of Poseidon; 1973. Vol. 2: Topography and Architecture; Käsemann E. Die Legitimität des Apostels//ZNW. 1942. Bd. 41. S. 33-71; idem. Einführung// Baur F. C. Ausgewählte Werke/Hrsg. K. Scholder. Stuttg., 1963r. Bd. 1. S. 1 ff.; Grant R. M. The Wisdom of the Corinthians//The Joy of Study: Papers on NT and Related Subjects Presented to Honor E C. Grant/Ed. S. E. Johnson. N. Y., 1951. P. 51-55; Munck J. Paulus und die Heilsgeschichte. Årchus, 1954; idem. Paul and the Salvation of Mankind. Atlanta, 19772; Allo E.-B. Saint Paul: Seconde Épître aux Corinthiens. |
| P. 1-27; idem. The Significance of the Adam-Christ Typology for the Resurrection of the Dead: 1 Co 15, 20-22, 45-49//Résurrection du Christ et des chrétiens (1 Co 15)/Ed. L. De Lorenzi. R., 1985. P. 99-126; idem. Sectarian Diversity at Corinth//Paul and the Corinthians/Ed. T. J. Burke, K. J. Elliott. Leiden; Boston, 2003. P. 287-302; Conzelmann H. Der erste Brief an die Korinther. Gött., 196911; Lietzmann H., Kümmel W. G. An die Korinther I, II. Tüb., 19695; Schenk W. Der 1. Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung//ZNW. 1969. Bd. 60. N 3/4. S. 219-243; idem. Korintherbriefe//TRE. 1990. Bd. 19. S. 620-640; Schmithals W. Die Gnosis in Korinth: Eine Untersuchung zu den Korintherbriefen. Gött., 19693; idem. Die Korintherbriefe als Briefsammlung//ZNW. 1973. Bd. 64. N 3/4. S. 263-288; idem. Die Briefe des Paulus in ihrer ursprünglichen Form. Zürich, 1984; Thraede K. Grundzüge griechisch-römischer Brieftopik. Münch., 1970; Windisch H. Der zweite Korintherbrief. Gött., 1970; Bruce F. F. 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids; L., 1971; idem. The Pauline Circle. Grand Rapids, 1985; Spörlein B. Die Leugnung der Auferstehung: Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 15. Regensburg, 1971; Williams C. K., Fisher J. E. Corinth, 1970: Forum Area//Hesperia. Camb., 1971. Vol. 40. N 1. P. 1-51; Borse U. Der Standort des Galaterbriefes. Köln; Bonn, 1972; Wilson R. M. How Gnostic Were the Corinthians?//NTS. 1972. Vol. 19. N 1. P. 65-74; idem. Gnosis at Corinth//Paul and Paulinism: Essays in Honour of C. K. Barrett/Ed. M. D. Hooker, S. G. Wilson. L., 1982. P. 102-114; Arai S. Die Gegner des Paulus im I. Korintherbrief und das Problem der Gnosis//NTS. 1973. Vol. 19. N 4. P. 430-437; Fascher E. Die Korintherbriefe und die Gnosis//Gnosis und NT: Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie/Hrsg. K.-W. Tröger. B., 1973. S. 281-291; Hyldahl N. Die Frage nach der literarischen Einheit des Zweiten Korintherbriefes//ZNW. 1973. Bd. 64. N 3/4. S. 289-306; idem. Die paulinische Chronologie. Leiden, 1986; idem. |
| This is the fundamental fact about the Church, though it is easy to lose track of it. Outsiders not unnaturally view the Church as an organization, a group which interacts with the wider society, which makes pronouncements through its officers, and which holds meetings for the benefit of those who belong to the organization (i.e. “church services”). Even those inside the Church may view the Church primarily as a social group to which they belong, a group whose primary purpose is to meet weekly to provide preaching and sacraments for their edification and comfort. These outsiders and insiders view the Church primarily in a horizontal aspect, looking upon its activities from an external point of view: the Church is an organization that does something . In actual fact, the Church is primarily not about things that we do, but about something Christ does, and it should be viewed according to a vertical aspect. When we form a gathering every week, an κκλησα, He appears in our midst. The Church’s catholic and international unity does not consist of the fact that the various congregations that gather belong to the same organization (like individual McDonald’s restaurants belonging to the same corporate chain), but rather the fact that the same Christ manifests Himself in the same way in these various congregations. The baptized Christians in Thessalonica had the same experience of Christ being among them when they gathered on Sunday as did the baptized Christians in Corinth when they gathered. That is why there were parts of one and same Church. The Church’s unity is therefore rooted in the fact that the Lord who appears in one congregation is the identical Lord who appears in another congregation. Their Eucharistic experience is identical, because the same Lord appears when both groups gather together even though they gather separately. The Church’s unity therefore does not depend upon shared membership in an organization, but on the shared phenomena of the same Lord being among them. Because the Lord who appeared in Thessalonica was the same Lord who appeared in Corinth, the Christians in Thessalonica and Corinth belonged to the same Church. The Christians in those places—and throughout the world—had the same experience of Christ. The astonishing liturgical diversity that obtained early on (which included in the very early days a different New Testament canon in different churches) only served to emphasize the unity of the geographically scattered Church. |
| An alternative explanation is that the Jews were invoking against Paul the edicts of Claudius which guaranteed them the quiet enjoyment of their native customs throughout the Diaspora. This is the uncontroversial part of the texts quoted by Josephus in the Antiquities, however much he may have fudged on behalf of the Jewish claim to citizenship at Alexandria. 365 The decisive words in the edict concerning the Diaspora are: ‘It is proper that the Jews through the world under Roman rule should keep their native customs without let or hindrance.’ The genuine character of the wording of most of these edicts cannot be called in question. They contain the various quirks and oddities of expression that characterize the several genuine decrees and edicts of Claudius. 366 The Jews of Corinth may not themselves have had the power of enforcement, 367 but they might hope to invoke the proconsul’s authority against a fellow Jew who interfered, as Paul certainly was interfering, with the quiet practice of their customs. But the intention of the edict of Claudius was merely to reaffirm the Jewish privilege of toleration, granted in the Triumviral period and confirmed by Augustus, that they should not be prevented by the Greek city governments from assembling for the purposes of their cult. This is made abundantly clear by the long series of documents quoted by Josephus in Antiquities, xiv. 10. Cities of Asia, such as Pergamum, Sardes, and Ephesus, had been interfering with Jewish assemblies. When the Claudian edict in Josephus adds: ‘I think it right that no Hellenic city should be without these privileges’ the reference is clear. It is relevant that the ‘decrees of Caesar’ had been invoked at Thessalonica against Paul by the Jewish commune. 368 This is the most confused of the various descriptions of charges in Acts, though the Acts Commentary does not notice the difficulty. There are three items: ‘these men disturb the world, and act against the decrees of Caesar, and say that there is another king.’ The decrees of Claudius Caesar were very much concerned, as we have seen, with preventing ‘disturbances of the world’. 369 But at Corinth the Jews were exceeding the intentions of Claudius. If the civic magistrates of Corinth had prevented the Jews from celebrating the Sabbath, Gallio must have defended the Jews or risked imperial displeasure. Nothing compelled him to interfere with with the internal quarrels of the Jews. The curious incident following Gallio’s dismissal of the case perhaps confirms this interpretation. The Jews, bidden by Gallio to see to the matter themselves, seized Sosthenes, one of the Elders of the Synagogue, and beat him before the tribunal. 370 This makes sense if one may assume that Sosthenes was a Christian sympathizer of sorts, and that the beating was that of the formal ‘thirty-nine blows’, administered by the authority of the local Sanhedrin, which had taken Gallio at his word. The Acts Commentary makes nothing of this incident. |
| 11. Et quosdam quidem posuit Deus in Ecclesia primum Apostolos, Caput itaque in Ecclesia Apostolos posuit…. Ipsi sunt episcope ect. Secundo, prophetas. Prophetas duplici genere intelligimus, et future dicentes et scripturam revelantes: quamvis sint et Apostoli prophetae, quia primus gradus omnia subjectahabet…, tamen specialiter errant prophetae et scripturarum interpretes, etc. Tertio, doctores… Illos dicit doctores, qui in Ecclesia litteris et lectionibus retinendis imbuebant (Comment in I ad Corinth. cap. 12; inter opera S. Ambrosii, confer August. ad. S. Pauli num. epistol. CXLIX, alias LIX). 12. Ο περι πρεσβυτρων? λλ περ πισκπων λγει. Ο γρ δη πρεσβτεροι τν πσκοπον εχειροτνουν (Chrysost. homil. 13. In epist. primam ad Timoth. cap. 4, 14. Confer Theophil. Comment et Theodoret). Πρεσβυτριον νταθα τος τς ποσολικς χριτος ηξιωμνους ‘εκλεσεν. οτω κα τους ‘εντμους του σραλ γερουσιαν προσηγορευσεν θεα γραφ. 13. Apostoli nostril cognovtrunt per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum quod future esset contentio de nomine episcopates: ob eam ergo causam, ac certa prefecta praecognitione, constituerunt episcopos et diaconos, et deinceps futurae successionis regulam tradiderunt; ut cum illi deciderent, ministerium eorum ac munus alii viri probati acciperent. Constitutos itaque ab illis, vel deinceps ab aliis viris eximiis, concentiente ac comprobante universa Ecclesia, qui inculpate ovile Christi ministraverunt cum humilitate, quiete, nec illiberaliter, quique longo tempore ab omnibus testimonium praeclarum reportarunt; hos putamus officii injuste dejici. Neque enim leve erit nostrum peccatum, si eos qui citra querelam et sancte offerunt dona, episcopate privaverimus. Beati presbyteri, viam prius emensi, qui fructuosam perfectamque consecuti sunt dissolutionem! non enim vtrentur, ne quis eos transferat de loco ipsis constituto. Videmus enim, quod vos, nonnulos pie viventes, ex administratione, quam inculpate et honorifice exsequebantur, transduxistis (S. Ciement. Rom. I epist. ad. Corinth XLIV). |
| – In nativitatem Christi, 959–72. – in occursum Domini, 977–1000. – in cæcum a nativitate, 1001–24. – in illud Euntes in castellum (Matth., XXI. 9), 1023–34. – in ramos palmarum, 1033–48. – in Feriam V et proditionem Judae,1047–54. – in Passionem Domini, 1053–62. -in SS. Patres et prophetas, 1061–74. – in S. Pascha 1–2, 1073–82, 1081–92. – in assumptionem Domini, 1091–1100. L. Holstenii præfatio ad septem ex his sermonibus, 941–44. Encomium in S. Andream, 1101–08. Sermo exhortatorius, 1107–14. De Sancta Trinitate dialogi 1–5: 1115–1286. Sermones contra diversas hæreses 1–20: 1289–1395 in quibus Contra Macedonianos dial. 1–2, 1289–1338, et Confutationes quarumdam propositionum Eutherii Tyanensis, 1337–94. Syntagma ad quemdam politicum, 1395–1408. Sermo pro iis qui sæculo renuntiarunt, 1409–20. Doctrina ad monachos, 1421–26. Commentarius de templo Athenarum, 1427–32. De corpore et anima, 1431–3,4. Epistolæ Athanasii et Romanorum Pontificum, 1441–86. Liberii ad Athanasium, 1441–4. Athanasii responsio ad Liberium, 1443–6. Athanasii ad Marcum papam, latine, 1445–6. Marci papæ responsio, 1447–50, latine, Julii papæ ad Orient ales, 1449–54, latine. Orientalium ad Julinm papam, 1455–58, latine. Responsio Julii papæ, 1457–68, latine. Athanasii. ad Julium de Arianorum oppressio-nibus, 1467–70, latine. Liberii responsio, 1469–72, latine. Athanasii ad Felicem papam, 1473–78. Felicis papæ responsio, 1477–86. Vita sanctæ Syncletica;, 1487–58. Epistola ad episcopum Persarum, 1559–66, latine. grace et latine, 1565–68. Symbolus Quicumque farmulæ 1–4, 1581–92; vetus versio gallica 1–2, 1591–94 et 1593–96. Expositio symboli Quicumque, 1595–1604. De Symbolo Q. diatribe, 1567–82. De Trinitate, 1603–6. De Paschate, latine, 1605–10=Martinus Bracarensis. Præfatio ad t. 28, 9–20. Catalogus codicum, 19–22. Index analyticus, 1623–32. ATHANASIUS CP. patr., 1289–93, 1314–10, 142. Abdicatio prioris patriarchatus, 479–34. Rescriptum de Joanne Drimy, 483–92. Abdicatio secundi patriarchatus, 491–96. |
| Из сочинений св. Колумбана известен устав богослужения, принятый в основанных им мон-рях ( Columban. Regula monachorum. 7// Sancti Columbani Opera/Ed. G. S. M. Walker. Dublin, 1970. P. 128-133). Суточный круг состоял из 8 служб: 2-го часа (ad secundam, аналог 1-го часа в др. литургических традициях; такое же название встречается в «Правиле для дев» свт. Кесария Арелатского и в 19-м каноне Гильды: Praefatio Gildae de Poenitentia//The Irish Penitentials. P. 62), 3-го (ad tertiam), 6-го (ad sextam), 9-го (ad nonam), вечерни (ad vespertinam), службы в начале ночи (ad initium noctis), службы в середине ночи (ad medium noctis), утрени (ad matutinam). Все псалмы сгруппированы в блоки по 3 псалма (chori). Внутри каждого блока первые 2 псалма читаются подряд, а 3-й поется антифонно. Самой длинной и важной является утреня. Количество псалмов на ней меняется в зависимости от времени года. С 1 нояб. по 25 марта полагается 75 псалмов и 25 антифонов. С 25 марта по 24 июня каждую неделю сокращается количество псалмов и антифонов, пока не останется 36 псалмов и 12 антифонов. С 24 июня по 1 нояб. каждую неделю прибавляется по 3 псалма и одному антифону, пока общее число не достигнет 75 псалмов и 25 антифонов за службу. В будние дни на утрене полагается 36 псалмов зимой и 24 псалма летом без возрастания или убывания. Дневные часы состоят из 3 псалмов с прошениями (о своих грехах, за всех христиан, за священство, за творящих милостыню, о мире, за врагов). Ночные часы (ad vespertinam, ad initium noctis, ad medium noctis) состоят из 12 псалмов (canonicus duodenarius psalmorum numerus). В этом обычно видят влияние восточной традиции, хотя эта практика могла появиться под влиянием сочинений прп. Иоанна Кассиана. В 9-й гл. «Regula Coenobialis» упоминается пение гимнов в воскресные дни и на Пасху (Ibid. P. 158-159). Похожий, но более простой чин сохранился в «Правиле некоего отца» (Regula cujusdam patris. 20//PL. 66. Col. 994). Суточный круг состоит из бдения до пения петухов, мессы на заре, 3 дневных часов (по 3 псалма на каждом часе), 3 ночных часов (на каждом по 12 псалмов, молитвы, чтения из ВЗ и НЗ) (см. также: Villegas F. La «Regula cuiusdam Patris ad Monachos»//Revue de l " Histoire de la Spiritualité. 1973. Vol. 49. P. 3-39). |
| Августин Lib. 4. с. 8–10 contra epist. Pelagian сл. Testimon. lib. 3. с. 4. et 54. Retret. lib. 2. с. 1. De praedestin. c. 4. 546 Epist. 75 ed. Venet. «Нет ничего у ннх, кроме вероломства и богохульства, пренебрежения к Святыне и вражды за истиву». Epist. 55. al. 59. 549 То же самое in Ер. ad Antonianum: 55 cum sit a Christo una Ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa, item episcopatus unus, episcoporum multorum concordi numero sitate diffuses. 550 См. Balusii notae ad h. librum in ed. op. Cypriani Venetiana 1728. Rigaltii observationes ad s. Cyprianum p. 162. Edm. Ruherii defensio libri de Ecclesiastica potestate 1, 115. Бенедиктинец Маран, издавая труд Балюза, поступил не совсем совестно; он внес некоторые из прибавок в самый текст, которые тот назначал к исключению: впрочем, Маран сознается в том и сам. В Христ. чт. перевод помещен с испорченного Маранова текста. 551 Собор карфагенский 256 г. (Mansi 1, 951): «Никто из вас не поставил себя Епископом Епископов, или не принуждал собратов своих тираническим страхом к повиновению, так как каждый епископ остается со своей свободой для воли и власти». То же Ер. 7S. ad Stephanum; те же мысли. Epist. 55, 59, 71, 73. Вот как думал св. Киприан о первенстве самого Петра: «И Петр, которого избрал сам Господь первым, когда с ним спорил Павел о обрезании, не усвоял себе ничего необычно или гордо, не говорил, что за ним первенство и что новые и поздние ему должны повиноваться». 552 В таком духе писаны письма ad Magnum, ad Jannuarium 1, ad Quintum, ad Stephanum, ad Jubajanum, ad Pompejum Ep. 69–74. 553 Некоторые из защитников Римской кафедры (Александр Натались, Тилемон, Маран) старались доказать, что требования Стефана относились к еретикам, не изменявшим в крещении заповеди о крещении; но труд напрасный. Слова Степана ясны: si quis ergo, quacunque haeresi venerit ad vos, nihil innovetur, nisi quod traditum est – ut manus illi imponatur in poenitentiam, (и еще прибавлено сит ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent, sed communicent tantum... |
| In the Late Antiquity, Apollonia, also called Sozopolis lost some of its regional center positions to Anchialos, and the nearby Roman colony Deultum (Colonia Flavia Pacis Deultensium). After the division of the Roman Empire into a Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire (today known as Byzantium) in 395 AD, Apollonia/Sozopolis became part of the latter. Its Late Antiquity fortress walls were built during the reign of Byzantine Emperor Anastasius (r. 491-518 AD), and the city became a major fortress on the Via Pontica road along the Black Sea coast protecting the European hinterland of Constantinople. In 812 AD, Sozopol was first conquered for Bulgaria by Khan (or Kanas) Krum, ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire (632/680-1018 AD) in 803-814 AD. In the following centuries of medieval wars between the Bulgarian Empire and the Byzantine Empire, Sozopol changed hands numerous times. The last time it was conquered by the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185-1396 AD) was during the reign of Bulgarian Tsar Todor (Teodor) Svetoslav Terter (r. 1300-1322 AD). However, in 1366 AD, during the reign of Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Alexander (r. 1331-1371 AD), Sozopol was conquered by Amadeus IV, Count of Savoy from 1343 to 1383 AD, who sold it to Byzantium. During the period of the invasion of the Ottoman Turks at the end of the 14th century and the beginning of the 15th century AD, Sozopol was one of the last free cities in Southeast Europe. It was conquered by the Ottomans in the spring of 1453 AD, two months before the conquest of Constantinople despite the help of naval forces from Venice and Genoa. In the Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Sozopol was a major center of (Early) Christianity with a number of large monasteries such as the St. John the Baptist Monastery on St. Ivan Island off the Sozopol coast where in 2010 Bulgarian archaeologist Prof. Kazimir Popkonstantinov made a major discovery by finding relics of St. John the Baptist; the St. Apostles Monastery; the St. Nikolay (St. Nikolaos or St. Nicholas) the Wonderworker Monastery; the Sts. Quriaqos and Julietta Monastery on the St. Cyricus (St. Kirik) Island, the Holy Mother of God Monastery, the St. Anastasia Monastery. |
|
|
