| Accepter Le site utilise des cookies pour vous montrer les informations les plus récentes. En continuant à utiliser le site, vous consentez à l " utilisation de vos métadonnées et cookies. Politique des cookies Déclaration commune du Pape François et du Patriarche Cyrille de Moscou et de toute la Russie Déclaration commune du Pape François et du Patriarche Cyrille de Moscou et de toute la Russie « La grâce de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ, l’amour de Dieu le Père et la communion du Saint-Esprit soit avec vous tous » (2 Co 13, 13). 1. Par la volonté de Dieu le Père de qui vient tout don, au nom de Notre Seigneur Jésus Christ et avec le secours de l’Esprit Saint Consolateur, nous, Pape François et Kirill, Patriarche de Moscou et de toute la Russie, nous sommes rencontrés aujourd’hui à La Havane. Nous rendons grâce à Dieu, glorifié en la Trinité, pour cette rencontre, la première dans l’histoire. Avec joie, nous nous sommes retrouvés comme des frères dans la foi chrétienne qui se rencontrent pour se « parler de vive voix » (2 Jn 12), de cœur à cœur, et discuter des relations mutuelles entre les Eglises, des problèmes essentiels de nos fidèles et des perspectives de développement de la civilisation humaine. 2. Notre rencontre fraternelle a eu lieu à Cuba, à la croisée des chemins entre le Nord et le Sud, entre l’Est et l’Ouest. De cette île, symbole des espoirs du « Nouveau Monde » et des événements dramatiques de l’histoire du XX e siècle, nous adressons notre parole à tous les peuples d’Amérique latine et des autres continents. Nous nous réjouissons de ce que la foi chrétienne se développe ici de façon dynamique. Le puissant potentiel religieux de l’Amérique latine, sa tradition chrétienne séculaire, réalisée dans l’expérience personnelle de millions de personnes, sont le gage d’un grand avenir pour cette région. 3. Nous étant rencontrés loin des vieilles querelles de l’« Ancien Monde », nous sentons avec une force particulière la nécessité d’un labeur commun des catholiques et des orthodoxes, appelés, avec douceur et respect , à rendre compte au monde de l’espérance qui est en nous ( cf . 1 P 3, 15). |
| Such a perception was firmly supported by the Liturgy Interpreted – the compiled commentary mentioned above, where the celebration is presented as an invisible angelic drama, whose acts follow the earthly liturgical rite, culminating with the angels slaughtering the Divine Child during the priest’s ekphonesis, «Holy things are for the holy» 33 . This sort of apocalyptic interpretation, however, was by no means the only way of reflecting on the Eucharist. The annual cycle of didactic stories to be read in the church included several sermons on the meaning of the Eucharist and a proper attitude towards it 34 ; literate people were acquainted with appropriate texts from St John Chrysostom, St John of Damascus, and some other Fathers of the Church; finally, everyone preparing for communion was obliged to read the Akolouthia (Order) of Holy Communion, which in the pre-Nikonian Russian tradition included not only a number of hymnographical texts and prayers, containing quotations from the Scripture and patristic texts (albeit rather monotonous ones), but also those biblical pericopes that are most fundamental for eucharistic theology: the narrative of the Last Supper (according to 1Cor. 11:23–32 ), and the Johannine Bread-of-Life Discourse ( Jn. 6:48–54 ). The middle of the seventeenth century brought with it a large-scale reform of the Russian liturgical tradition. Usually associated with the name of the Patriarch Nikon († 1681), this reform actually embraced a period reaching far beyond his pontificate (1652–1660; final deposition: 1666). Among the most important results of the reform was a profound reworking of the rites of celebrating the Eucharist 35 . This concerned not only clergy, but laity as well, since the visual aspect of the Divine Liturgy had quite noticeably changed: the rite was somewhat shortened, the wording of some texts became different, as did the outer shape of the liturgical bread and of the priestly vestments. Gradually, the style of icons and church art, and the musical setting of the service also underwent drastic modifications. |
| Of constant concern to the Church remains the need to strengthen the family, to protect its life from undue intervention, to support a strong relationship between children and parents, and the safety of children, especially in the face of violence, cruelty and dissolution. In regard to these questions the Bishops’ Council stated its position on the reform of family legislation in many countries and on the problem of juvenile justice. The Church is seriously concerned by the present state of the natural world. The exhaustion of resources and pollution of the environment put into sharp focus the problem of preserving the diversity of life and the prudent use of nature’s gifts. The Council members expressed the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the current problems of ecology by reminding society of its responsibility before the God-created world. The pastors and flock of the Russian Orthodox Church are invited to study attentively the documents adopted by the Bishops’ Council, the majority of which were prepared in the course of discussions over three years held by the Inter-Council Presence attended by hundreds of bishops, clerics, monastics and laity. Our Lord and God Jesus Christ warned his disciples that ‘If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you’ (Jn 15:19). From apostolic times the historical path of the Church has been linked to the way of confessing the faith through unfeigned witness to the truth. The struggle directed against Christians by ‘the spirit of this world’ (1 Cor 2:12) has throughout the history of the Church had the goal of diverting through various means the human person away from his Maker and Saviour. This struggle has consisted of not only attempts to tempt people into sin but also in the persecution of Christ’s followers. Yet the crucible of privations and suffering has only strengthened the faith and made ever more resolute the hearts of the faithful children of the Church. An example of patience in suffering is St. Dalmat of Iset, canonized in 2004 as a locally venerated saint in Siberia. His church-wide veneration has been affirmed by the present Council. St. Dalmat was many times a witness to the destruction of the monastery he had founded, yet every time he rebuilt it, defending rigorously his faith and the church ordinances, thereby retaining deep humility before his neighbours. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Miracles VERA SHEVZOV Orthodox thinkers from Late Antiquity to modern times have understood miracles as actions or events that manifest or point to the presence of God. Orthodox Christians have associated miracles not only with individual experiences, but also with experiences of entire communities and even nations. Miracles are associated with healings, historical events, visions, dreams, and foresight, and with such phenomena as inexplicable displays of myrrh or tears on icons. Throughout history, Orthodox pastors and spiritual guides have drawn on accounts of miracles for pedagogical purposes. Such accounts provided lessons concerning vices and virtues along with lessons concerning “right faith.” In addition to the realm of lived Orthodoxy, where accounts of miracles have often resulted in the special veneration of certain icons and the veneration of saints and their relics, miracles have also figured in the Orthodox theological and philosophical considerations of history, science and nature, and anthropology. Reports of miracles have also periodically begged the question of authority in the church (who in the church is it that finds and declares them miraculous?). Although miracles may be integral to its worldview, Orthodox Christianity nevertheless is deeply nuanced in its approach to them. In part, the Orthodox understanding of miracles is rooted in the complex view of miracles reflected in the New Testament. On the one hand, patristic authors such as Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) maintained that Jesus’ miracles played a significant role in the establishment of the Christian faith. Signs, acts of power, and works testified to the power of God manifested in and through Christ. Accordingly, Orthodox writers maintained, miracles accompanied his words in order to confirm his identity for those who were unable to recognize his power and authority through his words alone. In this sense, miracles were a form of divine condescension. Following the death of Jesus, in this view, the apostles performed numerous miracles in Jesus’ name as a way further to cultivate the Christian faith. As Origen wrote in his mid- 3rd century treatise Against Celsus 1.46, had it not been for miracles, people would not have been persuaded to accept the new teachings. On the other hand, patristic authors also pointed to the more negative aspects of miracles in the gospel texts. Particularly objectionable was the pursuit of, and demand for, miracles as a condition for faith ( Mt. 16.4 ; Jn. 6.30–31 ) or as a curious spectacle ( Lk. 23.8 ). Even the Devil tempted Jesus to perform a miracle ( Mt. 4.1–11 ; Lk. 4.1–13 ). Finally, according to Jesus’ testimony, not every “wondrous sign” was from God ( Mt. 24.24–25 ; Acts 8.9–13); they could even be detrimental to believers by distracting or turning them from the path to salvation. |
| Bishop Ignatius writes that advice does not imply the obligation to follow it. If you see something strange, unclear or contradictory in the advice, then you have the full moral right to turn to someone else, to disagree or to turn to the Holy Fathers. And if a spiritual father is truly intelligent and humble, he would even thank his spiritual child for acting rightly and disobeying him. “By no means,— writes Bishop Ignatius,—do evil by obedience, even if you happen to suffer some tribulation for displeasing someone and being steadfast. Consult virtuous and intelligent fathers and brothers, but take their advice with utmost care and discretion. Do not get carried away by the first impression that their advice makes on you!” In our times we should live by advice, not by obedience. In this connection Bishop Ignatius responds to the most widespread counter-argument, “They will object: the faith of the person carrying out an obedience may replace the elder’s inadequacy. This is false: believing the truth saves, while believing a lie and demonic delusion destroys, according to the Apostle’s teaching” (2 Thess 2:10-12). [Here, Bishop Ignatius paraphrases Paul’s words “And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness” – A.Z.J.] Christ told His disciples, “Henceforth I call you not servants . . . but I have called you friends” (Jn 15:15). Can friends be given orders? I guess not. Hierom. Adrian: One more question. Why do some people connect the Jesus Prayer to some other practices, for example, to the Hindu and Buddhist mantras and meditation? Many people do not understand the difference between those ascetic practices and the noetic Jesus Prayer, the Christian prayer. A. I. Osipov: If we turn our attention to the essential, then the types of meditation you are talking about are reflections, internal discussions. They do not carry with them the main condition for prayer – repentance. Repentance is supplication. Supplication for what? For our sinfulness, our inadequacy, our inability to live as the Gospel commands. Prayer, as Bishop Ignatius writes, should be said with attention, awe and heartfelt contrition. These things are not required by meditation. Meditation, I repeat, is a concentrated reflection on a great variety of subjects: theological, everyday, spiritual and moral, all sorts. |
| Bacon, «Displacement» Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. «The Displacement of John xiv.» JBL 13 (1894): 64–76. Bacon, «House» Bacon, Benjamin Wisner. «»In My Father " s House Are Many Mansions» (Jn xiv.2).» ExpTim 43 (1931–1932): 477–78. Badiola Sâenz de Ugarte, «Tipologia» Badiola Sâenz de Ugarte, José Antonio. «Tipologia pascual en el relato joânico de la muerto de Jesus.» Scriptorium victoriense 47, nos. 1–2 (2000): 5–19. Baer, Categories Baer, Richard Α., Jr., Philós Use of the Categories Male and Female. Arbeiten zur Literatur und Geschichte des Hellenistichen Judentums 3. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Bagatti, Church Bagatti, Bellarmino. The Church from the Circumcision. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971. Bagatti, «Dove» Bagatti, Bellarmino. «Dove awenne la moltiplicazione dei pani?» Salmanticensis 28 (1981): 293–98. Baggott, Approach Baggott, L. J. A New Approach to Colossians. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1961. Bailey, Peasant Eyes Bailey, Kenneth Ewing. Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, Their Culture and Style. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Bailey, Poet Bailey, Kenneth Ewing. Poet and Peasant: A Literary Cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Bailey, «Shepherd Poems» Bailey, Kenneth E. «The Shepherd Poems of John 10 : Their Culture and Style.» Near East School of Theology Theological Review 14 (1993): 3–21. Bailey, «Tradition» Bailey, Kenneth Ewing. «Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels.» Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991): 34–54. Baines, «Square» Baines, William. «The Rotas-Sator Square: A New Investigation.» NTS 33 (1987): 469–76. Balch, «Encomia» Balch, David L. «Two Apologetic Encomia: Dionysius on Rome and Josephus on the Jews.» JSJ13 (1982): 102–22. Balch, «Friendship» Balch, David L. «Political Friendship in the Historian Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities!» Pages 123–44 in Greco-Roman Perspectives on Friendship. Edited by John T. Fitzgerald. SBLRBS 34. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. |
| Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson Скачать epub pdf CHRISTOLOGY CHRISTOLOGY. Literally, this term means the doctrine of the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. The question that Jesus directed to his disciples in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, “Who do you say I am?” drew the response from Peter, “You are the Messiah, the Son of God.” The full implications of Peter’s reply remained to be worked out. “Messiah,” “Son of God,” and so on, were all different appellations that could mean much less than a divine and preexistent being. Other New Testament texts, however, the earliest being Philp 2:5–11 and a later one the prologue from Jn (1:1–18), taught the preexistence of the divine Son. Just how, though, humanity and divinity coexist in Christ, and the meaning of each in relation both to the Father and to the rest of humankind, were the subjects of fierce debate throughout most of the first Christian millennium. Orthodox Christology, as it emerges in Joh n of Damascus (q.v.) in the 8th c., is the product of that long debate. The key refrain or leitmotiv throughout the centuries of argument in Eastern Christendom is the notion of deification, theosis (q.v.). Christology is always linked to and expressive of an understanding of salvation that is articulated as early as 2Pet 1:4 , that in Christ human beings become “partakers of the divine nature”-which the Orthodox see as at least implicit in other New Testament documents. (For example, the “glory” shared by the Son and the Father is from eternity, and is given by Christ to his followers, Jn 17:5, 22–24 .) With this reading of the Christian Scriptures (q.v.), the struggle over Christology may be viewed as an attempt to keep in balance Christ’s humanity and divinity in such a way as to preserve both the paradox of their union in his person (so toward the “hypostatic union” of Chalcedon [q.v.]) and the possibility of human communion in the divine life. The battle had obviously been joined by the time of the earliest Christian writings: Paul struggles in his letters to the Corinthians against what appears to be a nascent Christian gnosticism (q.v.). |
| In cuius rei fidem præsentes manu Nostra subscriptas, sigillo maiori Regni Nostri communiri mandauimus. Datum Krakowiæ in Comitiis Generalibus felicis Coronationis Nostræ sabbatho ante Dominicam Lætare Quadragesimalem proximo, anno Domini millesimo sexcentesimo trigesimo tertio, Regnorum Nostrorum Poloniæ et Sweciæ anno primo. VLADISLAUS REX. – Nos itaque JOANNES CASIMIRUS Rex ad supplicationem præfati Conuentus nomine per Religiosos Raymundum Mosciccnsem, Prædicatorem Generalem, et Damascenum Sqzytkowski, Fratrem eiusdem Conuentus Kijouiensis, apud Nos modo præmifso factam, visis eisdem Litteris præinsertis sanis, saluis et illæsis omnique suspicions nota carentibus, non grauatim easdem in omnibus earum punctis, clausulis, modis, articulis, nexibus et conditionibus præscntibus Litteris Nostris approbandas, confirmandas, roborandas et ratificandas efse duximus, uti quidem approbamus, confirmamus, roboramus et ratificamus, decernentes eas vim et robur debitæ firmitatis obtinere ab omnibusque inuiolabiliter perpetuo et in aeuum teneri et obseruari debere. Jn cuius rei fidem præsentes manu Nostra subscriptas, sigillo Regni communiri iufsimus. Datum Cracowiæ in Conuentione Generali felicis Coronationis Nostræ die XXV, mensis Januarii, anno Domini MDCXLIX, Regnorum Nestrorum Poloniæ et Sweciæ primo anno. JOANNES CASIMIRUS REX. Confirmatio generalis iurium Comentui Kijouiensi Ordinis Pradicatorum seruientium. Stanislaus Skarstenski, Regens Cancellarius Regni. M. pr. Списано с пергаменного подлинника, хранящегося с другими таковыми же в Киевском Доминиканском Костеле. Прибавление I. Выписка о Киевском Доминиканском Конвенте, или монастыре, и его в последние времена владениях, взятая из Записок, писанных с 1654 до 1664 г. бывшим Генеральным оного Проповедником, Петром Розвидовским, сохраняющихся доныне у Киевских Доминиканов подлинником на Польском языке. 225 Конвент Иакинфов, говорит Розвидовский, первоначально основан над Днепром, где бывала церковь Богородицкая, и она-то отдана была Иакинфу. |
| The revolution that Einstein effected in science, however, has meant a radical re-orientation of the scientific search for truth. 192 The final consequences are still to be realized, but one thing seems clear, which is that the Greek conception of being has been critically affected by the idea of relationship: for the natural sciences in the post-Einstein period, existence has become relational. 193 This essentially leads scientific truth back to the final position of the Greek Fathers 194 on the philosophical level, and makes it possible to speak of a unique truth in the world, approachable scientifically or theologically. If theology creatively uses the Greek patristic synthesis concerning truth and communion and applies it courageously to the sphere of the Church, the split between the Church and science can be overcome. The scientist who is a Church member will be able to recognize that he is carrying out a para-eucharistic work, and this may lead to the freeing of nature from its subjection beneath the hands of modern technological man. The eucharistic conception of truth can thus liberate man from his lust to dominate nature, making him aware that the Christ-truth exists for the life of the whole cosmos, and that the deification which Christ brings, the communion with the divine life (II Peter 1:4), extends to “all creation” and not just to humanity. 195 (e) Finally, a eucharistic concept of truth shows how truth becomes freedom ( Jn. 8:32 ). As we remarked in connection with the relation between truth and the fallen condition of existence, freedom normally means in this context a choice between different possibilities or between negation and affirmation, good and evil. The possibility of choice is based on the individualizations and divisions within being, which are born out of man’s insistence on referring all of being ultimately to himself. The overcoming of these divisions is the precise meaning of what we call the “catholicity” of existence within Christ and His Body, the catholic Church. |
| Krieger, «Problematik» Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. «Die Problematik chronologischer Rekonstruktionen zur Amtszeit des Pilatus.» BN 61 (1992): 27–32. Krieger, «Verwandter» Krieger, Klaus-Stefan. «War Flavius Josephus ein Verwandter des hasmo-näischen Königshauses?» BN 73 (1994): 58–65. Kruijf, «Glory» Kruijf, T. C. de. «The Glory of the Only Son (John i 14).» Pages 111–23 in Studies in John: Presented to Professor Dr. J. N. Sevenster on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by W. C. van Unnik. NovTSup 24. Leiden: Brill, 1970. Kruijf, «Hundredweight» Kruijf, T. C. de. « " More than Half a Hundredweight» of Spices ( John 19,39 NEB): Abundance and Symbolism in the Gospel of John.» Bijdragen 43 (1982): 234–39. Kugel and Greer, Interpretation Kugel, James L ., and Rowan A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. LEC 3. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Kugelman, «Pentecost» Kugelman, Richard. «The Gospel for Pentecost ( Jn. 14:23–31 ).» CBQ 6 (1944): 259–75. Kügler, «König» Kügler, Joachim. «Der andere König: Religionsgeschichtliche Anmerkungen zum Jesusbild des Johannesevangeliums.» ZNW88 (1997): 223–41. Kügler, «Sohn» Kügler, Joachim. «Der Sohn im Schoss des Vaters: Eine motivgeschichtliche Notiz zu Jon 1,18.» Biblische Notizen 89 (1997): 76–87. Kuhn, «Gekreuzigten» Kuhn, Heinz W. «Zum Gekreuzigten von Giv c at ha-Mivtar: Korrektur eines Versehens in der Erstveröffentlichung.» ZNW 69 (1978): 118–22. Kuhn, «John vii.37–8» Kuhn, Κ. H. «St. John vii.37–8.» NTS 4 (1957–1958): 63–65. Kuhn, «Messias» Kuhn, Heinz-Wolfgang. «Die beiden Messias in den Qumrantexten und die Messiasvorstellung in der rabbinischen Literatur.» ZAW 70 (1958): 200–208. Kümmel, Introduction Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. ed. Translated by Howard C. Kee. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. Kümmel, Promise Kümmel, Werner Georg. Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus. SBT 23. Naperville, 111.: Allenson, 1957. Kümmel, Theology Kümmel, Werner Georg. The Theology of the New Testament according to Its Major Witnesses–Jesus, Paul, John. Translated by John E. Steely. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973. |
|
|
