| [T]he most important reason why Cyril is often depicted as a Miaphysite theologian is the self-perpetuating myth that the mia physis formula would be his favorite formula, which he employed many times. We find this over and over again in the literature on the archbishop … How often does Cyril of Alexandria actually employ the mia physis formula? In the writings of the first two years of the Nestorian controversy we encounter it two times only, once in Contra Nestorium, and once in a quotation in Oratio ad Dominas. In comparison, ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis is found seventeen times in Contra Nestorium alone (plus four times ‘according to hypostasis’ with other nouns or verbs), four times in the Second Letter to Nestorius, five times in Oratio ad Dominas (plus once ‘according to hypostasis’ with another phrase), four times in the Third Letter to Nestorius, once in the anathemas (and once ‘separated according to hypostasis’ in Oratio ad Augustas). Therefore, at this stage of the controversy, Cyril’s ‘favorite phrase’ is ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis’, certainly not the mia physis formula. However, after Theodoret attacked the expression ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis’ as an innovation, Cyril dropped it altogether. It may be added that in Oratio ad dominas, the mia physis formula is found in a quotation from Apollinarius’s Letter to Jovian, which Cyril thought to be written by Athanasius. His explicit reason for this quotation is the occurrence of the epithet ‘Theotokos’, not that it contains the formula. He does not in any way refer to or discuss the formula. In the one time that he speaks of ‘one nature, the incarnate [nature] of the Word himself ’ in Contra Nestorium, it is immediately followed by the analogy of soul and body. Therefore, it should be interpreted in light of this comparison. Before the reunion with the Orientals in 433, there is only one other work of Cyril’s in which he speaks of ‘one nature’ in a christological context, Contra Orientales. We find the same quotation of pseudo-Athanasius which we also encountered in Oratio ad Dominas, now in Cyril’s defence of the eighth anathema, which states that Emmanuel should be honoured with one worship. Obviously, the reason for this quotation is not that it contains the mia physis formula, but that it also speaks of one worship. After citing pseudo-Athanasius, Cyril gives a brief quotation from Nestorius, “Let us confess God in man; let us revere the man who is co-worshipped because of the divine connection with God the Word”, which he discusses. Cyril then refers to an argument which Andrew of Samosata has used against him: he himself has said that the Son is co-seated on the throne with the Father, together with his own flesh; since συν and μετa are the same thing, why does he attack someone who says that the man must be co-worshipped (συν-) with God the Word and co-named (συν-) God? |
| Ministry of Laity in Daily Life In one congregation, the visiting preacher’s sermon was on “ministry of the laity being primarily in the world work, jobs, community, family, as well as the church.” A layman, Mike, commented afterwards, “That doesn’t go for my work. I rent houses, and I guess that’s one job everyone labels ‘bad guys’. Seems like I spend my time fighting with tenants. So I was never able to take much church with me on the job.” Jean M. Haldane 05 September 2011 The hidden ministry of the people needs to be brought into the light. In practice, the church rewards institutional activities and gives little attention to men’s and women’s daily ministry in their workplaces, in their homes and during times of recreation. Church-related ministries are known, recognized, supported, encouraged. Yet there are many works of ministry in the world that, if known, would spark many more. Already the laity serve in a world of power, but if what they are doing is unknown or assumed or not given attention, how can laity be aware that the church values the servanthood? Many laity have a deep sense of service, of being servant. One good reason stems from their devotional lives centered in the corporate worship of the church. That ritual of giving and receiving is at the heart of the Eucharist. A second good reason has to do with people’s perception about the life of Jesus. Many understand Jesus as servant. And they have appropriated this image for their own lives. When laity are asked to describe experiences of giving service, they can do so, usually with humility and modesty. But their sense of “real” ministry continues to be for in and for the church. Yet laity have great opportunity to carry out their Christian commitment “in the world”—for that is where they spend most of their time. Monday to Friday, weekends, too, for many, men and women are working in the fields of industry, agriculture, education, politics, retailing, “helping” professions, etc. at all levels of responsibility. These men and women are also maintaining relationships, responsibility to spouses, parents, children, friends, and many groups in the community and society as a whole. They are members of numerous organizations, social service groups, environmental groups, political associations, peace efforts, associations and task forces of all kinds, as well as sports and health clubs …. Are they ministering “in the world?” |
| What response should Christians make? How do we respond to modernity? Picture: Liberty is sick. by godffiti It was in the years following the Civil War, America was hard on the path to “becoming great.” The industrial revolution had moved into full swing, railroads criss-crossed the country, immigration was gaining speed, and wealth was accumulating at a rate never seen before. We were slowly moving from our original agrarian economy towards life as an industrial nation. The middle-class was growing, education was increasing, and the life of management was the aspiration of many. We were also getting sick in new ways. In 1868, the first article on the term neurasthenia was published. Though the word had been around some thirty years, it was making its debut as a more wide-spread diagnosis. The symptoms associated with it were: fatigue, anxiety, headache, heart palpitations, high blood pressure, neuralgia, and depressed mood. If all of that sounds familiar, it’s because it never went away. We simply call it by different names now. And, speaking of names, William James ( Varieties of Religious Experience ), called it “Americanitis.” This “disease” was blamed on a variety of causes. Many of them had to do with the modern lifestyle and more generalized circumstances of our existence. America, in the late 1800’s was already “losing its religion.” There was some vague sense that the religious ideas of earlier times (America’s earlier times) were inadequate. There were many new denominations (results of the various revivals of the 19th century). There were also a large wave of cult-like movements (Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Science, etc.). Pentecostalism had much of its birth during this same period. Of little note to some was the rise of Anglo-Catholicism in this period, a movement within mainline Anglican thought that looked back to times prior to the Reformation for its inspiration. A number of leading figures in things like the Arts and Crafts Movement came from this religious background. They were looking for an older spiritual model (and an economic model) to treat the disease that modernity had unleashed. |
| Holiness and Martyrdom in Our Times: An Interview with Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos Source: ORTHOGNOSIA Holiness, asceticism, discernment and martyrdom are great riches of our Church that move us, attract us, transform us and save us from the distractions and lies of this world in every era. In an interview with His Eminence Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou, he gives answers to the questions of a journalist (George Theoharis from/Agioritikovima.gr/) on these issues, and speaks of other aspects of ecclesiastical life. – Your Eminence, many people are unsure if saints exist today.What do you say? – Of course there are saints. The purpose of the Church is to sanctify people, otherwise it should not exist. The Church, with the Mysteries and the ascetic life, aims to heal mankind from the passions and give them spiritual health, which is holiness. God says: “Be holy,for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16). And it is written in the Apocalypse: “Let the one who is holy continue to be holy” (Rev. 22:11). Unfortunately,most Christians today perceive the Church as a religious, ethical or social organization with secular or worldly purposes. And they struggle together in the Church to produce social or ethical projects. Of course,the Church does such projects, but these are the result, a fruit of the union of a person with Christ. Thus, there are saints also today who lived and live within the Church,such as Bishops, Priests, monks and laypeople of all categories. Yet,the biggest problem is that we don’t have the Orthodox criteria to understand them, because they have an inner world that is hidden from the many, and many of us are not in the right condition to recognize them. What is particularly important is not whether saints exist today, but how we can become saints. All sciences have a particular method, and for one to be a saint they must follow this specific method, which is the purification of the heart, the illumination of the nous and theosis, in conjunction with the Mysteries of the Church. We encounter this in the/Philokalia/and in the teachings of the contemporary Fathers. Holiness is expressed through repentance, humility, and love for God and man. |
| 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 Russia - Ukraine - Belarus: One Spiritual Space Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, DECR chairman, at the conference on Russia – Ukraine - Belarus: A Common Civilizational Space? ( Fribourg , Switzerland , 1 st June 2019). Russia, Ukraine and Belarus constitute one spiritual space framed by the Russian Orthodox Church. This space was formed over a thousand years, during which national borders appeared, disappeared and were moved many times, but spiritual commonality remained intact despite numerous external efforts aimed at shattering this unity. A witness to it is the thousand-year history of the Russian Orthodox Church. As far back as the 10th century, the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople first mention the Metropolia of Rus’. Initially the title of its head had no additional naming of a city, but was just τ ς ωσας , that is “of Rus’” . When Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and after him the whole Rus’ embraced Christianity, Orthodoxy became the main spiritual and moral pivot for all the East Slavic ethnic groups that soon appeared in these territories. That moment marked the outset of the history of “Holy Rus’” – a historical phenomenon which owed its existence to the powerful unifying role of the Russian Church in the vast territories of the Great, Little and White Rus’ and in other territories which at different times were in the sphere of its influence. “At the outset of every nation, every nationality, a moral idea always preceded the rise of the nationality, for it was this idea that created it,” Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote. Orthodoxy became such idea for the peoples of the Holy Rus’. Throughout its history the Russian Church went through many ordeals, but managed to preserve its unity. During internecine feuds between the princedoms the Church would reconcile the conflicting parties. The most difficult moment of that period was, perhaps, when in the middle of the 12th century Grand Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich organized in Kiev an appointment of Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich without securing approval of the Patriarch of Constantinople, what, in fact, meant the declaration by Rus’ of its ecclesiastical independence and self-willed separation from its Mother Church. The separatist sentiments of the Prince of Kiev influenced the Prince of Northeast Rus’, Andrei Bogoliubsky, who appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with a request to grant him a separate metropolitan. However, it was the Church of Constantinople that defended the unity of the Russian Metropolia in the 12th century. Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges added a word “all” to the old title of Metropolitan of Kiev - τ ς πσης ωσας – “of All Rus’” – in order to emphasize the indivisibility of the Russian Church . |
| Address by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, DECR chairman, at the conference on Russia – Ukraine – Belarus: A Common Civilizational Space? (Fribourg, Switzerland, 1st June 2019). Russia, Ukraine and Belarus constitute one spiritual space framed by the Russian Orthodox Church. This space was formed over a thousand years, during which national borders appeared, disappeared and were moved many times, but spiritual commonality remained intact despite numerous external efforts aimed at shattering this unity. A witness to it is the thousand-year history of the Russian Orthodox Church. As far back as the 10th century, the diptychs of the Church of Constantinople first mention the Metropolia of Rus’. Initially the title of its head had no additional naming of a city, but was just τ ς ωσας , that is “of Rus’” . When Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and after him the whole Rus’ embraced Christianity, Orthodoxy became the main spiritual and moral pivot for all the East Slavic ethnic groups that soon appeared in these territories. That moment marked the outset of the history of “Holy Rus’” – a historical phenomenon which owed its existence to the powerful unifying role of the Russian Church in the vast territories of the Great, Little and White Rus’ and in other territories which at different times were in the sphere of its influence. “At the outset of every nation, every nationality, a moral idea always preceded the rise of the nationality, for it was this idea that created it,” Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote. Orthodoxy became such idea for the peoples of the Holy Rus’. Throughout its history the Russian Church went through many ordeals, but managed to preserve its unity. During internecine feuds between the princedoms the Church would reconcile the conflicting parties. The most difficult moment of that period was, perhaps, when in the middle of the 12th century Grand Prince Izyaslav Mstislavich organized in Kiev an appointment of Metropolitan Clement Smolyatich without securing approval of the Patriarch of Constantinople, what, in fact, meant the declaration by Rus’ of its ecclesiastical independence and self-willed separation from its Mother Church. The separatist sentiments of the Prince of Kiev influenced the Prince of Northeast Rus’, Andrei Bogoliubsky, who appealed to the Patriarch of Constantinople with a request to grant him a separate metropolitan. However, it was the Church of Constantinople that defended the unity of the Russian Metropolia in the 12th century. Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges added a word “all” to the old title of Metropolitan of Kiev – τ ς πσης ωσας – “of All Rus’” – in order to emphasize the indivisibility of the Russian Church . |
| Be Not Conformed Source: Orthodox America Our faith is interwoven with traditions and customs, like a beautiful design. When one takes something out, it loses its completeness. And yet, if we look back over time, we will notice that instead of preserving Orthodoxy, we keep adjusting it to the times. Archpriest Boris Kizenko (+2010) 26 January 2015 And be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (Rom. 12:2) Some time age I accepted a parish that had many third- and fourth-generation émigrés: Just as had their fathers and grandfathers, these parishioners devoted a good deal of energy and money to the growth of their church, building an impressive modern-style edifice in a prosperous section of their city. They organized many social and profit-making events, kept their finances with a bookkeeping system that could have matched that of any reputable business, and in general seemed a model enterprise. Having spent all my years as a priest in relatively poor and small communities, I expected to welcome the material change. Very soon, however, the contradictions between form and content began to appear. No one came to vespers and matins services on Saturday nights, children were taken away for religious lessons from the Sunday Liturgy itself, and the bulletin’s persistent “did you light a candle for, someone today?” began to sound more like a .demand for money rather than a suggestion to remember the faithful in one’s prayers. Our whole family began to feel part of an actor s troupe, coming out for performances at the scheduled times. The secular world of drama, however, can prove surprisingly moving on occasion, but religion here did not appear to offer even this satisfaction. Growing increasingly dismayed at the dearth of genuine spiritual life, I began to search for an answer. I did not have to look long. The members of the General Committee approached me themselves with what they, too, perceived as a problem. |
| Photo: pemptousia.com To our unnatural and ‘illogical’ logic, it appears that each person does not bear full responsibility individually. The main weight lies with the all-powerful nature of the prevailing, impersonal social outlook and the uncontrollably frenzied times in which we live. These times have many characteristics and certainly their achievements are impressive. Our era has, on its own, identified incredible boundaries which it has also gone on to reach. It has broken the barriers of the earth’s gravity. It has produced people with features hitherto unknown, with artificial or animal organs, or with parts from other people. It has made species which did not exist before. It alters nature and eliminates its laws. It enters the body, influences the soul, creates outlooks and habits and defines behaviors. It travels inconceivable distances and enters the tiniest of worlds with means, speeds and energies which surpass all imagination. Its main characteristic, however, is that it opposes authenticity, integrity and the truth. It devises and produces many ‘look-alikes’. Our drawing-rooms are often festooned with flowers that seem real, but aren’t. Television studios show backgrounds which don’t exist. Advertisers refer to worlds which have no relation to reality. People paint themselves, pretend and even undergo surgery in order to present a persona which isn’t real or a sex which is not compatible with their hormones and their anatomical features. Profligacy and an impressive image, as well as the prevalence of ‘appearance’ are at fault for destroying ‘substance’, as well as the discreet presence of ‘existence’. All of this has influenced the ways in which we see things and have given a false shape to our spiritual life, too. We Christians often talk about the brilliance of science, which, supposedly, agrees with religion; about the value of democracy which allows the Church to function freely; and about human rights as if these were the greatest values. Yet we all know that science has made us more arrogant then ever before, since, in place of God, we’ve put the idol of the self-worshipping human being; democracy has become a substitute for the will of God with the asinine responsibility of our own choices; and human rights have side-lined one of the rights of God: to intervene in our lives, to function as God. |
| The Serbian Church and Milosevic Скачать epub pdf Содержание Patriarch Pavle Patriarch and Peacemaker Church, People and The Serbian Orthodox Church has consistently criticized and opposed the Milosevic government. The «open letter» of Bishop Artemije of Ras-Prizren in Kosovo written on Orthodox Good Friday is no exception. It rather testifies to what has been the unwavering rule of Serbian Church leadership toward the Milosevic government since the fall of marxism. Speaking of the «crimes» of President Milosevic, Bishop Artemije relates in his letter how he and lay leaders of an «embryonic» democratic movement in his country visited world leaders in The US, France and Russia five times between February 1998 and February 1999. He describes their written and verbal pleas to the highest-ranking officials, including US Secretary Albright, to give democracy a chance in his country. He underlines their warnings of the disastrous consequences of all military solutions, including NATO intervention. And he laments with indescribable sorrow how their hopes have been buried in the rubble of the NATO attacks and the savagery which it inevitably produced. Patriarch Pavle Most of the bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church have been installed since the end of Marxist domination in former Yugoslavia. Many of them, including the present Patriarch, were staunch anti-communists who were greatly persecuted in communist times. They were fervent followers and co-workers of the confessing priest Fr. Justin Popovich, already venerated by many as a saint, who spent his adult life imprisoned in a monastery. To insure that there would be no government interference in the election of the new patriarch in 199O, and even no possible charge of such interference, the Synod of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church elected three candidates for the Church " s primatial see. The names of these candidates were placed in a sacred vessel. After vigil, fasting and prayer Bishop Pavle of Ras-Prizren in Kosovo, the compromise third candidate elected by the Synod, was chosen by lot to be patriarch. |
| Archive Metropolitan Hilarion: The Russian Orthodox Church originated in Kiev, not in Moscow, not in St. Petersburg 14 January 2019 year 13:04 Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, gave an interview to the TV channel RT. – What can the Moscow Patriarchate do to support the Ukrainian Orthodox Church? – First of all, we are praying for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, for Ukraine and for the Ukrainian people. At every Liturgy we offer special petitions and prayers to God that He helps our Ukrainian brothers and sisters survive at this difficult time of persecution by the Ukrainian political authorities. I deliberately call it persecution because what is happening in Ukraine is evidently an intervention of the state in the internal affairs of the Churches. It was the state which initiated the process of granting autocephaly to two schismatic groups, unified with the view of receiving this document from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It is the Ukrainian authorities which now insist that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church should change its name. However, according to the international norms, a Church itself should choose its name; it is not for the state to grant the Church a particular name. Yet, this is what is happening in Ukraine. We also note that many representatives of the Ukrainian authorities are considering measures aimed at transferring the property from the canonical Church to the newly created church organization. It concerns, in particular, the two great monasteries – the Kiev Caves Lavra and the Pochaev Lavra. Each of these monasteries has several hundred monks. Besides, the Kiev Theological Academy is located in the Kiev Caves Lavra. So, it is impossible to imagine what will happen to these monks and to the students of the Theological Academy, if these properties will be transferred to the newly created church organization which has not many, but just a few monks. It is not clear at all who will be living in these monasteries and what fate awaits the monks once they are expelled from their abodes. We hope very much that it will not happen, that, as Mr. Poroshenko said many times, each person will be able to choose to which church to go and that there will be no violent seizures of monasteries, churches or other properties. |
|
|
