| In the late fourth century, this evolution of hesychast spirituality in the direction of Christocentrism was greatly influenced by the writings of an unknown author who used the pseudonym St. Macarius the Great. The writings of Ps. Macarius, very often quoted by Palamas, are rather different from the Neoplatonic intellectualism of Evagrius: The center of human consciousness and of divine presence in man is seen as occurring not in the «mind», but in the «heart». On this point, Macarius uses a vocabulary closer to the language of the Psalms (and of Jewish anthropology in general) than of Neoplatonism. 20 In Christianity, one tastes the grace of God, he writes, and sees that the Lord is sweet ( Ps. 34:9 ). This tasting is the dynamic power of the Spirit manifesting itself in full certitude in the heart. The sons of light, ministers of the New Covenant in the Holy Spirit, have nothing to learn from men; they are «taught by God» (Isa. 54:13, Jn. 6:45 ). Grace itself engraves the laws of the Spirit on their hearts.... In fact, «the heart is master and King of the whole bodily organism, and when grace takes possession of the pasture-land of the heart, it rules over all its members and all its thoughts; for it is in the heart that the mind dwells, and there dwell all the soul " s thoughts; it finds all its goods in the heart. That is why grace penetrates all the members of the body.» 21 In Macarius, the goal of prayer is not the disincarnation of the mind, but a transfiguration of the entire person–soul and body– through the presence of the incarnated God, accessible to the conscious «certitude of the heart». Side by side with great monastic personalities, and communities that remained firmly in the framework of orthodox Christianity, early Christian monasticism also witnessed the appearance of sectarian groups. Some forces of monastic spirituality consciously opposed personal religious experience to the sacramental and hierarchical structure of the Church. Of particular significance, in this respect, was the so-called Messalian movement, which denied the necessity of baptism and other sacraments, rejected the need for social responsibility and recognized only charismatic leadership, as distinct from the teachings and pastoral ministry of bishops and priests. Throughout the Middle Ages, the Messalians, also known as «Euchites» or «Bogomils» (or «Cathars» in the West), also promoted dualistic conceptions, rooted in Manicheism. |
| 156 Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Apologia XII anathematismorum contra Theodoretum 75//ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 6. P. 139:18–23. Англ. пер.: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Three Christological Treatises. P. 123. Ср. рус. пер.: Деяния Вселенских Соборов. Т. 2. Казань, 2 1892. С. 76–77. 158 Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarius in XII prophetas. In Oseam IV (Os. 7:2)//Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 153. Англ. пер.: St. Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Twelve Prophets/trans. R. Ch. Hill. Wa shing ton, D. C., 2007. Vol. 1 P. 152. (The Fathers of the Church: A New Translation; vol. 115). В «Творениях святых отцов» σθ’ τε оставлено здесь без перевода. См.: Творения св. Кирилла Александрийского . М., 1892. (Творения святых отцов, в русском переводе, издаваемые при Московской духовной академии; т. 58). Ч. 9. С. 192. 161 Свт. Кирилл используеттермин σθ’ τε намного чаще любого другого автора, представленного в TLG. Из общего числа 3340 найденных совпадений (http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/) 540 найдены в сочинениях свт. Кирилла: 515 в корпусе его творений (TLG 4090 (Cyrillus Alexandrinus)) с поправкой для «spuria» и дублированных упоминаний в «Пасхальных посланиях» (по PG и SC) и 25 в деяниях Эфесского Собора (TLG 5000 (Concilia Oecumenica, ACO), work=1:2). Следующий по числу совпадений, 339 – Basilica (собрание юридических текстов). Далее следуют Гален (96 случаев), Ориген (94 случая, из них 12 в «dubia») и Tipukeites (другое собрание юридических текстов, 76 случаев). Среди других Отцов Церкви IV–V вв. σθ’ τε встречается менее пяти раз: свт. Афанасий Великий : 4 случая (из которых 2 в «spuria»); свт. Василий Великий : 2 случая (из которых один в «dubia»); свт. Григорий Богослов : ни одного; свт. Григорий Нисский : 5 случаев (из них один среди «spuria»); свт. Иоанн Златоуст : 7 случаев (из которых 5 в «spuria»); блж. Феодорит Кирский : 1 случай. Возможно, стоило бы исследовать, какие значения придаёт свт. Кирилл Александрийский термину σθ’ τε. 162 Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Oratio ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam augustas de fide 44//ACO. T. 1. Vol. 1. Pars 5. P. 58:35–59:3. В «Богословском вестнике» σθ’ τε переведено здесь: «временами». См.: Кирилл Александрийский , свт. О правой вере к царицам/пер. с др.-греч. иер. В. Дмитриева; ред. пер. и вступ. ст. иерод. Феодора (Юлаева) //БВ. 2009. 8–9. С. 137. Перевод «иногда» здесь также возможен, но я думаю, что «в это время» подходит лучше. Нечто подобное применимо и здесь: Cyrillus Alexandrinus. Commentarii in Iohannem III, 1 ( Jn. 5, 36–37 )//Op. cit. Vol. 1. P. 374. |
| Binyamin, «Birkath» Binyamin, Ben-Zion. »Birkath ha-Minim and the Ein Gedi Inscription.» Immanuele (1987): 68–79. Birdsall, «Source» Birdsall, J. Neville. «The Source of Catena Comments on John 21:25 .» NovT 36 (1994): 271–79. Bishop, Apostles Bishop, Eric Francis Fox. Apostles of Palestine: The Local Background to the New Testament Church. London: Lutterworth, 1958. Bishop, «Bread» Bishop, Ε. F. ««He That Eateth Bread with Me Hath Lifted Up His Heel against Me.»–Jn xiii.18 (Ps xli.9).» ExpTim 70 (1958–1959): 331–33. Black, Approach Black, Matthew. An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts. 3d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. Black, «Form» Black, C. Clifton. «The Rhetorical Form of the Hellenistic Jewish and Early Christian Sermon: A Response to Lawrence Wills.» HTR 81 (1988): 1–18. Black, «Messiah» Black, Matthew. «The Messiah in the Testament of Levi XVIII.» ExpTim 60 (1948–1949): 321–22. Black, «Oration at Olivet» Black, C. Clifton. «An Oration at Olivet: Some Rhetorical Dimensions of Mark 13 .» Pages 66–92 in Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Edited by Duane F. Watson. JSNTSup 50. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991. Black, «Recovery» Black, Matthew. «The Recovery of the Language of Jesus.» NTS 3 (1956–1957): 305–313. Black, Scrolls Black, Matthew. The Scrolls and Christian Origins. London: Nelson, 1961. Black, «Tradition» Black, Matthew. «Does an Aramaic Tradition Underlie John 1, 16 ?» JTS 42/165–66 (January-April 1941): 69–70. Black, «Words» Black, C. Clifton. « «The Words That You Gave to Me I Have Given to Them»: The Grandeur of Johannine Rhetoric.» Pages 220–39 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Blackburn, «ANDRES» Blackburn, Barry L. » " Miracle Working THEIOI ANDRES» in Hellenism (and Hellenistic Judaism).» Pages 185–218 in The Miracles of Jesus. Edited by David Wenham and Craig Blomberg. Vo1. 6 of Gospel Perspectives. Edited by R. T. France and David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. |
| ценностях и переживших глубокое чувство «краха истории», был «революционно настроен по отношению к иудаизму и иудейским традициям» (ср. уже Grant. 1966); когда гностицизм находился еще на ранней стадии развития, распространение христианства привело к тому, что «христианские теологумены» проникли в гностицизм, а «гностические теологумены» - в христианство ( Pearson. Jewish Elements. 1990. P. 133-134). Тёрнер предложил такую (пересмотренную им после статьи: Rasimus. 2005) многоступенчатую модель: сифианство возникло из 2 групп инакомыслящих иудеев нач. I в. по Р. Х.- «барбелиотов» и «до-сифианских иудейских ревизионистов Быт 2-9: «офитов»»; пиком переосмысления начальных глав Книги Бытия явилось «радикальное различение между Высшим Богом и низшим Творцом мира». В 1-й пол. II в. барбелиоты слились с какими-то христ. группами, к-рые тоже практиковали крещение, отождествив при этом предсуществующего Христа христиан с «Самородным Дитятей» («the Autogenes Child») верховных Отца и Матери своей мифологии. К сер. II в. «у этих «ревизионистов возник особый интерес к фигуре Сифа» как прообразу всех тех, в к-рых божественный образ был восстановлен после его утраты у Каина и Авеля; эта группа стала называть себя «семенем Сифа» или т. п., и эту группу Тёрнер теперь называет «сифиты». Гностический сифианизм, представленный рукописями из Наг-Хаммади, возник из слияния уже христианизированных барбелиотов с христианизированными «ревизионистами» (возможно, в последней четверти II в.), в результате к-рого «возникли специфически сифианские гностические доктрины», в к-рых Сиф считался «божественным спасителем гностиков». Враждебное отношение ересиологов к противостоящим Церкви религ. движениям вылилось в то, что сифиане стали развивать свои новые «христологии» (часто в полемическом ключе), и именно на этой стадии были добавлены «христианские» пассажи к Trimorph. Prot. (NHC. XIII 1) и, возможно, к Apoc. Adam. (NHC. V 5); тогда же были составлены пространная версия Apocr. Jn., Evang. Aeg. и, возможно, Nor. |
| 5:8. There is thus no reason to reject the interpretation according to which this passage has to do with the institution of presbyters and in particular their place in the Eucharistic assembly, especially given that, as Professor P.Bratsiotis observes (ibid., p.122), “this heavenly liturgy [in the Apocalypse] is a type of the earthly liturgy according to the Orthodox understanding”. Ignatius’ phrase “the Bishop with the presbyterium” (Smyrn. 8:1 and Eph. 20:2) most likely also takes its origin from the celebration of the Divine Eucharist which Ignatius had in mind. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that this phrase appears immediately after a reference to the Eucharist and as part of Ignatius’ more general effort to underline its unity 230 This arrangement of the Eucharist is likewise presupposed by texts such as Justin’s First Apology, 65 and 67; Hippolytus, Apost. Trad. (Dix, 6 and 40f.) etc 231 The Johannine understanding of the Divine Eucharist was precisely theocentric: “My Father gives you the true bread from heaven” ( Jn. 6:32 ). The Bishop who occupied the throne in the Altar was therefore seen as the living icon of God or of Christ (Ignatius, Tral. 3:1 and Magn. 3:1). Anyone who does not obey the “visible” bishop “seeks to mock the one who is invisible”, i.e. God (Magn. 3:2). Cf. likewise the connection between the “unity of God” and “unity in the episcope ”which Ignatius makes in Polyc. 8:3. The conception that the Bishop is an “icon of Christ” was long preserved (see Ps-Clement, Hom. 3:62 – Syria, fourth century) 233 Ignatius, Magn. 6: “Be united with the Bishop”. It is worthy of particular note that Ignatius “does not hesitate to characterize union with Christ as union with the Bishop” (K.Bonis, “St.Ignatius the God-bearer and His Views on the Church” (in Greek) in Orthodoxos Skepsis, 1 (1958), p.39) 237 Ignatius, Magn. 11:1. Cf. also Tral. 8:1, “Not because I know of anything of the sort among you; but since you are dear to me I put you on your guard, knowing the wiles of the devil” 238 The term apodiylismos (Lat. abstractio) does not mean division into groups, but disintegration or divisions of an individualistic nature, as in 1Corinthians (“I am of Paul”, etc.). Cf. also the “passers by”, or isolated people, in Ignatius Eph. 9:1 and Rom. 9:3 239 Ignatius, Philad. 3:1. This should have been taken into account by W.Bauer (Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum, 1964 (2ed.), p.67) who wrongly regards what Ignatius says about unity as a mere wish on the part of the apostolic Father and talks about an “Ignatian faction” (Ignatiusgruppe) in order to support his theories about the preexistence and prevalence of heresy in the early Church which are otherwise proved groundless 241 |
| 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 Message de Noël du patriarche Cyrille de Moscou et de toute la Russie Message de Noël du patriarche Cyrille de Moscou et de toute la Russie Aux archipasteurs, pasteurs, diacres, moines aimant Dieu et à tous les fidèles enfants de l’Église orthodoxe russe Bien-aimés dans le Seigneur archipasteurs, vénérables prêtres et diacres, moines et moniales aimant Dieu, chers frères et sœurs, Je vous adresse à tous mes meilleurs vœux en cette fête de la Nativité de notre Seigneur Jésus Christ, grande et salutaire pour le monde. Aujourd’hui, comme les bergers de Bethléem il y a deux mille ans, nous entendons avec joie et attendrissement l’acclamation solennelle des anges : « Gloire à Dieu dans les lieux très hauts, et paix sur la terre parmi les hommes qu’Il agrée ! » (Lc 2,14). Entendant ces paroles merveilleuses, notre cœur acquiert la consolation et s’emplit de gratitude pour le Créateur. Le Seigneur tout-puissant Lui-même, Dieu puissant, Père éternel (Is 9,6), condescend à naître dans le monde comme un simple homme. La prophétie du roi-psalmiste s’accomplit, annoncée par l’Esprit Saint : La miséricorde et la vérité se sont rencontrées, la justice et la paix se sont embrassées, la vérité s’est levée de la terre, et la justice a regardé depuis le ciel (Ps 84,11-12). Il en est advenu ainsi : Un enfant nous est né, un fils nous est donné (Is 9,6), afin que quiconque croit en lui ne périsse point, mais qu’il ait la vie éternelle (Jn 3, 16) . Durant son histoire, l’humanité a cherché Dieu assidûment, se languissant de la communion perdue avec son Créateur. En réponse à ces efforts, en réponse à l’aspiration vers le ciel des cœurs et des mains, le Seigneur a manifesté Son amour envers le genre humain, étendant vers nous Sa main salvatrice. En Jésus Christ, après de longs millénaires, Dieu et l’homme se sont enfin rencontrés, la terre et le ciel se sont unis, la quête spirituelle des fils et des filles d’Adam a abouti. |
| On May 2, 1999, the rite of canonization of the blessed eldress Matrona , ascetic of piety of the twentieth century and national consoler in the atheist years so mournful for the Church, was celebrated before a large gathering of people. This blessed Christ-pleaser shines with a special light amidst the great host of Russian saints standing before the Throne of God. From birth, she was bereft of the ability to see, but she possessed blessed spiritual vision—the gift of clairvoyance. Photo: svMatrona.ru Do we understand what it means to be blind from birth, to live ever in impenetrable darkness? It’s impossible to escape from it—nothing and no one, and there’s just darkness without end, beyond which is eternal darkness after death. Matronushka was not just blind, but she didn’t even have eyes. Her eye sockets were tightly covered by closed eyelids, like that white bird had that her mother saw in a dream before her birth. In the sixth week of Pascha, on the Sunday of the Blind Man, we hear the Lord’s explanation of the meaning of Blessed Matrona’s sufferings. Who sinned—he or his parents? the Lord’s disciples anxiously ask about the man blind from birth (Jn. 9:2). All troubles are associated with sin; even earthquakes, floods, and droughts are from our sins, and there is a mysterious law of justice, according to which punishment from sin reaches unto the third and fourth generation, but the mercy of God upon a saint extends unto a thousand generations. However, this law is always hidden and mysterious, and we should beware of making straightforward conclusions. It’s not without reason that the Ecclesiast laments that so often the righteous endure affliction, while the wicked prosper. This is a sticking point for many, not just for yesterday’s professional atheists, denying the existence of God because of the terrible suffering and injustices in the world, although in their outrage itself you can sometimes see a good blindness—an unconscious yearning for God; our desire for perfection and a higher justice is already the light of God within us. |
| 5. The bilateral theological dialogues that the Orthodox Church conducts today, as well as her participation in the movement for the restoration of Christian unity, are grounded in her Orthodox consciousness and the spirit of ecumenicity, and are aimed at seeking the lost Christian unity on the basis of the faith and tradition of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. 6. The unity by which the Church is distinguished in her ontological nature is impossible to shatter. The Orthodox Church acknowledges the existence in history of other Christian Churches and confessions which are not in communion with her, and at the same time believes that her relationships with them should be based on a speedy and more accurate elucidation by them of all ecclesiological topics, especially the teaching on Sacraments, grace, priesthood, and apostolic succession as a whole. Accordingly, for theological and pastoral reasons, she has been favorably disposed to dialogue with various Christian Churches and confessions, and to participation in the present-day ecumenical movement in general, in the belief that she thus bears her active witness to the plenitude of Christ’s truth and her spiritual treasures before those who are external to her, and pursuing an objective goal – to tread the path to unity. 7. It is in this spirit that today all the Holy Local Orthodox Churches take an active part in official theological dialogues, and most of them participate in the work of various national, regional and international inter-Christian organizations, despite a serious crisis in the ecumenical movement. Such manifold activities of the Orthodox Church derive from the sense of responsibility and from the conviction that mutual understanding, cooperation and common efforts towards Christian unity are of fundamental importance, so as not to “ hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor 9:12). 8. While conducting dialogue with other Christians, the Orthodox Church by no means underestimates the difficulties arising from it, but is aware of the obstacles lying on the path to a common understanding of the tradition of the ancient Church. It is her hope that the Holy Spirit Who “ welds together the whole institution of the Church ” (Stichera at Vespers of Pentecost) “ will heal what is infirm ” (a prayer during ordination). In this regard, the Orthodox Church, in her relations with the rest of the Christian world, relies not only on the human efforts of those involved in the dialogue, but, by the grace of God who prayed “t hat… all may be one” (Jn 17:21), first and foremost, on the help of the Holy Spirit. |
| 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. |
| Tweet " For Judgment I am Come into this World... " Healing of the blind man. Today we heard at the Divine Liturgy the account of the Holy Evangelist John the Theologian about the healing by Jesus Christ of the man born blind, that is, who had never seen anything before. It is characteristic that, when this Gospel account ends, the Lord said: “ For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind” (Jn 9:39). And His spiteful enemies, the scribes and Pharisees, probably with irony and mockery, asked Him: “ Are we blind also?” (Jn 9:40). And they received an answer, as the Lord told them: “ If ye were blind, ye should have no sin” (Jn 9:41), because if a person does not know and does not see, he cannot transgress consciously and does not sin so greatly. Even if he makes a mistake, the Lord Himself does not find it a sin, if the person did not know he was sinning. So the Lord spoke, “ If ye were blind, ye should have no sin, but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth” (Jn 9:41). Remember, this is a frightful sentence, because it was pronounced by the One who alone can justify or condemn, and He said their sin remained. Our Lord Jesus Christ gave the former blind man not only physical, but also spiritual vision. At the same time, the Gospel illustrates how, by their determination, Christ’s enemies are blinding themselves all the more, persisting in their delusions. When the Lord healed the blind man, he was asked how it had happened. He said that he could not answer this question: he had been blind when the Lord approached Him. Probably he had heard what the Savior’s name was, which is why he answered: “ A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed my eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight” (Jn 9:11). They asked him who Jesus was, and he said “ I know not” (Jn 9:12). He was led to the Pharisees, and they examined him. He said shortly: “ He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see” (Jn 9:15). |
|
|
