| Photo: http://ortodoksnorge.no/ The new year is unfolding and many Orthodox parishes in America will be participating in a seasonal ritual known as the parish assembly. Parish assemblies are part of the process in American Orthodox parishes where the community evaluates its health and decides on matters that are the responsibility of the laity. These assemblies are a normal part of the checks and balances of Orthodox life in America. And like every other part of our Life in Christ, parish assemblies are vulnerable to human weakness. Anger, fear, envy and apathy are all emotions people can experience when it comes to participating in parish assemblies. No doubt, we are often our own worst enemies when it comes to living the Orthodox Christian Faith. However, the news is not bad. When it comes to the modern day parish assembly, things are actually very positive. Challenges often lead to opportunities. The truth is that every parish is just a few simple steps away from experiencing renewal. Today, parish assemblies can be improved upon by following some common sense best practices that encourage people to participate in the life of the Church and take responsibility for the core Orthodox Christian values of a parish. Here are five best practices that can help parishes conduct more healthy and productive assemblies: 1) Do the Important Work Before the Assembly: The most essential work of a parish assembly is the work done before the annual assembly itself. This requires a focus on accountability and service to parishioners throughout the year. Items like agendas for parish council meetings, updated financial reports and parish statistics are be presented in detail to the community on a monthly basis. Likewise, minutes from parish council and organization meetings should be shared regularly. In the age of the internet all of these tasks are very easy. It is also easy to make audio recordings of parish council meetings and share them on the parish website or Facebook page. Producing and sharing detailed information is an element of good stewardship. It also invites people to be a part of a healthy decision making process. The Orthodox Church rejects the notion of secrecy in its administration and every parish is called to reflect this core belief in its daily life. |
| The Athonite translation of the Diataxis also gives a number of variant readings when describing some rites and citing certain euchological formulas, which differ substantially from that Greek redaction of the Diataxis, which is witnessed by Athos Vatop. 133 (744) etc. Panova has noticed some of these (for example, a specific order of commemoration of Saints during the Prothesis) and concluded that while they are not found in the Greek text, they should therefore mirror the liturgical practice of the Slavs at the time when the translation was made. But this is incorrect. In fact, the liturgical peculiarities of the Athonite translation correspond perfectly well with the initial Greek redaction of the Philothean Diataxis, attested in Athos Pantel. 770 (49). In their turn, Euthymius’ and Cyprian’s renditions conform not to the initial, but to the revised Greek redaction of the Diataxis. The Athonite translation was, therefore, made from a text not identical to the source of two other Slavonic versions of the Diataxis. Returning to the excerpt from Athos Agiou Pavlou 149, we must say that it contains specifically the Athonite translation of the Diataxis of Philotheos. The first part of it (up to the initial ecphonesis of the Divine Liturgy) was edited first by Muretov 28 , and then by Constantinescu 29 . The reasons for a separation of the first part of the Diataxis from its remaining text in the manuscripts and, subsequently, in the editions, is clear. As was already noted, in the Athonite translation the Diataxis is combined with the text of the Divine Liturgy. It thus gets lost in it, so only the first part of the Diataxis remains independent 30 . The same occured with the excerpt from Athos Agiou Pavlou 149: it ends, as was already mentioned above, just before the initial ecpho- nesis of the Divine Liturgy, while the Divine Liturgy itself (including the remaining text of the Diataxis) was not copied by Dmitrievsky’s copyist. In this preparatory part of the Divine Liturgy, which comprises the entrance rites, the vesture of a deacon and a priest, and the rite of Prothesis, the initial redaction of the Diataxis of Philotheos – and, therefore, the Athonite Slavonic translation of it – differs from the later redactions in three points: |
| The man and the profound problems of his existence as expressed in the doctrine of hesychasts are regarded by O.S. Klimkov in conformity with the historical and cultural circumstances of the epoch of the beginning so called the «Palamite controversy». The first part of the monograph deals with the history of the studies of the Byzantine hesychasm in science. The author consider thoroughly numerous investigations of this subject and underlines special topicality of the existential problems of man’s being in the context of the modern consciousness of the mankind that have been regarded by hesychasts. The second part of the monograph brings to the basic features of the Byzantine culture. The author outlines general trends of its development and treats in more detail for the epoch of the «Palaeologus’s Renaissance». Philosophical, theological and mystical traditions in the whole body of the culture of the Byzantine Empire have been carefully analyzed by the author. The investigation of the doctrine of man as presented by hesychasts and their opponents has been developed by Rev Oleg Klimkov in the third part of the monograph, which is the most significant in this volume. It consists of four chapters, the first one being dedicated to the study of the history of the orthodox anthropology in the Byzance before the Fourteenth Century. The author considers various concepts of man belonging to the Fathers of the Orthodox East. Chapter 2 of this part deals with the theoretical treatment of the tradition of Byzantine hesychasm made by Palamas and his followers. The Christian mysticism of the hesychasts has been analyzed in terms of the philosophical and theological thought. The concepts of essence and energy in their relations to God who manifests Himself in concrete Persons and by concrete acts. The third chapter is dedicated to the consideration of the anthropological views of hesychasts of the Eastern Church. O.S. Klimkov begins his investigation from the problem of the structure of man, passes over the reasoning about the image and likeness of God in man as an existential and dynamic reality and crowns his analysis the final purpose of human life. |
| Hirschfeld and Solar, «Baths» Hirschfeld, Yizhar, and Giora Solar. «Sumptuous Roman Baths Uncovered near Sea of Galilee.» BAR 10, no. 6 (November/December 1984): 22–40. Hirschfeld and Solar, «Hmrhs " wt» Hirschfeld, Yizhar, and Giora Solar. «Hmrhs " wt hrwmyym šl hmt-gdr–slws c wnwt-hpyrh (The Roman Thermae at Hammath-Gader–Three Seasons of Excavations].» Qadmoniot 13 (1980): 66–70. Hirschman, «Units» Hirschman, Marc. «Polemic Literary Units in the Classical Midrashim and Justin Martyr " s Dialogue with Trypho.» JQR 83 (1992–1993): 369–84. Hock, Context Hock, Ronald F. The Social Context of Paul " s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Hock, «Friend» Hock, Ronald F. «An Extraordinary Friend in Chariton " s Callirhoe: The Importance of Friendship in the Greek Romances.» Pages 145–62 in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. SBLRBS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Hock, «Novel» Hock, Ronald F. «The Greek Nove1.» In Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament: Selected Forms and Genres. Pages 127–46. Edited by David E. Aune. SBLSBS 21. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. Hodges, «Adultery» Hodges, Zane C. «Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery ( John 7:53–8:11 ): The Text.» BSac 136 (1979): 318–32. Hodges, «Angel» Hodges, Zane C. «Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 5: The Angel at Bethesda– John 5:4 .» BSac 136 (1979): 25–39. Hodges, «Rivers» Hodges, Zane C. «Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 7: Rivers of Living Water– John 7:37–39 » BSac 136 (1979): 239–48. Hodges, «Tomb» Hodges, Zane C. «The Women and the Empty Tomb.» BSac 123 (1966): 301–9. Hodges, «Water» Hodges, Zane C. «Problem Passages in the Gospel of John, Part 3: Water and Spirit– John 3:5 .» BSac 135 (1978): 206–220. Hodgson, «Valerius Maximus» Hodgson, Robert. «Valerius Maximus and Gospel Criticism.» CBQ 51 (1989): 502–10. Hoehner, Antipas Hoehner, Harold W. Herod Antipas. SNTSMS 17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. |
| In a Message to All Orthodox Christians in America, the council addressed the theme of greater unity. A portion of the message says: We have the same faith, the same Tradition, the same hope, the same mission. We should then constitute one Church, visibly, organically, fully. Such is the requirement of our Orthodox Faith and we know that always and everywhere the Orthodox Church has existed as one Church. There can, therefore, be no excuse for our jurisdictional divisions, alienation from one another, and parochialism. The removal of such divisions and the organic unity of all Orthodox in America is the goal of our Church and we invite you to become part of the unity. 285 While there were indications at least as early as 1965 that autocephaly could be granted to the Metropolia by the Moscow Patriarchate, the actual event set off a new storm of controversy. In a certain sense, the Metropolia had been acting as a de facto autocephalous jurisdiction since 1927, although it was viewed as schismatic by the Patriarchate of Moscow. Thus, by 1970 it seems that the leaders of the Metropolia would not be content with any lesser status, such as autonomy, which would still subordinate the jurisdiction to the Patriarchate of Moscow. The fact that the Patriarchate of Moscow agreed to the granting of autocephaly did regularize the Metropolia in the eyes of its mother church. However, the action did not lead immediately to the resolution of the multiple jurisdictional situation in America. Indeed, the situation appears to have become more complex. During the first years of its existence, the new Orthodox Church in America took a number of important actions. First, on 9 August 1970, clergy and laity gathered in Kodiak, Alaska, for the solemn services at which the missionary monk Herman of Spruce Island was proclaimed a saint, the first formally recognized in North America. 286 Second, the Orthodox Church in America received two other jurisdictions. The Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese under Bishop Stephen (Lasko) became a diocese within the Orthodox Church in America in 1971. This jurisdiction had been associated with the Church of Albania prior to its liquidation by the Communist government. 287 The Bulgarian Orthodox diocese under Bishop Kyril (Ionchev) became part of the Orthodox Church in America in 1976. This jurisdiction had been part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia since 1964. 288 These two jurisdictions essentially followed the example of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate, which had become part of the old Metropolia in 1960. 289 In agreeing to accept these jurisdictions, the new Orthodox Church in America permitted them to maintain a high degree of autonomy and to maintain their identity as ethnic dioceses. |
| – How will you comment on the absence of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece from the celebrations? – Of course, we would like to have the Primates of the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Greece to be with us at the celebrations marking the centenary of the restoration of Patriarchate in the Russian Orthodox Church. This centenary has both joyful and sad sides; indeed, it was 100 years ago that large-scale persecutions began against the faithful in our Motherland. St. Paul said about the body of the Church: If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it (1 Cor. 12:26). Both the ministry of confession fulfilled by St. Patriarch Tikhon and the feat performed by the new martyrs are the common property of the entire Orthodox Church. It is a pity that circumstances prevented His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew and His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens from coming to Moscow. But it is in no way diminished our love for the Church of Greece and our Mother Church of Constantinople. It was the message from Patriarch Bartholomew that was voiced before all the addresses made by Primates of Local Orthodox Churches during the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Church. – Along with others, these celebrations were also attended by representatives of the Bulgarian Church. How do you see the Bulgarian Church’s interference in the issue of the so-called schismatic ‘Macedonian Church’ and what is the position of Moscow on this matter? – There is in the Russian Orthodox Church a deep concern for the fate of Orthodoxy in the land of old Ohrid from which missionaries came to Kiev Rus’ in the 10th century, who introduced our ancestors to Holy Orthodox faith and the treasures of Slavic literature and culture. It is very important that the Orthodox faithful who live in that land today as heirs of the rulers of bygone times should return to canonical communion with all the Orthodox world. |
| По мнению Морчелли это возвращение было при Константине. В. после 8 лет ссылки по смерти Григория Каппадокса. В прологах славянских 247. 248. 249 и в студийских уставах ныне значится принесение мощей св. Афанасия из изгнания. В службе студийских миней на 18 января нет намека на причины установления праздника сим святителям. В настоящих греческих и славянских минеях службы Афанасию и Кириллу поставлены те же, что в дни успения их: 2 мая и 9 июня. Канон Кириллу 18 января в греческих, и слав. минеях приписывается I. монаху, а 2 мая он же Феофану, – вернее произведение Феофана. Ефрем , еп. миласский, находящийся ныне в одном синайском синаксаре, был в Малой Азии, в Карии. Он 24 янв. – в житии Ксении – Евфевии, диакониссы девы но позднее V века. В V веке были мощи его в церкви во имя его. 19 Макарий египетский . В Деяниях св. (Iann. Т. II. р. 1005. 15 янв.) после исторического исследования о нем, в коем его рождение полагается ок. 301 г., а кончина ок. 391 года, помещено довольно пространное жизнеописание, приписываемое древнему писателю и за тем сведения из Палладия (Ловсаик 19) и Руфина (de vitis patr. lib. II. с. 28). Место его подвигов доселе называется пустынею Макария и в ней есть монастырь его имени. Тело его в Амальфи в Италии. В Деяниях св. (Oct. Х. р. 563) есть исследование о Макарии римском , который найден около рая, со странным сказанием, написанным Феофилом, Сергием и Гигином. По мнению издателей, это лице вымышленное, хотя находится в месяцеслове Василия. Лице совершенно не вымышлено, но сказание о нем, известное составителю месяцеслова Василия и издателям Деянии, вымышлено; а есть об нем сказания вполне достоверные. Оба Макария – в числе церковных писателей. (См. об них Учение об отцах Филарета II. стр. 232 и Fessler. Instit. I. 653–655). О Макарии александрийском довольно сказано в «Лавсаике» Палладия (гл. 19) современником его. (Сн. Pyф. II, 4 . Сократа, 4, 18. Созом. 3, 13). Св. Арсений керкирский . В греческом часослове об нем следующие сведения: Арсений родом из Палестины, сын благочестивых родителей; от юности посвятил себя Богу и избрал монашескую жизнь; обучался в Селеввии, где и получил сан священства; перешел оттуда в Константинополь, рукуположен в архиепископа керкирского; в старости опять отправлялся в Царьград, чтобы утишить неправедный гнев Константина порфирородного (780–797). |
| 152. Мавролик (Maurolycus) в своем мартирологии упоминает о святом Пафнутии под 29 ноября, говоря об обращении им Таисии, которая, бывши прежде блудницей, устремилась на путь покаяния и подвижнической жизни. Память святой Таисии - 8 ноября. См. прим. у Миня, Patrolog. cursus compl. T. XXI. Series latina, p. 435 - 436. 153. Гераклеополь теперь Beni-Souef, на 15 миль южнее Каира. См. у Кледена, 808, и у Элизе-Реклю, XXI, 563. Теперь имеет около 6000 жителей. 154. Около 1600 р. сер. 155. Об авве Исидоре см. у Созомена, кн. VI, 28, VIII, 12 и 13; у Сократа, кн. VI, 9; у Никифора, кн. VIII, 34; у Кассиодора, кн. VIII, в Historia tripartita, c. I. Его следует отличать от преподобного Исидора Пелусиота, и мы не можем понять, каким образом автор Истории православного монашества на Востоке мог смешать их. Исидор Пелусиот имел свой монастырь близ города Пелузии, при восточном устье Нила, между тем как здесь говорится о Фиваидском подвижнике. 156. Развалины Арсиноя или Крокодилополя лежат близ нынешнего города Medinet el-Fayoum. Севернее - остатки знаменитого сооружения озера Мерис. См. также у Кледена, IV, 808. 157. О преподобном Серапионе пресвитере см. у Созомена, кн. VI, 28; у Никифора, кн. XI, 34; у Кассиодора в Historia tripartita. Lib. VIII, 1. Его изречения у Пелагия, кн. VI, 12, VIII, 9, XI, 13, XV, 16. 158. Древние иноки питались трудами рук своих. Их несложным потребностям соответствовали и занятия простые, которые можно было исполнять даже ночью. (Кассиан, de coenob. instit. II, 12). Они изготовляли из финиковых ветвей корзины, плели веревки, решета и т.п. ( " Достопамятные сказания " , 15, 36, 40, 261). Занимались обработкой льна, приготовляя полотно, плели невода, иные занимались гончарным производством. Другие переписывали книги ( " Достопамятные сказания " 17, 39, 45, 143, 166, 191. Кассиан, institutiones, кн. IV, 12. Rosweydi Lib. III, 496). Где было можно, подвижники разводили сады, огороды с овощами и фруктовыми деревьями (Rosweydi, vitae patrum, 500. " Лавсаик " , IX). Египетские иноки чаще всего нанимались жать. См., например, " Луг Духовный " , гл. 183 в новом переводе. Плетение корзинок доставляло трудолюбивому иноку до 2 керат в день (керата равняется половине милиаризия, т.е. 18 копейкам). Жатвой зарабатывали до 40 модий хлеба. Модий - это мера жидких и сыпучих тел, равная шестой части медимна, а медимн немного меньше получетверика. Из модия можно было выпечь 1012 больших хлебов. Трудами рук своих иноки оказывали изобильную помощь нуждающимся. |
| LII-LIII и Th. J. Lamy, S. Ephraemi Syri Hymni et Sermones, t. II. § 35. col. 74 2. S. Ephraemi Syri opera, tt. 1 и 2. Все имеются в русском переводе творений святого Ефрема, изд. 3-е (в 5 и 6 частях, кроме книг Иисуса Навина, Судей, 1–4 Царств и Иова). Издание (по заявлениям знатоков неисправное и малокритичное, как в сирийском тексте, так и в латинском переводе) сделано по: Ватиканский кодекс. Сир. и 103 (по каталогу Ассемана — Jos. Sim. Assemani. Bibliothecae Apostolicae. Vaticanae Codicum. Mss. Catologus p. 1. t. 3 pag. 76 efr. 7 et Bibl. Orient. 1. 63. sq), из которых первый принадлежит VI веку и содержит связный и последовательный комментарий на книги Бытия и Исход (до 32:16), где кончается Кодекс; второй, составленный монахом Эдесским Севером (начат в 851 году и окончен 25 марта 861 года), представляет более краткие и отрывочные толковательные схолии к Ветхому Завету из Иакова Эдесского и Ефрема Сирина и на Новый Завет — из Златоуста. Впрочем, и в толкованиях, надписанных имением святого Ефрема, встречаются схолии из других экзегетов: Даниила, пресвитера Салахенского, Севера Антиохийского, Иакова Саругского, Маруфа Тагритского, Кирилла, Ипполита, Афанасия, Василия, Епифания, Златоуста и, особенно часто, Иакова Эдесского. В Кодексе, кроме помещенных в римском издании, имеются еще отрывки толкований на книги пророков Ионы, Наума, Аввакума, Софонии, Аггея и на Песнь Песней (? Lamy, t. 1. proleg. p, XLV. cod. ср.: J. P. Kohlii. Introductio in historiam et rem litterariam Slavorum et. cet. pag. 226). Имеется одна схолия из Ефрема к книге Притчей (30:15) (см.: Ant. Pohlmann, S. Ephraemi Syri commentariorum in Sacram Seripturam textus in codd. Vatic manuscriptis et in editione Romana impressus. Commentatio critica. Brunsbergae, part I-II. 1862–1864; особ. part i. pag. 7, 10, 14–16; ср.: Assemani. Bibl. Orient. I. Praef. §§ VII et XI; Th. I. Lamy t. 1. proleg. p. IX. б.). Ватиканский кодекс (позднейший) содержит под именем Ефрема подробнейшее толкование на книги Бытия и Исход; сходные с Кодексом 110 отрывки на книгу Бытия имеет сирийский кодекс VII века (Pohlmann. |
| 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. (c) 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. 6. Didache, стр. 217—225. 7. Barnabae epistula, стр. 243—265. 8. Pastor Hermae, стр. 297—402. 9. Epistula ad Diognetum, стр. 490—500. 10. Papiae fragmenta, стр. 515—524. 11. Presbyterorum ueterum fragmenta, стр. 539—550. F. X. FUNK, Patres Apostolici. (a) Volumen I. Editio II adaucta et emendata, Tubingae, 1901. 1. Doctrina duodecim Apostolorum (Didache), стр. 2—37. 2. Epistula Barnabae, стр. |
|
|
