| 1963. P. 205). 2913 Aug. De doct. chr. I 5.5: unitas – aequalitas – concordia; ср. Cassiod. De anima 12 (16): parilitas – aequalitas – unitas. 2929 Instit. 23.2; van de Vyver. 1931. P. 262; 1941. P. 59–88. Дионисий Малый приобрел всемирную известность как родоначальник новой эры летоисчисления от Рождества Христова (см. его Libellus de cyclo mango Paschae, PL 67, 20A). 2942 De anima 16. Здесь и далее деление трактата De anima мы приводим по изданию: CCSL. Vol. 96 (Ed. J. W. Halporn, 1973). P. 534–575, отличающегося от деления в PL 70. 2944 Ср. Instit. II 7.7: inaestimabile quippe donum est conspicere creatorem, unde vivunt quaecumque vitalia sunt, unde sapiunt quaecumque subsistunt, unde amministrantur quaecumque creata sunt. 2945 Cassiod. Exp. Ps. 50.13 . Впрочем, как указывает Дж. Салливан, «приводимая Кассиодором Троица показывает его недостаточное знакомство с учением Августина» (Sullivan. 1963. P. 206). Действительно, здесь более общего с теорией «умопостигаемой триады» в том виде, как она представлена в тринитарном учении Мария Викторина (см. выше, Глава IV). Следует также отметить, что икономическая функция «оживотворения», или «подаяния жизни» в патристике часто приписывалась Св. Духу. См., например, Iren. Adv. haer. V 12. 2; Tert. De resurr. 50; Athanas. Magn. Ad Serap. I 19; I 23; Basil. Magn. De Sp. St. 9.22; Ep. 105. 1; Greg. Nyss. Adv. Maced.//GNO. 3.1. P. 105; Greg. Naz. Or. 41.9; Ambr. De Sp. St. I 16; Epiph. Ancor. 66. 11–12; Ioann. Damasc. De fide orth. 8. 2946 См. Maxim. Confess. Quaest. et dub. 105; 136; Quaest. ad Thalas. 13; Amb. ad Ioann., PG 91, 1136BC; 1260D u др. См. также Sullivan. 1963. P. 191. 2953 Известно послание папы Григория галльскому епископу Дезидерию, в котором римский понтифик его за то, что тот взялся за преподавание латинской словесности (Greg. Magn. Ep. XI 54). А в предисловии к своим нравстенным толкованиям на книгу Иова (Expositio in librum Iob sive Moralia) папа прямо указывает, что нормой латинского языка отныне должен считаться латинский текст Библии, а не классические правила грамматики: Indignum vehementer existimo, ut verba coelestis oraculi restringam sub regulis Donati. |
| 309 Reg. ad serv. Dei . cap. 12, Migne t. 32 c. 1384. Монастырская дисциплина школы вполне отвечала Августиновой теории нравственного воспитания, в основу которого он полагал принцип «принуждения» (cogitio, violentia). Epist. 93 (ad Vicentium), Migne t. 33 c. 323. Ср. также Н. Кабардин, система педагогики по творениям блаж. Августина, Казань 1911, 30 след. 315 Cassiod. De instit. div. litt. cap. 89; Migne t. 70, c. 1143. Cf. A. Franz, M. Anrelins Cassiodorius Senator, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der theologischen Litteratur, Breslau 1872, S. 26–28. Ebert (Hauck), RE 3 Cassiodorius II, S. 749. 316 Cassiod De instit. div. litt. cap. 8; Migne t. 70, c. 1120, 1121; cf. ibid. praef. С. 1107, 1108. См. также «каталог библиотеки монастыря Vivarium» у A. Franz’a, цит. соч. S. 80 folg. 317 Первый из них (De Institutiones divinarum litterarum) должен был служить введением к изучению СВ. Писания, а второй (Dc artibus ac disciplinis litterarum) дает краткий компендум всех «семи свободных наук». Ebert, Cassiodorius RE 3 B. II, S. 750. В отличие от блаж. Августина, Кассиодор был в своем монастыре только учителем, а настоятельство предоставлял другим лицам. A. Franz, цит. соч. S. 28. 319 Если Кассиодор утверждает, что светское образование в его время стояло высоко (De inst. div. litt., praef., Migne t. 70, c. 1105), то имел в виду лишь относительную распространенность светской школы в сравнении с почти отсутствующей духовной. Факт повсеместного упадка классической школы в VI в. не подлежит никакому сомнению. 320 De inst. div. litt., cap. 28; Migne t. 70, c. 1141. Cf. A.’ Franz, Cassiodorius Senator, S. 38–40. 322 Die inst. div. litt., cap. 27; Migne t. 70, c. 1141. In psalterium praefatio cap. XV, Migne t. 70, c. 19. 323 H. Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia S. 267, cf. 241; S. 205, cf. 468. Для даты см: Labourt, Le christianisme dans Pempire Perse, р. 166. 330 A. Franz, Cassiodorius Senator, S. 124. G. Baumert, Die Entstehung der mittelalterlichen Klosterschulen und ibr Verhältnis zum klassischen Altertume (Jahresbericht der Oberrealschule zu Delitzsch), Delitzsch 1912, S. 10–11. |
| In The Brothers Karamazov Ivan interprets Rev 8:11 as the heresy of antisupernaturalism manifest in the German Enlightenment—once more an example of a historicist hermeneutic. Lebedyev (in The Idiot) connects Rev 8:11’s Wormwood—amazingly—with the network of European railroads (Part II, chap 11)! Revelation 10:6 also appears in Dostoevsky’s two chief apocalyptic novels. Demons informs us, " in the Apocalypse the angel swears that time will be no more " (Part II, chap 5). A dying consumptive named Ippolit wryly plays upon Rev 10:6 (in light of his secretly projected suicide) when he informs Prince Myshkin: " tomorrow there will be ‘no more time’ " (Part III, chap 5). Then he asks, " And do you remember, prince, who proclaimed that there will be ‘no more time’? It was proclaimed by the great and might angel in the Apocalypse " (Ibid). Of course, most modern Bible versions render " time…no more " in the way the New King James Version does: " there should be delay no longer. " While this retranslation undercuts the two preceding interpreter’s ideas, it nevertheless reveals Dostoevsky’s familiarity with the text of Revelation. The system of interpretation revolving around Revelation 13 and Antichrist also makes its presence felt in Dostoevsky’s novels. " Is it true that you expound Antichrist? " the amateur analyst Lebedyev is asked (The Idiot, Part II, chap 2). Lebedyev responded that he " unfolded the allegory and fitted dates to it. " Most literary analysts concur in seeing Stavrogin in Demons as an antichrist figure. Stavrogin is not blatantly villainous, but he is the cold-and-bold, unpredictable polar personality around whom many of the other characters in the novel revolve. The name Stavrogin is related to the Byzantine word stavros (and Greek stauros), meaning " cross. " Yet the rog part of his Russian name means " horn, " making the student of eschatology think of Rev 13:1 and Dan 7:20-25. 39 Furthermore, Stavrogin’s first name is Nikolai (meaning " conqueror of people " ) as in the name of the Nicolaitans in Rev 2:6 and 15. |
| A comparison between the Letter of the Council of Realm and the Comments by Laurentius Petri reflects the two tendencies in representation of the Diet of Vasteras. The Council of Realm tried to convince the people that nobody was going to introduce a new faith. But the Comments by Laurentius Petri witness that the Swedish followers of Luther considered the decisions of the Diet as a foundation for Lutheran reforms. Chapter V After the Diet, implementation of its decisions began. In 1529 a Church council took place in Orebro. This council was summoned by the king, not by the archbishop. Laurentius Andreae presided; clerics from different parts of Sweden came, including delegates from monastic orders. The monks of the Birgittine Order hoped that the council would be a ‘conference against Lutherans’, but they were bitterly disappointed. Yet they signed the resolution of the council, as well as the other delegates. The resolution consisted of two parts. The first part expanded on the demand to preach the Word of God clearly. Parish priests were offered to preach on the New Testament. Some of the issues which were touched upon in this part of the resolution were similar to those handled by the Ordinance of Vasteras. The other part dealt with the practices of the Church, and explained them in a rational way. This part was moderate; it did not mention Luthers teaching and was influenced by ideas of the so-called ‘Bible humanism’ which were shared by Lutheran reformers. Thus the compromise reached at the Council of Orebro was an important stage of the Reformation: it helped to avoid a large-scale conflict, and, at the same time, it was used by the reformers. The neutrality of a part of the clergy in the 1520-s1530-s played an important role: a new generation of the clergy emerged, loyal to Lutheran teaching, while the older generation accustomed itself to the change. In August of 1531 Laurentius Petri was made archbishop. The Council of 1536 decided on introducing the Swedish Mass in cathedrals. The clergy was freed from the duty of celibacy. The Manual by Olaus Petri, a work which in many parts represents Lutheran views on faith, received official recognition. These facts demonstrate that the Reformation was making progress in Sweden in the 1520-s and 1530-s. |
| Abstract St. Cyril of Alexandria. To Queens: on the true faith. Part I (chapter 1–20)/Translation by priest Basil Dmitriev. Edition, preface and commentary by hieromonk Theodore (Yulaev) This publication constitutes the Russian translation of the introductory part of the extensive polemical treatise of St. Cyril of Alexandria, part of the group of dogmatic messages “On the Right Faith”. The foreword informs about the circumstances of the writing of the treatise, examines the content of its introductory part and gives a brief overview of its publications and ancient translations. In the comments to the translation, special attention is paid to the attribution of works quoted by the saint in patristic florilegia, which is presented in the introductory part of the treatise. 2 Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Theodosium imperatorem de recta fide (CPG 5218)//ACO 1, 1 (1). P. 42–72. Рус. пер.: Дмитриев В., свящ. 1916. С. 13–62. 3 Cyrillus Alexandrinus. De incarnatione unigeniti (CPG 5227)//Durand 1964. P. 188–301. Рус. пер.: Юлаев 2006. С. 85–150. В нашей публикации дан исчерпывающий перечень разночтений между этими двумя сочинениями, что позволяет достаточно полно судить о содержании книги «О правой вере к императору Феодосию», за исключением ее вступительной части (гл. 1–4), специально написанной святителем для обращения к императору и не имеющей параллели с диалогом «О вочеловечении Единородного». 8 Florilegium Cyrillianum. Cap. 165//Hespel 1955. P. 180–181. Ранее мы допустили неточность, указав, что имена адресатов книг к царицам сообщены Иоанном Кесарийским (Юлаев 2006. С. 66. Примеч. 6; Феодор (Юлаев) , иером. 2014. С. 245). Хотя такое утверждение встречается в научной литературе, оно лишь отражает распространенную гипотезу о том, что именно Иоанн Кесарийский был составителем «Кириллова сборника». Однако издатель этого флорилегия Р. Эспель, специально остановившийся на вопросе о его происхождении, аргументированно показал, что об авторстве Иоанна Кесарийского говорить не приходится. Флорилегий был составлен в конце V в. в Александрии неизвестными лицами (Hespel 1955. P. 7–51). Это точка зрения в настоящее время является, по-видимому, общепринятой (см.: Grillmeier 1993. Р. 41). |
| Bishop Matthew of Sourozh took part in the opening of the diocesan exhibition of children " s drawings " We draw flowers " The Russian Orthodox Church Department for External Church Relations The Russian Orthodox Church Department for External Church Relations Department History Contacts Documents Archive Insights News Patriarch DECR Chairman Social Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Home page News Bishop Matthew of Sourozh took part in the op… Bishop Matthew of Sourozh took part in the opening of the diocesan exhibition of children " s drawings " We draw flowers " DECR Communication service/ Website of the Diocese of Sourozh 09.11.2023 On Sunday, November 5, 2023, after the Divine Liturgy at the Dormition Cathedral in London, His Grace Bishop Matthew of Sourozh took part in the opening of the exhibition of children " s drawings “We Draw Flowers,” dedicated to the 159th anniversary of the birth of the Holy Martyr Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna. The exhibition presents works by students of parochial schools of the Sourozh diocese from London, Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester and Nottingham. The exhibition also presents drawings by students of secular Russian schools: " Fairy Tale " (London), " Rainbow " (London), " Knowledge " (London), " Istok " (Reading), and the art studio " Drawing Together " . Opening the exhibition, Bishop Matthew spoke about the importance of venerating the saints in the life of every Christian and drew attention to the fact that the Holy Martyr Elizabeth is especially close to Orthodox believers living in Great Britain. After the untimely death of Princess Alice, the daughter of Queen Victoria of Great Britain and the mother of Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, the future saint was raised for 6 years in Great Britain, mainly living in Osborne House Palace, Queen Victoria " s summer seaside residence in the town of East Cowes on the northern coast of the Isle of Wight. |
| The 1686 Act confirming the Metropolis of Kiev as part of the Moscow Patriarchate and signed by His Holiness Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople is not to be reviewed. The decision to ‘repeal’ it is canonically negligible. Otherwise it would be possible to annul any document defining the canonical territory and status of a Local Church, regardless of its antiquity, authoritativeness and common ecclesial recognition. The 1686 Synodal Deed and other documents that accompany states nothing about either a temporary nature of the transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate or that it may be cancelled. The attempt of hierarchs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople for political and self-seeking reasons to review this resolution now, over three hundred years after it was adopted, runs contrary to the spirit of the Orthodox Church’s canons that do not allow of a possibility for reviewing established church boundaries that have not been challenged for a long time. Thus, Canon 129 (133) of the Council of Carthage reads, ‘If anyone… brought some place to catholic unity and had it in his jurisdiction for three years, and nobody demanded it from him, then it shall not be claimed from him, if also there was a bishop during these three years who should have claimed it but kept silent’. And Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council establishes the thirty years’ term for a possible conciliar consideration of disputes over the belonging of even particular church parishes: ‘Parishes in each diocese… shall be invariably under the power of bishops who manage them, especially if for thirty years they undoubtedly were under his jurisdiction and governance’. And how is it possible to cancel a decision that has been valid for three centuries? It would mean an attempt to see it ‘like it were non-existent’ throughout the successive history of the development of church life. As if he Patriarchate of Constantinople does not notice that the Metropolis of Kiev of 1686, the return of which as its part is declared today, had boundaries that were essentially different from today’s boundaries of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and used to embrace only a smaller part of the latter. The Metropolis of Kiev of our days includes as such the city of Kiev and several areas adjacent to it. The larger part of the dioceses of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church however, especially in the east and south of the country, was founded and developed already as part of the autocephalous Russian Church, being a fruit of its ages-long missionary and pastoral work. The present action of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is an attempt to hijack what has never belonged to it. |
| For centuries it was the practice of the Church to admit all persons to the first part of the Divine Liturgy, while reserving the second part strictly for those who were formally committed to Christ through baptism and chrismation in the Church. Non-baptized persons were not permitted even to witness the offering and receiving of Holy Communion by the faithful Christians. Thus the first part of the Divine Liturgy came to be called the Liturgy of the Catechumens, that is, the liturgy of those who were receiving instructions in the Christian Faith in order to become members of the Church through baptism and chrismation. It also came to be called, for obvious reasons, the Liturgy of the Word. The second part of the Divine Liturgy came to be called the Liturgy of the Faithful. Although it is generally the practice in the Orthodox Church today to allow non-Orthodox Christians, and even non-Christians, to witness the Liturgy of the Faithful, it is still the practice to reserve actual participation in the sacrament of Holy Communion only to members of the Orthodox Church who are fully committed to the life and teachings of the Orthodox Faith as preserved, proclaimed and practiced by the Church throughout its history. In the commentary on the Divine Liturgy which follows, we will concentrate our attention on what happens to the Church at its “common action.” By doing this we will attempt to penetrate the fundamental and essential meaning of the liturgy for man, his life and his world. This will be a definite departure from the interpretation of the Divine Liturgy which treats the service as if it were a drama enacted by the clergy and “attended” by the people, in which each part stands for some aspect of Christ’s life and work (e.g., the prothesis stands for Christ’s birth, the small entrance for the beginning of his public ministry, the gospel for his preaching, the great entrance for Palm Sunday, etc.). This latter type of interpretation of the Divine Liturgy is an invention, which, although perhaps interesting and inspiring for some, is nevertheless completely alien to the genuine meaning and purpose of the Divine Liturgy in the Orthodox Church. Prothesis |
| Now, that which is called the final good is that at which, when one has arrived, he is blessed. But so diverse were the opinions held by those followers of Socrates concerning this final good, that (a thing scarcely to be credited with respect to the followers of one master) some placed the chief good in pleasure, as Aristippus, others in virtue, as Antisthenes. Indeed, it were tedious to recount the various opinions of various disciples. Chapter 4.– Concerning Plato, the Chief Among the Disciples of Socrates, and His Threefold Division of Philosophy. But, among the disciples of Socrates, Plato was the one who shone with a glory which far excelled that of the others, and who not unjustly eclipsed them all. By birth, an Athenian of honorable parentage, he far surpassed his fellow disciples in natural endowments, of which he was possessed in a wonderful degree. Yet, deeming himself and the Socratic discipline far from sufficient for bringing philosophy to perfection, he travelled as extensively as he was able, going to every place famed for the cultivation of any science of which he could make himself master. Thus he learned from the Egyptians whatever they held and taught as important; and from Egypt, passing into those parts of Italy which were filled with the fame of the Pythagoreans, he mastered, with the greatest facility, and under the most eminent teachers, all the Italic philosophy which was then in vogue. And, as he had a peculiar love for his master Socrates, he made him the speaker in all his dialogues, putting into his mouth whatever he had learned, either from others, or from the efforts of his own powerful intellect, tempering even his moral disputations with the grace and politeness of the Socratic style. And, as the study of wisdom consists in action and contemplation, so that one part of it may be called active, and the other contemplative – the active part having reference to the conduct of life, that is, to the regulation of morals, and the contemplative part to the investigation into the causes of nature and into pure truth – Socrates is said to have excelled in the active part of that study, while Pythagoras gave more attention to its contemplative part, on which he brought to bear all the force of his great intellect. |
| a. Martyrium e codice Colbertino, стр. 301–306. b. Martyrium e codice Oxoniensi et e Vaticano, стр. 307–316. с. Martyrium per Symeonem Metaphrasten, стр. 316–325. (d) Fasc. HI. Hermae Pastor graece, addita uersione latina recentiore e codice ralatino, Lipsiae, 1877. J. В. LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers. (a) Part. I. S. Clement of Rome. A revised Text with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations and Translations, London, 18902; neimpr. ffildesheim–New York, 1973. Volume I. Prolegomena. Volume II. (CLEMENS): 1. Epistula prima ad Corinthios, стр. 5–188. 2. Epistula altera ad Corinthios, стр. 211–261. (b) Part. II. S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp. Revised Texts with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations and Translations, London, 1885, 18892; reimpr. Hildesheim–New York, 1973. Volume I. Prolegomena. Volume П. (Sect. 1). (IGNATIVS): 1. Epistulae genuinae, стр. 21–360. 2. Martyrium: a. Acta Antiochena, стр. 473–491; b. Acta Romana, стр. 492–536. © Part II. 2nd ed., London, 18892 [=Volume П. Sect. 2, 1885]; reimpr. ffildes–heim — New York, 1973. Volume Ш. [Volume II. Sect. 2] 1. Versio anglo–latina … 2. Fragmenta syriaca (ed. W. Wright) [=II.2, стр. 659–708] … 3. Epistularum graecarum recensio longior, p. 135–273 [=II.2, стр. 719–857]. 4. Fragmenta coptica … 5. Excerpta arabica … 6. Praecatio Heronis … (POLYCARPVS): 7. Epistula s. Polycarpi, стр. 321–350 [=II.2, стр. 905–934]. 8. Epistula SmyrnaBorum de Martyrio Polycarpi, стр. 363–403 [=П.2, стр. 947–986]. 9. Fragmenta Polycarpiana, p. 421 sq. [=II.2, стр. 1003–1004]. 10. Vita Polycarpi, auctore Pionio, p. 433–465 [=II.2, стр. 1015–1047]. J. B. LIGHTFOOT, The Apostolic Fathers, revised Texts with short Introductions and English Translations, edited and completed by J.R. Harmer, London, 1907; reimpr. Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1970. 1. dementis epistula ad Corinthios I, стр. 5–40. 2. dementis epistula ad Corinthios П, стр. 43–53. 3. S. Ignatii epistulae genuinae, стр. 105–134. 4. S. Polycarpi epistula ad Philippenses, стр. 168–173. 5. Martyrium s. Polycarpi, стр. 189–199. |
|
|
